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

[Rock Lee]

Whenever a new set comes out, I immediately scour it for new card options to slap into my Pet Deck U/R Shops. When Vexing Shusher was printed he made a cameo appearance in a slower bomb variant. Despite Shards of Alara providing many delicious Shop-oriented Artifacts such as Mindlock Orb, Master of Etherium, Courier's Capsule, and Tezzeret, none of them hit the standard I held for a broken card in my deck.

Then came Master Transmuter.


Master T allows you to do what shops never could do, cast spells in your opponent's End of Turn step. Additionally, because she makes your spells uncounterable, she has the same "counter this or all your counters are moot" aspect that Goblin Welder has. What she lacks in affordable costing, she makes up for by being castable with Shop-Land, weldable & pitches to Force. As an extra synergy in the deck, Master T transforms hands that would normally be "clunky" by holding robots into amazing. Therefore Master T stands at a pivotal juncture between Thirst for Knowledge and Goblin Welder, being able to sub for the role of either without being redundant.

I dropped the "slower" elements of the deck and picked up the pace by adding both of the Trike-siblings, another Titan, and Inkwell Leviathan.

Master T Slaver

Mana:
4 Volcanic Island
4 Shivan Reef
4 Mishra's Workshop
2 Ancient Tomb
1 City of Traitors
1 Tolarian Academy
1 Black Lotus
1 Mox Emerald
1 Mox Ruby
1 Mox Pearl
1 Mox Sapphire
1 Mox Jet
1 Mana Crypt
1 Mana Vault
1 Sol Ring

Robots in Disguise:
3 Triskelion
1 Triskelavus
2 Sundering Titan
1 Inkwell Leviathan
4 Master Transmuter
4 Goblin Welder
1 Mindslaver
1 Memory Jar
1 Thousand-Year Elixir

The rest of the goodies:
4 Force of Will
4 Thirst for Knowledge
4 Chalice of the Void
1 Ancestral Recall
1 Time Walk
1 Fact or Fiction
1 Tinker
1 Trinisphere

Sideboard:
4 Red Elemental blast
3 Relic of Progenitus
2 Tormod's Crypt
2 Ingot Chewer
2 Viashino Heretic
2 Jester's Cap

The Transmuter's printing couldn't come at a more convenient time, with Mystic Remora's glaring weakness being creatures & allowing you time to lay down lands. It is under this premise that Master T has strength. So how could I not look forward to diving headfirst into a Shay-Remora infested meta? Onward to the report Lets cut our Teeth!

We only have 20 people. Frown town. This means more random-fish will make it to Top 8 and I will encounter less Blue decks, which will make things interesting. The Mox Pearl is guaranteed, which means a Top-heavy prize structure; my favorite!

Round 1: Louis Gentile
Louis and I have a grinning sneer mentality towards each other. Our games are often more psychological battles than physical ones. Louis is renowned for playing Flash, Ad nauseum, Oath, Oath, and Oath. No one enjoys playing against oath, but I feel I can power out guys and be busted enough.

Game 1: Turn 1 Trinisphere off a Shop. He turn 1 stripmines. I draw mana, a Master T into Trisk, and he draws frowns. I see him discard negate, merchant scroll. Looks like fish or oath. I'm guessing oath.

In: 2x Jester's Cap, 2x Red Elemental Blast

Game 2: he lays land, mox go (negate active). I lay a turn 1 chalice @ 2, he negates, I force, he forces back. Thankfully he doesn't just HAVE the oath, because I chalice at 2 the next turn and Trikes start rolling soon thereafter. So much for that match.

2-0

Round 2: Bryan Camidge
I recognize the guy, but forget what he plays, but have a nagging feeling he plays aggro of some variety.

Game 1: I'm on the draw and I keep a hand of turn 1 Sundering titan with 3x moxes, sol ring, mana vault, tolarian, Sundering Titan. He apparently kept a hand of chalice of the Void & Root Maze. Awkward. This game ended with me drawing zero lands other than a tolarian that tapped for zero. Fun Fun.

In: 2x Ingot Chewer, 2x Viashino Heretic

Game 2: Is similarly disgraceful for the opposite reason. I keep a hand of 5 lands, Goblin Welder, Force of Will. He again has Chalice @ 0, Root maze. I draw trike after Trike after Trike and the root maze cuts my mana off in just enough time for Magus of the moon to keep me at 5 red mana for 14 turns before a solitaire magus of the moon kills me off. I don't see another land or Red Creature outside my initial grip. rawr!

2-2

Round 3: Godsire Belcher crazyman
I still don't know this gent's name after playing him 3 times at this location. I've only seen him at Over the Edge Games, and he always plays a build of Belcher reminiscent of Smemmnen's old Night's Whisper belcher list & SSX. His deck has huge potential for explosiveness, but the player puts himself on tilt easily.

Game 1: I chalice @ zero, go. His initial grip was a vicious Balance, which was stifled 2 turns by the chalice. I lay down a trike next turn, which only gets one turn of beats before we balance down to 1 land, 2 cards. I keep welder, and weld the trisk back in for victory before he comes back from 2 in hand.

In: 2x Ingot Chewer, 2x Viashino Heretic, 2x Jester's Cap

Game 2: I keep a solid destruction & chalice hand. He keeps a solid "you don't get a turn" hand. happens.

I ask for how much time is left in the round while shuffling. and I'm told 8 minutes. oh hell. best hurry this up.

Game 3: I keep seeing solid long-term hands with no short term answers. I have less than 8 minutes, 5 minutes by my internal clock, so I can't go for a long game. I mull down to 4, and my opponent is looking quite thrilled. I get an intriguing 4-hand. Shop, Lotus, Memory Jar, Shivan Reef. I play the Jar, pop it floating a red, and get Mana Crypt & Trinisphere! huzzah. I'm getting a big upset that my opponent is taking 1-2 minutes per draw-discard and ask the judge how much time left. He responds 13 minutes. What?... How did the time left go up?! I shake off the being upset, and the judge's presence changes my opponent's draw-discard process into a timely manner. My next draws lead me into draw spells & robots, while he discards the whole game.

4-3

Round 4: Demonic Attorney playing either Thoughtcast Painter or Shaymora. I'm guessing Shaymora

Game 1: I can't remember for the life of me. I'll fill in with my notes soon. I won without seeing anything besides a drain.

In: 4x Reb, 1x Jester's Cap. I know Chris loves Sower of Temptation with a passion, but a Jester's Cap on mana sources could be crippling enough as is. Still though, its not bad for a blind-blue matchup.

Game 2: Goes on for what seems forever. Chris countering my threats, I'm countering his draws. He's laying Energy Flux, I'm gouging my eyes out. Eventually there is a standoff between a hardcast Sundering titan and a Lethal Psychatog. The Titan is being paid for with artifact mana that's dying and being replaced, and the Energy Flux count rises from 2 to 3. Titan dies and nukes 6 total nonbasics between entry and departure. thankfully though I'm holding Thirst & Reb by the time I lose the 7/10, and can blast the Tog. Chris goes to fetch his remaining land for an underground for his Yawgmoth's Will in hand, only to find that he has no remaining Black lands, some of which were scooped out of his deck via a Memory Jar. This brings many frowns to Chris, who realizes his only out is Black lotus. I secure a goblin welder for the win. Fwew! always tough & fun matches with Chris.

6-3

Round 5: ID with Arik who would prefer to drive steel spikes into his skull rather than not play fish.

Huzzah Top 8

Quarterfinals: David Reid playing Ichorid
I met David earlier this day. While a seasoned casual magic player, this was his first Vintage Event. I was ecstatic to see new players and evenmoreso to see them in top 8! Despite his being a fledgling tournamentfarer, I saw him obliterate many competent players in the Swiss with an ichorid-heavy ichorid build.

Game 1: I have oodles of mana, even a Hardcast Sundering Titan. Ichorid laughs at these things.

In: 3x Relic of Progenitus, 2x tormod's Crypt, 2x Ingot Chewer.

Game 2: I have Welder & Relic of Progenitus. I hope he'll slowroll the win, as I cannot recur relic with Welder, but he goes for the sauce and I'm forced to blow relic within a turn. I'm hoping I can keep my revealing of tricks to a minimum, but I have to throw everything I have at him to halt his even distributions of bridges to ichorids. I evoke elementals, use a Tormod's Crypt, and eventually Mindslave him.

Game 3: Before I keep, he mulls down to 4. I keep a risky hand of sapphire, sol ring, tormod's crypt, relic of Progenitus, Trisk, force, Mindslaver. If he chalices @ 0 I am destroyed, but the Mull to 4 breeds hope. He doesn't have the chalice, but again gets a nice even distribution of bridges to ichorids. I draw Shop like a pro, and lay down my multitudinous hate. I debate letting narcomoebas enter play, and likely give too much slack to him by allowing him 2 zombies, however, I have a Mindslaver in play and I think "I'll just go crazy on his turn, I WANT him to have a grave" This feeling is wrong. Bad Jer. Sit in the corner. David is intelligently rfg'ing his dredgers to ichorid, and on the turn where I mindslave him, he has no dredgers for his 2x bazaars. Well fiddlesticks. Thankfully though, I have a Mindslaver-FoF to make me feel happy, and David has never had the displeasure of making piles for zero and 5, and having me take the 5. the 5 shows me the welder I needed, as I have Thousand-Year Elixir to create enough of a slave lock to find a dredger and finish it up.

Semifinals: Rematch with Demonic Attorney playing Shaymora

Game 1: I learn the hard lesson of why you run Duplicant in a tinker-target-schmorgesborg deck. Chris and I have a good game as always. In the pivotal turn where I have an impotent welder standing off against a lethal (I was at 6) Psychatog and a Darksteel Collossus and I have a lone Tinker, I have to Memory Jar into obscenely unlikely odds of moxen, Leviathan, Timewalk. If I had Duplicant I could dupe DSC, block tog, then rfg him, scooping up the game handily. Ahhh well. lessons learned.

Same Sideboarding as Swiss.

Game 2: Has me with 3 welders in hand. 1st welder? countered. 2nd welder? counterd. 3rd welder? stuck! Chris didn't understand that welder can keep 1 artifact alive indefinitely under any number of Energy Fluxes. This ultimately proves fatal via a hardcasted weld-able titan that was doom no matter how you sliced it.

Game 3: Has my most epic Master T victory. Turn 1 welder? countered. Turn 2 I have gads of Mana, and cast 1 Master T, countered, a 2nd Master T on the same turn, in! The last 3 cards in my hand are Triskelion, Triskelion, Triskelavus. 3 turns later He scooped.

Finals: Jason Ford with his Cliquey Fish.
I lost in the Swiss to Jason last event, and I was hungry for revenge. He is notorious for just churning out Goyfs, and our games are no exception.

Game 1: Jason lays down not 1, not 2, but 3 tarmogoyfs by turn 2. This is... unpleasant. I have a hardcast Inkwell leviathan on turn 2, but foolishly attack, not realizing that there's no way I can win this race without blocking and drawing another blocker. i did end up drawing the blocker, but it was too late to make up for my mistake. Onward. grumbles.

In: 3x Relic of Progenitus, 2x Viashino Heretic. Even though Jason runs Trinket Mage, I wouldn't put it past him to pull a rope-a-dope and sub in Null Rods.

Game 2: I keep a solid hand of welder, thirst, titan. He goes island, Black lotus, "Sac for green" taps island and plays Trinket mage and goes to tutor. I ask him "what do you have floating?" and he responds "blue". 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. He tutors up Mox Sapphire, plays it, taps sapphire and tries to cast Tarmogoyf. I tell him he was floating blue and he realizes his mistake. Thinking he was floating the green, while he said he was floating the blue. He gets put on a severe tilt, taking mana burn from the sapphire he could have had undone by a judge. This tilt perseveres through our next two games, much to my benefit. The game is quickly wrapped up with the swift work of a welder-titan team.

In: 3x Relic of Progenitus, 2x Red Elemental Blast

Game 3: To his 1st turn tormod's crypt, I have welder, followed by Master Transmuter next turn. Both of these get countered, crypt'd, and darkblasted for absolute removal. But this clears the way for a Trinisphere, then Hardcast Sundering titan destroying 4 lands. I am at 6 taking 1 damage a turn, unable to untap mana Vault, but have a sundering titan holding off his lone Tarmogoyf and fetchland. I finally rip into sol ring, which allows me to tinker out the Mana Vault, using my 2nd Titan to hit his drawn Tropical island. Now the Sundering titan can start attacking and its all over.

All in All. I was extremely happy with the deck and competition. Despite making several play errors, the deck's raw busted levels and resilience pushed me through to the top. Future changes to the deck will approach combo-vulnerability and Master T being able to answer DSC.

Thanks to ELD for consistently running events, and to all the Legacy folk who showed up to splash over for fun for all!

[Mantis]

Congrats and thanks for the very detailed tourney report. Nice read and the deck looks busted. How was Thousand Year Elixir?

[Rock Lee]

Congrats and thanks for the very detailed tourney report. Nice read and the deck looks busted. How was Thousand Year Elixir?

Against Ichorid it blatantly won me the game by being able to lay down a welder, and use Mindslaver from my yard in the same turn.

In the finals, if I had lain any creature EXCEPT the leviathan, I would've been able to attack with vigilance.

Against Chris, I was able to give Sundering Titan Vigilance, versus an opposing Tog, which shortly brought the game to a conclusion.

It also allowed me to throw down a Trike the same turn I cast Master T against Oath, where turns are at a premium.

Looking just at the states there, vigilance was a large amount of its potential. With this logic, subbing it out for a Duplicant would make sense. Although I discuss this further in the Deck Discussion Thread.

[Stormanimagus]

Congrats and thanks for the very detailed tourney report. Nice read and the deck looks busted. How was Thousand Year Elixir?

Against Ichorid it blatantly won me the game by being able to lay down a welder, and use Mindslaver from my yard in the same turn.

In the finals, if I had lain any creature EXCEPT the leviathan, I would've been able to attack with vigilance.

Against Chris, I was able to give Sundering Titan Vigilance, versus an opposing Tog, which shortly brought the game to a conclusion.

It also allowed me to throw down a Trike the same turn I cast Master T against Oath, where turns are at a premium.

Looking just at the states there, vigilance was a large amount of its potential. With this logic, subbing it out for a Duplicant would make sense. Although I discuss this further in the Deck Discussion Thread.

Ever thought of trying to make room for 3 Tangle Wire for the Oath matchup? I feel like that card is just asking to be abused with Transmuter. Just a thought. I like that you didn't shy away from having a deck with Welder and Transmuter like I have. You guys (you and Jeff, that is) are much bolder deck builders than me. Kudos!

Peace,

Noah

[Rock Lee]

Ever thought of trying to make room for 3 Tangle Wire for the Oath matchup? I feel like that card is just asking to be abused with Transmuter. Just a thought. I like that you didn't shy away from having a deck with Welder and Transmuter like I have. You guys (you and Jeff, that is) are much bolder deck builders than me. Kudos!

Peace,

Noah

Tanglewire Has some serious potential with Master T, to the point where its possible as a sideboard option. The only crimp I feel that this deck has with that plan, is that Tanglewire thrives alongside sphere effects.

Jeff Carpenter / Harlequin another Shop variant to the same event that abuses the Lock components that Master T can use oh-so efficiently. Hopefully he'll post a list soon.

[FadeToBlack]

Congrats on the win. Just a few things to note...

G3, you played the Trinisphere before the Trasmuter and before the Welder became important. I know this, because I had 5 mana sources and 3 answers (Pyroblast, Darkblast, Force) to your 3 threats (Welder, Transmuter, hardcast Titan). Thus, I could only deal with one threat per turn (costing 3 each) over the course of two turns, letting the Titan slip into play.

As for the g2 debacle...Idk. I was thinking it over during the game that there was no way I could have floated blue..which just got me even more ticked off. The problem was is that you asked me after the Trinket resolved while I was digging, and I was mentally debating the merits of Mox Emerald vs Sapphire, and not really paying attention to what you/I said. I got Jedi Mind Tricked, nuff said.

Furthermore, as you noted, I pretty much gave up the match at that point. I became completely unfoccused, and just led off a string of misplays in what could have been easily winnable games.

Congrats again on the finish and bringing new tech to the table.

[arik124]

Game 2: I keep a solid hand of welder, thirst, titan. He goes island, Black lotus, "Sac for green" taps island and plays Trinket mage and goes to tutor. I ask him "what do you have floating?" and he responds "blue". 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.


Jer, you're straight up wrong about this.  I will check with an L3 and find out what would happen if a judge saw this. 

[T00L]

Game 2: I keep a solid hand of welder, thirst, titan. He goes island, Black lotus, "Sac for green" taps island and plays Trinket mage and goes to tutor. I ask him "what do you have floating?" and he responds "blue". 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.


Jer, you're straight up wrong about this.  I will check with an L3 and find out what would happen if a judge saw this. 

Yeah that totally does not work that way you should have called him on it. Using that logic that means if you're ever playing storm combo you just don't need to keep track of your mana because as long as you could have had the mana to correctly play your spells you can just play them. Which obviously isn't the case.

[Smmenen]

Congratulations Rock Lee.  I'm very glad to see that the cynics were wrong about Master T.  I also believed that he is Vintage playable.  Glad that Conflux has made a difference. 

[Rock Lee]

Congrats on the win. Just a few things to note...

G3, you played the Trinisphere before the Trasmuter and before the Welder became important. I know this, because I had 5 mana sources and 3 answers (Pyroblast, Darkblast, Force) to your 3 threats (Welder, Transmuter, hardcast Titan). Thus, I could only deal with one threat per turn (costing 3 each) over the course of two turns, letting the Titan slip into play.

Thanks for the clarification. I only have my life-total notes and memory to go on. I remember Trinisphere being irrelevant when cast initially, but growing in power with every turn, something it often does not do.

Game 2: I keep a solid hand of welder, thirst, titan. He goes island, Black lotus, "Sac for green" taps island and plays Trinket mage and goes to tutor. I ask him "what do you have floating?" and he responds "blue". 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.

Jer, you're straight up wrong about this.  I will check with an L3 and find out what would happen if a judge saw this. 

Well I wasn't trying to circumvent the judges, and had no problem calling judges throughout the process. The idea was to break my opponent's concentration & possibly get a gain through misplays. This is a standard I hold most players in Top 8/16, based on my judgment of their experience and skill.

Yeah that totally does not work that way you should have called him on it. Using that logic that means if you're ever playing storm combo you just don't need to keep track of your mana because as long as you could have had the mana to correctly play your spells you can just play them. Which obviously isn't the case.

Well the only reason I thought this was the case, was because the lotus was popped for the next spell. There are times when this is possible, which I explain later on in this post.



::EDIT:: I asked several L3 Judges, and they all replied that it was my responsibility to stop Jason at the point where he replied "green" and remind him that he could not have a blue floating with his current configuration. A little tragic, if you ask me, as my concentration on the gamestate and responsiveness.

I believed that if Lotus had just been used to play the Trinket Mage, 4 mana was used, he was not specific about what mana he used, and I asked him what he had floating, that if his answer could only have been correct due to him sac'ing lotus to a different color, than it was sac'd as a different color. This opinion is incorrect, but the reason is through a nuance. To slightly modify the situation. If instead of sac'ing Lotus preemptively, he had declared Trinket Mage with Lotus & island untapped, sac'd lotus green, and then said he had a Blue floating, then the Lotus would have been sac'd for Blue. There is a nuance here about when Lotus is sac'd that permits it to be rewound or not. In the case of how it happened, it could not, but I did not realize this at the time.

If a judge had been called without players stopping at the "mana confusion" play then it would have been realized by both players as soon as Tarmogoyf, and the green mana in question was to be used. If that had happened, there are two ways the ruling by the judge could have been resolved.

• If I thought, as I did, that Lotus would be rewinded to the accurate color to reflect the stated gamestate, then there are two infractions: Jason would get Game Rule Violation for trying to play a green spell with blue mana, and I would receive Failure to Maintain Game State, both of which are warnings and the mana in the pool is confirmed by the judge as blue, despite there being no way for it to have been.
• If I thought that he was floating Green Mana, and I agreed to let him say that he was floating Blue Mana, then the penalties are much more severe, with Jason receiving Game Rule Violation for the same reasons, and I would receive Cheating - Fraud for not pointing out other players illegal actions, either for his or her own advantage, or in the hope of bringing it up at a more strategically advantageous time. The penalty for this is Disqualification without prize.

The interesting aspect to this, is that the only difference in this case between a Warning, and a Disqualification without prize, is my intention. Very interesting!

[Tha Gunslinga]

The interesting aspect to this, is that the only difference in this case between a Warning, and a Disqualification without prize, is my intention. Very interesting!

That's how it's always been for pretty much everything.  "Cheating" means intent, and means DQ.  "Warnings" are for mistakes.

[edit]: So, do you think you should have been DQ'd then?

[Oath of Happy]

"Well I wasn't trying to circumvent the judges, and had no problem calling judges throughout the process. The idea was to break my opponent's concentration & possibly get a gain through misplays. This is a standard I hold most players in Top 8/16, based on my judgment of their experience and skill."

Yup, Jer did this to me when I won the Pandemonium tournament by repeatedly asking my if I was done quickly after a counter war, to which I replied yes, but after split second I said first I want to attack with goyf and he said that my turn was over. It was obviuous that his intent in asking me if I was done was to slip away with +4 life.  I thought this was really weak, especially because there is no reason to play quickly in the top 8 since there is no time clock and although I did not respect it, I just forgot about it because I came to the tournament to have fun.  If people are interested in trying to break oppoenents conecentration and confuse them in order to "get a gain through misplays" then you are probably insecure about your deck or playskill and should work on that more.

I won't say that it can't be done, because its legal, except when you hear your opponent say that they sac lotus for green, but then deliberatly ask them what color is floating to confuse them.  You said it yourself, "He goes island, Black lotus, "Sac for green" taps island and plays Trinket mage."  So, to know that he has green floating, and then purposely ask him whats floating to confuse him, and then after you've confused him into declaring the wrong mana color you let him continue with an impossible game state, I'd say yea, you did deserve to get DQ'd.  Yea you got your win, but wheres your dignity?

[Smmenen]

@Oath of Happy:

I will have to disagree.

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. 

[T00L]

If people are interested in trying to break oppoenents conecentration and confuse them in order to "get a gain through misplays" then you are probably insecure about your deck or playskill and should work on that more.

i lol'd

Stefan, enough. -DA

[Juggernaut GO]

Sounds like someone else is in the running for the vintage douchebag of the year award for 2009.



This brings back many memories of harrassing every player I got paired against:

DONE?


DONE YET?

DONE?

DONE YET?

ARE YOU DONE?

IS THAT ALL?

DONE?

DOES THAT RESOLVE?

THAT CAN'T BE GOOD FOR YOU!

DONE ?

[M.Solymossy]

I agree with everything Steve said.  Personally, Oath of Happy, it was an error on your part, that shows who really is "probably insecure about [their] deck or playskill and should work on that more".    The difference between good players and great players is that the great ones don't distract easily.  I tried everything within my power to get TK to screw up last year at the Vintage Champs top8... reminiscing about when we used to play elves versus squirrels, talking to the crowd, asking him if he killed me yet, that type of thing.  The idea was to get into his head, and make him think too quickly and screw up his chain of thought.  TK never flinched as he threw a lethal tendrils at my cranium. Obviously, Jer did that to you, and you allowed him to. 

I do however, disagree with Jer's opponent and his lotus play.  If he says "Sacrifice for GGG" he cannot change it to blue, even on accident.  It is both players' responsibility to maintain gamestate, and you cannot argue that "you said you had 1 Blue mana floating". You MUST inform him that he did in fact have Green floating. 

[The Atog Lord]

Is going out of your way to annoy your opponent legal? Maybe. It can certainly cross the line into unsportsmanlike conduct -- I've seen that happen more than a few times.

So, my logic here is this:

1. To break the rules deliberately in order to gain an advantage is cheating.
2. Acting in an unsportsmanlike way is against the rules.
3. Deliberately annoying the opponent is unsportsmanlike.
4. Therefore, deliberately annoying the opponent is cheating.

I am not a judge -- but that is my thinking on this. Any actual judge is more than welcome to comment.

My advice to the vast majority of readers out there who have no interest in ruining someone else's good mood in order to achieve an advantage is this. If your opponent is engaging in the deliberately distracting tactics mentioned here, call a judge. Ask the judge to watch the match. That isn't mean -- that's just you trying to defend yourself against an opponent willing to resort to what I above conclude to be cheating in order to win.

[ELD]

I must say that I am disappointed to be talking about this after the fact.  I was literally feet away, and cleaning up the prizes etc behind the counter.  This situation is very unfortunate, and I can't fully comment on it without having been called in the first place.  I cannot stress enough how important it is for players to call a judge whenever there is any situation that they need clarification on.  There is no doubt that this situation would have been handled by a judge call. 

The bottom line from the Penalty Guidelines:

126.   Game Play Error — Failure to Maintain Game State
Definition
This infraction is committed by a player who has allowed another player in the game to commit a Game Play Error and has not pointed it out it before he or she could potentially gain advantage. If a judge believes a player is intentionally not pointing out other players’ illegal actions, either for his or her own advantage, or in the hope of bringing it up at a more strategically advantageous time, the infraction is Cheating — Fraud.

125.    Game Play Error — Game Rule Violation
Definition
This infraction covers the majority of game situations in which a player makes an error or fails to follow a game procedure correctly. Note that this is different from entirely forgetting a game trigger, which is handled in Game Play Error — Missed Trigger, a situation in which the game state itself is illegal or the error itself is ongoing, which is handled in Game Play Error — Illegal Game State, or forgetting to reveal a card, which is handled in Game Play Error — Failure to Reveal.

If the error was discovered within a time frame in which a player could reasonably be expected to notice the error and the situation is simple enough to safely back up without too much disruption to the course of the game, the judge may get permission from the Head Judge to back up the game to the point of the error. Each action taken is undone until the game reaches the point immediately prior to the error. Drawn cards whose identity is known to all players are reversed by returning them to the top of the library; all other drawn cards are reversed by placing a random card on top of the library. Once the game is backed up, it continues from that point.

If not caught within a reasonable time frame, or backing up is impossible or sufficiently complex that it could affect the course of the game, the judge should leave the game state as it is and not attempt any form of partial ‘fix’ – either reverse all actions or none. Additionally, teammates and opponents who might potentially have benefited from the error receive a Game Play Error — Failure to Maintain Game State penalty.

Since I was not witness to the events first hand, I will lay out this scenario.  I am not saying this is how things played out, but illustrating a situation that has been discussed.  Since I was not called over, I cannot say with anything about how things actually happened any better than any other person who was not involved.  It is my intention to clear up confusion about the situations I have heard discussed, not to clarify the events that actually took place. 

Player A, on his first turn, makes the following plays:

Island, Black Lotus, Sacrifice Black Lotus for Green, Trinket Mage, begin searching his deck

Player B, who should also be keeping track of the mana, asks what mana is floating.  There is no way that this should be asked here.  Player A is making a search, which needs to be handled quickly (as all searches do), and has made the gamestate crystal clear.  This is akin to asking a player how many cards in an opponent's hand, then asking again after a player has put Demonic Tutor on the stack and is searching their library.  Player B is dangerously close to Slow Play or Unsportsmanlike Conduct - Minor in this situation. 

Player A responds saying he has a Blue mana floating, which is incorrect.

Player B needed to call a judge when Player A said he had a Blue Mana floating.  By intentionally not pointing out Player A's illegal actions, for his own advantage and in the hope of bringing it up at a more strategically advantageous time, the infraction is Cheating — Fraud.

Player B only brought up the error after Player A gets and plays Mox Sapphire, then with the Green Mana floating, attempts to play Tarmogoyf.  Player B waited until an advantageous time to attempt to "correct" the error. 

This is how I would have to handle the above situation.  I do hope to have some clarification from Clariax on this one. 

[arik124]

I was sitting next to Jason as this happened and should have called Eric over immediately, but I did witness the whole thing transpire in real time.   

From Jer's description it sounds like he knew it was supposed to be green and let it be blue anyway b/c Jason made a mistake.  Essentially he had full knowledge of allowing an incorrect game state and took advantage of the situation instead of stopping it. 

@ Steve and Mike:  you guys are talking about different things.  Getting your opponent to tilt is a great skill, in Magic or o/w.  Allowing you opponents to make illegal moves and not stopping them is cheating.

@ Oath:  Jer does that, all you gotta do is say "You don't have to ask, I'll let you know when I'm done with my turn."  He's not malicious; he just wants to take his turn. 

[Harlequin]

Another thing to consider is that mana isn't really locked in until priority is passed.  At least that was my understanding.  This is why you can tap some lands, think, then untap and tap differant lands (which we all do from time to time).  So saying "I crack lotus for green and pass priority."  Would probably result in mana burn.  So he cracked lotus (saying green), and then tapped the island and played Trinket Mage.  Before passing priority (while paying for costs), I was under the impression that he can change his mana as much as he wants.   

So I diagree that "There is no way that this should be asked here. " His opponent passed priority, Jer indicated that It and the search trigger would be resolving, and wants to confirm what was paid for.  And only now after priority is passed is floating mana locked in.

Think of the example in reverse.  Lets say I crack lotus saying Green, tap island put trinket mage down, and without passing priority I decide that (For what ever reason) I want to change lotus to say... Black.   I'm 99% sure that's legal so long as I haven't yet passed priority.  I'm still managing my payments - and I'm reasonable sure that I can change payment choices as much as I want until the moment where I finally pass priority.  My point here is you can't have the rule both ways, either mana locks the moment you tilt any mana source off it's center - or - after you've made all your payments, and passed priority.

So going back to the example Trinket mage goes on the stack and  At this point he wanted to confirm what was floating.  This is actually relevant because if his opponent gets a moxen, he could have forced the mox. And the choice to force the mox or not would depend on what was floating and what Mox is tutored for.  When his opponent answered "Blue," then tutored up Mox Sapphire - Jer opted not to counter the sapphire.  knowing that there wern't any cards to worry about that were double blue.  And 'knowing' that if he were to call a judge the judge would rule that his opponent has blue floating, not green (for the reasons above).

Lastly, you can't give a cheating penalty unless you are sure that the violator is actually trying to cheat thier opponent.  Again here is an example:
Lets say that I'm on the play and I covertly draw a card on my first turn and my opponent 'catches' me.  As a verteran player my only defense is basically "I'm dumb and wasn't thinking..."  however they judge may (for whater reason) think I was cheating especially If I denied it or tried to lie about the number of cards in my hand or something.
Now lets say little Timmy Multi-player comes to his first tournement and does the exact same thing, and makes the arguement that he read in his rule book that you draw a card at the begining of each turn, and backs his statement up with his Multi-player experiance.  Clearly little Timmy wasn't making an attempt to cheat.  He's just doesn't know with the rules of the game.



Also, Both Jer and his opponent (and to an extent everyone watching the game) believed that the because he said "blue" he had blue.  His opponent was even willing to burn for the tapped Sapphired.  Even though Jer was saying that you if you can't pay for a spell you roll the game back to before the payment was made.  Neither player disagreed that a blue was in the pool.

In a somewhat related sitatation.  In one of my games, I was getting mana screwed and slowing dieing to mana vault.  Every turn I would use top durring my upkeep in a futile attempt to draw a land.  In one of turns, I topped looked at the three cards to find no lands, and discouraged I put all three cards back ontop of my deck, took my 1 damage and passsed (forgetting to draw a card).  When my opponent said go, I looked at my hand and noticed I ~think~ I forgot to draw, I remembered the top of my library last turn was Sphere, Uba, Tanglewire.  I topped during my upkeep to see the same cards.  I told my opponent about my error, and we decided to call a judge to report the mistake.  I was nearly 100% sure (and my opponent confirmed) that because two full turns had passed, I wasn't getting by draw for before.  We called ELD over just to report that a procedural error had occured.  He said something like "Ok so you missed your draw last turn" and then walked away.  We figgured that was the ruling, and continiued to play.  My opponent put a beater on the board, and I died over the course of a few quick turns.  We were signing the slip and De-boarding when ELD came back and looked rather confused.  Apparently he had said "Hang on I want to check something" and niether me or my opponent heard him say this.

This example is a little differant because both my opponent and I knew that an error had occured and that we should report it to the judge.  In Jer's example niether player thought a rule's error had occured.  His opponent was just foolish in tapping his mana (no need to alert the judge to report an error). 

[Rock Lee]

I'll try to keep this wall of text as brief as possible to avoid the TLDR mentality.

So, my logic here is this:

1. To break the rules deliberately in order to gain an advantage is cheating.
2. Acting in an unsportsmanlike way is against the rules.
3. Deliberately annoying the opponent is unsportsmanlike.
4. Therefore, deliberately annoying the opponent is cheating.

My advice to the vast majority of readers out there who have no interest in ruining someone else's good mood in order to achieve an advantage is this. If your opponent is engaging in the deliberately distracting tactics mentioned here, call a judge. Ask the judge to watch the match. That isn't mean -- that's just you trying to defend yourself against an opponent willing to resort to what I above conclude to be cheating in order to win.

That's an impressive syllogism there Rich, but unfortunately it suffers from the weak logic that any syllogism is susceptible to. Instead it sounds like a personal ethic guideline, which is not one endorsed by Wizards.

I'm sorry if my attempts to gain minor advantages irritates players. It is never my intention to irritate an opponent, despite having been "trained" by Travis Leplante who was notorious for that result. However, I do recognize that at competitive play this is an aspect of the game that is allowed and even encouraged by Wizards. In my attempts to gain advantages, I never intentionally break the rules, that's cheating. I do however try to cause lapses in players concentration which are not even close to unsportsmanlike conduct. (I go on to give examples of USC per Wizards later on)

I might mention that I only apply this mental-game-mentality when I feel my opponent is competent and capable in a similar sense. I don't badger or cajole new players, and if they beat me where a small slip may have put me ontop, I'm willing to take that loss for the sake of not turning away players from the format. I hold to my own personal ethic about when I make the choice to play this mental game and that may be why I don't feel discomforted by people's upset reactions. I valued them as a competent and capable opponent. I might point out, that against John Longo/Oath of Happy, that I did not win the game due to that 4 damage lapse. The results of these mental games are not enormous, but they are legal.

I cannot stress enough how important it is for players to call a judge whenever there is any situation that they need clarification on.  There is no doubt that this situation would have been handled by a judge call.  

The bottom line from the Penalty Guidelines:

126.   Game Play Error — Failure to Maintain Game State
Definition
This infraction is committed by a player who has allowed another player in the game to commit a Game Play Error and has not pointed it out it before he or she could potentially gain advantage. If a judge believes a player is intentionally not pointing out other players’ illegal actions, either for his or her own advantage, or in the hope of bringing it up at a more strategically advantageous time, the infraction is Cheating — Fraud.

125.    Game Play Error — Game Rule Violation
Definition
This infraction covers the majority of game situations in which a player makes an error or fails to follow a game procedure correctly. Note that this is different from entirely forgetting a game trigger, which is handled in Game Play Error — Missed Trigger, a situation in which the game state itself is illegal or the error itself is ongoing, which is handled in Game Play Error — Illegal Game State, or forgetting to reveal a card, which is handled in Game Play Error — Failure to Reveal.

If the error was discovered within a time frame in which a player could reasonably be expected to notice the error and the situation is simple enough to safely back up without too much disruption to the course of the game, the judge may get permission from the Head Judge to back up the game to the point of the error. Each action taken is undone until the game reaches the point immediately prior to the error. Drawn cards whose identity is known to all players are reversed by returning them to the top of the library; all other drawn cards are reversed by placing a random card on top of the library. Once the game is backed up, it continues from that point.

If not caught within a reasonable time frame, or backing up is impossible or sufficiently complex that it could affect the course of the game, the judge should leave the game state as it is and not attempt any form of partial ‘fix’ – either reverse all actions or none. Additionally, teammates and opponents who might potentially have benefited from the error receive a Game Play Error — Failure to Maintain Game State penalty.

Since I was not witness to the events first hand, I will lay out this scenario.  I am not saying this is how things played out, but illustrating a situation that has been discussed.  Since I was not called over, I cannot say with anything about how things actually happened any better than any other person who was not involved.  It is my intention to clear up confusion about the situations I have heard discussed, not to clarify the events that actually took place.  

Player A, on his first turn, makes the following plays:

Island, Black Lotus, Sacrifice Black Lotus for Green, Trinket Mage, begin searching his deck

Player B, who should also be keeping track of the mana, asks what mana is floating.  There is no way that this should be asked here.  Player A is making a search, which needs to be handled quickly (as all searches do), and has made the gamestate crystal clear.  This is akin to asking a player how many cards in an opponent's hand, then asking again after a player has put Demonic Tutor on the stack and is searching their library.  Player B is dangerously close to Slow Play or Unsportsmanlike Conduct - Minor in this situation.  

Player A responds saying he has a Blue mana floating, which is incorrect.

Player B needed to call a judge when Player A said he had a Blue Mana floating.  By intentionally not pointing out Player A's illegal actions, for his own advantage and in the hope of bringing it up at a more strategically advantageous time, the infraction is Cheating — Fraud.

Player B only brought up the error after Player A gets and plays Mox Sapphire, then with the Green Mana floating, attempts to play Tarmogoyf.  Player B waited until an advantageous time to attempt to "correct" the error.  

This is how I would have to handle the above situation.  I do hope to have some clarification from Clariax on this one.  [/size]

ELD, I encourage and am thankful for your stepping in as a judge to comment on this, but I feel that some of your statements do not coincide with the Penalties guidelines.

When referring to asking an opponent their mana floating when it could only been one result, you said "This is akin to asking a player how many cards in an opponent's hand, then asking again after a player has put Demonic Tutor on the stack and is searching their library.  Player B is dangerously close to Slow Play or Unsportsmanlike Conduct - Minor in this situation" in regards to asking what mana is floating, even if the mana floating could only have been one color, this is not even close to Slow Play or USC. Slow Play in this situation would only be closer to asking information that had not changed, or asking a question upwards of 10 times in the same turn. Akin to Travis's example of "Done? Done? Done? You done yet?" ad nauseam. Some solid examples of USC are as follows:

• A. A player uses excessively vulgar and profane language.
• B. A player inappropriately demands to a judge that her opponent receive a penalty.
• C. A player appeals to the Head Judge before waiting for the floor judge to issue a ruling.
• D. A player taunts his opponent for making a bad play.
• E. A player leaves excessive trash in the play area after leaving the table.

Clarifying and maintaining the game state is not a part of these examples.

Further, I believe I have made it clear several times in this thread that my intention was not to maintain an illegal gamestate and then use it to my advantage. I believed that the mana costs would be rewound. I found out later, through the process of writing and responding to this thread, that this is not the case, but that did not change my intention during that particular game. I believed that the play of floating a U after sacrificing a Lotus GGG, tapping Island, and playing Trinket mage was legal, due to a misunderstanding. According to my misunderstanding, there was no reason for anyone to call a judge at that moment. I realize now that with the knowledge that this action was illegal, if I repeated that happenstance, then that would be maintaining an illegal gamestate to gain an advantage, which is Cheating-Fraud.

However, as I mention in Reply #9, If a judge had been called when the Tarmogoyf was to be played, assuming my intention was determined to not be cheating by a judge, then the ruling would be GRV & FTMGS. There is a tremendous difference in the ruling by the judge between GRV & FTMGS, both of which are warnings, and Cheating-Fraud, which is a DQ. I would like to throw out a caution about hasty judgments and avoiding concepts like "the bottom line" as you used, about penalty guidelines. The judge's role in interpreting intention often is the difference between a warning or a Disqualification and I feel that consideration of the many possible penalties is paramount.

[Demonic Attorney]

A syllogism only ever has three parts:  Major premise, minor premise, conclusion. 

You're thinking of a sorites argument, or a kind of polysyllogism. 

/derail

[Rock Lee]

A syllogism only ever has three parts:  Major premise, minor premise, conclusion. 

You're thinking of a sorites argument, or a kind of polysyllogism. 

/derail

I should have been more accurate in my distinction of Rich's argument as a polysyllogism. I forgot we have legal authorities pouring over these threads looking for logical fallacies. Yet another form of taking advantage of situations!

Although I think it would be an interesting thought experiment to debate whether Rich's argument is a sorites paradox, where the currency/unit in question is morality, although I think this is not the place.

[Juggernaut GO]

THE FUCK IS A SYLOSIPIGISM?

does that happen when you take too much viagra?


But seriously, I know how jeremiah plays and what he does would never be considered unsportsmanlike.  I can go borderline, but in the past few years I have toned myself down tremendously if I'm playing against someone I don't know.

When I know the player, there's a good chance I will try to goof with them as much as I know their personality can take.  We are all there to have a good time after all, and I entertain.

[mike_bergeron]

A syllogism only ever has three parts:  Major premise, minor premise, conclusion. 

You're thinking of a sorites argument, or a kind of polysyllogism. 

/derail

Mind is blown. Cannot compute.

Jer, keep on rocking.  I love the tech, and have always enjoyed playing against you.  Fear the Gargadon.

As far as the argument goes, my rule of thumb is "do not be rude" and everything else will take care of itself.  At the last tournament I played, I was in the 0/3 bracket playing against a Tez deck.  I had Canonist out, and my opponent played brainstorm, and attempted to gifts as well.  I called the judge because I was not sure how it would work out since he broke his lotus before announcing the spell.  because of this, his friend who was watching the match started to make comments to me about being a "cutthroat player" and "taking things a little too seriously".  I felt this was obnoxious, and let him know that after the match.  We had a short conversation, and I explained why I thought it was in bad taste.  I do not blame the guy for saying that, I would say it too if I was playing with friends.  However, since I did not know these people the humor was lost on me, and I thought his friend was trying to put me on tilt for game 3.  My intent was simple- we are practicing an aggro v. control matchup, and we should play the right way.  As long as we are being cordial, and not breaking into the boundaries of being rude or condescending, I couldn't care less.  I thought it was a good learning experience for both of us to have the judge explain why it happened, etc. and why the ruling is what it is. 

Of course, when two friends who play each other (who are competitive) you need to be able to draw the line between being rude/having fun/inside jokes. 

[ELD]

ELD, I encourage and am thankful for your stepping in as a judge to comment on this, but I feel that some of your statements do not coincide with the Penalties guidelines.

When referring to asking an opponent their mana floating when it could only been one result, you said "This is akin to asking a player how many cards in an opponent's hand, then asking again after a player has put Demonic Tutor on the stack and is searching their library.  Player B is dangerously close to Slow Play or Unsportsmanlike Conduct - Minor in this situation" in regards to asking what mana is floating, even if the mana floating could only have been one color, this is not even close to Slow Play or USC. Slow Play in this situation would only be closer to asking information that had not changed, or asking a question upwards of 10 times in the same turn. Akin to Travis's example of "Done? Done? Done? You done yet?" ad nauseam. Some solid examples of USC are as follows:

    * A. A player uses excessively vulgar and profane language.
    * B. A player inappropriately demands to a judge that her opponent receive a penalty.
    * C. A player appeals to the Head Judge before waiting for the floor judge to issue a ruling.
    * D. A player taunts his opponent for making a bad play.
    * E. A player leaves excessive trash in the play area after leaving the table.

Clarifying and maintaining the game state is not a part of these examples.

I attempted to make it totally clear that I did not see this debacle happen, but I wanted to illustrate a situation that was similar in order to lay down some an explanation of how I would this kind of situation.  I stand by a player being dangerously close to slow play or unsportsmanlike conduct if they are asking about information that has already been made clear.  I did not say I would penalize a player for it, but if I was watching a match, I would certainly point out that the player had made the gamestate crystal clear, and any time spent discussing it further was an inappropriate use of time in a tournament setting.  If that player continued to needle and ask questions which slow the game down in an attempt to trip up their opponent, then there would be an issue to handle.  A player cannot continually ask a storm player how much mana of each color he has floating, as well as the storm count, when the player is already providing a crystal clear method of showing both the gamestate. 

Further, I believe I have made it clear several times in this thread that my intention was not to maintain an illegal gamestate and then use it to my advantage. I believed that the mana costs would be rewound. I found out later, through the process of writing and responding to this thread, that this is not the case, but that did not change my intention during that particular game. I believed that the play of floating a U after sacrificing a Lotus GGG, tapping Island, and playing Trinket mage was legal, due to a misunderstanding. According to my misunderstanding, there was no reason for anyone to call a judge at that moment. I realize now that with the knowledge that this action was illegal, if I repeated that happenstance, then that would be maintaining an illegal gamestate to gain an advantage, which is Cheating-Fraud.

However, as I mention in Reply #9, If a judge had been called when the Tarmogoyf was to be played, assuming my intention was determined to not be cheating by a judge, then the ruling would be GRV & FTMGS. There is a tremendous difference in the ruling by the judge between GRV & FTMGS, both of which are warnings, and Cheating-Fraud, which is a DQ. I would like to throw out a caution about hasty judgments and avoiding concepts like "the bottom line" as you used, about penalty guidelines. The judge's role in interpreting intention often is the difference between a warning or a Disqualification and I feel that consideration of the many possible penalties is paramount.

While I cannot comment on your exact example, in the example I laid out, if Player B does not correct Player A on what mana they had floating, and lets them proceed, they are, in fact, guilty of fraud.  If a player is unaware that the mana cannot be backed up or changed after priority has been passed, this is simply their ignorance of the rules in a tournament setting.  If a player sacrifices Black Lotus, taps their land, and plays Trinket Mage, unless they explicitly say they are keeping priority, then priority is passed.  The overall issue, which I feel is being missed, is that if a player does not call a judge over when their opponent has committed an infraction, and hopes to either allow an incorrect gamestate to persist, or correct the gamestate at a more advantageous time, then they are cheating. 

Much of this discussion seems to have centered around the erroneous belief that the mana could have been changed after the fact.  This is no more relevant than if a player thought it was legal for them to intentionally look at their opponent's deck during shuffling.  The penalty guidelines are filled with penalties for unintentional mistakes.  If a player does an illegal action intentionally, then we are looking at cheating. 

One more point on this issue - It is clear from this thread, that most people do not know the penalty guidelines well enough to push the rules to their limits.  In all of my events, I have only had to DQ less than a handful of players, and all of those DQ's were the result of players taking intentional actions, which they did not know were illegal. 

[Harlequin]

Well flip the context around just alittle.

Suppose My opponent turns thier island sideways says "blue" turns thier Volc sideways and says "Red" then puts gush on the table and hesitates for a second.... Thinks...  Then says "Actually, Gush with Double Blue floating" and picks up thier two tapped lands. 

How is this situation differant.  Can I allow them to have double blue floating, Can I make an arguement they must have RU? 

Let's say that I agree ok "you have UU."  Now he draws his cards and says "I play Magma Jet with my R and U."   And I say "Actually remember you changed it to UU."   Now I can get DQed for reminding him he changed his mind??  even though we both just agreed that he has UU - he wants to change it, and because that's what he said before the agreement - I am now somehow a cheater?



Also I completely disagree with the statement that you can't constantly ask a storm player what they have floating.  I do -exactly- that.  If I've learned anything from watching disputes unfold between two players there are two very common arguements that pop up from time to time that are EXTREMELY difficult for a judge to resolve: #1 - "You already played a land this turn" vrs "No I played that land last turn."   And "I have B floating" vrs "No you have U floating."   To avoid this I always end my priority passes with my understanding of the gamestate - or a question about it.  "Sure Timetwister resolves, you have UB and 1 floating, and you've already played a land for turn."  Or with bargin on the stack "Hrmm bargin, and you have not played a land this turn?"  Even if the information is being tracked on dice - I want to be exactly sure which dice are blue, black, colorless, and storm.  So I restate what is already known, or ask about the gamestate even if I already -think- I know the answer (just to validate my opponent and I are on the same page).

I think this is particularly important for things that are often not recorded like floating mana, land drops, and storm.
It helps avoid 'he-said-she-said' arguements where both players disagree about the history of the turn.  I might add that in these cases niether player 'cheating' both players believe thier memory of the turn is correct. 

If a player is unaware that the mana cannot be backed up or changed after priority has been passed, this is simply their ignorance of the rules in a tournament setting.  If a player sacrifices Black Lotus, taps their land, and plays Trinket Mage, unless they explicitly say they are keeping priority, then priority is passed.  The overall issue, which I feel is being missed, is that if a player does not call a judge over when their opponent has committed an infraction, and hopes to either allow an incorrect gamestate to persist, or correct the gamestate at a more advantageous time, then they are cheating. 

I think part of the problem is that at the moment priority is being passed, the only moment that actually maters - both players are agreeing on the color of the mana in the pool.  I don't see how that is anything but a 'good habit' to get into.  He could have sac'ed the lotus 20 times, and listed off every color in the rainbow - but the only color that matters is what is agreed upon at the moment priority is passed.  He starts casting the mage, He finishes casting Mage.  Jer seeks confirmation of what is in the pool: "Before I recieve priority, let's be clear about what color you have"
 "I have blue"
 "ok you've got blue" (I thought I heard you say green, but I guess your changing your mind now...good thing we agreed on it)
 "Ok I tutor up Sapphire play it, and tap it to use my Green to cast Goyf"
 "Ummmm didn't we just agree you had Blue?"
 "Yes I did say blue didn't I, that was stupid - you're right, I can't cast Tarmogoyf"

If either player was in disagreement to what was floating, then there is a problem.  A problem for the Judge to resolve.  But from what I saw of the game, while his opponent was clearly disheartened because he made an obvious mistake about what he said, and what he ment to say - but he couldn't change the agreement that he and his opponent had come to.

[ELD]

Well flip the context around just alittle.

Suppose My opponent turns thier island sideways says "blue" turns thier Volc sideways and says "Red" then puts gush on the table and hesitates for a second.... Thinks...  Then says "Actually, Gush with Double Blue floating" and picks up thier two tapped lands.

How is this situation differant.  Can I allow them to have double blue floating, Can I make an arguement they must have RU?

Let's say that I agree ok "you have UU."  Now he draws his cards and says "I play Magma Jet with my R and U."   And I say "Actually remember you changed it to UU."   Now I can get DQed for reminding him he changed his mind??  even though we both just agreed that he has UU - he wants to change it, and because that's what he said before the agreement - I am now somehow a cheater?

Language needs to be totally clear.  If the player plays Gush, and then hesitates for a second, he has passed priority.  Whatever he said he has in his mana pool is fixed.  If he does not hesitate at all, then it is a different situation.  Unless he declares, as he is playing the spell, that he is retaining priority, it is passed.  A judge should be called in that situation.  That kind of sloppy play is unacceptable in a competitive tournament and leads to problems. 

What determines the mana, is when they pass priority.  Let's make this clear:

Player 1 has a green mana in their mana pool as they announce a spell
Player 1 passes priority
Player 2 asks what kind of mana he has floating
Player 1 replys incorrectly
Player 2 doesn't call the judge, and is aware that the mana is wrong - Player 2 is cheating

Player 1 taps his two lands, declares the mana floating
Player 1 Plays Gush and pauses
Player 1 tries to change his mana floating
Player 2 needs to call the judge

calling the judge here prevents confusion, ensures that both players understand the level of play expected in a tournament, and give the judge a knowledge of the players behavior.  This gives the judge a frame of reference for dealing with subsequent judge calls involving similar infractions or errors. 

Also I completely disagree with the statement that you can't constantly ask a storm player what they have floating.  I do -exactly- that.  If I've learned anything from watching disputes unfold between two players there are two very common arguements that pop up from time to time that are EXTREMELY difficult for a judge to resolve: #1 - "You already played a land this turn" vrs "No I played that land last turn."   And "I have B floating" vrs "No you have U floating."   To avoid this I always end my priority passes with my understanding of the gamestate - or a question about it.  "Sure Timetwister resolves, you have UB and 1 floating, and you've already played a land for turn."  Or with bargin on the stack "Hrmm bargin, and you have not played a land this turn?"  Even if the information is being tracked on dice - I want to be exactly sure which dice are blue, black, colorless, and storm.  So I restate what is already known, or ask about the gamestate even if I already -think- I know the answer (just to validate my opponent and I are on the same page).

I think this is particularly important for things that are often not recorded like floating mana, land drops, and storm.
It helps avoid 'he-said-she-said' arguements where both players disagree about the history of the turn.  I might add that in these cases niether player 'cheating' both players believe thier memory of the turn is correct.

This is not relevant to the point I made.  My point was if the gamestate is being accurately and clearly maintained, and both players should be able to clearly follow it, asking something with the intent to fluster or confuse is walking the line in tournament play.  If a player sacrifices Black Lotus for Green, and then plays a spell leaving only 1 possible configuration of mana in his mana pool, both players should be able to follow it.  If a player has a black die for black mana, a blue die for blue mana, and is keeping track of storm clearly on a pad of paper that both players can see, to interrupt him during the process and hope to distract him into an error is also walking the line.  In both cases, if they do become confused, to let them continue with incorrect information is cheating. 

I think part of the problem is that at the moment priority is being passed, the only moment that actually maters - both players are agreeing on the color of the mana in the pool.  I don't see how that is anything but a 'good habit' to get into.  He could have sac'ed the lotus 20 times, and listed off every color in the rainbow - but the only color that matters is what is agreed upon at the moment priority is passed.  He starts casting the mage, He finishes casting Mage.  Jer seeks confirmation of what is in the pool: "Before I recieve priority, let's be clear about what color you have"
 "I have blue"
 "ok you've got blue" (I thought I heard you say green, but I guess your changing your mind now...good thing we agreed on it)
 "Ok I tutor up Sapphire play it, and tap it to use my Green to cast Goyf"
 "Ummmm didn't we just agree you had Blue?"
 "Yes I did say blue didn't I, that was stupid - you're right, I can't cast Tarmogoyf"

If either player was in disagreement to what was floating, then there is a problem.  A problem for the Judge to resolve.  But from what I saw of the game, while his opponent was clearly disheartened because he made an obvious mistake about what he said, and what he ment to say - but he couldn't change the agreement that he and his opponent had come to.

There is no moment before a player receives priority.  Either you have priority, or your opponent has priority.  You do not attempt to pass priority.  You either pass it or you don't.  The agreement that Blue mana was floating could not be met in that situation.  The opponent had Green mana floating.  No error of dice, bookkeeping or temporary insanity can change this.  A judge needed to be called, and both players had the responsibility to call a judge there.  This is really the thing that is not understood in this thread.  Once something is locked in by passing priority, you cannot trick your opponent out of it.  Once an in game action is fully taken, you can't "take stuff back" in tournament play, no matter which party it is beneficial to. 

[saspook]

Well flip the context around just alittle.

Suppose My opponent turns thier island sideways says "blue" turns thier Volc sideways and says "Red" then puts gush on the table and hesitates for a second.... Thinks...  Then says "Actually, Gush with Double Blue floating" and picks up thier two tapped lands. 

How is this situation differant.  Can I allow them to have double blue floating, Can I make an arguement they must have RU? 

Let's say that I agree ok "you have UU."  Now he draws his cards and says "I play Magma Jet with my R and U."   And I say "Actually remember you changed it to UU."   Now I can get DQed for reminding him he changed his mind??  even though we both just agreed that he has UU - he wants to change it, and because that's what he said before the agreement - I am now somehow a cheater?

The report has the Trinket Mage resolved, and either the trigger is on the stack, or the trigger is in the middle of resolving and the opponent is looking through their deck.  Priority has been passed numerous times.

[ELD]

Another point that seems to be missed in this discussion is that there is a difference between:

A) Sacing lotus for mana, and then using to play spells, as opposed to
B) Announcing a spell, then sacrificing Lotus to pay for that spell