{"id":26,"date":"2013-06-10T23:18:53","date_gmt":"2013-06-10T23:18:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/unclescott\/?p=26"},"modified":"2013-06-10T23:18:53","modified_gmt":"2013-06-10T23:18:53","slug":"l4-summary-may-2013","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/unclescott\/2013\/06\/10\/l4-summary-may-2013\/","title":{"rendered":"L4+ Summary, May 2013"},"content":{"rendered":"

Just 161 messages for the merry month of May, and only a couple dozen new topics.\u00a0 In fact, this threatens to be the least interesting of my summaries – and I’ve just started this blog!\u00a0 Perhaps blogging about our doings doomed us to the Land of the Ordinary and Mundane?<\/p>\n

In fact, there really isn’t anything earth-shattering or even moderately interesting that I can share.\u00a0 I could pretend that we’re busily discussing all sorts of super-sekrit plans … but even that didn’t happen (much), in May.\u00a0 Some of the same ol’, same ol’ – implementing shifts at GPs, so judges won’t be as tired; selecting day 2 Team Leads for GPs, and the related topic of L3 candidates and their progress and scheduling.<\/p>\n

We also briefly considered the M14 rules changes re: sideboards, and how (if) they might affect policy.\u00a0 At this time, we don’t foresee any need to change things; if a player wants to run the cheats because of this change, it’s no different than now – we investigate and, hopefully, catch the cheaters.\u00a0 So, if an honest player’s list and deck don’t exactly match, we still “alter the decklist to match the … deck.”\u00a0 That’s probably still the best customer service approach.\u00a0 There’s a real concern about public perception, and how we’ve just “killed Magil!” all over again.\u00a0 If it turns out that there’s Widespread Panic, we’ll adjust…\"Widespread
\n<\/a><\/p>\n

There’s not even a lot of interesting stuff to dredge up from the Forums – but one topic that might be worth clarifying a bit, is the subject of ambiguous card names on deck lists, and when it’s appropriate to downgrade.\u00a0 This thread got some traction, and – ironically – some ambiguous answers.\u00a0 Let’s take a deeper look at the IPG wording:<\/p>\n

Ambiguous or unclear names on a decklist may allow a player to manipulate the contents of his or her deck up until the point at which they are discovered.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

We start right in with the concern that we want to be sure we address – the potential for abuse, which really lies in the possibility a player could be swapping between two similarly-named cards, depending on the opponent.\u00a0 The classic example was the Circle of Protection series, usually abbreviated as “CoP”; if a player lists “3 CoP” in their sideboard, they could protect themselves from a different color each round!<\/p>\n

Use of a truncated name that is not unique may be downgraded to a Warning at the Head Judge\u2019s discretion if he or she believes that the intended card is obvious and the potential for abuse
\nminimal.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

There’s really three key points in this one sentence.\u00a0 First, “that is not unique” – truncated names that are still unique are sloppy, but not worthy of a Deck\/Decklist Problem penalty.\u00a0 Encourage the player to be more careful, and carry on.<\/p>\n

Next, we get “Head Judge … believes the … card is obvious”.\u00a0 While the Head Judge may consider arguments from other judges, the player(s), even spectators – it’s still the Head Judge who decides if he or she believes it’s obvious what card was meant.\u00a0 What you believe is obvious may not be the same as what I believe is obvious – which can lead to some inconsistency, but let’s not dwell on that; instead, remember that it’s the player’s error or carelessness that created this situation.\u00a0 It isn’t realistic to establish guidelines for “obvious” that will be understood and implemented universally.\u00a0 More important, it’s very easy for a player to avoid this entirely, and not subject themselves to what we believe.<\/p>\n

One fairly current example is Turn \/\/ Burn<\/a>; usually, when you see this mentioned in articles, it’s simply “Turn”.\u00a0 Unfortunately, that could also be Turn to Slag<\/a>.\u00a0 In my experience, Turn to Slag is just not played, so “Turn” is obviously Turn\/Burn – but if it’s the “hot tech” in your local metagame, you may not feel that “Turn” is obviously either card, and choose to not downgrade.<\/p>\n

Finally, “potential for abuse {is} minimal”.\u00a0 Perhaps the most important point; if you’re undecided about a specific example, consider this criteria: is it realistic that the player could be trying to abuse their carelessness or mistake?\u00a0 If not, then downgrade.<\/p>\n

When determining if a name is ambiguous, judges may take into account the format being played.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Finally, just a note; this was added after an anecdote about some player receiving a harsh penalty because they only wrote part of a card name, and is could be confused with another card in some set like Arabian Nights, which no one ever played even way back when…\u00a0 A current example is “Ajani”; that can only be – better be! – Ajani, Caller of the Pride<\/a> in today’s Standard format – a downgrade is OK.\u00a0 Is it Extended, where Ajani Goldmane<\/a> is legal? or even Modern, which adds Ajani Vengeant<\/a>?\u00a0 Probably not a downgrade situation in those latter cases.<\/p>\n

Finally, one interesting topic of discussion: Carlos Ho wanted suggestions for the name of his new blog!\u00a0 (You’ll just have to wait and see what he chose…)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Just 161 messages for the merry month of May, and only a couple dozen new topics.\u00a0 In fact, this threatens to be the least interesting of my summaries – and I’ve just started this blog!\u00a0 Perhaps blogging about our doings doomed us to the Land of the Ordinary and Mundane? In fact, there really isn’t […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":65,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"language":[],"class_list":["post-26","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/unclescott\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/unclescott\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/unclescott\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/unclescott\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/65"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/unclescott\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=26"}],"version-history":[{"count":14,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/unclescott\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":42,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/unclescott\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/26\/revisions\/42"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/unclescott\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=26"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/unclescott\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=26"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/unclescott\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=26"},{"taxonomy":"language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/unclescott\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/language?post=26"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}