1st with Master T Slaver @ ELD's Mox 21

[LordHomerCat]

Intent to commit an action that is cheating or fraud does not mean the player has to know what the penalty is.  

1) If you intentionally look at your opponent's deck, but do not know that it is illegal to do so, then it's still cheating.  
2) Offering someone a bribe is cheating, even if you think it's a safe and legal way to Top 8.
3) Stalling for time is cheating, even if you think it's good tactics in a tournament and not illegal.  
4) A player observes his opponent make an illegal play to his advantage, but does not call a judge because he thinks he's a Jedi - Get Ready for a DQ!
5) If you mark all your mana sources, because you think it will be helpful to know if you're going to draw bussiness, but don't know it's illegal, you win a DQ!

But like, you're still missing the point.  The thing is, Jer didn't know that his opponent could not change the color of mana.  His understanding of the rules (and apparently his opponent's as well, judging by what happened) was that it was all kosher.  He wasn't trying to break the rules, he thought everything that happened was as it should be and so did his opponent.  You can talk all you want about this stuff but you and many others are missing the point that at the time, Jer wasn't guilty of a DQ-able offense because HE THOUGHT WHAT HAPPENED WAS LEGAL (and so did the opponent!).  Clearly if it happens again he can't do the same thing, but his intent was to follow the rules as he knew them.

Seriously, in retrospect it was wrong and it sucks, but at the time I believe Jer when he says that he honestly believed that it worked the way he initially described.  The opponent is just as guilty as Jer was in that instance (he should have known the rules too and called a judge) so I don't get all this hatred and calling him a dirty cheat. 

[policehq]

When someone boasts ungentlemanly behavior and is holding a semi-power card for their efforts, it's difficult to give them the benefit of the doubt on such a simple ruling. I'm sure if Oath of Happy had argued the point, saying his mana was Green, Jer would have called the judge over at his strategic moment. And no, the former did not make his argument, but that does not disprove the fact that the latter was waiting until an opportune time to use a ruling and misrepresented game state to his advantage.

But since Oath of Happy (is that John?) didn't make the argument, I'll concede this discussion is useless until Clariax comes in.

[ELD]

But like, you're still missing the point.  The thing is, Jer didn't know that his opponent could not change the color of mana.  His understanding of the rules (and apparently his opponent's as well, judging by what happened) was that it was all kosher.  He wasn't trying to break the rules, he thought everything that happened was as it should be and so did his opponent.  You can talk all you want about this stuff but you and many others are missing the point that at the time, Jer wasn't guilty of a DQ-able offense because HE THOUGHT WHAT HAPPENED WAS LEGAL (and so did the opponent!).  Clearly if it happens again he can't do the same thing, but his intent was to follow the rules as he knew them.

I completely see the point some people are trying to make, and I'm saying it is incorrect.  If your opponent plays Wrath of God, then wants to back up and change their mind, it's not OK.  You cannot allow it, even if you'd really really want to.  I have absolutely zero hatred, and I'm not calling anyone a dirty cheat.  Someone can even accidentally cheat, that does not make them a "cheater."  What I am making clear, is how this will be handled in all my future events, unless I am corrected by Clariax on it.  I feel I completely illustrated this in my previous post.  Knowing you're committing an illegal action is not necessary for all DQ's.  This is how I will continue to handle my tournaments.  This is the relevant point. 

There are some DQ's that are the result of knowingly breaking the rules.  This would be the case if you cast Terror on your opponent's creature on purpose, and know that it is an illegal play, but are just hoping they don't notice.  Any infraction committed intentionally can be upgraded to a DQ, even something as simple as playing a second land for turn.  There are other infractions that are always DQ'able.  The five I listed are examples of these.  If you are in a tournament, and unaware that there are no "takebacksies" it's no excuse.  This is no different than not knowing that bribes, threats, harassment or any other unacceptable behavior is prohibited. 

[Harlequin]

But using that hard guideline makes it extremly easy to DQ "nice guys."  Here I'll lay down an example:

I Play Island, Lotus, Sac lotus for Green - tap Island.  Play Trinket Mage.
While tutoring, I say "oh crap.... I'm such a fool - I should have floated Blue - can I please have blue floating instead?"
My opponent, who has the win in there hand next turn with tripple counter back-up feels pitty for me and says "Sure that fine..."
Now I call ELD over and say "my opponent allowed an illegal gamestate to exist."
and ELD says "yup DQ, get outa here nice guy!"

Asside from the last part about calling the judge, I see no differance in what was said in the exchange above, and what occured between Jer and his opponent.  Just the flavor and intentions of the players. 

[Rock Lee]

There are some DQ's that are the result of knowingly breaking the rules.  This would be the case if you cast Terror on your opponent's creature on purpose, and know that it is an illegal play, but are just hoping they don't notice.  Any infraction committed intentionally can be upgraded to a DQ, even something as simple as playing a second land for turn.  There are other infractions that are always DQ'able.  The five I listed are examples of these.  If you are in a tournament, and unaware that there are no "takebacksies" it's no excuse.  This is no different than not knowing that bribes, threats, harassment or any other unacceptable behavior is prohibited. 

I think what you're doing here is a case of reverse engineering. You don't start rulings which would result in a DQ and equate them via logic by stepping back to their sources. The only penalty that is being investigated here is "Cheating - Fraud", not USC - Bribery & Wagering, Cheating - Stalling, Cheating- Manipulation of Game Materials, Cheating-Hidden Information Violation, of which you mention above. These penalties are all handled differently. For some of them, intent is of paramount importance, such as Cheating - Fraud. For some of them suchas USC - Aggressive Behavior and USC - Bribery & Wagering, intention is not investigated when determining a penalty.

When you mention "upgrading to a DQ", you are not upgrading anything. Instead of what would likely be a GPE error is instead Cheating-Fraud. For a single occurrence, there are no upgrades.

[Clariax]

It's pretty much impossible to determine at this point whether the specific situation described was cheating or not.  I wasn't there to see what happened, no one but the players involved saw what happened.  And while I'm not trying to suggest either player has lied in any way, any description they offer is biased by their own point of view.

Speaking of such a situation in general, intent is paramount.  Witnessing an illegal play and failing to do anything about it because you feel it is advantageous to ignore it or wait for a more opportune time is definitely cheating.  This is exactly example F in the penalty guidelines under Cheating -- Fraud.  This does require intent however.  The player does need to know an illegal play has occurred.  Whether he thinks it's legal for him to ignore the play or not doesn't change anything, but he can't have committed fraud if he didn't know something illegal happened.

There was an allegation made by a previous poster that based on quotes from the original report that the player knew what mana his opponent had floating but asked the question at the time he did hoping to get his opponent to mess up and give a different answer.  I'm not going to weigh in on whether I believe this allegation to be true or not, but assuming it is true, the situation is crossing over into cheating.  The argument that the player can change their mind on what mana they're adding with the lotus until they pass priority holds no water as the questioning did not arise until the search trigger was already resolving.

As for backing up mana abilities in general, this is tolerated in most situations.  A player tapping a volcanic island, saying it's for  , then changing their mind and deciding it's for , or even deciding they don't want to tap it at all, is fine.  A player with in their pool playing a sol ring, saying they're leaving in their pool, then immediately correcting themselves saying it's in their pool would also generally be tolerated.  In that same situation waiting for some sort of reaction from your opponent then correcting yourself would not.

Playing a mana ability, playing a spell, waiting for that spell to resolve, then waiting for a trigger to resolve then deciding you want to change something about the mana ability is not tolerated.

As for why the question was asked at all, intent again is a significant matter.  If the intent is to clarify the game state, there's certainly no problem.  Asking a player repeatedly if they are done, on the other hand, is certainly a problem.  Most other questions will fall in a somewhat grayer area in the middle.  Distracting a player doing something else with a question about something already clearly established hoping to get them to slip up and then either calling a judge to get them penalized or holding them to the slip-up for your own advantage is definitely in the much darker part of this gray area.

Intent to commit an action that is cheating or fraud does not mean the player has to know what the penalty is.  

1) If you intentionally look at your opponent's deck, but do not know that it is illegal to do so, then it's still cheating.  
2) Offering someone a bribe is cheating, even if you think it's a safe and legal way to Top 8.
3) Stalling for time is cheating, even if you think it's good tactics in a tournament and not illegal.  
4) A player observes his opponent make an illegal play to his advantage, but does not call a judge because he thinks he's a Jedi - Get Ready for a DQ!
5) If you mark all your mana sources, because you think it will be helpful to know if you're going to draw bussiness, but don't know it's illegal, you win a DQ!

This is how I run my events.  I'm awaiting Clariax's response to this thread, and anything short of him telling me bluntly that this is incorrect will result in me continuing to run my events this way.  

On the above list, #1 as described would not qualify as cheating.  However I would take a great deal of convincing to believe the player didn't know such actions were illegal.  As presented though, the infraction is looking at extra cards.  To give an example of where I've seen this occur, at a PTQ once a small child, at the start of his match, picked up his opponent's deck and looked at the bottom card.  Based on how he played with his friends at school, that was how you determined who played first, bottom card with the higher CMC.  He wasn't doing it to gain an advantage, he didn't know it was illegal, and he wasn't cheating.

#2 technically falls under Unsportsmanlike Conduct, not cheating.  The penalty is still a DQ, but it isn't actually cheating.  The other 3 are all cheating.

[FadeToBlack]

But both players agreed on what mana was floating.  They both agreed that blue was the final decission.  Then he tutored up Sapphire, and tried to play Goyf.  After a reminder from his opponent that he could not do that - they both agreed again that blue was in the pool.  Burn occured, and the game progressed - no need for a judge.

If he had done the same thing, fetched sapphire and played counter balance, then it would have been done with.  Cost = Mana availible and again no judge needs to be called.

I just want to clarify something real quick here, at least from what I remember (I am the opponent, for anyone wondering)...

Here is how I recall the events:

1. Play Volcanic Island, Black Lotus
2. Tap and sac the Lotus for Green
3. Cast Trinket Mage, resolves
~ Here is where I get a bit fuzzy. I'm pretty sure he asked me what color was floating while I was searching. I'm almost positive of this, because I can honestly say that I just muttered something out. I definitely never thought about what he said or I said. This is why I was in shock when he mentioned me having blue later. More on this to come.
4. I'm considering the merits of which Mox to go fetch. I can get Green for more Goyfage, or Blue just because it's more useful. This is where I think I became "confused," as in, I was really muttering out my thoughts. I was thinking go get Sapphire, and he asks something, and I say blue. I tend to do things like this...my opponent once asked if I'm going to play after I won the die roll, and I instead let it slip what deck I'm playing. No excuse, but just trying to explain my train of thought here.
5. Play the Sapphire
6. Attempt to cast Goyf. Here I am informed that I just stated I floated Blue.

I want to expand on point 6. First off, clearly I should have called a judge, as that has been drilled into the ground. I was also extremely flustered and on tilt. I had a pretty solid opening, up a game, and I'm feeling fairly confident..until I run into this. I'm crushed, pissed off, and have mentally conceded. I realize these are all fairly immature and stupid, but it's how I felt.

Secondly, I by no means immediately realized that it was impossible for me to have cast the Trinket while floating blue. He says I had blue floating..and a million thoughts rushed through my mind. Did he ask me what I was floating? Did I float blue? Did I crack Lotus for blue? I didn't even care at that point. As stated before, I had checked out and just wanted to bury my head in the sand. I felt like I had pissed it all away (which to an extent, I had).

I just want to carefully address the words "agreed." And yes, I know its kind of hard to ask for anything more than a verbal commitment. But as indicated here...I hardly was solely answering his question twice. Once, I was busy searching away with the Mage, with plenty of other thoughts racing through my head. The second time...I "conceded" the point. It was a  "Yeah sure whatever I scoop now." If you were watching, you'd also notice this when I mana burned off the Sapphire. I didn't have too clearly, but I almost demanded it upon myself, out of anger. I wasn't even sure what had happened, if I got screwed over or I screwed myself, but I had lost it.

I hate to bring in personal emotions...but maybe that makes things more sensible, and helps other people reason with what happened.

[dicemanx]

There was an allegation made by a previous poster that based on quotes from the original report that the player knew what mana his opponent had floating but asked the question at the time he did hoping to get his opponent to mess up and give a different answer.  I'm not going to weigh in on whether I believe this allegation to be true or not

These weren't allegations, they were both facts if we take his original statements to be true (which is almost assuredly the case). By his own admission, he knew the Lotus was tapped for GGG and he explicitly stated that his intent behind asking his question during Trinket Mage's resolution was to induce an error. It is likewise fact that he took full advantage of his opponent's misstatement, which was consistent with his intent behind asking the question in the first place.

The only allegation is that this is cheating on his part. But, as in cases of breaking the law, ignorance of the law (or the rules) is not a plausible defense.

I am not asking for your respect, only your understanding.

I don't know you personally, so this isn't based on some beef I have with you specifically or respect I might or might not have for you as a person. Note that I was highly critical of the action, not you in general. My motivation for commenting on this situation is to attempt to discourage such tactics from being employed at vintage events. I know the vintage community tends to be more relaxed and not as competitive, which actually makes individuals unfortunately more prone to these tactics, and the use of such tactics can be quite damaging to the perception of vintage players as a more "mature" crowd. 

It was particularly disheartening to read your opponent's perspective on the matter; I feel badly for him because he was completely screwed over by the situation you put him in.

[ELD]

Thank you Clariax for weighing in.  I'm on board with all of what you said, so I feel much better about this situation.  I still feel terribly about what happened to Jason, and for the damage that these kind of situations cause to Vintage in general, but I am confident that if called I would have handled the situation correctly.  Hopefully, if the same exact situation were to happen again, everyone now knows to call a judge, so no one will get away with Cheating. 

[nataz]

The only allegation is that this is cheating on his part. But, as in cases of breaking the law, ignorance of the law (or the rules) is not a plausible defense.

To give an example of where I've seen this occur, at a PTQ once a small child, at the start of his match, picked up his opponent's deck and looked at the bottom card.  Based on how he played with his friends at school, that was how you determined who played first, bottom card with the higher CMC.  He wasn't doing it to gain an advantage, he didn't know it was illegal, and he wasn't cheating.

[arik124]

I'm glad we're holding the same standards for seasoned vets as we are for little inexperienced kids.  Seems right.

[LordHomerCat]

I'm glad we're holding the same standards for seasoned vets as we are for little inexperienced kids.  Seems right.

What?  I'm curious what that even means.

Oh, and sarcasm or not, that is the way it should be.  Everyone is treated the same.  If you are a little kid and you know it's illegal to draw extra cards, I expect you to get the same DQ as a judge would give to a PT vet.  No one should get special treatment because they are inexperienced or because they have been playing a while.  Objectivity (as much as is possible) and consistency are two of the HUGE improvements in judging in recent years and are great things to strive for.

[arik124]

But what if you don't know its illegal to draw cards...that's what the little kid comment was referring to.  You read clariax's post right?

[Clariax]

But what if you don't know its illegal to draw cards...that's what the little kid comment was referring to.  You read clariax's post right?

What the kid did was an infraction.  And he was penalized for that infraction.  It was not cheating however.  The age of the kid doesn't factor in to what infraction (or penalty) it was.  As I stated, it would not be easy for someone to convince me they didn't know they were doing something wrong in picking up and looking at their opponent's deck, but that's where the difference is.  If you know it's illegal but are doing it anyways, it's cheating.  If you think that's how it's supposed to work, it's not cheating (In this instance).  This is in no way a double standard, nor is it any kind of special treatment.

People like to frequently compare MtG penalties to the US legal system.  For those of you, I'd give you a similar concept.  Involuntary Manslaughter and First Degree Murder both involve killing someone.  The punishments for those 2 crimes are very different.

[arik124]

I don't see how age does not matter.

Its the players responsibility to know the rules of a tournament before he shows up.  If the player is inherently less likely to understand or know about those rules e.g. young, or not too bright, wouldn't you cut him a little more slack; maybe not at a ptq, but an unsanctioned event such as a vintage tournament.... no?

[dicemanx]

nataz quoted:

To give an example of where I've seen this occur, at a PTQ once a small child, at the start of his match, picked up his opponent's deck and looked at the bottom card.  Based on how he played with his friends at school, that was how you determined who played first, bottom card with the higher CMC.  He wasn't doing it to gain an advantage, he didn't know it was illegal, and he wasn't cheating.

The scenario cited differs from our scenario in two critical ways; the player in question INTENDED to gain an advantage from his DELIBERATE actions; furthermore, he was an experienced player, not a complete novice. The judge might use their discretion in situations involving the complete novice; otherwise, one standard should apply. The more experienced players can just plead ignorance for any rules they break to worm out of stiffer penalties if ignorance was a valid defense.

How would our esteemed judge treat the above scenario if instead of a "small child" it was a mature adult who decided to look at his opponent's bottom card to gain specific insight into what his opponent was playing because that is how he "played with his friends at school", but pleads ignorance of the rules when told his actions were not legal? Does that qualify as cheating, or just an "infraction"? If its the latter, what would stop a player from gaining an edge randomly in an event through such premeditated actions?

[Harlequin]

To kinda take a dive off the deep end of the existential pool - no one can actually know the intentions of another person.  The judge, or anyone else can only make an attempt to understand what could be thier intentions using context of the infraction. 

Consider the two possible punishment guidlines:
~"As it is today - where ignorance can get you off with a lighter punishment"
99 times out of 100, players get warnings for violations legitamately.  Little Timmy Multi-player draws a card on his first turn, little Bobby Kitchentable gets a 'free peak' at his opponent's deck, and Mr.RTFC trys to terror a black creature.  And maybe 1 time out of 100 Villian McJackass get to 'plead ignorance' in a pre-meditated way and gets away with it.

~"Iron First World - where infraction = DQ"
99 times out 99, we turn people away from the format by booting them outa the tournement (most of the time in round ONE) says "Thanks for the $25, enjoy the rest of your day cheater!"  Meanwhile Villian McJackass doesn't even bother and doesn't get punished anyhow.


Another important destinction to draw here is that Jer himself would agree that he WAS attempting to GAIN ADVANTAGE.  The huge, epic, monumental differance is that he was trying to gain what he thought was a LEGAL advantage (because in his understanding of the rules, this final statement would override previous statements, in the same way Clarix outlined above about tapping/untapping lands etc).

 

[policehq]

The actions being discussed in this thread turn me away from the format.

99 times out 99, we turn people away from the format by booting them outa the tournement (most of the time in round ONE) says "Thanks for the $25, enjoy the rest of your day cheater!"  Meanwhile Villian McJackass doesn't even bother and doesn't get punished anyhow.

[Razvan]

The discussions in this thread are civil and constructive, which is rare for any forum, especially with this amount of posting.

Also, while ignorance of the law is not an excuse, real-life laws are purposefully made so obfuscated that anyone can be busted on anything due to complexity. Although not for murder, so the example is still fine, for anything else, this will probably break down.

Either way, the intent was clearly stated. The poster (Jer?) didn't hide it at all. There is no point in arguing about intent in this case, no?

edit: also, grats on the win and the deck looks fun as hell!

[nataz]

How would our esteemed judge treat the above scenario if instead of a "small child" it was a mature adult who decided to look at his opponent's bottom card to gain specific insight into what his opponent was playing because that is how he "played with his friends at school", but pleads ignorance of the rules when told his actions were not legal? Does that qualify as cheating, or just an "infraction"?

Thats a good question. Thats not what you said eariler. You said ignorance is no excuse, which is incorrect.

With the new example I'm curious myself, since its similar to what Jer did. First off, small child/adult, it does not matter. So we can strike that. Second, he WAS trying to gain an advantage. Third, he DIDN'T know that it was against the rules.

So we can agree that trying to gain an advantage + knowing what you are doing is wrong = cheating.

What does trying to gain an advantage + not knowing what you are doing is wrong = ?

What the kid did was an infraction.  And he was penalized for that infraction.  It was not cheating however.  The age of the kid doesn't factor in to what infraction (or penalty) it was.  As I stated, it would not be easy for someone to convince me they didn't know they were doing something wrong in picking up and looking at their opponent's deck, but that's where the difference is.  If you know it's illegal but are doing it anyways, it's cheating.  If you think that's how it's supposed to work, it's not cheating (In this instance).  This is in no way a double standard, nor is it any kind of special treatment.

It seems to me what the judge is saying (from a laypersons standpoint) that it would not be cheating. Bolded line for significance. I'm not sure that example just works for looking at extra cards, or if it can carry over to Jer's example though.

On a personal note:
I've played against Jeff and Jer a ton of times, and not once have they been anything but a pleasure. There have been some times where we've called a judge (waterbury with ichorid v. Jaws - remember that?) but that's what you do when you are not sure about something. Life's so much easier that way, and its not personal. Felt like I should add that since we are all posting on a community board and what not.   

[dicemanx]

You said ignorance is no excuse, which is incorrect.

I think we're intelligent enough on these forums that we don't need to list every qualifier. The judge presented an extreme situation that would qualify as an exception, which I didn't ignore but you decided to highlight anyways. I think it is telling that the judge decided to use such an extreme example; if there were less extreme examples that would qualify for the exception I would have no doubt that he would have presented them.

It seems to me what the judge is saying (from a laypersons standpoint) that it would not be cheating. Bolded line for significance.

There is a huge problem with such a claim; unless the player admits to knowing the rules and implicates himself, or foolishly repeats the same crime, then there is absolutely no way to punish such individuals apart from giving out rather inconsequential penalties.

There is another point though that motivated my post in the first place - it is the purposeful distraction of an opponent during the resolution of a spell that involves making complex decisions that I find particularly offensive and wish to discourage. I think that point is being lost in all the discussion.

On a personal note:
I've played against Jeff and Jer a ton of times, and not once have they been anything but a pleasure.

I just want to make clear that the individual is not being attacked personally, but the action is. I'm sure he is a great individual in real life, so there is no need to defend his character.

[policehq]

The discussions in this thread are civil and constructive, which is rare for any forum, especially with this amount of posting.

The actions being discussed in this thread turn me away from the format.

Meaning, the style of play that Travis Laplante and Jeremiah Rudolph boast. And this event in question. I figured Harlequin should take that into account while he's defending actions that took place in this tournament.

[Harlequin]

The discussions in this thread are civil and constructive, which is rare for any forum, especially with this amount of posting.

The actions being discussed in this thread turn me away from the format.

Meaning, the style of play that Travis Laplante and Jeremiah Rudolph boast. And this event in question. I figured Harlequin should take that into account while he's defending actions that took place in this tournament.

I think Steve put it best:

A HUGE part of Magic, perhaps the largest part, actually, is the mental game.  And this is no more true than in top 8s, where stamina and mental toughness become hugely important.   If someone can convince you to make a play that is not to your advantage, that is not only legal, that is actually a hugely important skill. 

So I guess the best non-flame response is: then enjoy playing whatever game is issolated from this style of play.   

It also has no bearing on my my defense of how penalties are currently administered (which is much broader than the actions that took place in this tournament).  There are many ways we can group why People don't come back to a tournement.  For the sake of my example, it was analyzing a subset of that: making a mistake, and the judges penalty for that mistake.   

It ignores the players who quit because they go off the college, have a kid, get thier deck stolen, or can't handle Travis/Jer.  That population is wash to either case I would assume.  There are always going to be mix of player types: 'Nice guys,' 'snot-nosed brats,' and 'cut-throat bastards,' and countless others.  These player attitudes will always be encouraging and discouraging people's oppinion of the format, and thier decission to come back next weekend.  I think the community in general is the way it is because we have a particularly low count of the 'brats' with a notably higher group of 'nice guys.' 

I'm not even sorry if the small populataion of 'cut-throat bastards' is some how enough to turn you away.  Because honestly: best of luck, and don't let the door hit you on the way out.

[Juggernaut GO]

Hey, don't lump me in with the cheater, I've never done anything wrong in a match of magic in my entire life. 

Actually, scratch that, I did forget to de-sideboard once and got a game loss.  Oh and I misregistered an oath deck one time.

[Razvan]

I think Steve put it best:

A HUGE part of Magic, perhaps the largest part, actually, is the mental game.  And this is no more true than in top 8s, where stamina and mental toughness become hugely important.   If someone can convince you to make a play that is not to your advantage, that is not only legal, that is actually a hugely important skill. 

I agree with you on this statement, but this wasn't it. This wasn't a jedi mind trick of bluffing a FoW or inducing an error. This is an actual attempt at misrepresenting game state by confirming, then upholding, a completely illegal play.

Say the same situation applied, but Trinket mage cost 3, not 2U. Then, with UGGG in the mana pool, if Jason said he leaves G open, Jeremiah can claim to not have heard him, then ask: "so you float blue, right?". Still a dirty play, and I won't say whether this would be legal or not (I think it's legal, but I do believe I could be wrong), because there's an avenue this could have worked. It's not an illegal game state, it's simply an obfuscated situation.

Also, I do understand the mana situation, if you say i tap volcanic for blue... no, red, it's fine. But if I say I tap volcanic for blue, how is it even an argument that your opponent assumed you tapped for red.

Something like: "This technically wouldn't be possible if he sacrificed the lotus green, but because he can choose his mana payments and only has to say what he has floating and what he says is floating is the final word so long as the payments could have been legal." is an absolutely terrible argument. It's not the final word or anything.

He said GGG, then paid UGG for the trinket mage, spell OBVIOUSLY resolved, there is no way that mana could be changed at that point. Jason never indicated anything else, didn't change his mind about the Lotus, didn't give any sort of reason to anyone that it was anything but that play.

There is no mental game, there is no jedi mind trick. It was a clear cut move, and what he said DURING the trinket mage search is utterly irrelevant. The more I look at this, the more convinced I am that this is straightforward cheating.

Anyway. That's my bit. I am sure it's rehashed.

[policehq]

I applaud the mental game, but harassment is unacceptable. Misrepresenting what may or may not be in your hand is one thing, misrepresenting the RULES is another.

Holding UU open with a Drain deck is a good skill. Siding out Dazes but bluffing having one to slow down your opponent is impressive. Playing a bomb hoping it will be countered so the spell that will actually win you the game is good. None of these are like the tactic that's been discussed throughout the thread.

I'm just saying, if you're going to argue against something because it discourages a player from coming into the format, be ready to have the same argument against asking unnecessary questions, behaving unsportsmanlike, misrepresenting the game state, drawing an error, etc. etc.

[Oath of Happy]

I applaud the mental game, but harassment is unacceptable. Misrepresenting what may or may not be in your hand is one thing, misrepresenting the RULES is another.

Holding UU open with a Drain deck is a good skill. Siding out Dazes but bluffing having one to slow down your opponent is impressive. Playing a bomb hoping it will be countered so the spell that will actually win you the game is good. None of these are like the tactic that's been discussed throughout the thread.

I'm just saying, if you're going to argue against something because it discourages a player from coming into the format, be ready to have the same argument against asking unnecessary questions, behaving unsportsmanlike, misrepresenting the game state, drawing an error, etc. etc.

I'd say that policehq said it best right there.  Those are how skilled champ plays the mental game.  That IS the mental game, NOT inducing play errors.  Obviously Jer didn't mean to create an illegal game state, so thats not what upset me.  What upset me is the fact that players think its a skill to ask a player questions that you already know the answer to, or any other way of trying to get your opponent to make a play error.

[Tha Gunslinga]

As I said, being an asshole is never the correct play.  I know many people who consistently win tournaments, and none of them act like that.

[T00L]

It ignores the players who quit because they go off the college, have a kid, get thier deck stolen, or can't handle Travis/Jer.

Can't handle Travis/Jer? l o l

You were asked to stop spamming already.  Verbal warning.  -DA

[LordHomerCat]

As I said, being an asshole is never the correct play.  I know many people who consistently win tournaments, and none of them act like that.

Have you met Owen?  I mean, he doesn't play the "ask annoying questions to throw my opponent off" thing, but if you are looking for players who can be somewhat 'unpleasant' in and after matches...  Come to think of it, your brother has his quirks too, and so does Soly, and so do I and so on and so forth.

Almost everyone really good also has an air of confidence (and maybe arrogance) about them, it just tends to go along with that success and skill (or maybe helps that person to be as good as they are).  I don't condone being an ass for the sake of it, and I don't like people who run the full game on someone who doesn't have a good grasp of the format to begin with, but if you are going to use some mental stuff to try and get into your opponent's head when you are worried you aren't as good a player, then that's fine.