Best posts made by Katzby
posted in Vintage Community read more

@ajfirecracker said:

@Katzby said:

It was pretty obvious from me standing there that he made an honest mistake on that one. He received a warning for a GRV, we moved on, and everyone was happy (or so I thought).

But now I see that this is just another drop in the bucket that people are using to try to show he was cheating. This whole thing has really fed on itself in a pretty ugly way.

This comment is ridiculous and you should be ashamed. Looking at the objective evidence and trying to determine whether or not the rules were followed is 100% legitimate.

Please explain what you mean. I know of and knew then of all of the rules infractions being raised here. However, simply listing them all doesn't prove that he actually intended to break the rules. Remember, only intentionally breaking rules is cheating.

Also, getting called ridiculous for trying to help clear up some of the misconceptions I see here is precisely what I meant earlier about being dubious about wanting to participate in this thread further.

posted in Vintage Community read more

@Samoht said:

Can you comment on why when an opponent requested that judges shuffle his deck that request was denied?

Yes, that was my decision and I completely stand by it.

As I've said above, I didn't think he was cheating, and this was a conclusion I came to after observing his play, talking to the spectators and opponents who reported issues, and most importantly, a brief interview with him Friday evening and a much longer one with him prior to his QF match.

If I don't think that a player is cheating, I'm not going to treat him like a cheater, plain and simple.

Besides, I gave the person that made this request my word that I would personally watch Joseph B shuffle. I didn't just say "no," scoff, and wave him off as I'm sure many in this thread imagine. I took him aside, explained my concerns, and also tried to make it clear that it would send the wrong message, especially multiplied by all those watching on stream. I did my best to reason with him.

And I personally did watch Joseph B closely for the entire match- I would challenge anybody to find any video or photos of me doing anything other than this. In fact, Joseph B had three judges watching his every move during the entire top 8. I arranged for this due to the public pressure and concerns about him. But, importantly, this was not because I thought he was cheating. If I believed that to be the case, I would have DQ'd him.

As a result, I am very convinced that no matter what you may think he was trying to pull throughout the event, that he couldn't and didn't do any of it on Sunday. If he had, we would have seen him do it.

posted in Vintage Community read more

@Juggernaut-GO said:

@Katzby he had exactly the right amount of cards, you just took his word on which order he drew them and didn't think logically on the order of events in the match.

Truth is buddy, you blew up my tournament chances in round 2 yet I still almost got there. To see that you blew so many calls revolving around the asterisked winner shows a pattern of ineptitude. I'd honestly be questioning my ability to be a head judge when so many people are doing the same thing.

As I said, I'm sorry you had such a negative experience, but I didn't just take anybody's word; I heard both sides and made a determination. I don't claim to be infallible, but I do claim to be fair.

posted in Vintage Community read more

@ajfirecracker said:

@desolutionist https://www.twitch.tv/cardtitan/v/98040029?t=03m00s Joseph plays a Mox Sapphire into a Thorn of Amethyst with no other mana sources in play

It was pretty obvious from me standing there that he made an honest mistake on that one, just as I believe his earlier mistakes were honest, too.

Think back and ask yourself about the last time you failed to pay extra for a Sphere/Thalia/etc. Should you have also been disqualified for cheating then? Mistakes are a part of the game.

He received a warning for a GRV, we moved on, and everyone was happy (or so I thought). But now I see that this is just another drop in the bucket that people are using to try to show he was cheating. This whole thing has really fed on itself in a pretty ugly way.

posted in Vintage Community read more

@diophan said:

If the head judge is willing to explain what happened more I would appreciate having more information, so let's try not to escalate tensions.

What I am personally most confused about is why the collection of GRVs did not result in a game loss at any point. There are at least 3 GRVs from the Swiss and at least 3 GRVs from the top 8 by my count.

This is what I mean about there being so much misinformation about this on the Internet. He received a total of two GRV warnings on each Friday and Sunday.

Friday- GRV 1 for failing to discard.
GRV2 for attempting to play a second land.
I did not hear about the second instance of playing two lands until after the match was over. In that case, the judge in the area considered the issue to be rooted in the missed Mana Drain trigger that we also handled, and didn't issue a further penalty.

Sunday- GRV 1 for the Mox into a Thorn.
GRV 2 for tapping a Fetchland for mana just after an Urborg got Stripped.

No other GRVs were assessed. In both cases, though, one more would have resulted in a game loss.

As an aside, I was not thrilled about the prospect of 2016 Vintage Champs being decided by a game loss due to a play error, and even found some time to sneak away before game 3 and warn Nick that the chances were pretty good that that's exactly what was about to happen.

posted in Vintage Community read more

@Trius said:

The issue I have with intent is that the accidental cheater gets the win while the victim gets the loss.

From a policy perspective, there is no such thing as accidental cheating. You can accidentally break rules, sure, but generally speaking, unless it is done knowingly and intentionally, that's not cheating.

posted in Vintage Community read more

@ajfirecracker said:

@Katzby

Some violations of tournament rules will not meet the criteria for any specific infraction. Many minor offenses that a player can commit, even intentionally, are not covered by a specific infraction should be handled initially with a Caution. If repeated, the judge is expected to directly instruct the player not to repeat the offense, and further offenses are treated as Unsporting Conduct — Major for failing to follow the direct instruction of a tournament official.

I think you can make a case that the repeated shuffling violations after being instructed to change his technique violate this particular rule (from the IPG). While I don't think that judgment is clear-cut, I do think it's perfectly reasonable to have a discussion about it. The suggestion you've made that somehow the discussion itself is improper (i.e. that your work as a judge cannot under any circumstances be reviewed or criticized by the player community) is the most harmful thing in this thread.

Again, I think your perception of the issue doesn't actually match what went on. The only reason that I told Joseph B to turn his head away from the cards as he shuffled was because I wanted to prevent even the appearance of impropriety. I was trying to prevent somebody from pointing to his shuffling as another example of how he was cheating.

What I said was, "Joseph, I can see that you aren't looking at your cards, but would you mind turning away anyway just so nobody thinks you are?" As it turned out, I said the exact same thing to his finals opponent at one point, and got his finals opponent to start shuffling the same way. Should that be taken as evidence the runner up was also cheating?

In truth, the shuffling both players were doing was actually fine and not suspect at all; it's just that I wanted to cut down on the accusations people were making, and not leave anybody room to make more.

As you can see, this also backfired.

The suggestion you've made that somehow the discussion itself is improper (i.e. that your work as a judge cannot under any circumstances be reviewed or criticized by the player community) is the most harmful thing in this thread.

What are you taking about? How in the world did I give you that impression? I'm here talking about my decisions and answering questions, aren't I? I was asking instead only to keep it civil, which I feel some in this thread are not doing.

posted in Vintage Community read more

@Juggernaut-GO said:

@Smmenen same head judge also said my opponent wasn't cheating, even jumped through hoops to help the kid talk his way out of incriminating himself. Never once in the history of playing in this format have I caught a player cheating me, let alone accuse them with a judge present. That happened for the first time to me on Friday.

What in the world are you taking about?

Edit: seriously, can I have some more details? Was this an appeal I took or a call I answered directly?

Another edit:
Oh, I figured out who you are. You were concerned that your opponent drew an extra card, but then we counted them all and figured out that he had the right number. I also recall showing my math to you and giving you a chance to explain where I was wrong.

I'm terribly sorry this was an unpleasant event for you, but I assure you that I gave your call fair consideration. It's just that my conclusion was that nobody in your match was cheating.

posted in Vintage Community read more

@Vnayin said:

@Katzby The game doesn't look competitive when a player is making that many mistakes is on camera and in contention or in the finals. Playing multiple lands a turn, not playing for resistors, and not discarding down to 7 are not harmless, dumb stuff, but competitive advantages whether or not they are intended. I think its fine to be more player-friendly at regular REL, but at Comp REL people should be aware that they are being held to high standards and accept the consequences. Especially in the modern day with MTG streams. If this game wants to be treated like other e-sports then we need to demand the high standards from the competitors or streamed tournaments will look like a joke.

Okay. Well, I will say that we were following a competitive REL policy document called the MIPG for Vintage Champs. If you don't think we followed that document correctly, then I'd love to talk to you about it here.

If you think that document should be changed, I'd say that's probably a conversation for another time (or at least another thread).

posted in Vintage Community read more

@Bibendum said:

That being said, I have a huge issue with 7 or 8 GRV total (he was only called for 4)

Earlier in this thread, I listed all 4 GRVs this player was issued. Can you list the other 3-4 that weren't called? This is the first I'm hearing of those.

and it being shrugged off as sloppy play. I'm real sceptical that it was just carelessness when every error benefited him. Show me one or two that weren't in his favor and ill believe it's sloppiness but until then I can't think anything else.

Well, it wasn't a GRV, but I definitely did rule against him when he very sloppily forgot to announce his floating mana for Mana Drain. As a result, he missed his trigger and lost out on mana that turn. Does that count?

Also, comparing GRVs that didn't benefit him to ones that did is hardly a fair measurement. There were a couple of times when he very sloppily over-tapped his mana because he forgot a Golem got Plowed. We didn't need to issue him GRVs there; under-tapping would have earned him a penalty, but over-tapping is not against the rules. Do you see the problem here?

Again, my goal here is not to try to defend Joseph B. Rather, I'd like to try to set the record straight about much of what I'm seeing here.

@Katzby Abe I think you did a great job.

Thanks for the kind words.

posted in Vintage Community read more

@Vnayin

To me that means that judges should be doing more to proactively identify GRVs and issue warnings. How much of that is logistically possible, I'm not sure(it would be nice to have judges watch the in-contention matches the last 2 or so rounds). But you should have at least identified someone who gets 2 GRVs in one game at X-1 as a potential threat to the integrity of the event and had him watched by a judge for rounds 8 and 9.

Respectfully, I disagree. The judge staff counts on players to call for a judge if and when something goes wrong in a match. Basically, if a rule is broken, we rely on that player's opponent to bring this to our attention by rasising a hand and calling for a judge.

I'm not seeing what stationing judges at matches containing players who earned multiple warnings per match would accomplish. Won't those opponents still call a judge as normal?

Furthermore, it's just not feasible- the number of players with multiple warnings by round 8 is far more than you think. Not to mention the fact that I'm still willing to bet that the vast majority of those players also got themselves there through a series of honest mistakes, and, by and large, aren't people that I am especially motivated to see get a game loss.

Or, is it that you are saying you want extra judges stationed near the so-called "bubble-match" area containing the majority of win-and-in matchups? If that's your concern, then I am happy to report I instructed my floor team to do exactly that for both rounds 8 and 9.

Now, the argument could be made that more effort needs to go into reminding players to call for judges. Bear in mind that I can only make so many announcements per event before people tune me out altogether, though, and I had already made one to this effect just before round 1.

posted in Vintage Community read more

People have been predicting the end of Legacy for years, and the end of Vintage since well before there was Legacy. These times are not unique, despite evidently being unique to you.

posted in Vintage Community read more

@Vnayin said:

@Katzby right, there is no accidental cheating, but there is sloppy play. Whether or not Joe actually cheated, he had real advantages in the competition from sloppy play.

Maybe he did, and maybe he didn't, but I will say that all issues for which a judge was called over to his match were completely mitigated through corrective action and penalties.

If there were any other advantages Joe gained through sloppy play where a judge wasn't called at all, then, well... the moral of the story is that people should call judges more often. Coincidentally, I recall this being part of my opening announcements on Friday.

Shouldn't judges be more aggressive in issuing GRVs and game losses then to try and reduce sloppy play from being in contention of MTG events?

That's certainly one opinion. Another opinion is that if we took anymore aggressive stance toward errors, we would end up with lots of harsh penalties issued to players who were guilty only of harmless, dumb stuff.

When I started judging, if a player forgot to record a card on his list and only registered 59, that player was disqualified. Would you like us to return to that system? The trend over the 13 years that I've been judging has to be more player-friendly and less harsh with players. The philosophy here is that most people who receive penalties actually came about them through earnest effort to play the game right.

We can agree to disagree, but I personally feel that organized play is better off this way.

posted in Vintage Community read more

@spook said:

@Katzby said:

@diophan

After game one I noticed while they were sideboarding that Bogaard appeared to have only 4 foils in his deck: FTV Strip Mine, Judge Sol Ring, Non-Judge Foil Crucible of Worlds, and Snapcaster Mage. The first 3 foils are notable for being the versions with the most foiling which causes them to warp. They are also notable for being the 3 cards available as a foil that you want against shops.

He had more than 4 foils in his deck. I asked him to replace precisely 4 of them. SnapcasterMage was not one of them. The remaining ones- including the Strip Mine- were not very bent, and so they stayed in.

If this is true, there is a dangerous lack of logical consistency. If the cards were marked, Joseph should habe received a game loss/DQ (much like people who had marked delvers in Champs two years ago). If they were not marked, he should not have been required to switch out his cards.

I can't get into all of the reasons that we didn't require him to replace his foils before his QF match, but I can assure you that this was intentional.

It was intentional and it lost Montolio the game, and possibly the match. You seem fine with that.

I have said elsewhere that I am extremely confidant that no shenanigans of any kind occurred during the entire top 8. Some rules were broken, yes, but not intentionally. Those errors were dealt with when they occurred.

I personally watched Joseph Bogaard shuffle for all of his games. There were also two other great judges in the playoff area who were also watching. I am positive that Joseph did not manipulate foils or arrange his deck in any way in the top 8. I know what that looks like and I would have seen it if it happened.

So, please tell me what proof you have that Joseph playing with bent foils in the QF caused Montolio to lose. If you don't have any, then maybe you shouldn't make assertions like that.

posted in Vintage Community read more

@Templar said:

Sadly, I couldn't attend this year, but I watched as much of the stream as I could. The most suspicious thing about Mr. Bogaard's sloppy play was this: Not once did I see him make a mistake that was to his detriment.

What about the match where he missed his Mana Drain trigger? Was that not to his detriment?

posted in Vintage Community read more

@Serracollector said in Vintage Restricted List Discussion:

You could pop Mox Diamond like a lotus petal when it first came out, and Im 99% sure Lotus Vayle and Scorched Ruins were the same way. You could tap them as a mana effect, which was faster than any effect at the time, and then sac them and not sac the other lands, which would essentially add a Lotus and 4 colorless lotus to the card pool. I never did this with these cards, but I have done it in the past with Lake of the Dead and Kjeldoran Outpost.

While you are correct that you could do this with KJ Outpost, you are incorrect that it was ever possible to do this with Diamond, Vale, or Ruins. These cards came out under different rules sets (4th Edition for Outpost, 5th Edition for the other 3), and so they worked differently at the time. I'm going to quote myself from Reddit to explain this further:

Alliances came out when 4th edition rules were in effect, which included something called a "damage prevention/redirection subphase" that would occur every time something was about to take damage or go to the graveyard. The types of spells and abilities legal during this subphase were limited to thing like Regeneration abilities, damage prevention abilities ala Healing Salve, and damage redirection abilities like with Simulacrum. Many of these cards work differently now, so you’d probably have to look at a 4th edition version of each one in Gatherer rather than referring to their current Oracle text to understand.

Furthermore, though, interrupts or abilities that could be played as an interrupt (such as tapping any of the Alliances lands for mana) were also legal during this subphase. After all, a player would need access to mana to power Regeneration (tapping lands for mana was played as an interrupt), and Healing Salve could still be countered by Counterspell, which was an interrupt at the time. So, there was a bit of a loophole, here.

Up until 5th edition rules went into effect (with the release of Mirage), it was possible to play a Lake of the Dead, announce that you will be sacrificing the Lake for the Dead for its "comes into play ability," enter the resulting damage prevention/redirection subphase, and then use Lake of the Dead's “add BBBB” ability (an ability playable as an interrupt) before sacrificing the Lake itself.

The upshot of all of this is that, for example, you could have BBBB available on turn 2 if you played a Swamp on turn 1, the Lake on turn 2, and were willing to lose both of your lands. Alternatively, you could have 1R or 1U available on the first turn by playing either Balduvian Trading Post or Soldevi Excavations as long as you were willing to be a land behind for the rest of the game.

This was specifically disallowed with 5th edition rules. 5th edition rules included a rule that required players to deal with a permanent's "comes into play ability" before any of that permanent's abilities could be legally played, no matter whether that ability was played as an interrupt, "mana source," or otherwise, So, once 5th edition rules went into effect, it was no longer possible to use the “Lake trick.” This is the rule that prevented Lotus Vale and Scorched Ruins and the like from being broken as all hell at the time Weatherlight came out. Once in a while, I run into a player that says “oh, I remember back when you could get 3 mana on the first turn from Lotus Vale.” Those players are wrong; presumably, they are either mis-remembering or just didn’t understand the rules very well at the time.

6th edition rules, which came out some while after any of the above-mentioned cards first saw print, simplified things by getting rid of the above-mentioned rule and just slapping Lake, Trading Post, Lotus Vale, etc., with the errata similar to what they still have today.

TL;DR: It was never possible to use Lotus Vale for mana before dealing with its “comes into play” ability. It was, however, briefly possible to use Lake of the Dead (and the rest of the Alliances cycle) for mana before dealing with their “comes into play ability.”

posted in Vintage Community read more

@nedleeds said in Reverting cards to original functionality:

Djinn was played as a destroy effect for years, it's a terrible card in modern magic either way but would be an interesting player in 93/94 if you could combo with Consecrate Land.

One quick note- even if Serendib Djinn's wording were changed to something like "At the beginning of your upkeep, destroy a land you control...", then it would still not combo with Consecrate Land. Or rather, it would, but probably not in the way that you are thinking.

I gather what you wish to do is choose your Consecrated land each turn and expect this to satisfy the trigger, meanwhile going about the rest of your game with other lands on the battlefield. Right? This would not work under the current rules.

This is because Consecrate Land gives the enchanted land Indestructible, and so it would therefore be an illegal choice when resolving this ability.

What you could do, though, is destroy all of your other lands leaving only Consecrate-enchanted lands on the battlefield under you control. This would at least allow you to escape the other "When you control no lands..." trigger condition. But, again, I don't think this is what you were going for.

There are various ways to change the wording of the ability to something that would combo with Consecrate Land, but I feel any such wording would be even further away from the original text than the current Oracle seems to be.

FYI, the hypothetical wording above would still combo with Pyramids, though.

Thanks.

Abe

posted in Vintage Community read more

@blindtherapy

So apparently unmask was errataed from "look at target player's hand" to "target player reveals their hand" since at least 2014. Probably not going to change back since they just reprinted this.

Actually, the reason that this was updated is because the Unmask discard is not optional, and Unmask allows you to target yourself. Do you see why this is a problem?

Suppose you and I are playing, and on turn 1, I cast Unmask, targeting you. In response, you cast Misdirection, changing the target of my Unmask to me. Do you see it now?

Under the original Unmask wording, which instructed me to "look at target player's hand," what would stop me from looking at my own hand, saying "nope, there are no nonlands in here for me to discard, so I guess Unmask whiffs," and therefore not have to discard anything? Unless you had, say, a Telepathy on the battlefield, you would have no way to verify what I was claiming were true.

I clearly recall that several years ago, an effort was made to update the Oracle of all cards where, in some cases, one player would have no choice but to take his opponent's word. It was evidently decided by the powers that be that needing to sometimes call a judge to ensure your opponent was being honest was less preferable to just changing stuff like Unmask from a "look" to a "reveal."

Around this same time, other cards like Cauldron Dance got an Oracle update to solve a similar problem. Compare the Invasion version of Cauldron Dance to the Commander 2017 printing. Do you see the difference? Do you get why the change? Neat, huh?

Bonus tidbit- despite WOTC's best effort to Oracle away the above-described problem for all cards in the game, I know one case where this is still an issue. If you want to know where, try taking a look at the Oracle text of Ice Cauldron sometime.

posted in Vintage Community read more

@ajfirecracker

Missed Trigger is a different infraction. Warnings for those don't stack up in the same way, but they can stack up individually.

The judge considered the second double land drop to have been caused directly by her influence on the match when dealing with the missed trigger infraction, and so didn't issue another penalty.

Again, I was not made aware of it until after the match, so even if I felt differently about it, it was too late to do anything about it.

posted in Vintage Community read more

@diophan

After game one I noticed while they were sideboarding that Bogaard appeared to have only 4 foils in his deck: FTV Strip Mine, Judge Sol Ring, Non-Judge Foil Crucible of Worlds, and Snapcaster Mage. The first 3 foils are notable for being the versions with the most foiling which causes them to warp. They are also notable for being the 3 cards available as a foil that you want against shops.

He had more than 4 foils in his deck. I asked him to replace precisely 4 of them. SnapcasterMage was not one of them. The remaining ones- including the Strip Mine- were not very bent, and so they stayed in.

If this is true, there is a dangerous lack of logical consistency. If the cards were marked, Joseph should habe received a game loss/DQ (much like people who had marked delvers in Champs two years ago). If they were not marked, he should not have been required to switch out his cards.

I can't get into all of the reasons that we didn't require him to replace his foils before his QF match, but I can assure you that this was intentional.

However, respectfully, you are mistake about saying a GL/DQ is the prescribed penalty for marked cards.