A: America can do it either way. If they cast their Deflecting Palm in response to Norway’s Deflecting Palm, that’s just fine. If they do it after Norway’s Palm resolves, that’s just fine too.

When a player is choosing a source of damage, they can choose…well, basically anything they will ever have reason to want to choose. The full list of possible choices is as follows:

• Any permanent currently on the battlefield
• Any spell currently on the stack.
• Any object referred to by an object on the stack.
• Any object referred to by a replacement or prevention effect that’s waiting to apply.
• Any object referred to by a delayed triggered ability that’s waiting to trigger.

The second and fourth ones are the relevant ones here. America can choose Norway’s Deflecting Palm as a source and have their own Palm work as it should no matter whether or not Norway’s Palm is still on the stack.

Approved by: Callum Milne, L2 Nanaimo, Canada, Forum Moderator

Source: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/13360/

A: When multiple players need to make decisions at the same time, the active player makes their decision first, then the nonactive player. That’s covered by these rule:

101.4. If multiple players would make choices and/or take actions at the same time, the active player (the player whose turn it is) makes any choices required, then the next player in turn order (usually the player seated to the active player’s left) makes any choices required, followed by the remaining nonactive players in turn order. Then the actions happen simultaneously. This rule is often referred to as the “Active Player, Nonactive Player (APNAP) order” rule.

Example: A card reads “Each player sacrifices a creature.” First, the active player chooses a creature he or she controls. Then each of the nonactive players, in turn order, chooses a creature he or she controls. Then all creatures chosen this way are sacrificed simultaneously.

101.4b A player knows the choices made by the previous players when he or she makes his or her choice, except as specified in 101.4a.

Since Player A is the active player, they’ll have to choose a color for Iona, then Player B, knowing what color Player A has picked for Iona, will be able to select a color for their Servant.

Approved by Nathan Long, L2, Durango CO, USA, Forum Moderator

Source: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/13429/

A: You should never be scared to call people out for that, in a Magic game or in life. That’s how you affect positive change.

Imagine the surprise, should that player show up at a GP and continue to exhibit the behavior that he learned was acceptable in his Regular REL environment, back home?

A lot of other great points have been made, but let’s not forget that the offending player is also losing out, here – on an opportunity to learn something about how the world really works.

Maybe something as simple as “you know, at a PPTQ|GPT|GP that remark could earn you a Match Loss, if your opponent was offended by it.” That’s a non-threatening way of stating the problem; no accusations, no confrontation, just “hey, you should probably know…”

Approved by Scott Marshall, L5, Lakewood, CO, USA

Source: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/13290/

A: My philosophy on actions you’ve started but not completed has long been “If you had an opportunity to learn something from your opponent’s reaction, you’re committed to that action.”

In this example, I’d talk to both players about the time between tapping & announcing, and reacting; if I felt that Nero was interrupting Augustus’ thought process before Augustus was truly committed to it, I might side with Augustus.

However, in situations like this, it usually goes in Nero’s favor; Augustus not only gave Nero plenty of time to react, and had a chance to read that reaction – but Nero did react and Augustus now has info he wasn’t entitled to. At Comp REL, think, THEN act.

I suspect you’ll find some variance in this – it’s a scenario that benefits greatly from having actually been there… 😉

Approved by Scott Marshall, L5, Lakewood, CO, USA

Source: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/13493/

A: A third GPE-GRV Infraction will have its Warning upgraded to a Game Loss, whether or not any prior Warnings were upgraded. It’s entirely possible to get 3 consecutive Game Loss penalties for GRVs – two Morph failures, then any other GRV, whether or not it would merit an upgrade on its own.

Remember, these penalties are meant to be educational as well as to protect the integrity of the event. If a player continues to make GRVs after receiving two infractions, he or she is just not learning that lesson … hence, we upgrade. When we issue the first Warning, we usually say “…and please be more careful…” – that phrase actually has teeth.

Approved by Scott Marshall, L5, Lakewood, CO, USA

Source: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/13664/