Judge Academy > Transcript – July First Week: Nerd Rage Lessons

Transcript – July First Week: Nerd Rage Lessons

1:00:19 pm – Daniel Lee:
Hello everyone and welcome back to first week at this month of July here. We’ve got a fun, we’ve got a great week set up here for you today. I have with me a level two Judge Antonio Zanuto from Brazil. He was recently the head judge at the Nerd, Rage gaming event in Lansing Michigan. And he, he and I have had some conversations and he’s mentioned that there are some really interesting policy scenarios that came up during that. So we thought for today for our policy presentation for you, we would talk to him and see what his experiences were Antonio. Why don’t you go ahead and introduce yourself to our viewers and say a little bit about yourself a little bit of your history and judging

1:01:00 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Hi everyone. My name is Antonio as it was said already. I am a judge from Brazil /. Saint Louis Missouri. Ah, I’m my voice is going already. Okay.

1:01:25 pm – Daniel Lee:
He?

1:01:25 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
And I’ve been judging for quite a while. Before the pandemic started. I used to grind GPS as judge. And I would go to. pretty much every event that I could since 2015, and now the events are back again, finally

1:01:46 pm – Daniel Lee:
How’s that?

1:01:47 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Yeah, I got to do, I get to do more of them so I’m pretty excited about it. one things I like about judging is Watching magic and seeing, seeing people play. And trying to figure out, how can we help? make players have a better experience and how can policy Really approach how players play magic?

1:02:20 pm – Daniel Lee:
Up.

1:02:20 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
And how how can policy go in that direction? and that was, Really a question, I had throughout the weekend. Which is. Should we? Help players. Fix the games if they want to fix the

1:02:40 pm – Daniel Lee:
Mm-hmm.

1:02:42 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
games. Or should we interfere? And correct games by the IPG. Right? Because the IPG itself says,

1:02:51 pm – Daniel Lee:
Yeah.

1:02:55 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
If players arrive at fix, or fix a game state to their mutual satisfaction and they don’t cause more of a mess. If they create a game states that’s legal and that they are both happy with it, we should not intervene right.

1:03:14 pm – Daniel Lee:
Yeah.

1:03:15 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
now, the next question is, If players want to create, A game state that is legal. But they don’t know how. And they want our help to do it.

1:03:32 pm – Daniel Lee:
Sure.

1:03:32 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
We be like regular rail judges and provide the regular real fix. That will help them get to their Uh, gain. Or should we apply the IPG?

1:03:49 pm – Daniel Lee:
So you touch on a couple of interesting notes there. Um really when it comes to determining policy like to tournament policy when it comes to writing it, devising it and like setting it up in the first place. It’s a really, it’s this really delicate balance that you have to strike between. How much do we? How much effort do we spend on fixing problems, versus trying to prevent problems in the first place? And how willing are we to sort of affect how much fun players are having in order to create a more fair environment, right? Because the goal of a tournament is to be fun and fair, we’re playing a game after all. But also we’re playing a game where there’s prizes on the line. So you want it to be fair, you want it to be the person that played the game. The best wins. Not the person that stumbled into a lucky policy. Whole happened to win the game, the best, right? Like That’s that feels bad. Like, even I’ve even talk, To players that say if their opponent gets a game loss for decklist problem or something, they feel bad having one that game that way, right?

1:04:56 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Uh-huh.

1:04:56 pm – Daniel Lee:
And so when it’s always worth taking a look at situations where if a player even if a player is on the positive end of a policy application but they don’t they’re not having fun because of it like that. You got to take that seriously, right?

1:05:13 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Yeah, definitely. And let me, let me give you one scenario for example.

1:05:21 pm – Daniel Lee:
Sure.

1:05:21 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Right. It is a specially complicated one because it happened. Guess what uncovered?

1:05:31 pm – Daniel Lee:
Oh no. Okay.

1:05:32 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
so, It is. and I say that for everyone to be mindful about that because everything we do on coverage is being watched so, if we do a deviation on coverage, Then. Everyone that it’s watching is going to think that that’s the correct fix.

1:05:58 pm – Daniel Lee:
Right. Absolutely. You don’t get the chance to communicate to the viewing audience that, Hey, we are deviating. This is not normal policy of normal policy solution.

1:06:07 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Yeah. so, it is You have to be extra careful with that element. Now, what happened was? A player had resolved, a missus pilgrimage. I don’t know how to pronounce this.

1:06:22 pm – Daniel Lee:
Okay. Yeah, this is pilgrimage, this is the the three Mana sorcery, you go and find a forest.

1:06:29 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Two forests.

1:06:29 pm – Daniel Lee:
At two forests if you’ve got spell mastery right or sorry, it’s two or

1:06:32 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Yes, No.

1:06:33 pm – Daniel Lee:
three. If you got spell mastery, there we go.

1:06:35 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
You get two basic forests without

1:06:37 pm – Daniel Lee:
Mmm.

1:06:38 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
spell mastery and you get pre basic

1:06:39 pm – Daniel Lee:
There we go. Yeah.

1:06:41 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
forests wet spell mastery.

1:06:43 pm – Daniel Lee:
There we go.

1:06:43 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Well, this film mastery is not the

1:06:43 pm – Daniel Lee:
Okay.

1:06:47 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Well, this film mastery is not the important part here.

1:06:47 pm – Daniel Lee:
Sure. Okay.

1:06:49 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
The player thought searched to Basic Lens?

1:06:53 pm – Daniel Lee:
Oh, okay.

1:06:54 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
So the player searched a forest and the mountain. But mountain and play cast a spell passed. A turn opponent plays a spell pass the turn back. And the players going to do some actions. When? Somebody tells me there was a problem with the string, so I go over there. I pause their game and figure out what is wrong. And they immediately say, Oh, I got this mountain from Mrs, Pilgrimage and I couldn’t get it. Because you only allows basic forests.

1:07:36 pm – Daniel Lee:
Right.

1:07:38 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
And you know, as all judges should do, I took a look at the board state realized that the mountain was not relevant? Like the player could not get any

1:07:47 pm – Daniel Lee:
Okay.

1:07:50 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
advantage from having a mountain over a forest?

1:07:54 pm – Daniel Lee:
All right, at the very least had

1:07:54 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
It was.

1:07:56 pm – Daniel Lee:
certainly hasn’t gotten any so far. Right. Because they cast the one spell, but if that, if it was just paying a generic mana cost, then there was no the so far. There’s been no functional difference between it being a forest and a mountain.

1:08:06 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Correct. Yeah.

1:08:07 pm – Daniel Lee:
Yeah. Okay.

1:08:07 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Thank you. So

1:08:08 pm – Daniel Lee:
Yeah.

1:08:09 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
So board state and see if Having one, or the other would change anything.

1:08:16 pm – Daniel Lee:
Sure.

1:08:17 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
And it didn’t like

1:08:18 pm – Daniel Lee:
Okay.

1:08:34 pm – Daniel Lee:
Okay.

1:08:43 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Of them and we’re good, right?

1:08:47 pm – Daniel Lee:
That is a very tempting fix even if the IPG doesn’t support anything close to it.

1:08:52 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
so yeah, this is It is. Organically the best fix possible.

1:09:00 pm – Daniel Lee:
Sure. Yeah.

1:09:01 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
and it was, very, very interesting that the players proposed this fix on themselves. And like the player that committed the infraction, proposed the fix and the opponent was like, Yeah, do that. so,

1:09:17 pm – Daniel Lee:
Okay.

1:09:19 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
I explained the by policy. What the by policy fix would be?

1:09:25 pm – Daniel Lee:
Mm-hmm.

1:09:26 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
But since they, Mutually agreed to this fix. Before I could say anything. I decided to go with the fix that the players proposed.

1:09:39 pm – Daniel Lee:
Interesting. Okay. Yeah, just for, for our viewers. Can you can you go ahead and say what the IPG would would call for, in this situation?

1:09:48 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
The APG would call for either a full backup. Which would mean rewinding a whole turn and essentially players would gain information about how they opponent responded to a play that could change line to play. It would be. Kind of a mess.

1:10:10 pm – Daniel Lee:
Yeah, absolutely.

1:10:12 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Or leave the game state as it is. What? Probably be the option that I would go.

1:10:18 pm – Daniel Lee:
Yeah. Okay.

1:10:20 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Um, but just swapping the two card seems to be Like, more of organic fix.

1:10:29 pm – Daniel Lee:
Yeah.

1:10:30 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Than that.

1:10:30 pm – Daniel Lee:
And especially, And especially and so, one of the things that’s important to notice about this is that A lot of times. So the IPG it has to be written in such a way that it can cover as many scenarios as humanly possible and it’s never gonna be a hundred percent because you will not, you would be surprised at how many different ways players can break a game state. It’s, I’m pretty sure.

1:10:56 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
I am not surprised.

1:10:57 pm – Daniel Lee:
sure that number doesn’t exist and I sure that number doesn’t exist and I sure that number doesn’t exist. So it’s So it’s a It’s, I’m pretty sure, I’m pretty sure that number doesn’t exist and I and I know my math and I’m pretty sure that number doesn’t exist. So it’s a So the IPG tries to handle the vast majority of situations in this few words as possible. That’s really one of the things that tries to do and so for a lot of situations, Back it up to where the error was or if that’s too bad if that’s too disruptive. Just go ahead and leave it as is because the players have been playing with the game state. This way for some amount of time, like those will cover a large large chunk of your scenarios. But every once in a while you’re gonna get one like this where, oh this in this particular situation really what we have is me and one of my one of my old mentors actually used to discuss problems like this. We have a cardboard problem in which the specific bit of cardboard that you got didn’t really match. What was supposed to happen but hasn’t actually caused any problems so far. Um so so an example that we used of this was when so another example that’s similar to this but it’s a lot. Simpler was one where player goes, bloodstain my or pass. Except those are the words. They said, what they actually did? Was they put a They put a blood crypt, our blood

1:12:15 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
flooded strand, or

1:12:16 pm – Daniel Lee:
crypt on the battlefield.

1:12:17 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Blood pressure.

1:12:17 pm – Daniel Lee:
But then the end of their opponents turn they go crack my bloodstained Meyer go get a land, put land on the battlefield, shuffle library. Draw a card for turn and then realize my blood saying Myers, still in my hand, and so, And so this is one of those words attempting fix is really to just go. Okay Well you’ve got this bloodstain Meyer That’s why you said that like why this is the stupidest cheat in the entire world if we actually go and look at this as like, Oh, investigate this for cheating. But it’s like, nah. This player was just trying to thought they were playing a bloodstain meijer and just grabbed the wrong piece of cardboard. So can we just put the blood crypt in hand, and put the bloods in my own the graveyard? Like there’s like, there’s it’s a real discussion, it’s a real option. If you’re the head, judging, you’re willing. If you feel like this is a situation, the marriage deviation. But yeah, so it’s the same kind of idea where this it’s a cardboard problem. The specific card that was used is the one that’s causing the problem here. So it’s really it’s a neat little it’s a neat little scenario and I actually really like how you pointed to the bit in the IPG where it says You know, if the players handle this situation on their own like, Unnecessarily sort of pedantic of us to interfere in a game where the players are like, Oh we’ve recognize there’s a problem we have now. Fixed the problem. Both players are happy with this fix, they’re going to move on with their lives like Why are we inserting ourselves into a situation that is positive all around at the moment like that? That doesn’t make sense from a, We want this game to be fun perspective, right? So, so, this one’s, this is a little

1:13:54 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Yep.

1:13:55 pm – Daniel Lee:
different because you were kind. I would imagine the players didn’t notice the error until like you’d mentioned it to them.

1:14:02 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Correct.

1:14:02 pm – Daniel Lee:
Yeah. So but then you mentioned it and then they go. Oh okay. Well, I can just do this impounds like Yeah, that sounds great. Do that then you’re just like Cool, let’s do it. So yeah. All right, that’s that’s a that’s a really interesting situation. Yeah.

1:14:17 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
and that’s the The thing really? If players want to reach a board state, that’s legal. They want to. Deviate. And I’m not choosing words correctly here, they don’t know.

1:14:35 pm – Daniel Lee:
That’s okay.

1:14:36 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
They want to deviate. They want to deviate, they want you.

1:14:37 pm – Daniel Lee:
Right? Yeah. They’re just they have this fix in mind. They just don’t know whether it’s in the ipg or not right?

1:14:43 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Yes, they have this fixes in mind.

1:14:44 pm – Daniel Lee:
Yeah.

1:14:46 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Should we help them with this fix? Or should we just say, okay, should be, should we be proactive about this? Or should we just confirm that the fix is okay? so, for example,

1:15:03 pm – Daniel Lee:
Interesting.

1:15:05 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Let’s say. This situation had arrived. And the players were. Trying to come up with this fix. This organic fix. Should you suggest them to swap the cards?

1:15:23 pm – Daniel Lee:
Interesting. so, My perspective on this. With usual caveats that I was. I wasn’t there. So there might there might be things changing it. I I don’t I feel like it goes a step too far for us to suggest a deviation like this, unless we’re willing to pull the trigger on it ourselves. I I actually do not dislike the idea of implementing this particular deviation especially since there’s this that specific like really. My only concern would be is did that mountain, did it being a mountain matter so far or at all? Like look at the player’s hand that they did have them, having an extra mountain. Instead of an extra forest does is that like significant does that mean they can cast a spell that they couldn’t have, otherwise things like that, right? And if it like the bare minimum, I’m thinking, because I played against a red green ramp deck, that was like, that was a little like this. And, and my rcq last Saturday and it’s like okay if they already had a red source. And so really getting the second resources just protection against land destruction, or like in case, they happen to cast, two red spells. But they don’t have a lot of red spells to begin with, then it’s like, okay, the, the even in the, like,

1:16:35 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Yeah.

1:16:38 pm – Daniel Lee:
in the, like, most generous scenario the advantage gain by this thing. Being a mountain can be pretty small. So it’s like, okay. So at that point

1:16:45 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Yeah.

1:16:47 pm – Daniel Lee:
Let’s look at what the IPG is, asking us to do, backup, full and entire through an entire turn cycle, just to swap the cardboard, right? And like you have to see, then you have to ask yourself, all the questions that are appropriate of a backup. Like, Did this player, draw a card. So we put a random card back on top, was that card known to all players? Like Are there fetch lands involved that make a backup disadvizable. Like There’s you have to go through a lot, like it’s a complicated fix. And then, I actually also don’t necessarily strongly dislike because you can use the same argument to say, Oh, it actually doesn’t hurt a lot to swap cardboard. It also doesn’t hurt a lot to leave the game state as is if the potential benefit for them. Having a mountain is marginal at best. Then is it really?

1:17:29 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Uh-huh. Yep.

1:17:31 pm – Daniel Lee:
world that this necessary which happened to be more like a cultivate? Not really, I don’t think so. Um, so I don’t hate it as a deviation, but I also think all of the arguments that are made in favor of it being a deviation that you would execute also are kind of in favor of just leaving the game state as Yeah, you got a mountain, both y’all should pay some more attention, get some mornings. Let’s move on, with our day.

1:17:54 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Yep, that makes sense.

1:17:54 pm – Daniel Lee:
So yeah. Yeah, it’s a it is a it is a really interesting thing but I do think to go back to your question. I do think suggesting that when we’re not willing to implement it ourselves, might be overstepping a little bit but I am to be fair having a hard time So yeah. Yeah. interesting thing but I do think to go back to your question. I do think suggesting that when we’re not willing to implement it ourselves might be overstepping a little bit but I am to be fair having a hard time quantifying exactly why that is It’s more of a like it’s more of a, We’re supposed to be the folks that implement that, we, we are the Ipgs cheerleaders, for lack of a better word, right? So, we’re supposed to be the ones that are like, Consistency is one of the things that we value across tournaments, right? It’s, it’s a, it’s why some of these tournaments that are being run without judges that are that are as familiar with the IPG, they’re running into some unusual fixes, some unusual rules calls, and the lack of consistency is really what the problem is. Like what we want is for players to show up at a tournament and have some idea of what they’re going to be able to expect. And that’s why the IPG says, Here’s what you do in these situations so that a player that runs into the situation and one tournament gets the same fix, if they run into it in a different tournament, right? Which is why a deviation is

1:19:05 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Yeah.

1:19:07 pm – Daniel Lee:
in advisable most of the time. So, So I think that’s the argument the primary argument against it is that you might think to suggest this to these players and it might be a great fix for all the reasons we’ve said, but if any other head Judge doesn’t

1:19:20 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Yep.

1:19:21 pm – Daniel Lee:
think about that, then they’re going to get a different experience. Right. So I think I think that’s the primary

1:19:27 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Yeah.

1:19:28 pm – Daniel Lee:
argument argument against it again. I still don’t like hate it. Uh generally speaking, I think, I think I, if I think that fix is totally fine for that match and that scenario in particular, But I think Yeah I think the the consistency argument is one that does need to be considered for that but yeah, but it sounds like you handled it just fine. I I have no problems with that at all.

1:19:54 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
And here’s another thing that I Make sure I do when I’m deviating. Is to. Be extremely clear to both players that hiviation is a deviation.

1:20:08 pm – Daniel Lee:
Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely.

1:20:12 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
And I go on to this one minute. Phrase or paragraph saying Players. This is a deviation from policy. This is what you should expect in any other tournament.

1:20:28 pm – Daniel Lee:
There you go.

1:20:28 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
I’m doing this different and here’s why. And again, you should not expect this outside of the tournament.

1:20:36 pm – Daniel Lee:
Absolutely. Yep. Yeah.

1:20:39 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
And I think making sure. That expectations are handled is a good way to start aviation. If you are going to start one,

1:20:52 pm – Daniel Lee:
Absolutely. Yeah. with a with situation where, like, with situation where, like, I’ll make Absolutely. Yeah. And anytime I’ve been involved with a with situation where, like, I’ll make a call and I’ll maybe I get appealed or something, or I rope in a head judge or something and and they’re like, Okay we’re gonna deviate. They they give something akin to that little species of player so they say, Hey, here’s what’s happened. Here’s what policy says to do that, I think that’s really bad. So I’m going to VMI Authority. Has had judge deviate from policy for this reason because I think this fix is bad for this. This is this reason. And so we’re going to do this fix instead. How does that sound? And so we also got a comment from from the chat There, Mtg Dad 73 points out that suggesting the organic fix, like, players are gonna talk to each other and so word of these things will spread and like there’s not always and there’s not

1:21:36 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
yep.

1:21:37 pm – Daniel Lee:
always agreement on what the most the most organic fix is going to be this scenario. It can, it seems pretty clear. What’s like, man there’s not always agreement on what the most organic fix is going to be right like this scenario. It can it seems pretty clear what’s like, man? I really wish we could just do this, right? Um, but that’s not always gonna be

1:21:47 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Yep.

1:21:49 pm – Daniel Lee:
case. And so you’ll and so players would I think that I think I think he’s got a point that I players might start to take a little bit of a like, well, why didn’t my why didn’t my judge offer me this? What’s going on here? So, What’s going on with these judges?

1:22:05 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Well, and Still on the topic of deviation. I want to talk about. Another one. That. I think has some learning elements to it.

1:22:20 pm – Daniel Lee:
Sure, go for it.

1:22:21 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
and the overall way we do backups, so, the situation was Active player was beginning their turn? Right.

1:22:33 pm – Daniel Lee:
Mm-hmm.

1:22:36 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Non-active player. Wanted to break active players, nictos.

1:22:41 pm – Daniel Lee:
Okay.

1:22:45 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
And non-active player activates feudal ruin to break nickdos. and non-active Player says, You can’t do that because you control your charn. Implacable earth.

1:22:58 pm – Daniel Lee:
Okay.

1:22:59 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
So you can’t, you can’t sacrifice. To. Things to pay costs.

1:23:05 pm – Daniel Lee:
Yeah.

1:23:07 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
The the caveat is your Sharon says none lens.

1:23:13 pm – Daniel Lee:
Oh, interesting. Okay.

1:23:15 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
So, active player committed a something that never happens which is a communication policy violation.

1:23:23 pm – Daniel Lee:
Wow, you found the CPV.

1:23:32 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Yeah, I found

1:23:41 pm – Daniel Lee:
Yep.

1:23:55 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
And that’s when they realized that. Theodore Ruin could, in fact have been activated. Right. So that’s that’s the point that I’m called over.

1:24:09 pm – Daniel Lee:
Okay.

1:24:10 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
because, They I mean it wouldn’t matter because the players still had the Met enough mana without the neck dose to test the NISA and couldn’t have done anything with the MENA. but, The backing up. To the point of activating feudal ruin. Would be a huge issue because it would happen at the upkeep. which would mean that one of the

1:24:39 pm – Daniel Lee:
Okay.

1:24:42 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
cards that was in active player’s hands, which was either Nisa or the lands, that would allow the player to cast Nisa.

1:24:53 pm – Daniel Lee:
Oh no.

1:24:53 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Right, the fifth plan that would allow Nisa to be cast.

1:24:57 pm – Daniel Lee:
It’s gonna get shuffled away.

1:24:57 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Would have been shuffled away.

1:24:59 pm – Daniel Lee:
Oh no.

1:25:00 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
So, like the nisa play. Wouldn’t exist.

1:25:05 pm – Daniel Lee:
Right.

1:25:06 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
And the Nissan play is very, very relevant to the game.

1:25:09 pm – Daniel Lee:
Mmm.

1:25:10 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Right. so, What we did was? We go back to the upkeep. And we put a random card in the command zone.

1:25:26 pm – Daniel Lee:
Okay.

1:25:26 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Would you we do the shuffling and the theater room and then after that is finished, we put the card that’s in the command zone on the top of the We do, we do the shuffling and the theater room and then after that is finished, we put the card that’s in the command zone, on the top of the library.

1:25:38 pm – Daniel Lee:
I see so you preserved. The card, draw through the shuffle.

1:25:42 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Yes.

1:25:43 pm – Daniel Lee:
Interesting. Okay.

1:25:45 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
And we continued the game.

1:25:47 pm – Daniel Lee:
Okay. Um yeah. Go ahead.

1:25:50 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Realistically. like, I don’t understand why we can’t preserve. A card. In a zone. Because that card was known to that player. Once we begin the fix, the only reason why we shouldn’t preserve the card in the top of the library is if that card is going to be searched with a fetch land or something else. or tutored, or

1:26:19 pm – Daniel Lee:
Okay.

1:26:21 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Anything.

1:26:21 pm – Daniel Lee:
Right.

1:26:22 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
but, For any other reason, we could argue that the card on top of the library that we put through a backup. Could be left there.

1:26:38 pm – Daniel Lee:
It’s very interesting. So it’s really interesting you bring up the scenario because I in our last conversation, when I came to talking about deviations and how you handle them, I actually had a specific one in mind that is interestingly very similar to this. It was a, it was a Vegas, Modern tournament. I think 2018, I think, and a player cast Path to exile on his opponent’s creature. And the opponent. Was just like ugh, fine. Eggs out the creature. And then in his like, irritation untapped, his lands in drew his card for the turn and the opponents. Like, wait, you were supposed to search for a basic. and so,

1:27:23 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Okay.

1:27:24 pm – Daniel Lee:
Like the and so it kind of felt like both players kind of didn’t really do anything wrong here. I mean, the the act Like the. both players kind of didn’t really do anything wrong here. I mean the the act of the now active player like should not player, like should not

1:27:34 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Yeah.

1:27:35 pm – Daniel Lee:
Um but so I issued the like Well I mean you kind of yeah as the floor judge I was like, okay well you kind of didn’t really give your opponent the chance to give you the opportunity to search. It doesn’t. I don’t feel like your opponent didn’t do their job here. I may not have been correct about that but that’s beside the point. moving so quickly. mean you kind of yeah as the floor judge I was like, okay well you kind of didn’t really give your opponent the chance to give you the the chance to give you the opportunity to search. I don’t feel like your opponent didn’t do their job here. didn’t do their job here. that but that’s beside the point. moving so quickly. Um but so I issued the like Well I mean you kind of yeah as the floor judge I was like okay well you kind of didn’t really give your opponent the chance to give you the opportunity to search. It doesn’t. I don’t feel like your opponent didn’t do their job here. I may not have been correct about that, but that’s beside the point. My ruling was you don’t get to search. You don’t get your land. Which was appealed correctly. I think. And so then one of the, when got one of the head judges, who said, Okay I’m going to deviate from policy, go ahead and search for your land now. And so it it reminds me very much of

1:28:07 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Okay.

1:28:09 pm – Daniel Lee:
this of kind of what you’re talking about, where it’s like, Technically speaking, if that player had searched for a land that would alter the probabilities on their card draw, right? So they might, they probably would have drawn a different card. And we have this interesting.

1:28:24 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
And it’s very marginal.

1:28:26 pm – Daniel Lee:
I’m sorry.

1:28:27 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
it is very marginal, the alteration of probability

1:28:30 pm – Daniel Lee:
It the alteration probability. You’re right. It is it is pretty small. The mechanical facto having shuffled, the decto means that. It’s one of the things where the fact it being a different card is, feels more likely. I guess it’s probably a bit a better way of putting even though these specific probabilities aren’t any different. There aren’t very different. but, But yeah, so that’s a so it’s it’s interesting. And I I do understand that That temptation really to be like, okay, but we don’t want to destroy the game state, that’s existed. So far, is there a way for we to do that? I guess there is there a way for us to kind of preserve this and that’s and that’s one of the things that the ipg kind of wants out of a backup is, it’s like the best backup is where everything happens, the same way it did. And it’s like, Well then why are you telling us to shuffle away cards and people’s hands? Because that is a bonafide way to destroy destroy that possibility. That’s really interesting.

1:29:28 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Yep.

1:29:28 pm – Daniel Lee:
And I think that would, I think I would make a good good topic for me to delve into maybe a publish an article about that. Like why, why does the IPG do this? Silly silly thing because that’s a much deeper topic.

1:29:40 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Yeah, it is and it is something. That. I, I do not invent at the time because I’ve seen a couple of GP head. Judges do that specific deviation before so, when the scenario was presented to me, I thought, Hmm. I think this idea the same idea applies here. Right. so, why? Why can’t we just be implemented in the IPG? Right.

1:30:19 pm – Daniel Lee:
Um, mtg ad 73 brought up another good point where it’s like it’s been like depending on the card that the player just drew and and the head judge in this particular situation, did identify like Hold on. This is actually a This is this is a thing that I’m considering and I’m choosing to Accept as part of my fix, is the fact that if the player had like drawn a card that changes, what land they want to fetch with the path to exile like that. Absolutely could be a thing at this point in the game like the player was on red white burn so they had plenty of lands to kind of cast whatever. So the specific choice of land was less impactful generally but it is a

1:30:52 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Yeah.

1:30:56 pm – Daniel Lee:
absolutely a good point. Like this is like turn two of a game or something then that the choice of land could be a huge, huge, huge deal. And having seen the card, you’re gonna draw. Next could absolutely make that affect your decision in that way. um, So yeah, good.

1:31:13 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
I agree with that, but And one way we have. The information that you gained. Of the card draw is going to affect what lend your surge. On the other hand. You having a fetch land in play? And the information of what random card was put on top of your library. Is going to guide your decision to whether or not correct that fetch land.

1:31:40 pm – Daniel Lee:
Yeah, sure.

1:31:42 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
So, we can’t once.

1:31:42 pm – Daniel Lee:
Yeah.

1:31:46 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
A game state has been fed up. We? There’s going to be some problem that we are not going to be addressing.

1:31:57 pm – Daniel Lee:
For sure. Yeah.

1:31:58 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Right, either we address.

1:31:59 pm – Daniel Lee:
And yeah, yeah. The idea, the idea being that we try to minimize it as much as possible, right? But that’s minimized, doesn’t mean

1:32:05 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Yeah.

1:32:06 pm – Daniel Lee:
eliminate absolutely.

1:32:07 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Yeah.

1:32:09 pm – Daniel Lee:
So we had a We had a question come up in the chat here that I thought was really interesting. So Malpandagabo says, if you explain a deviation to a player in this case, let’s say a two players in a match and they object and say they would prefer to stick to policy. Do you take that into account? So that’s a really interesting question that I haven’t really considered before I was curious what your thoughts are on it.

1:32:39 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
so, I, Don’t think that’s realistic.

1:32:45 pm – Daniel Lee:
Fair enough.

1:32:47 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
I, first of all, I don’t think, I think most deviations happen when a hedge notices, that both players want a clean game state,

1:33:04 pm – Daniel Lee:
Mm-hmm.

1:33:05 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
And policy will make the game states. Not clean.

1:33:09 pm – Daniel Lee:
Okay.

1:33:11 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
To give you an example, one thing that I see happen. Is. Active player has chalice of the boy didn’t play. and on one, And they cast Expedition Map. And they forgot about the triggered ability.

1:33:32 pm – Daniel Lee:
Right.

1:33:34 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
And honestly, the by policy fixes you have an expedition map. Good job, right?

1:33:42 pm – Daniel Lee:
Yep. It’s, it’s definitely been an ongoing problem that the current Miss Trigger policy, does not handle a child

1:33:49 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Well.

1:33:49 pm – Daniel Lee:
support very well.

1:33:50 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Yeah, it it does it.

1:33:52 pm – Daniel Lee:
Yeah.

1:33:53 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
so, The game continues. And that person has in this position map. What I’ve seen it happen, not once, not twice, but multiple times, is that the player that committed the mistake? Of. Resolving the Expedition Map. They won’t crack it. Out of or they would crack it fail to find. out of Fairness or what?

1:34:21 pm – Daniel Lee:
Yeah, right.

1:34:21 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
They think it’s fair.

1:34:22 pm – Daniel Lee:
Yeah, exactly.

1:34:25 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
And this is something that I’ve been seeing a lot more recently. in competitive magic and

1:34:32 pm – Daniel Lee:
Okay.

1:34:34 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
I want to tell people that. I’ve been playing compressive magic and judging competitive magic, pretty much every weekend of this year. So, I, I think I have a lot of experience to to say what I’m saying, which is It seems that players want to play magic. Instead of winning games

1:34:58 pm – Daniel Lee:
Yeah, for sure.

1:35:02 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
And this is different. Right wanting to play magic is different than wanting to win games of magic.

1:35:09 pm – Daniel Lee:
Right.

1:35:10 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
and that means that, The players want a fix that will get them closer to playing magic, then a fix that by policy would get them closer to winning the game of magic.

1:35:25 pm – Daniel Lee:
Yeah, I hear. Yeah I hear you there. They’re not nearly as concerned with who’s getting the advantage out of this. They just want the game to be a little bit more, correct.

1:35:36 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Correctly.

1:35:37 pm – Daniel Lee:
Yeah.

1:35:37 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Yeah.

1:35:37 pm – Daniel Lee:
Okay. Yeah, that’s very interesting.

1:35:38 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Precisely.

1:35:39 pm – Daniel Lee:
So my so my inclination here with like, if so, and I’ll go ahead and agree with you on whether or not. I don’t, I wouldn’t, I wouldn’t use the word, it’s not realistic. But I will say is, as extremely uncommon if it happens ever. I mean, I’m in judging this game for 18 years and I’ve never heard of this happening, but if we like, Concoctus scenario, like, let’s if we, if we come up with one that says, You know, hey, This the judge for whatever reason believes like okay the IPG fix is bad for XYZ reason. And I want to deviate, I want to do this deviation here instead and the players are like now what? I mean the yeah we hear you but we want the IPG fix instead. my inclination is and it’s this is kind of on theme with what you’ve been talking about, where like if that’s what the players want and it’s supported by policy then I’m like Oh okay sure. All right Like I who I don’t know, I don’t see a lot of reason to argue there but it’s interesting because our one of our active chat folks here our active chat folks here today. M2273 is saying, You know, I feel like the deviations required, like I’m Hedgehog to the tournament. Like that does give me the authority to make this call and that’s absolutely true. Um, and deviations are very rare and should not be taken lightly. I, absolutely. All those are wonderful points and I think if you are the head judge in this situation and you say like Look this is the call I want to make I can understand the inclination to not have the players like be able to change your mind on that because it’s your call. They really shouldn’t be like arguing with you, right? Like there’s a degree to which it’s a We need to make this call and get this game back on track so that we’re not standing here for 20 minutes. Discussing IPG theory right? Like

1:37:28 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Yeah.

1:37:30 pm – Daniel Lee:
So so I can understand the like, leaning on like Yeah I hear you, I hear that’s what you want but I really do think in my expertise and here is my roles that had judge that we’re gonna make this call. This is what we’re gonna do instead. I think that’s totally valid, it’s just not what I would do in that situation. I think I would lean towards the well, if the players have a fix that, they that they would prefer and it’s supported by the IPG. Like it’s literally the by the book, IPG Effects then My issues have gone away and I’m gonna go ahead and do that because that’s what the players want and I think that’s important. So there we are.

1:38:06 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Yeah, I think. A lot of. In a lot of cases. We have to put our Turn of there’s a better word for this, but our ego away. and be like,

1:38:21 pm – Daniel Lee:
Sure.

1:38:22 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
We’re not here to like enforce the fix that. We are supposed to because we are the hedge. We’re there to help the players. Right. And if we’re not being helpful, it’s It’s not good. Right. So in I know some people would argue that we should enforce the fix because we’re the head judge and we shouldn’t force authority. I don’t agree with enforcing authority without purpose.

1:39:00 pm – Daniel Lee:
For sure. Yeah and

1:39:00 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
For, I don’t agree with authority for the purposes, for the purpose of authority.

1:39:07 pm – Daniel Lee:
Yeah, authority for authority’s sake, right? Like.

1:39:10 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Yes.

1:39:10 pm – Daniel Lee:
Yeah. And I and I do think that is

1:39:11 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
This.

1:39:12 pm – Daniel Lee:
definitely a trap. I have seen some judges fall into there is definitely case to be made for. This is a thing that like, it’s one of those. It’s a it’s a soft skill that doesn’t get talked about a lot but when it comes to sort of projecting confidence in your decisions as a judge, like it used to be, there was a feeling that you should never ask another judge for help with a call because then that’s just going to make the players think that you don’t know what you’re doing and it will decrease their confidence in you. I think. in a world where, um, some bad calls might be happening more often than they used to. I think that that is a lesser concerned than getting the right call. And that’s definitely, that’s definitely been born out in directions that I’ve heard from judges at events like Scg Gon Dallas that I was at, or at the Hunter Burton Memorial open like our direction was. Hey, if you’re at all unsure or even if you just want to Go get a get a second opinion, make sure you’re serving the players, the best you can. And this is a lot in a in a in the vein of where all kind of rusty, we haven’t, we’ve like there was a solid year and a half or whatever that no events were happening. So it’s so we got a dusty skills.

1:40:28 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Yep.

1:40:30 pm – Daniel Lee:
I’ve got to write it right. The bike a little bit again, right? But in those, in those situations it’s still kind of encouraged. Maybe not as explicitly as it used to be to instead of telling the players. Wow, I have no idea what’s going on here, I’m gonna get some help saying something on lines of I’m pretty sure I know that is but I’m gonna double check. Just so I make sure I get you the right answer because the latter projects a bit more competence on your part where you’re like. Yeah, no. I’m I, I am able to recognize and understand what’s going on here and I’m able to decide what I believe should be done based on that. But just to make sure because I am human and humans make mistakes. I’m going to double check with another judge, just to make sure as opposed to. Wow, This is a scenario where I’ve got, I have no idea. Like I can’t even fathom what to do here. Even if that’s the truth. Like that’s still not going to give the players. Confidence in your ability, to do the job that you’re, you’ve been contracted for. So, So there is, there is an argument to be made along that vein. Um, but there is but I agree that it’s a, it’s a, it is an interesting. It’s an interesting space to sort of talk about like what really is more important here, is it the maintaining that like I’m the head judge? This is my call. I am making that call. I’m happy to talk about with you afterwards, but this is the call that I’m making. This is how we’re gonna fix this. And then we need, we need to do that. So we can move on with the game, like keeping the tournament moving is absolutely a, I think we should be striving force. I think there is a reasonable argument. We made there

1:42:11 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Okay, I agree with that.

1:42:12 pm – Daniel Lee:
Yeah.

1:42:14 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
So keep the tournament moving it is. one thing that I always have in mind when I’m making judge call when I taking Judge calls, I agree that if we are on an impact or we’re on a point where there’s a discussion on what to do. With a ruling. I usually go, we’re going to do this. And then we can talk about it.

1:42:46 pm – Daniel Lee:
Yeah.

1:42:47 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
But sometimes. being able to say, Okay, you want to do this? Let’s do this. Then we can talk about it later.

1:42:55 pm – Daniel Lee:
Yeah, right. Right. Exactly. Yeah. The like you can make the argument

1:42:58 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
They they both.

1:43:00 pm – Daniel Lee:
either way. Right.

1:43:01 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Yeah, they both come to the same

1:43:01 pm – Daniel Lee:
Yeah.

1:43:03 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
results which is the game is going to progress.

1:43:06 pm – Daniel Lee:
Right, for sure. Yeah.

1:43:08 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
so, It is. I I do agree. It’s important to keep the tournament going regardless of what route you take. And not keep like a 20 minute or even 10 minute long discussion with the players about policy.

1:43:27 pm – Daniel Lee:
Yeah.

1:43:28 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
You can talk with them after the match is over.

1:43:31 pm – Daniel Lee:
For sure. Yeah, malpanda gobble mentions. I feel like a player finding out you completely flood. A ruling is going to under my confidence more than seeing you ask for a second opinion. Yeah, exactly this. And this is like, that’s absolutely the direction that that general thinking has kind of come. It was just interesting, like, you know, having been around for, as long as I have, why there was definitely a There was a there, what they’re used to be, I’ll say there used to be a sense of if you’re pretty sure about it, make that call. They have the confidence in yourself to make that call that it’s, we’ve definitely gotten away from that more, and I think that’s a good thing. And that’s, that’s why I wanted to say, Mtg dad. Just points out, the judging command Fest is wildly different than judging competitive rules. Enforcement constructed Who boy, ain’t that the truth. So, Alright, so you got any more. You got any more juicy scenarios from Lansing for us.

1:44:29 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Here. Um, still on the line of appeals or not appeals, but

1:44:37 pm – Daniel Lee:
Okay.

1:44:39 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
But deviations.

1:44:40 pm – Daniel Lee:
Deviations. Sure. Okay.

1:44:44 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Coming to a mutual player satisfaction. there was one deviation that I possibly regret. Which was? They the floor judge had correct correctly, ruled. A CPV. Because the player was representing. Game materials with dice.

1:45:13 pm – Daniel Lee:
Okay.

1:45:14 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
They? The appointment made an attack. They block with the dice and the opponent was like, Why you’re blocking with the dice? Because the dice is a creature.

1:45:26 pm – Daniel Lee:
Oh interesting.

1:45:26 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Well, if I knew the dice was a creature, I wouldn’t have attacked.

1:45:30 pm – Daniel Lee:
Okay, all right.

1:45:31 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Right.

1:45:32 pm – Daniel Lee:
How did you manage to get two cpvs in

1:45:32 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
so,

1:45:34 pm – Daniel Lee:
one event? What’s going on with you, man?

1:45:36 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
there was more.

1:45:37 pm – Daniel Lee:
Oh no. So that’s what. Okay, I figured out. That’s why it’s never cpv, because your events, take all of them, got it. All right, I’m I’m really looking forward to energy Chicago now. Anyway, I’m sorry. Go ahead.

1:45:54 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Yeah, yeah. So The. The floor. Judges ruling was correct. And the fix was also correct. Which was just rewind the attack.

1:46:07 pm – Daniel Lee:
Yeah.

1:46:07 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Right rewind the attack. But a actual token or But what is so funny about this situation is that the the barn player, the attacking player said I’m fine with dice.

1:46:23 pm – Daniel Lee:
Hmm, I’m done with that.

1:46:23 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
You can represent the talking with

1:46:25 pm – Daniel Lee:
I just didn’t know. I just didn’t know.

1:46:26 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
guys. I just didn’t know at the time.

1:46:30 pm – Daniel Lee:
That’s funny.

1:46:30 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
I was. oh, do they really tell them to use actual tokens? Anyways, that

1:46:40 pm – Daniel Lee:
Mmm.

1:46:43 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
I I gave the route, I upload. The, at the time, I uphold the Pledge, I just ruling. Which was the warning for the player that put the dice is token. And the opponent was appealing. Because not because he wanted a different fix but he wanted his opponent. Not to get a warming.

1:47:11 pm – Daniel Lee:
Mm-hm, not to get a warning. Okay. Yeah I was wondering if that’s where this was going. Okay.

1:47:15 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Yes, and I was. Okay, this is warning is probably not going to matter. And the the tournament, I mean,

1:47:26 pm – Daniel Lee:
Uh-huh.

1:47:28 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
I mean yes, the second

1:47:28 pm – Daniel Lee:
How often does Cpvs ever forget upgraded?

1:47:32 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Yeah, I mean the second CPV is upgraded to a game loss, right?

1:47:35 pm – Daniel Lee:
Yes, it is.

1:47:36 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
It’s the tournament error.

1:47:36 pm – Daniel Lee:
Tournament area. Tournament area.

1:47:38 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
but, It’s probably not going to happen. So, I decided to overturn the floor, judge and wave the warning.

1:47:52 pm – Daniel Lee:
Okay, I yeah, I I actively disagree with that decision, but yeah,

1:47:53 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
which,

1:47:56 pm – Daniel Lee:
absolutely.

1:47:57 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
I also disagree with that decision now,

1:47:59 pm – Daniel Lee:
Okay, fair enough.

1:48:02 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
At the time. That’s what I did. And I explained to players that the floor, judging was the floor. Judge, was correct. I explained to the floor judge that. They were correct. but, I was just overturning for players satisfaction.

1:48:20 pm – Daniel Lee:
Okay.

1:48:22 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
After the event was finished after, I was able to process everything that was happening. I think I was too much focus on players satisfaction. I, Didn’t do. What I should be doing which is also care about policy.

1:48:43 pm – Daniel Lee:
Right. And I and I think the, I think the

1:48:44 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Right.

1:48:46 pm – Daniel Lee:
case you can make to the, I’m thinking about how I would have explained to the player. If I get if I got this appeal, right? And I’m saying to play, I’m like, you know, I I hear you, I feel, I understand your perspective that you feel like that giving your opponent a warning for because it probably feels to the burn player like they made the mistake, right? That they’re like, Oh, I didn’t realize I didn’t check or whatever and it’s like, that’s true. But we also like, it’s your opponent’s creature. Your opponent should be making sure like the onus is on them to make sure that their side of the board is as clear as possible to their opponent, right? Like, it’s their job to make sure that you have Information. You need to the information that you are entitled to. I’ll even go as far as to say that which includes the Creatures on their battlefield on there, like on their side of the battlefield. So, Really what we’re saying here, by giving this player. A warning is saying, Hey, you did something in some manner, you were unclear about your side of the board and that’s on you like the fact that your opponent did manage to get confused about, it is like you in some way shape or form. You were unclear about that dye being a token and That’s it’s not like the end of the world because as you said, the fix is pretty straightforward. So just back up the attack. And now everyone’s clear what the game state is. But there’s still a like, Hey you should be more careful in the future which is the exact reason we give warnings. So then if they aren’t more careful

1:50:20 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Yep.

1:50:22 pm – Daniel Lee:
in the future, it can lead to steeper penalties because they’re not doing what we’re asking them to do. They’re not putting effort into improving their the technicality of their play.

1:50:34 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Uh-huh.

1:50:34 pm – Daniel Lee:
so,

1:50:35 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Just a curiosity, the player that committed to the CPV that used to die. Did learn to be more careful and I watched their games.

1:50:47 pm – Daniel Lee:
Excellent.

1:50:47 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Because they, They continue playing the tournament and they said, Are you okay with me representing this with the diet? You want me to use a token?

1:50:57 pm – Daniel Lee:
Excellent, that’s lovely.

1:50:58 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
and like, Even though they didn’t get the warning, they learned that they should communicate better with their opponents.

1:51:06 pm – Daniel Lee:
Absolutely well good. And I mean if they so then that tells me two things, one that tells me that even the prospect of them potentially getting the warning in the first place that might have been good enough to do the same job, right? But also it tells me that that warning would not have been upgraded because it sounded like they avoided future cpv’s in that tournament. So, there we go.

1:51:26 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Yeah.

1:51:27 pm – Daniel Lee:
So practically speaking. there was not a lot of difference in that scenario of them, having the warning versus not, but I think I guess, really, the question is this if the player didn’t really, should not have gotten the warning then? Would it still have? Would they still have gone to those extra steps? If the floor judge should just come over and been like Okay back up the attack. Everyone knows what’s going on. Play on from here. Would that player still have thought to go? Oh, I really need to put this slight bit of extra effort in to fix these

1:52:06 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Uh-huh.

1:52:07 pm – Daniel Lee:
tokens, right? So, even just having that conversation surrounding this player might get a warning about this. Oh, let’s appeal, I don’t think you should get a warning. Like that’s kind of accomplishing the goal. In the first place, which doesn’t happen if CPD doesn’t include a warning, right?

1:52:26 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Uh-huh.

1:52:27 pm – Daniel Lee:
Yeah, so I think that’s the that’s

1:52:27 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Yep.

1:52:28 pm – Daniel Lee:
the perspective I would look at in terms of like whether really this warning has teeth or not so to speak, right? Like the fact that this, that that conversation even happened, meant that, that player changed their behavior.

1:52:42 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Yeah.

1:52:42 pm – Daniel Lee:
Yeah. So All right, cool, we’ve got just under 10 minutes left here. Do you have any do you have any final thoughts? Any last minute things you wanted to share about your experience at Lansing?

1:52:54 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
I would like to reemphasize. that the thing that I said that, Players are a lot more interested in playing magic.

1:53:04 pm – Daniel Lee:
Mm-hmm.

1:53:04 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
It seems.

1:53:04 pm – Daniel Lee:
Yeah.

1:53:05 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
And that’s great. It is great that there was this shift of mentality because I do remember, a lot of grinders being like, Rules lowering their opponents into. Like winning the game. and today’s a lot more, like, I want to make sure I make the best place. And I want to make sure that my opponent also plays magic. In the correct way.

1:53:37 pm – Daniel Lee:
Absolutely. And one of the things. So, a couple things that I want to, I just want to mention as we tie up here, is that I absolutely agree with you players generally want to play magic. It’s why it’s why we always encourage players to make sure that they actually do drop from the event, if they’re no longer planning on playing on it. So, we don’t have a bunch of players show up for the next round. That don’t get to play magic because they have no opponent like as nice as it is to be like, congrats on your free win. Like I I was in this exact position on Saturday. I played in a pioneer rcq here in Los Angeles and I was not doing very well because I don’t play good decks. But that’s that’s a that’s a separate issue. But going into round five or something like that. I’m sitting down here like the last handful of tables and my opponent doesn’t show up and I’m just like okay but I’m here I’m only still here because I want to play pioneer, right? Like I don’t even mind that I haven’t

1:54:32 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Uh-huh.

1:54:34 pm – Daniel Lee:
won a match all day. Like I said, I want I’m here to play because I because I really enjoy this format so Even winning a match outright is less important to me than getting to play this game, right? Like that’s like yeah. So I I absolutely do very much feel that that’s true. I do want to re-emphasize two, folks that a lot of these situations that we’ve been discussing here today are deviations from policy and should not be considered as a thing that you jump to. When a, just because a backup is a little bit messy. I’ve done plenty of messy backups. That is the reality of judging it competitive rules, enforcement level, messy backups happen and should not be deviated from just because they’re messy, there should be some extra kind of like extenuating circumstance going on there. That makes it more appropriate to deviate from policy because the consistency is really an important thing. I did want to make sure to mention this because we’ve there have been some stories coming out about like rcq’s that had where players had some poor experiences over the weekend. This is the first rcq weekend. So there have been some stories floating around the Internet of players that had really poor experiences and a lot of that Really does boil down to they The tournament didn’t go, how they expected it to when it came to rules and policy being handled by the

1:55:57 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Uh-huh.

1:55:58 pm – Daniel Lee:
tournament staff. So, When we talk about consistency, it’s that’s what that’s the thing that we’re trying to avoid, right? We’re trying to make sure that we’re

1:56:07 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Yep.

1:56:07 pm – Daniel Lee:
doing our best job to enforce the comprehensive rules as they’re written the IPG as it’s written. So that players can have this expectable this expectation going into a tournament and that we are there to give them that experience. Right. And deviations.

1:56:26 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Probably agree.

1:56:27 pm – Daniel Lee:
Yeah. Yeah, deviations are a tool that we have only for when applying the letter of the law actually results in a worse thing than if we were able to do something else in this particular scenario, and that’s not going to happen nearly. As often as it sounds like it does.

1:56:42 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Yeah.

1:56:42 pm – Daniel Lee:
Yeah, so, all right, cool. Well, thanks very much for your time. Antonio.

1:56:48 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Thanks for having me.

1:56:50 pm – Daniel Lee:
Yeah, of course is a got a lot of

1:56:51 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
It was great.

1:56:51 pm – Daniel Lee:
really good conversations. Thank you to everyone in the chat, malpanda, gabo and Mtg dad 73 You guys contributed a lot and I really, really appreciate a really appreciate your interaction. My name is Daniel Lee. We’re gonna be back with our first week tomorrow. Let me see when we see what tomorrow 10 am Pacific. Eric Olaf is gonna be here to talk about covid and organized play. So please make sure you turn them tune in for that that’s 10 am Pacific time. That’s UTC, minus seven. So if you’ve you can adjust that to your own time zones there and I’ll be back on Thursday to talk about some combat rules with a with a local judge of mine here in LA. So hope you all tune in for that. And thanks very much for joining. We’ll catch you later.

1:57:34 pm – Antonio Henrique Berno Zanutto:
Thanks. Bye.