Revise Penalties for Game Play Errors

[fbatista]

Recently we have been noticing, at in-person events, the rising trend of players being more strict in regards to calling the Judge on Game Rule Violations.

With 4 players in the pod, it's more likely for an error to be caught, and given the rising trend for players to not attempt to solve the problem themselves and instead calling a judge (which is a GOOD thing) we are seeing an increase in the number of warning penalties for Game Rule Violations (the most common infraction).

Combine this with the fact that we recently increased the recommended number of rounds and that we expect that events continue to grow, we can easily reach a point where in a 48 person tournament, all players in the finals are playing Judge Tower instead of commander, due to the fact that the upgrade for a Game Rule Violation Warning is a Game Loss -> very close to a Match Loss in a best-of-one.

Another thing to consider is that justice is blind, when it comes to the penalization of Game Rule Violations, as in, missing something that is positive for you, will give you a warning, the same way missing something that is bad for you (the difference is that missing something that is bad for you will be investigated as cheating).

After discussing this both with judges, players and organizers, we came to the conclusion that we need to be able to have a better differentiation of the severity of warnings and penalties, taking into account the likelihood of the infractions too.

---

The options that we have:

• Increase the number of warnings necessary to start getting upgraded penalties of Game Loss for the Game Rule Violation infraction.
• Introduce a new penalty, more suited for best-of-one matches.

---

The Proposal:

New Penalty: F6 Penalty

The new F6 Penalty applies for Multiplayer Tournaments, at Competitive and Professional REL, in Best of One Matches.

The Penalty consists in the player Passing Priority on every action until the end of their next turn. The player will still put triggered abilities on the stack, chose targets for them, and resolve them. The player will be able to pay optional costs, such as Remora, Pact of Negation, Mana Vault, Rhystic Study, etc... The player will be allowed to declare blockers. The player will only be allowed to declare mandatory attackers, such as Goaded creatures they control. The player will not be allowed to play a land. The player will not be allowed to cast a spell by normal means (but they can if they are resolving a Rebound trigger or Suspend) The player will not be allowed to activate abilities (except mana abilities to pay for costs)

Warnings for Game Play Errors scale as follows:

• Missed Trigger
  1. Warning only for generally detrimental triggers
  2. Warning only for generally detrimental triggers
  3. Warning only for generally detrimental triggers
  4. F6 Penalty
  5. F6 Penalty
  6. Game Loss (+)
• Looking at Extra Cards
  1. Warning
  2. Warning
  3. Warning
  4. F6 Penalty
  5. F6 Penalty
  6. Game Loss (+)
• Hidden Card Error
  1. Warning
  2. Warning
  3. Warning
  4. F6 Penalty
  5. F6 Penalty
  6. Game Loss (+)
• Mulligan Procedure Error
  1. Warning
  2. Warning
  3. Warning
  4. F6 Penalty
  5. F6 Penalty
  6. Game Loss (+)
• Game Rule Violation
  1. Warning
  2. Warning
  3. Warning
  4. F6 Penalty
  5. F6 Penalty
  6. Game Loss (+)
• Failure to Maintain Game State
  • No penalty

[purplejudge]

As discussed, I like the increase in the number of penalties before a Game Loss, seeing as they are effectively Match Losses in most situations.

I am unsure about the F6 penalty, but that uncertainty stems from its lack of testing. In concept, it seems okay, at least as a starting point. Let's test it out!

As for the number of penalties itself, I dislike that these change between infractions. It creates confusion amongst players and an added layer of complexity for judges. If you get your third warning for HCE, is it a Game Loss? Is it an F6? What if it was a GRV? Why does it change?

I can see the argument that we already have a difference between GPE and TE, but those are very distinct, even for players. No one is going to mix up Slow Play and GRV. GRV and HCE on the other hand? Even judges struggle to find the difference in some scenarios!

I like the changes, but I would apply them across the board. Either two or three warnings, two F6 penalties as sterner "Hey, this is about to go wrong" and then move on to the Game Losses (i.e., Match Losses 99% of the time)

[fbatista]

Yeah I was struggling a bit with the differentiation within GPE too. It felt justifiable because of the differently perceived severity and frequency of the infractions.

I am 100% OK with moving towards the uniformization of the number of penalties within the GPE!

Some other arguments, ideas on this topic on discord:

• Warnings should reset from swiss to top 16.
  • I don't like this, I prefer that we have consistency and only clear across days. Otherwise warnings during the day are meaningless in the single elimination round, where players don't have a time limit, so they can think thoroughly through their plays. Sure sometimes you will be tired, but so will your opponents, everyone's on the same boat.
• F6 penalty can sometimes result in a match loss
  • I'm ok with that, in 1v1 a game loss can also be a match loss if awarded when you already lost one game.

---

• Missed Trigger
  1. Warning only for generally detrimental triggers
  2. Warning only for generally detrimental triggers
  3. Warning only for generally detrimental triggers
  4. F6 Penalty
  5. F6 Penalty
  6. Game Loss (+)
• Looking at Extra Cards
  1. Warning
  2. Warning
  3. Warning
  4. F6 Penalty
  5. F6 Penalty
  6. Game Loss (+)
• Hidden Card Error
  1. Warning
  2. Warning
  3. Warning
  4. F6 Penalty
  5. F6 Penalty
  6. Game Loss (+)
• Mulligan Procedure Error
  1. Warning
  2. Warning
  3. Warning
  4. F6 Penalty
  5. F6 Penalty
  6. Game Loss (+)
• Game Rule Violation
  1. Warning
  2. Warning
  3. Warning
  4. F6 Penalty
  5. F6 Penalty
  6. Game Loss (+)
• Failure to Maintain Game State
  • No penalty

[purplejudge]

Looks great :)

My thoughts in order:

• Warnings should reset from Swiss to top 16.

I saw this discussion there and I agree with you: the single-elimination portion of an event is just that: a portion of that event. If you start your day by collecting three warnings in the first round, that should accompany you during your day. I also there that a better solution for this would be to not have as many rounds during one day as we do now, but that opens up a whole different can of worms. For now, I agree with you: upgrades exist for a reason, and we shouldn't try to dance around them in an attempt to make them go away completely. If that was the end goal, we could just get rid of them entirely.

• F6 penalty can sometimes result in a match loss

For this one I have added thoughts. I don't think the F6 penalty will be perfect from the start - it is very new, and quite experimental. I do think this proposal is strictly better for players than what they have now, since it is a "Maybe Game Loss? Wait and find out!" instead of "Game Loss, pick up your cards". However, I can understand this concern, and we should be careful when tinkering with this penalty. Something like "You can only cast instants until your next end step" would allow them to cast counterspells and prevent a winnning play, but at the same time it would also open the opportunities for other possible plays, to the point where the penalty is not felt.

I would say this a good starting point, unless anyone has other suggestions :)

[JimmyLang420]

i firmly belive there needs to be no change to the policy. the community will self regulate, become better players and learn the competitive scene.

i request a no change on this, but lets keep a careful look at how it evolves and revisit it at a later date!

[fbatista]

i firmly belive there needs to be no change to the policy. the community will self regulate, become better players and learn the competitive scene.

i request a no change on this, but lets keep a careful look at how it evolves and revisit it at a later date!

I would 100% agree with you, if this was not a best-of-1 format, where a game loss carries a much heavier weight than in 1v1.

Being a best of one, we definitely need to find a middle ground between the "nothing happens" and "match loss".

The game loss penalty in 1v1 can sometimes be a match loss too, and I think this F6 / Turn skip also has the potential of being very strong in some cases. But ultimately it will be better than a game loss.

[JimmyLang420]

I would 100% agree with you, if this was not a best-of-1 format, where a game loss carries a much heavier weight than in 1v1. I firmly belive this to not be the case. I know that this is an issue of the current player base where we are from. This decision has been made by the influnce of one magic group and not as common majority population of the format.

I wouldnt put the change completly off, i would just hold out for the next few months to see how things progress! The player base will learn and grow, this will not be a problem in the future.

We need to hear things from alot more communitys and player groups, both into the CEDH scene and out of it to make a clearer decision on this!

The f6 change is better than a gameloss but could also be abused. For now i have no other ideas, but will gladly share if i come up with something.

Changing this ipg to fit every nuance of the format is not an overall positive for it, covering every corner case will make it feel more convoluted and not helpfull, please keep this in mind!

[fbatista]

I agree @JimmyLang420 we need to be very precise and specific with any change we introduce since it will increase the barrier of entry for more judges to embrace and successfully judge the format.

Adding a new penalty type, in my opinion is still inside the spectrum of what's acceptable. I can test the new penalty in Coimbra in March to see what happens and come back with more data by them.

I was actually thinking that with this new penalty we might want to bring the number of warnings on par with 1v1 again:

1- warning 2- warning 3- F6 4- F6 5- Game Loss (+)

But this will have to be tested. I think starting with 4+ for the upgrade is prudent.

[JimmyLang420]

The GRV and Misstrigger should be the same as its the bulk of penaltys that occur. Testing the 1-5 penalty with the f6 seems more sensible than the 1-6, im sure you will have alot of feedback about it then.

I belive the mulligan procedure error doesnt need change, and LEC and HCE aswell. These infractions dont occur as much without the obvious cheating! Mulligan mistakes can happen more than once, but a player that has 5-6 oportunitys to fail it seems to much. I have the same view about LEC, since these are usualy motor skill mistakes, giving them abit more leeway is nice, but utimately not needed. HCE is a weird spot on the IPG, if we give players more space to make mistakes, we are also making easier for that extra draw to happen. i dont think it needs change, 4 penaltys until game loss feels like its plenty.

The reseting penaltys withtin top16 its something to be explored, but if this gets implemented, increasing the penalty thershold wouldnt be needed to begin with. when reseting penaltys to top16, some of them should stay and not be wiped, for obvious reasons, such as all USC and TE.

[fbatista]

My opinion on the reset to top 16 is that we shouldn't do it.

The issue is time, in a big 1v1 tournament, players play 9 rounds in a day, at 50 minutes each that's 450 minutes. In Multiplayer, 5 rounds x 75 minutes is 375 (or 450 if you consider 90ish). Sure we can argue that time-wise, its the same and that in multiplayer we're forcing the players to play 2 more rounds for the single elimination, however, in single elimination, players don't have time limit for a reason: so they can thoroughly think through their plays and not make mistakes.

[fbatista]

Seems that we have a divergence of opinion when it comes to how to apply the changes to the penalties:

We have 1 vote to keep them all the same, advocating for simplicity in the policy to make lives easier for future judges We have 1 vote to split them by likelihood, advocating for a tighter fit of the policy towards the real world outcomes.

Personally i see merit in both options. But i believe that we need to test something and the easiest way to test will be with the more simple approach first.

So i will move forward with a change proposal that will change all the infractions in the same fashion, with the caveat that after testing we revise and adapt as we see fit!

[FranciscoBarata21]

I agree with not resetting warnings in the top 16; however, I would like to suggest that after maybe 9 hours of the tournament, 1 or 2 warnings be removed. Considering that large 1v1 tournaments usually do not last much longer than these 9 hours, and given that it is much easier in cedh to commit GRV's with actions of little relevance to the outcome of the game, I believe it would be a good way to avoid game losses for players in the final/semifinal due to irrelevant errors. These situations are not only detrimental to the players but also to the judges and the overall tournament outcome.