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

[Rock Lee]

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.

I'm afraid that in this matter you are simply incorrect. The only time a judge uses intention to determine a ruling is when ascertaining if cheating has happened. Players are allowed, and even encouraged to maintain a changing gamestate through questions. The use of those questions to muddle an opponent's thinking is not illegal, infact it is perfectly permitted.

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.

I think what you are missing here is that while you may realize the "ignorance of the rules" in the particular situation, the player who would have noticed, did not. If this is the case, fraud has not been committed. Fraud versus FTMGS is solely differentiated by intention. Its this kind of hasty generalization that concerns me far more than a single ruling.

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.

Judges should always be "looking at cheating." Every time a judge call happens cheating should be on the mind of the judge. However, as I mentioned above, cheating determined by the manner of how an infraction occurred, not its nature. Investigating intent and circumstances is one of a judge's most integral skills.

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. 

While I can't speak for all of your events, the only instances of a person not realizing an action was illegal and still meriting a Disqualification are through Violence or Collusion, neither of which are being covered here. It is not a privilege of a judge to decree a DQable offense and downgrade it to something they see fit. The Penalty Guidelines are very specific in their penalties, and nearly every situation has two widely varied infractions, where intent is the prime determinant.

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

Not to put too fine of a point to it, but I do mention the difference between these two in Reply #9, that I referenced for emphasis.

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.

[Vegeta2711]

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.

Congratulations on running the cheats here. It's the opp's fault for not calling a judge and getting this mess fixed ASAP, but waiting like that was pretty much purely to try and screw the opp over and is highly discouraged. Anyway, I'll be attempting to get Riki Hayashi to write an article on this type of incident in the future.

As an aside,

Also I completely disagree with the statement that you can't constantly ask a storm player what they have floating.  I do -exactly- that.

This is only true to a point. If the opponent has shown he's taking adequate and accurate representations of his actions / mana pool / storm count, you can't constantly barrage him with questions in an attempt to distract him. After a while, the storm player has the right to call a judge who will kindly tell you to shut the hell up. This I know from experience, as it happened a few times to my friends playing Storm at Grand Prix LA less than a month ago. If your opponent is choosing to use numbers in his head and a few dice that's one thing, but if he's actively writing everything down, you'll lose any argument against a judge if there are any witnesses around.

It may fly at random podunk Vintage tournaments, but if you ever play on day two of a GP or anything like that, good luck running that.

[Rock Lee]

Anyway, I'll be attempting to get Riki Hayashi to write an article on this type of incident in the future.

If you do, I would pass on that he not take the TLDR approach that you did regarding all of the information provided.

This is only true to a point. If the opponent has shown he's taking adequate and accurate representations of his actions / mana pool / storm count, you can't constantly barrage him with questions in an attempt to distract him. After a while, the storm player has the right to call a judge who will kindly tell you to shut the hell up. This I know from experience, as it happened a few times to my friends playing Storm at Grand Prix LA less than a month ago. If your opponent is choosing to use numbers in his head and a few dice that's one thing, but if he's actively writing everything down, you'll lose any argument against a judge if there are any witnesses around.

It may fly at random podunk Vintage tournaments, but if you ever play on day two of a GP or anything like that, good luck running that.

I'm sure you realize that your information also only works to a point. Asking multiple questions about Free information that is being presented already is grounds for Slow Play or Unsportsmanlike Conduct. However, asking multiple questions about derived information that is not being presented is completely legal and encouraged. Again, a little less TLDR would go a long ways, as these topics were covered in this thread.

[Vegeta2711]

Anyway, I'll be attempting to get Riki Hayashi to write an article on this type of incident in the future.

If you do, I would pass on that he not take the TLDR approach that you did regarding all of the information provided.

This is only true to a point. If the opponent has shown he's taking adequate and accurate representations of his actions / mana pool / storm count, you can't constantly barrage him with questions in an attempt to distract him. After a while, the storm player has the right to call a judge who will kindly tell you to shut the hell up. This I know from experience, as it happened a few times to my friends playing Storm at Grand Prix LA less than a month ago. If your opponent is choosing to use numbers in his head and a few dice that's one thing, but if he's actively writing everything down, you'll lose any argument against a judge if there are any witnesses around.

It may fly at random podunk Vintage tournaments, but if you ever play on day two of a GP or anything like that, good luck running that.

I'm sure you realize that your information also only works to a point. Asking multiple questions about Free information that is being presented already is grounds for Slow Play or Unsportsmanlike Conduct. However, asking multiple questions about derived information that is not being presented is completely legal and encouraged. Again, a little less TLDR would go a long ways, as these topics were covered in this thread.

Feel free to point out the inaccurate part in any part of my post. The part where you ran the cheats seems pretty clear. And I realize you responded to the storm part previously, but since you were completely wrong (a theme!) I felt it was fine to just repeat that repeated questions even if the information has changed slightly are frowned upon at high level play.

[policehq]

Ignorance of the law never works in any legal situation, does it? It never works in schools when you've committed an act worthy of expulsion. I've read every single word in this thread, and basically, I think when he said he had blue mana floating, and you DIDN'T say "Wait, what? I thought you said green" at that moment, you cheated.

A "Jedi Mind Trick" would have been something like "I hope you don't get black mana with that Black Lotus and Duress me" before he said "For Green" when sacrificing his Black Lotus.

[mike_bergeron]

vegeta-
The only consistent theme I see is you running into threads, flaming people, and getting away with it for the most part. 

Please don't compare vintage to a GP, it doesn't make sense for anyone involved.  On day two of a GP, the stuff that goes on is a lot worse than what we could even dream of in the vintage scene. I have played against a few people who have been in that scene, and they are the ones who told me they could never compare the two formats.  Vintage is ultra casual compared to that. 

[Marske]

@mike_bergeron,
Not to flame you but... Vegeta does have a point... although Vintage isn't exactly like any Pro Tour or something getting "screwed" out of 200+ bucks (mox) is still pretty damn shit especially if it's because the other guy cheated.

On-topic:
It's both players responsibility to maintain a clear game state they both didn't do that so they both screwed up and a judge should be called in.. and it's not like we are talking "drain during opponents turn, my turn and forgetting you have drain mana" (which could have a lot of actions and decisions between both effects which makes it easier to forget something) The question was basically asked right after he sacced the lotus so he should have still know he had Green floating (unless he has alzheimers or something ) and was trying to capitalize on having U open and when that didn't seem like perfect decided having G for Goyf would be good or he just messed up.

Either way both players are at fault and are showing some very shady plays in my book..

[mike_bergeron]

@mike_bergeron,
Not to flame you but... Vegeta does have a point... although Vintage isn't exactly like any Pro Tour or something getting "screwed" out of 200+ bucks (mox) is still pretty damn shit especially if it's because the other guy cheated.

On-topic:
It's both players responsibility to maintain a clear game state they both didn't do that so they both screwed up and a judge should be called in.. and it's not like we are talking "drain during opponents turn, my turn and forgetting you have drain mana" (which could have a lot of actions and decisions between both effects which makes it easier to forget something) The question was basically asked right after he sacced the lotus so he should have still know he had Green floating (unless he has alzheimers or something ) and was trying to capitalize on having U open and when that didn't seem like perfect decided having G for Goyf would be good or he just messed up.

Either way both players are at fault and are showing some very shady plays in my book..

I understand what you are saying Marske, but I do not think it is clear anyone cheated.  In instances like this, just call the judge.  At this point, it seems to be the reasonable answer to any of these questions.

[Marske]

@Mike,
Like I said they either both messed up or one of them (or both) tried to capitalize on that mistake... either way calling in the judge would have been the answer.

[policehq]

@mike_bergeron,
Not to flame you but... Vegeta does have a point... although Vintage isn't exactly like any Pro Tour or something getting "screwed" out of 200+ bucks (mox) is still pretty damn shit especially if it's because the other guy cheated.

On-topic:
It's both players responsibility to maintain a clear game state they both didn't do that so they both screwed up and a judge should be called in.. and it's not like we are talking "drain during opponents turn, my turn and forgetting you have drain mana" (which could have a lot of actions and decisions between both effects which makes it easier to forget something) The question was basically asked right after he sacced the lotus so he should have still know he had Green floating (unless he has alzheimers or something ) and was trying to capitalize on having U open and when that didn't seem like perfect decided having G for Goyf would be good or he just messed up.

Either way both players are at fault and are showing some very shady plays in my book..

I understand what you are saying Marske, but I do not think it is clear anyone cheated.  In instances like this, just call the judge.  At this point, it seems to be the reasonable answer to any of these questions.

Cheating is not defined as "intention to cheat." Cheating is defined as misleading the game state to gain from the misinformation later. Rock Lee did not call into question the game state once a question arose but when he could gain from it. It is clear that he did this based on his tournament report, and it is clear in the rules that this is cheating.

[Harlequin]

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.


Again, shifting the context alittle - let's say my opponent sacs lotus for Blue, tap Underground and then casts will.  And I say it resolves.  Then they look at thier graveyard and say: "Actually - crap - I ment to say I float Red, can I float red instead?"  Now your saying, that If I choose to be a "nice guy" and let him change his mana, and some random person watching the game calls a judge (or a judge happens to walk by at that moment) - I can get DQed for Fraud?  



 

[Marske]

@Harlequin,
Ok lets get this straight:

He taps island and sac's lotus for green... plays trinket mage, searches for Mox Sapphire and still has U floating... no matter HOW you turn it he couldn't have played trinket mage with GGG... not even if you both agree on it... everything beyond this point is irrelevant and not worth arguing about imo

And regarding your example... Yes, obviously he made a mistake.. thats his fault unless you're playing casual thats just something thats part of the game.

[Myriad Games]

There seems to be a belief among some players of all stripes (from casual FNM level to Pro Tour level) that calling a judge is at best bothersome and at worst implying that your opponent is doing something improper. Calling a judge should not be interpreted as an offense to the other player. Judges are there to make sure any questions are answered and to preserve the integrity of the event. Perhaps even more importantly, having a judge present to walk the players through the situation and come to an understanding of what actually occurred (versus what each thinks occurred) helps avoid misunderstandings later on and helps defuse animosity between players. The judge is present to serve as an impartial arbiter, so please, call the judge whenever questions arise.

Another point that came up during this discussion is the effect of variable play style on bystanders. If you're playing with a friend and are being more antagonistic toward them because you know them, neither of you will be offended. However, if bystanders are unaware that you're friends, they may interpret your interactions to be uncomfortable. Whenever participating in banter, players should take care to engender a positive attitude at the table, which will be evident to all other players and bystanders. This is why I'm always grinning like an idiot when making fun of a friend I'm playing with. There's a fine line between funny and offensive, and some accounting for taste. If in doubt, err on the side of more demure behavior.

And again, as with every case, when you have a question or need clarification about something, please, please, please call the judge.

[Tha Gunslinga]

Another point that came up during this discussion is the effect of variable play style on bystanders. If you're playing with a friend and are being more antagonistic toward them because you know them, neither of you will be offended. However, if bystanders are unaware that you're friends, they may interpret your interactions to be uncomfortable. Whenever participating in banter, players should take care to engender a positive attitude at the table, which will be evident to all other players and bystanders. This is why I'm always grinning like an idiot when making fun of a friend I'm playing with. There's a fine line between funny and offensive, and some accounting for taste. If in doubt, err on the side of more demure behavior.

In short, don't be an asshole.  Is this really so difficult for some people?

[sundering jerk]

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.

I heart you Rock. I actualy think you're the most innovative successful person in this format.

what did you take out against me?

Against Tezz what do you take out?  Trikes?

[Rock Lee]

Feel free to point out the inaccurate part in any part of my post. The part where you ran the cheats seems pretty clear. And I realize you responded to the storm part previously, but since you were completely wrong (a theme!) I felt it was fine to just repeat that repeated questions even if the information has changed slightly are frowned upon at high level play.

Your assumption that cheating took place is unfortunately a theme that is being brushed aside and judged by individuals here. Its extremely cut and dry. If I knew that it was impossible for my opponent to float a Green mana and allowed the gamestate to continue, then I was cheating. If I thought that it was possible to float a Blue mana then I was Failing to Maintain the gamestate. There is no room for other rulings or possibilities here. The difference between if cheating happened was solely reliant on my intention.

I have expressed several times that it was not my intention to maintain an illegal gamestate, but rather that the gamestate could have been legal if the lotus was rewound to be Sac'd UUU. I have since learned that this is not possible, but I thought it at the time. The example of a very similar situation that would have been rewound would have been if he had announced Trinket mage, tapped mana while still declaring GGG, and responded with "U" floating. The mana costs would have been changed to have been legal. This as well has been beaten to death in this thread several times if you would have read instead of skimmed at best.

Us butting heads about if asking questions about nebulously recorded free & derived information regarding storm & mana is irrelevant without details, but Judges will not stop you from maintaining a changing gamestate. Aspects of GP/PT etiquette, or lack thereof, that Vintage players are often blind to are that derived information only has to be not lied about, not given fully or not even answered at all provided the player asking has the information they need. To make the boisterous claim that a judge will be called to silence an opponent assumes far more than that the opponent is simply maintaining a gamestate, which for comparative purposes, is what is happening in this example. Again, more examples of TLDR on your part.

Cheating is not defined as "intention to cheat." Cheating is defined as misleading the game state to gain from the misinformation later. Rock Lee did not call into question the game state once a question arose but when he could gain from it. It is clear that he did this based on his tournament report, and it is clear in the rules that this is cheating.

Unfortunately, this is incorrect. Let me throw out what the DCI Penalty Guide 2008 as of 20 Sept 08 has about Cheating, specifically Fraud.

A person intentionally violates the Player Communication Policy or intentionally misrepresents procedures, personal information, or any other relevant tournament information in an attempt to gain advantage. Note that Fraud, like most cheating, is determined by an investigation and will often appear on the surface as a Game Play Error or Tournament Error.

That's the Meat & Potatoes of the definition, but the most important part that people seem to be missing is the following comments on "Philosophy" under the same heading of Cheating-Fraud

A player must be aware that he or she has committed an error in representation in order for the infraction to be Fraud. For example, a player targeting a black creature with Terror has not committed Fraud if he or she forgot that Terror can not target black creatures, even though the action (playing Terror) was intentional and illegal. It is Fraud if a judge believes he or she was aware and hoping that his or her opponent would miss it.

Note the use of intentionally, and how the DCI PG mentions that investigation is prime to determining if Fraud has been committed.

He taps island and sac's lotus for green... plays trinket mage, searches for Mox Sapphire and still has U floating... no matter HOW you turn it he couldn't have played trinket mage with GGG... not even if you both agree on it... everything beyond this point is irrelevant and not worth arguing about imo

And regarding your example... Yes, obviously he made a mistake.. thats his fault unless you're playing casual thats just something thats part of the game.

I don't think anyone is making the argument that he could have had U floating in that particular situation. The valid concerns of the people in this thread are whether I illegally maintained a gamestate that led towards an extremely advantageous outcome which led towards a victory and also people are concerned about what a judge would and should have done in this situation. I believe I have covered both of these concerns comprehensively and adequately despite the rash judgments you might see.

I heart you Rock. I actually think you're the most innovative successful person in this format.

what did you take out against me?

Against Tezz what do you take out?  Trikes?

Against you, I took out leviathan, as he can't race either Hellkite or Progenitus. (I never actually got to see what creature you ran)
Also out came 2 welder, 1 Titan. Just a general thinning of my weaker robots and my more dead creature. Master T has the lovely aspect of being able to remove herself if you just played her right into an Oath.

Against Tezz, Trike is huge. I would take out cards very similarly to Control Chalice if they're going first, Mana Crypt, Mana Vault, 1 1 Titan, 1 leviathan if I'm going first.  I had 1000 year elixir in the deck at the time, so that often came out for more efficient cards. With Ponder taking its place though, I have to evaluate if it would come out or not after more testing.

[Oath of Happy]

Solymossy:
"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."

So, your point is that you lost at worlds while acting like a fool.  Great story.

              Anyways, my point is that magic is a game of strategy involving playstyle, deckbuilding, and playskill.  If your opponent goofs up, then go ahead and take advanttage of it, but if your specifically trying to interfere with your opponent to get them to screw up, then get real.  We go to tournaments to have a good time with each other.  Bluffing drain, or using technique to outplay your opponent in a mental way is fine, but asking them questions that you know the answer to, rushing them, or asking them if their mother has green or blue eyes after they tap a tropical island for mana is just an annoyance.  Making an opponent unsure of what you have in your hand or in your deck is one way of utilizing the playskill of a serious contender, making opponents screw up because you broke their concentration is utilizing the skills of an 8 year old brat.
              I like Jer a lot, hes a fun guy and I enjoy seeing him at tournaments.  I always have a lot of fun talking with him and making jokes, but I am a little disapointed in the use of this technique to gain an advantage over an opponent.  Even if it would slightly increase my chances of winning, I still wouldnt do it because its obnoxious and i don't respect it.  If your competent then win like a champ, not like a miser.

[Marske]

Quote from: marske on Today at 05:02:06 AM
He taps island and sac's lotus for green... plays trinket mage, searches for Mox Sapphire and still has U floating... no matter HOW you turn it he couldn't have played trinket mage with GGG... not even if you both agree on it... everything beyond this point is irrelevant and not worth arguing about imo

And regarding your example... Yes, obviously he made a mistake.. that's his fault unless you're playing casual that's just something that's part of the game.

I don't think anyone is making the argument that he could have had U floating in that particular situation. The valid concerns of the people in this thread are whether I illegally maintained a gamestate that led towards an extremely advantageous outcome which led towards a victory and also people are concerned about what a judge would and should have done in this situation. I believe I have covered both of these concerns comprehensively and adequately despite the rash judgments you might see.

This was just my response to what Harlequin said earlier:

But both players agreed on what mana was floating.  They both agreed that blue was the final decision.  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 occurred, and the game progressed - no need for a judge.

It was in no way meant to attack you or whatever. I just wanted to make clear that in any case during his example a judge should have been called because it gets real fuzzy in my opinion because the gamestate is completely false, when you remind your opponent he can't do that he should retrace his steps to see if this is true or not etc. and not just believe you because you say he can't. If there is anything unclear during that situation call the guys in the striped shirts but I think if you retraced it you would have found out he couldn't of had U floating.

[Rock Lee]

It was in no way meant to attack you or whatever. I just wanted to make clear that in any case during his example a judge should have been called because it gets real fuzzy in my opinion because the gamestate is completely false, when you remind your opponent he can't do that he should retrace his steps to see if this is true or not etc. and not just believe you because you say he can't. If there is anything unclear during that situation call the guys in the striped shirts but I think if you retraced it you would have found out he couldn't of had U floating.

But they don't wear striped shirts in outcast-Vintage-Land! Q_Q

In the future, with the knowledge I have now of this interaction, I would certainly call a judge or correct my opponent in a like situation. (likely call a judge because that messes with people, but that's another aspect of me being a jerk!)

[Marske]

But they don't wear striped shirts in outcast-Vintage-Land! Q_Q

In the future, with the knowledge I have now of this interaction, I would certainly call a judge or correct my opponent in a like situation. (likely call a judge because that messes with people, but that's another aspect of me being a jerk!)

Hehe we truly are outcasts and I don't think you're a jerk Rock... *sorry if this flames people* From the whining people do about calling a judge I think they would think I'm the biggest jerk in the world if they ever would play against me... It's just like Myriad said a few posts back CALL THE JUDGE when anything gets fuzzy and I do just that...

[Eastman]

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.

 

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

But the attempt at deductive logic fails, since the premises don't sustain the conclusion.  Look:

1. To break the rules deliberately in order to gain an advantage is cheating.                         [If B(break rules) & A(in order to gain an advantage) then C(cheating)]
2. Acting in an unsportsmanlike way is against the rules.                                                    [If U(unsportstmanlike) then B (break rules)]
3. Deliberately annoying the opponent is unsportsmanlike.                                                 [If D(deliberately annoy) then U(unsporstmanlike)]
4. Therefore, deliberately annoying the opponent is cheating.                                            [If D(deliberately annoy) then C(cheating)]

But... you are missing A(in order to gain an advantage) - that is, it is possible that someone deliberately annoys the opponent for reasons other than competitive advantage.  You still need to show that
   3B. Deliberately annoying the opponent must be for the purpose of gaining an advantage

Which I wouldn't accept as accurate.  Someone MIGHT just like being a douche, maybe they have self esteem issues or whatever.  Anyway, no doubt that in this case it was for competitive advantage, but the "syllogism" fails. 

[policehq]

Rock, until this tournament, you didn't know that priority would pass between sacrificing Black Lotus for green, later casting Trinket Mage, and Trinket Mage's come-into-play ability resolving? You honestly want to argue that you were naive to the fact you could've played Instants, Stifles, Force of Will, draw-spells, any of these things a number of times before you asked what mana was floating? I don't feel this is comparable to a new player being unaware of the card text on Terror.

Throughout the thread, you and Harlequin have defended the ability to make sure you're aware of the gamestate, but this clearly isn't what happened during your game. If that were your intention, you would have said "But before you said the mana was green." Instead, you gave a representation of the game state that was incorrect (It was impossible at that point to have a blue mana floating). You misrepresented the game state. Did you intend not to use this information later to your advantage? Did you act against this intent? Clearly, since you did use the information later for strategic advantage, your intention was to do so.

[dicemanx]

Wow, all of this handwaving and deflection.

Let's examine the facts again. From the report:

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.

And then later in the thread:

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.

In other words, it is very clear that your intention behind asking the question while your opponent was in the middle of resolving a spell was to break your opponent's concentration and you took full advantage of his misstatement. You were fully aware, by your own admission, that your opponent used the Lotus for GGG. You afterward exploited the situation for your own gain by holding your opponent to his answer to your question when you asked him what was floating. It was abundantly clear that he wasn't paying attention when he said "blue", as evidenced by the fact that he fetched out a Sapphire, believing that he had G in his mana pool. You obtained EXACTLY the outcome you desired when you ASKED YOUR QUESTION, by your own admission regarding your intent an execution.

Let's summarize:

1) You admit that you heard your opponent say he was tapping for GGG
2) You admit that your intent was to ask the question specifically to distract and to generate a gain
3) You took full advantage when your opponent misspoke, contradicting what you obviously knew about the contents of his mana pool

Your only defense is that you "thought" that once your opponent declared that he had U in his pool, then that would trump the earlier claim that is was tapped for GGG. What you "thought" is irrelevant, and the fact that you plead ignorance of the rules doesn't absolve you of your misconduct. You should have been DQ'd without prize, which would have been a good lesson not to pull this kind of crap in an event.


It is pretty conniving and despicable to interfere with your opponent's thought process while you don't have priority, particularly when he is in the middle of resolving a spell that requires complex decisions, even if it is technically "legal". However, to take full advantage of your opponent's misstatement while he was completely distracted was downright cheating. I've had players try this trick against me at events, but I completely ignore them until AFTER I'm done resolving my spell. I have absolutely no respect for such individuals.

[Rock Lee]

Rock, until this tournament, you didn't know that priority would pass between sacrificing Black Lotus for green, later casting Trinket Mage, and Trinket Mage's come-into-play ability resolving? You honestly want to argue that you were naive to the fact you could've played Instants, Stifles, Force of Will, draw-spells, any of these things a number of times before you asked what mana was floating?

If that were your intention, you would have said "But before you said the mana was green." Instead, you gave a representation of the game state that was incorrect (It was impossible at that point to have a blue mana floating). You misrepresented the game state. Did you intend not to use this information later to your advantage? Did you act against this intent? Clearly, since you did use the information later for strategic advantage, your intention was to do so.

A few points to mention here.

My opponent sacrificed Black Lotus, and then cast Trinket Mage. I do not get priority before he pays costs. This is an erroneous assumption on your part.

Secondly, it is that a player is not required to give all information to an opponent at all times. I strongly suggest reading some articles on Player communication suchas this one by Nick Sephton, or better yet read the Player Communication portion of the Penalty Guidelines, which you can get here.

Thirdly, my eligibility for cheating is only relevantly being investigated under a single supposition of mine, whether or not U could be legally floating.

Let's summarize:

1) You admit that you heard your opponent say he was tapping for GGG
2) You admit that your intent was to ask the question specifically to distract and to generate a gain
3) You took full advantage when your opponent misspoke, contradicting what you obviously knew about the contents of his mana pool

I agree with you on all three points. However, I believe you are attempting to equate my "intent" in your second statement with "intent" of what I believed my opponent's mana was. This is another form of twisted logic. If you don't believe, which you clearly do not, that I thought at the time that his having U in his mana pool was legal, that is your right of course, but it was not the case.

What you "thought" is irrelevant, and the fact that you plead ignorance of the rules doesn't absolve you of your misconduct. You should have been DQ'd without prize, which would have been a good lesson not to pull this kind of crap in an event.

Actually, my thoughts at the time were extremely relevant. They are not relevant as to if a judge should have been called. They are highly relevant to what the penalty would have been had they been called.

It is pretty conniving and despicable to interfere with your opponent's thought process while you don't have priority, particularly when he is in the middle of resolving a spell that requires complex decisions, even if it is technically "legal". However, to take full advantage of your opponent's misstatement while he was completely distracted was downright cheating. I've had players try this trick against me at events, but I completely ignore them until AFTER I'm done resolving my spell. I have absolutely no respect for such individuals.

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

[policehq]

According to your report, he did not announce the spell Trinket Mage and then use mana from Black Lotus to pay for it. I'm not assuming. I'm reading what you have written. But even that is in question since this exists:

Last Edit: February 08, 2009, 06:43:53 PM by Rock Lee

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

According to the language of your report, with no assumptions made, scenario A definitely took place.

I have no respect for you either. I'm glad I wasn't at this event and that I've made the decision to avoid this kind of behavior as well as others. I do not understand you, how you can hold onto the prize you obtained through cheating, nor how you can continue to ignore the fact that the rules you are quoting describe exactly what you have done.

[Rock Lee]

According to your report, he did not announce the spell Trinket Mage and then use mana from Black Lotus to pay for it. I'm not assuming.

You're missing the point. He did sacrifice Lotus, then pause, then Cast Trinket Mage. I still do not get priority assuming my opponent is the Active Player.

I'm reading what you have written. But even that is in question since this exists:

Last Edit: February 08, 2009, 06:43:53 PM by Rock Lee

Yes I will admit I edit my posts furiously, but not out of order as you can see. I am very anal about formatting and proper grammar.

I have no respect for you either. I'm glad I wasn't at this event and that I've made the decision to avoid this kind of behavior as well as others. I do not understand you, how you can hold onto the prize you obtained through cheating, nor how you can continue to ignore the fact that the rules you are quoting describe exactly what you have done.

Again, this is your prerogative. One of the reasons that I think that it is fine that this event be flogged long after dead is because the nuance of how this is not cheating has the opportunity to be a solid learning tool for aspiring players. The provided information and links illuminate that if read constructively and critically.

::EDIT:: hilarity concerning making a comment about being anal about formatting and proper grammar, while misspelling "grammar," check. Ty Myriad! /facepalmme

[ELD]

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.  

You're missing the point. He did sacrifice Lotus, then pause, then Cast Trinket Mage. I still do not get priority assuming my opponent is the Active Player.

Again, this really does show why these tactics shouldn't be attempted by amateurs.  If he casts Trinket Mage, priority is passed unless he explicitly states that he is keeping it. 

[Demonic Attorney]

Again, this really does show why these tactics shouldn't be attempted by amateurs.  If he casts Trinket Mage, priority is passed unless he explicitly states that he is keeping it.

I wasn't at the venue when this happened and I'm not particularly interested in being drawn into the substance of this debate, but I did have one technical question on this point.  If Jason sacrifices his Lotus, taps his land, plays Trinket Mage, and then searches his library, isn't it true that priority would necessarily have passed back and forth before he began searching?  Trinket Mage's CIP ability stacks, right?  So both players need to pass priority before that ability comes off the top of the stack, no?

[ELD]

Absolutely.  Priority is passed when:

1) When the AP plays Trinket Mage
2) When the NAP lets it resolve
3) When the AP puts the trigger on the stack
4) When the NAP lets the trigger resolve
5) The AP has priority as he's searching his library

He'll pass priority as he plays the Mox, then as he plays Tarmogoyf. 

[Rock Lee]

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

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.

From the very beginning of this thread I have been confirming my ideas and statements with the Judges in Mirc's #mtgjudge channel suchas Lee Sharpe & Clariax. I am not interested in making baseless statements, and have received overwhelmingly affirming confirmation from L3 and above judges throughout the progress of this thread about my statements made.

You're missing the point. He did sacrifice Lotus, then pause, then Cast Trinket Mage. I still do not get priority assuming my opponent is the Active Player.

Again, this really does show why these tactics shouldn't be attempted by amateurs.  If he casts Trinket Mage, priority is passed unless he explicitly states that he is keeping it. 

I should have been more accurate in my statement about not receiving priority between the sacrificing of Black Lotus & the declaring of Trinket mage, which was policehq's claim and one of the minor differences between floating mana and casting a spell and declaring a spell and then paying costs.