Well, you said the reason you want draws resulting from a GRV to be a game loss was the extra information gained. If you shuffled after putting cards back from a GRV, the amount of information would be the same as LAE.Originally Posted by Kich867
“It's possible. But it involves... {checks archives} Nature's Revolt, Opalescence, two Unstable Shapeshifters (one of which started as a Doppelganger), a Tide, an animated land, a creature with Fading, a Silver Wyvern, some way to get a creature into play in response to stuff, some way to get a land into play in response to stuff (a different land from the animated land), and one heck of a Rube Goldberg timing diagram.”
-David DeLaney
Its still not quite maintaining the game state given that depending on the cards in hand its very unlikely the hand remains the same. If the player put back the exact cards they drew and shuffled the deck, sure.
I would prefer that over a game loss, but given that isn't how its handled and they don't recognize what cards you drew and can't use video evidence, I'd rather it be a game loss.
In the same vein drawing extra cards should be handled similarly--putting a creature into your hand instead of graveyard by accident results in a game loss? This seems awkward given how very easy it is to rewind that game state. The DEC rule seems way too arbitrarily encompassing but that's a topic for a different thread..
This thread is people who hate SCG looking for reasons to hate SCG.
Why don't we tar and feather the lvl 1 judge who made the ruling instead of the player really.
So anyways I re-watched the the explanation of lvl 3 Judge Ricky and from what I comprehend lets use a traffic violation for example you ran a red light
you accidentally trampled a person you will only get cited by running the red light and totally ignore the person who got trampled.
don't know if that makes sense but that's what I think what happened there
I'd Rather Be Lucky Than Good- is the official slogan of We Love TED
65/80
I don't think either of you followed this thread very closely if that's your take away from all this.
People's main complaints is the way the rules are now, not the ability or intent of judges.
Question... If SCG events were at Pro level REL couldn't GRVs and other normally "warning only" mistakes be upgraded to GLs by the discretion of the judge? I was speaking with my local judge about this and he said that this is true.
cdr - props for handling people's questions and reactions so well in this thread! It's hard to clearly explain policy.
I'm an L2 as well, and the SCG judge resolved everything by the book (although I think he should have at least asked some questions to suse out any intent to cheat), and based on McDarby's reaction, I agree with cdr that I'm fairly certain no cheating was intended. People make brainfarts all the time, and regardless if you think he should have scooped, him playing on is nothing more than a tacit acknoledgement that the judging system is fair (however you choose to define fair).
Plenty of people are questioning the fairness of this particular ruling, but honestly, I don't want judges interpreting rulings or severity of game states! Most just aren't qualified for that - and honestly, there's not many who are qualified to with certainty determine the long-term impact of one mistake, not even top pros.
For people saying that Drawing Extra Cards should always be a GL but Looking at Extra Cards is ok because the fix is to just randomize the deck, consider this counterexample:
It's the UW Miracles mirror, you have a Jace and you've been fatesealing me for the past "million" turns while I battle Jace with my Trinket Mage. When you fateseal this turn, I accidently flip over the top card and see it - straightforward looking at extra cards, right? But we have to preserve the cards on bottom and neither player remembers how many times Jace has fatesealed to the bottom and it's obviously unfair to just flip over cards from the bottom until the opponent says, "no, I didn't put that one there". Now what if he fatesealed my only two Entreats to the bottom and I have no other win conditions? Does that mean that I now deserve a game loss because I just increased my chance of winning tenfold?
What if you cast a Snapcaster and flashback a Divination without realizing that you tapped out of blue casting Snapcaster, then resolve Divination and only afterwards do you and your opponent realize that you didn't have blue? It seems tremendously harmful for less experienced players to get snap-gamelossed for a very innocent and common mistake. At the same time, the mistake is very catchable by both players and by asking questions, judges should be able to determine intent to cheat (along with tracking GRV warnings), so the opportunity for abuse is fairly low. That's an example of why drawing cards as part of a GRV is not a game loss the first time.
The point is there's corner cases where advantage can be gained or lost for every error, but it's most important for the document to be consistent so the lower-level judges who staff most events (like myself :D) who have an imperfect understanding of the philosphy behind the documents can still apply the philosophy correctly and consistently.
At the end of the day, it's very easy to cheat, it's harder to cheat and not have your opponent catch it, but it's damn near impossible for you to consistantly do shady things and "forget" things and not attract some judge scrutiny. Cheaters get caught all the time, and saying that a punishment encourages you to cheat is like saying that people murder people because the penalties are light. Cheaters cheat because they want to cheat and murders murder people because they want to murder people!
This isn't a good example.
You're referring to looking at extra cards, which is handled differently than drawing extra cards as a result of a GRV. I've already gone into detail about how these two scenarios aren't comparable. If I were the judge in this case, given the ability is Fateseal and your opponent is giving you permission to have the card or not, I actually don't see what is wrong with just resolving the fateseal with the opponent knowing what the card was and issue a warning to the player who caused it to be visible.
This, currently, should result in a game loss until they change how drawing extra cards as a result of a GRV is handled. Player experience should have no impact on the ruling.What if you cast a Snapcaster and flashback a Divination without realizing that you tapped out of blue casting Snapcaster, then resolve Divination and only afterwards do you and your opponent realize that you didn't have blue? It seems tremendously harmful for less experienced players to get snap-gamelossed for a very innocent and common mistake. At the same time, the mistake is very catchable by both players and by asking questions, judges should be able to determine intent to cheat (along with tracking GRV warnings), so the opportunity for abuse is fairly low. That's an example of why drawing cards as part of a GRV is not a game loss the first time.
There isn't actually a distinguishable difference between DEC as a result of a GRV and just DEC. They're both mistakes that occur for identical reasons: you forgot you didn't have the mana, you forgot you already drew this turn, you forgot the howling mine was gone, you accidentally put the card back into your hand instead of putting it into the graveyard.
I mean just going through their own examples of the rules, how is picking up a creature after it dies and putting it in your hand not a game rule violation that resulted in having an extra card? The game rule was to put the creature in the graveyard, this didn't happen. To me there's no distinction between that and "You tried to play a spell you didn't have the mana to play." Creatures go to the graveyard when they die, as a rule, unless it specifically states otherwise on the card--which is how you know it's a rule.
I can sort of see the drawing for your draw phase twice being considered a little different because nothing really prompts it, but at the same time, the rule is that you draw for your turn during your draw phase, you break that rule by assuming it's your draw phase still and thinking that you forgot to draw a card so you do so again--you've now drawn a card for the turn outside of your draw phase, which is drawing a card as a result of a game rule violation...
Assuming that a Howling Mine is still on the field and resolving a trigger that doesn't exist is easily paralleled with paying mana that doesn't exist. You're resolving a trigger from a permanent that doesn't exist VS you're adding mana to your mana pool from a permanent that doesn't exist (you can say "Well I thought this swamp tapped for blue!" but the reality is the player thought they had an island that they didn't, resulting in no blue mana entering their mana pool).
I mean these points of view aren't that farfetched are they? I think they make some valid comparisons to point out that, regardless of how it happens, DEC should result in a game loss until they find a better way to handle the situation. Except for the mind bogglingly stupid examples like putting a dead creature back into your hand--the creature was public knowledge, you acknowledged that it died, your opponent acknowledges that it does, the judge should just bin the creature from their hand and be done with it. Rewind the game state to where it died, kill it proper, move on. That seems to be in no way shape or form "Drawing extra cards" as no actual card drawing from the library took place.
I'd like to bring up a point that has been glossed over. I think the issue is that two GRVs occurred, but they seem to have been perceived as one. If the problem is simply that McDarby illegally cast brainstorm, then rewinding the gamestate would be an easy fix. But after illegally casting brainstorm he illegally resolved that brainstorm without passing priority. The problem is that the combination of two GRVs incrementally gained McDarby advantage and the judgment only really accounted for one of the RGVs. That's why it appears so unfair.
I tried to edit my previous post but the editing function won't work. This is what I was going to post in the edit:
After talking about it for a long time with my friend who's a judge and giving it a lot of thought I realized a couple things. First, the judge definitely followed procedure. Secondly, the procedure is probably the best procedure to have, even though it's possible for rare corner cases like this one to turn out unfair.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Reply With Quote