In a Modern PTQ you are head judging, your Deck Checks Team Lead brings you a decklist. At the bottom of the lands there is an entry of “4 Darkslick”. You confirm that there are only two cards legal in Modern with Darkslick in the name: Darkslick Shores and Darkslick Drake. She believes that the player intended Darkslick Shores because it is with the lands and not likely to be Darkslick Drake. The decklist is otherwise legal.

What do you do? What infraction, penalty, and fix does this situation require, if any?

Judges, feel free to discuss this scenario on Judge Apps!

[expand title=Answer]Judges gonna judge! Do you believe this was a clerical error or could it be used to gain an advantage? We strongly feel that this is a clerical error and should be downgraded to a warning, assuming that the player does indeed have 4 Darkslick Shores in his deck. Darkslick Shores and Darkslick Drake are the only legal cards in the format with “Darkslick” in the name and the “Darkslick” was listed at the bottom of the other lands in the deck. You should have your deck check team lead or the swooping judge explain the error to the player and educate them that they need to make sure that they write down the entire name of the card to avoid ambiguity and a situation that in the future might not be as clear and could result in a Game Loss. Lastly, make sure to edit the deck list to match what the player is playing.

This downgrade has been available to head judges in the past, but the recent small change to D/DLP has made it more clear for head judges that it is acceptable, and in fact encouraged, to downgrade in this kind of situation. It was a simple mistake and was not intentional by the player with the aim of gaining an advantage.[/expand]