Rudy's Critique of PTLA (repost from .strategy)
Rudy Edward
This is not my PTLA tournament report. If you are looking for that,
you'll have to wait awhile. If you're wondering why its taken me so long
to write this up, it's cause I havent had the MI rulebook to make my
Mills argument. While reading this post, you should also be aware that I
am far from anti-WotC, or any of that. I personally feel somewhat
priveledged to be playing for the huge amounts of money WotC puts up at
the Pro Tour, and am very content with their support of the magic scene.
My concern is just as much for the preservation and promotion of magic as
an intellectual sport as it is for them. I am very interested in the
promotion of the legitimicy of Magic as intellectual competition, and my
criticism is aimed towards the promotion of the Pro Tour itself. (whew,
if you havent got the point of this disclaimer yet, you're not going to)
Most of you know how I felt about the format for this pro tour. to recap,
about 3 months ago, I posted the following sentiments:
1. I felt that WotC had given us less than ample time to begin our
practice of the format, and I was critical of the lateness with which
they announced the "exact" format
2. I felt that WotC had learned from it's mistakes in PT2 regarding mass
drafting and format, and fixed the problem when they announced multiple
drafts before elims, and playing only ppl you draft with.
3. I was unsure about the fairness of Rochester Draft itself.
I had more or less forgotten about that post, until PTLA when Henry Stern
asked me if my experience had changed my outlook regarding that post. I
gave a quick, yet innacurate response, but have had plenty of time to
think about it since then. Here is my current viewpoint on those
subjects:
1. up until the players meeting Friday night, I was relatively satisfied
with WotC's consistancy regarding the format. I dont have a problem with
the time frame we were given to practice the format, however, I had a few
small problems, resulting primarily from last minute changes to the
format. luckily, these were rather small, mostly regarding exactly what
the random card added to packs was.
2. while WotC had obviously learned from thier past mistakes, they
obviously hadnt given the structure of this format much thought. this
tournament would have easily been 2 or 3 times better had the 2nd draft
not been powered (meaning all 3-0's at the same table) perhaps WotC hadnt
considered the intentional draw rule when designing this system, but it
essentially turned the tourney into 2 tournaments. a 3 round single
elimination tournament to the top 64, and a losers bracket 6 round
tournament to the top 64. in retrospect, I could have made the top 64
having only WON one actual game, had I drawn in rounds 4,5, and 6 (which
was totally possible, because I was at the half 3-0 table.)
Most of you will cry that this is the fault of the intentional draw rule,
and I disagree. I like the intentional draw rule, however, it has to be
paired with a tournament system that doesnt allow it to be abused. had
the 2nd Draft been power-protected rather than powered, no one would have
drawn until AT THE EARLIEST 5th round, most of the draws would occur
during the 6th round, and everyone who did so would have felt the weight
of the tie breakers the next day.
3. I take it back. Rochester is the best out of all the draft formats. I
still prefer straight sealed deck, but Rochester is pretty good. It would
have been better had there been less chumps in the tournament. (I have a
great idea about how to accomplish that, but I'll save that for another
time, eh?)
Allright, now its time for the beef. I have a couple of statements of
fact to be made about the Mills incident real quick, for all to remember
while reading my analysis of the judgement and punishment:
1. I feel that Wizards of the Coast was not intentionally trying to
harass David Mills. I've given it great consideration, because of David's
friendship with Mike Long, if someone was to be targeted by WotC, I'm
sure he would be a prime target. However, we have to assume at this point
that the Pro tour staff is trying it's hardest to maintain the integrity
of the Pro Tour, and that this is thier prime motivator.
2. In light of the above, remember that all my statements about this
matter assume that the integrity of the tournament is the number one
concern of the officials.
3. I have known David for awhile now, and while you may not know him, I
do know that revealing a spell before he casts it is his personal play
style, and he has played like that for years, under the assumption that
it was not againts the rules (whether or not it was againts the rules I
will debate later) whenever discussion moves to include david's
motivations or intentions, I am positive that he does not play like that
to be unsportsmanlike or to gain an UNFAIR advantage.
4. I do not want to appear to belittle Tommi Hovi's accomplishments at
all. he worked hard and deserves tons of credit. Congratulations!
now, having made those statements, lets move on to the debate: first,
IS DAVID'S PLAY STYLE IN AND OF ITSELF ILLEGAL?
this argument has been raging on IRC, usenet, and heck even on the Queen
Mary that night.. the primary argument has been quotation of the MI
rulebook pages 31-32:
> you must have all the necessary resources available to play a cost; for
> example, you tap lands for mana before playing a spell, not while
> playing it.
the problem is, that because it is in the rulebook in this way, it is
impossible to cast a spell without having the resources in your pool to
play the spell. so, when david shows his spell by laying it on the table,
ACCORDING TO THE RULES he must be announcing his intention to cast the
spell, and he cant be casting the spell until the resources are in his
pool. It is therefore impossible for him to be "casting a spell before
tapping mana into his pool" he is merely announcing the spell, the spell
is not actually cast until he pays all costs involved.
the MI rulebook, therefore, establishes that <before he recieved a
warning for his play style> David Mills was not breaking the rules.
however, things changed once he had recieved a warning.
WHY WAS DAVID MILLS FORCED TO ADJUST HIS LEGAL PLAY STYLE IN THE MIDDLE
OF THE FINAL ROUNDS OF A MATCH?
understand that when the judge gave him a warning for his play style,
when he did not appeal the warning, David was setting himself up for this
whole mess. however, that does not change the fact that he never should
have recieved this warning in the first place.
Since his play style was not in and of itself againts the rules, If the
judge felt that David was deliberately trying to gain an unfair advantage
by announcing his spells first, he should have recieved a warning for
unsportsmanlike conduct. this is the same as playing with your balance
tucked into your hat, or counterspells facing your opponent. Fortunately,
even this would have been a tough call, because the final DQ was given
in a situation where David could obviously gain no advantage from the
play style.
This is a really tough call. I personally feel that there SHOULD be a
rule againts David's play style, and it SHOULD be enforced throughout the
tournament. however, that does not change the fact that there was no such
rule, and David was asked to change his LEGAL play style in the middle of
the most important match of his career, in front of a TV audience, during
his first pro tour. The fact that he had been playing like that for 2
years didnt help his chances. Make this rule, enforce it, but dont do it
in the middle of a final round, eh?
OK, SO WHAT SHOULD WOTC HAVE DONE?
well, once the judge had DQed David, and the cards were picked up, there
was very little that they could do. This is really a tough call, because
WotC's primary goal has to be to preserve the integrity of the Pro Tour.
I suppose that their final solution was closer to satisfactory then I
expected from them at the time, but hey, tough call, joe. those of you
bitching about WotC waffling their DQ policy, give it up. Imagine how
hard hit the Pro Tour integrity would be now that we understand David
wasnt breaking any rules? getting shafted one slot and a few thousand
dollars is nothing compared to losing 5 spots and all the dough.
or, as Chris Pikula said, "anyone who thinks David Mills deserved to be
kicked out of the tournament is an asshole" ....
or something like that.
-Rudy Edwards
*******************************************************************
I'd love to debate the finer points of my post with anyone who will
either debate them rationally, or accept me as total authority on
everything, it doesnt really matter which.
*******************************************************************
Raver Efreet
Rudy Edward wrote:
the primary argument has been quotation of the MI
> rulebook pages 31-32:
> > you must have all the necessary resources available to play a cost; for
> > example, you tap lands for mana before playing a spell, not while
> > playing it.
ok, Im having enough of a debate with David low to go into this fully,
but here is the opposing point of view. According to the above, I
belive the current interpretation says that if you put down a spell
without haveing the mana available, you are attempting to cast a spell.
announcement of a spell is the first part in playing a spell, and so to
announce a spell without haveing mana in your pool is illegal.
raver efreet
insert sig.txt here
Paul Barclay
Rudy Edward <bjexc...@earthlink.net> writes:
[quite excellent analysis snipped]
>1. I feel that Wizards of the Coast was not intentionally trying to
>harass David Mills.
They bent over backwards to save the guy from an Ejection. I'd say that they
weren't trying to harass him.
>3. I have known David for awhile now, and while you may not know him, I
>do know that revealing a spell before he casts it is his personal play
>style. I am positive that he does not play like that
>to be unsportsmanlike or to gain an UNFAIR advantage.
I agree. I know a lot of people who play like this.
>IS DAVID'S PLAY STYLE IN AND OF ITSELF ILLEGAL?
Simply, yes. You aren't allowed to show the cards in your hand to your
opponent. You don't show your opponent a spell until after you've paid it's
costs (you show it when the spell goes to Limbo). These have both been rules
for a very long time.
>MI rulebook pages 31-32:
>> you must have all the necessary resources available to play a cost; for
>> example, you tap lands for mana before playing a spell, not while
>> playing it.
>the problem is, that because it is in the rulebook in this way, it is
>impossible to cast a spell without having the resources in your pool to
>play the spell.
Yep.
so, when david shows his spell by laying it on the table,
>ACCORDING TO THE RULES he must be announcing his intention to cast the
>spell, and he cant be casting the spell until the resources are in his
>pool. It is therefore impossible for him to be "casting a spell before
>tapping mana into his pool" he is merely announcing the spell, the spell
>is not actually cast until he pays all costs involved.
Except by showing the card to his opponent, he is actully announcing the
spell. You can't do this unless you can pay for it.
>WHY WAS DAVID MILLS FORCED TO ADJUST HIS LEGAL PLAY STYLE IN THE MIDDLE
>OF THE FINAL ROUNDS OF A MATCH?
It wasn't legal. Therefore he had to change it.
>This is a really tough call.
I agree with this. All the calls made were really tough.
>I personally feel that there SHOULD be a
>rule againts David's play style, and it SHOULD be enforced throughout the
>tournament.
It does exist.
>well, once the judge had DQed David, and the cards were picked up, there
>was very little that they could do. This is really a tough call, because
>WotC's primary goal has to be to preserve the integrity of the Pro Tour.
They didn't do too well on that, though.
>I suppose that their final solution was closer to satisfactory then I
>expected from them at the time, but hey, tough call, joe. those of you
>bitching about WotC waffling their DQ policy, give it up. Imagine how
>hard hit the Pro Tour integrity would be now that we understand David
>wasnt breaking any rules? getting shafted one slot and a few thousand
>dollars is nothing compared to losing 5 spots and all the dough.
Their integrity is in tatters because they didn't enforce all their rules.
>or, as Chris Pikula said, "anyone who thinks David Mills deserved to be
>kicked out of the tournament is an asshole" ....
I agree 100% with this. However, once he recieved his second warning, there
was no choice, unless that second warning was revoked (and it wasn't).
Paul Barclay.
P.S. A lot of people think that the fact that David Mills was warned was the
problem. It isn't the real problem is the fact that th DCI didn't follow their
own rules.
Michael Falkner
Posted to both .strategy and .rules
In article <5g75t7$6...@bolivia.earthlink.net>, Rudy says...
>
>This is not my PTLA tournament report. If you are looking for that,
>you'll have to wait awhile. If you're wondering why its taken me so long
>to write this up, it's cause I havent had the MI rulebook to make my
>Mills argument. While reading this post, you should also be aware that I
>am far from anti-WotC, or any of that. I personally feel somewhat
>priveledged to be playing for the huge amounts of money WotC puts up at
>the Pro Tour, and am very content with their support of the magic scene.
Speak for yourself. You'll see what I mean later. I feel WotC is promoting
utter chaos, especially with respect to the crown jewel of the entire operation,
the Professional Tour.
>My concern is just as much for the preservation and promotion of magic as
>an intellectual sport as it is for them. I am very interested in the
>promotion of the legitimicy of Magic as intellectual competition, and my
>criticism is aimed towards the promotion of the Pro Tour itself. (whew,
>if you havent got the point of this disclaimer yet, you're not going to)
I get the point, and agree with the latter point. My disagreement is noted above,
and will be explained below.
>Most of you know how I felt about the format for this pro tour. to recap,
>about 3 months ago, I posted the following sentiments:
>
>1. I felt that WotC had given us less than ample time to begin our
>practice of the format, and I was critical of the lateness with which
>they announced the "exact" format
WotC now assumes that if you are of the type to be playing in a Pro Tour, that you
have the sophistication to be ready for the format, no matter what it may mean.
Read: They have a standing assumption that you know what a Rochester Draft is
before you get in the door.
>2. I felt that WotC had learned from it's mistakes in PT2 regarding mass
>drafting and format, and fixed the problem when they announced multiple
>drafts before elims, and playing only ppl you draft with.
Excellent move -- what WotC wishes to do in this format is to test the players'
ability to create a pool of cards before they even get to the point where they
construct a deck -- this is different from sealed deck, where you are provided
a pool of cards. Another level of the test of a player's prowess.
>3. I was unsure about the fairness of Rochester Draft itself.
As evidenced in the Autumn Season of Arena -- you can most certainly lose a match
or be knocked out of a tournament before you even play your first card. There is
an immense amount of luck in Rochester/Continuous Draft.
>2. while WotC had obviously learned from thier past mistakes, they
>obviously hadnt given the structure of this format much thought. this
>tournament would have easily been 2 or 3 times better had the 2nd draft
>not been powered (meaning all 3-0's at the same table) perhaps WotC hadnt
Problem with this is to do otherwise violates the idea of Swiss.
>considered the intentional draw rule when designing this system, but it
>essentially turned the tourney into 2 tournaments. a 3 round single
>elimination tournament to the top 64, and a losers bracket 6 round
>tournament to the top 64. in retrospect, I could have made the top 64
>having only WON one actual game, had I drawn in rounds 4,5, and 6 (which
>was totally possible, because I was at the half 3-0 table.)
This is why they need to get rid of the ID rule NOW -- but they have more concerning
things to take care of first.
>Most of you will cry that this is the fault of the intentional draw rule,
>and I disagree. I like the intentional draw rule, however, it has to be
>paired with a tournament system that doesnt allow it to be abused.
ANY tournament system can have abuse of the ID rule. Let me give you a concrete
example:
(This did not occur, but could have.)
Regional Tournament in Chicago last year. Over 1000 players playing for 32
elimination slots. Tournament is Swiss-paired based on game score first. 3
points for a won game, 1 point for a drawn game.
The cutoff for advancement was 13-5, 39 points.
Now, a player COULD go 6-0 in matches, but win two matches 2-0-1 and 4 matches
2-1, and get 38 points.
Now, assume a player stands 4-1, but all five of his matches have been sweeps.
He has 12 game wins for 36 points. If he negotiates an ID, he gets 4 points, and
a 4-1-1 player has advanced (40 points) where a perfect 6-0 player is eliminated.
This is DOWN RIGHT WRONG!!
>the 2nd Draft been power-protected rather than powered, no one would have
>drawn until AT THE EARLIEST 5th round, most of the draws would occur
>during the 6th round, and everyone who did so would have felt the weight
>of the tie breakers the next day.
I still like the rumored but incorrect solution that was stated on e-mail:
Prisoners' Dilemma. Before each round that an ID would be considered, you mark
a slip of paper "Draw" or "Play". Two "Draws" or "Plays" determine the result,
but a split means that the "Play" player WINS THE MATCH WITHOUT PLAY.
I think that would effectively end the ID rule without really ending it.
>3. I take it back. Rochester is the best out of all the draft formats. I
>still prefer straight sealed deck, but Rochester is pretty good. It would
>have been better had there been less chumps in the tournament. (I have a
>great idea about how to accomplish that, but I'll save that for another
>time, eh?)
The assumption is that all of the chumps are weeded out -- unless you want to
start a different qualification scheme where you qualify locally to the Grand
Prix and then earn your "Tour Card" at and only at the Grand Prix level.
>1. I feel that Wizards of the Coast was not intentionally trying to
>harass David Mills. I've given it great consideration, because of David's
>friendship with Mike Long, if someone was to be targeted by WotC, I'm
>sure he would be a prime target. However, we have to assume at this point
>that the Pro tour staff is trying it's hardest to maintain the integrity
>of the Pro Tour, and that this is thier prime motivator.
I want you to realize that Mills is not the target here. We who question his
receiving any money [though many I have talked to wonder how someone who didn't
play by the rules got that far -- of course Bethmo discusses that well] are
questioning WotC's ruling after the tournament to let him keep his money, reducing
a penalty of disqualification to match forfeiture when Floor Rule 1.1a prohibits
such, as that [the penalty of DQ] becomes a consequence of the violation of the
Floor Rules and, hence, must be enforced.
I don't care about friendships with Long or anyone else -- that is not relevant
to at least my personal argument on the situation.
>2. In light of the above, remember that all my statements about this
>matter assume that the integrity of the tournament is the number one
>concern of the officials.
Agreed, but paramount on said integrity is that all the Floor Rules are followed.
>3. I have known David for awhile now, and while you may not know him, I
>do know that revealing a spell before he casts it is his personal play
>style, and he has played like that for years, under the assumption that
>it was not againts the rules (whether or not it was againts the rules I
>will debate later)
Problem is, it is!! Or at least the Judge of the final match so ruled.
Now, if David is that set on it -- then it's a rule that either has never been
enforced, or one must wonder how the heck he got through to the final match of
a Professional Tournament before this all came out.
>whenever discussion moves to include david's
>motivations or intentions, I am positive that he does not play like that
>to be unsportsmanlike or to gain an UNFAIR advantage.
It is still against the rules -- this is where a procedure had been instituted
to deal with it, and Mills was given several opportunities.
About the only change I would have made to that is to tell Mills upon the official
warning -- taking him aside, stopping the match, etc. -- that if he cannot abide
by the rule that he is being warned about, his two choices become concession
or disqualification.
>IS DAVID'S PLAY STYLE IN AND OF ITSELF ILLEGAL?
>
>this argument has been raging on IRC, usenet, and heck even on the Queen
>Mary that night.. the primary argument has been quotation of the MI
>rulebook pages 31-32:
>> you must have all the necessary resources available to play a cost; for
>> example, you tap lands for mana before playing a spell, not while
>> playing it.
This is the point of rule - the mana must be in the pool before playing the
spell. This is consistent with another rarely enforced rule: a spell with
an illegal target goes back into the hand, but the mana is still in the pool
and burn can [and often does] result.
Hence, if he does not tap his mana, he does not have the resources available
for playing the spell, and then it is like he is revealing cards out of his
hand, which can most certainly be declared illegal.
>the problem is, that because it is in the rulebook in this way, it is
>impossible to cast a spell without having the resources in your pool to
>play the spell. so, when david shows his spell by laying it on the table,
>ACCORDING TO THE RULES he must be announcing his intention to cast the
>spell,
Wrong. The rule essentially states [and has been interpreted] that he must already
have the resources in question allocated before he can play anything. Is it
universally enforced? Of course not. But it was here.
So, yes, David's style of play is illegal under the rules of the game of Magic.
And it was under this that he was penalized.
>and he cant be casting the spell until the resources are in his pool.
Right...
>It is therefore impossible for him to be "casting a spell before
>tapping mana into his pool" he is merely announcing the spell, the spell
>is not actually cast until he pays all costs involved.
You cannot announce that you are casting a spell before you have the resources.
This is what that rule says. The mana must be in the pool upon announcement of
the spell's casting. The only reason, hence, that a Fireball can't be countered
by a Mana Short is that the announcement of the spell is faster than the Mana
Short. But given this rule, it's no longer that obvious.
>the MI rulebook, therefore, establishes that <before he recieved a
>warning for his play style> David Mills was not breaking the rules.
>however, things changed once he had recieved a warning.
Patently false. Since Mills was revealing cards illegally out of his hand, he
was in violation of the rules of the game, and, hence, we get to your next
question.
>WHY WAS DAVID MILLS FORCED TO ADJUST HIS LEGAL PLAY STYLE IN THE MIDDLE
>OF THE FINAL ROUNDS OF A MATCH?
The simple answer to this is above: he was in violation of the rules of the game
of Magic -- see above for why. Especially under Finch's directive, if a judge
declares something illegal, THEN it becomes illegal.
>understand that when the judge gave him a warning for his play style,
>when he did not appeal the warning, David was setting himself up for this
>whole mess.
Agreed -- David should have stopped the match at this point and questioned it.
If he did not receive a satisfactory response, he is left with three choices
under the rules as stated: change the play style, quit the match, or be
disqualified.
>Since his play style was not in and of itself againts the rules, If the
We obviously are in disagreement on this point.
>judge felt that David was deliberately trying to gain an unfair advantage
>by announcing his spells first, he should have recieved a warning for
>unsportsmanlike conduct.
If you wish, we may go this route -- although WotC states that the warning was
for that, you may go this route if it satisfies. You may, therefore, assume
that the judge feeling it necessary to warn did give him a feeling that an
unfair advantage was being gained.
>this is the same as playing with your balance
>tucked into your hat, or counterspells facing your opponent. Fortunately,
>even this would have been a tough call, because the final DQ was given
>in a situation where David could obviously gain no advantage from the
>play style.
It doesn't matter -- once warned -- ANY future offense becomes assumed that there
is either a flagrance, as to ignore the judge's directive, or that there is
advantage to be gained.
>This is a really tough call. I personally feel that there SHOULD be a
>rule againts David's play style,
There is. I showed you where it was throughout the rulebook.
>and it SHOULD be enforced throughout the tournament.
It isn't.
>however, that does not change the fact that there was no such
>rule, and David was asked to change his LEGAL play style in the middle of
It is not legal.
>the most important match of his career, in front of a TV audience, during
>his first pro tour. The fact that he had been playing like that for 2
>years didnt help his chances. Make this rule, enforce it, but dont do it
>in the middle of a final round, eh?
At that point, he should have conceded the match -- yes, even up 2 games to 1.
Better to take your $16,000 and perhaps learn how to play _in the PT environment_
than be disqualified and quite possibly banned from future sanctioned play.
>OK, SO WHAT SHOULD WOTC HAVE DONE?
>
>well, once the judge had DQed David, and the cards were picked up, there
>was very little that they could do.
They should have done NOTHING. The rules [specifically, 1.1a] give them no
choice but to DQ.
>This is really a tough call, because
>WotC's primary goal has to be to preserve the integrity of the Pro Tour.
>I suppose that their final solution was closer to satisfactory then I
>expected from them at the time, but hey, tough call, joe.
No -- it now makes all penalties, by Finch's directive, judge's call. This
abrogates Floor Rule 1.1a, and I am already in the process of petitioning
Jason Carl for that Floor Rule to be removed immediately.
>those of you
>bitching about WotC waffling their DQ policy, give it up. Imagine how
>hard hit the Pro Tour integrity would be now that we understand David
>wasnt breaking any rules? getting shafted one slot and a few thousand
>dollars is nothing compared to losing 5 spots and all the dough.
Mills was in violation of the rules.
>or, as Chris Pikula said, "anyone who thinks David Mills deserved to be
>kicked out of the tournament is an asshole" ....
Then I am an asshole, and I believe that anyone who follows the rules is an
asshole as well.
With an attitude like yours or Chris', pray we never meet, as players or player
and judge, in a big tournament.
Michael Falkner -- star...@hotmail.com
Steve1O
I've really got to agree with a lot of why Rudy said through out his post.
Is what David did illegal? Its up to debate but I would probably say no.
I played David in the last round of swiss on the second day, the winner
would make final 8 the other final 32. David played the same way he did
during the finals againist me and I thought nothing of it, David beat me
fair and square (well me getting 5 mulligan draws a row over the 2nd and
3rd games did help :). I also think that everyone who's been complaining
about WOTC decision of the matter is wrong. My guess is that most of you
who say that weren't there to see what really happend and the atmosphere
of the tournement at the time. The pro tour is a really unique thing and
sometimes different actions need to be taken. What they did didn't change
the tournement atmosphere in general it just gave David Mills the money
and pro tours spots he earned.
Steven O'Mahoney-Schwartz
MaxCassie
I am a bit confused about this . . . just where exactly do the rules state
that you cannot show your opponent your card or cards?
Rudy Edward
Paul Barclay wrote:
>>IS DAVID'S PLAY STYLE IN AND OF ITSELF ILLEGAL?
>
>Simply, yes. You aren't allowed to show the cards in your hand to your
>opponent. You don't show your opponent a spell until after you've paid it's
>costs (you show it when the spell goes to Limbo). These have both been rules
>for a very long time.
>
Paul, if this is true, then why cant *ANYONE* show me the rule where it
says you arent allowed to show the cards in your hand to your opponnent?
Why did Tom Wylie allow Mike Long to play with cards facing outward in
his hand? (that incident was reported by Peter Lieher, BTW,)
I think what you are referring to was probably a judge who interpreted
someone showing their opponnent a spell as unsportsmanlike conduct (which
seems to me to be a fair call in most cases) however, David was not
warned for unsportsmanlike conduct, he was warned for a rules infraction
that DOESNT EXIST. If the judge had interpretted Mills's action as UC,
then we'd be debating a whole different can o worms here, but to this day
no one has been able to provide me with more than MI rulebook p. 32 (and
you've seen this analysis already)
this is a 2 sided debate, paul. either way, whether or not mills should
have been DQed is not the issue. let me show you:
1.If you are Right, then that means there is a set of rules that pro
players dont know about, that level 3 or greater judges dont know about,
and that are being enforced only in the later rounds of the Pro Tour. at
this point, David was wronged by the secrecy of these rules and should
not be DQed because these rules CANNOT be valid, assuming WotC wishes to
maintain the integrity of the Pro Tour.
2. If you are wrong, than the decision to not DQ Mills was obviously
correct, and we have to wonder (like I am right now) how David was able
to recieve warnings for rules that didnt exist.
either way, Pro players, and level 3 plus judges alike were completely
unaware of this rule that you claim exists. a similair incident happened
at PTAtlanta where Chris Pikula was informed of a rule he thought was
unfair, and when he asked to see a copy of the official Pro Tour rules
that they were quoting, he was informed that they were in Seattle. <<you
know, why would you need the official Pro Tour rules at a Pro Tour? it's
obvious they are much more useful in the vacant WotC headquarters
building>>
>>WHY WAS DAVID MILLS FORCED TO ADJUST HIS LEGAL PLAY STYLE IN THE MIDDLE
>>OF THE FINAL ROUNDS OF A MATCH?
>
>It wasn't legal. Therefore he had to change it.
>
well, this is the debate now isnt it? if it wasnt legal as you claim,
then serious questions have to be asked, like why wasnt David (and the
rest of us) informed of this rule before the finals. I've heard the "you
cant be everywhere at once" excuse before, but it doesnt apply. if it was
againts the rules, someone should have noticed his play style and warned
him during the semis at least.
>P.S. A lot of people think that the fact that David Mills was warned was the
>problem. It isn't the real problem is the fact that th DCI didn't follow their
>own rules.
the real problem is that the DCI isnt clearly defining its rules, paul,
get it straight.
BTW, with regards to your letter to the DCI. it's no secret that I am
rather irritated with it (I sent a flamingly offensive reply to the MPA,
which apparantly Elf decided not to put through to the list, for some
reason) perhaps I was a bit too brash in jumping on your case (at least
as harshly as I did) but, that may be fair, because I believe you were a
bit too quick to send the complaint in the first place.
There is no way that the problem is David not being DQed. not
Disqualifying him was without a doubt the only option that could maintain
the integrity of the pro tour.
-Rudy Edwards
Paul Barclay
Rudy Edward <bjexc...@earthlink.net> writes:
>Paul Barclay wrote:
>>>IS DAVID'S PLAY STYLE IN AND OF ITSELF ILLEGAL?
>>
>>Simply, yes. You aren't allowed to show the cards in your hand to your
>>opponent. You don't show your opponent a spell until after you've paid it's
>>costs (you show it when the spell goes to Limbo). These have both been rules
>>for a very long time.
>>
>Paul, if this is true, then why cant *ANYONE* show me the rule where it
>says you arent allowed to show the cards in your hand to your opponnent?
>Why did Tom Wylie allow Mike Long to play with cards facing outward in
>his hand? (that incident was reported by Peter Lieher, BTW,)
He did???
When this question was asked on MTG-L, at around the time of Paris, Bethmo
answered with "There is no provision in the rules for showing your cards
arbitrarily to your opponent".
>I think what you are referring to was probably a judge who interpreted
>someone showing their opponnent a spell as unsportsmanlike conduct (which
>seems to me to be a fair call in most cases) however, David was not
>warned for unsportsmanlike conduct, he was warned for a rules infraction
>that DOESNT EXIST. If the judge had interpretted Mills's action as UC,
>then we'd be debating a whole different can o worms here, but to this day
>no one has been able to provide me with more than MI rulebook p. 32 (and
>you've seen this analysis already)
I'll quote you the relevant parts of D'Angelo's in an e-mail in a minute.
>this is a 2 sided debate, paul. either way, whether or not mills should
>have been DQed is not the issue. let me show you:
I agree. There is no question on both whether he should (yes) and whether he
deserved to (no) have been ejected from the tournament.
>1.If you are Right, then that means there is a set of rules that pro
>players dont know about, that level 3 or greater judges dont know about,
>and that are being enforced only in the later rounds of the Pro Tour.
Shoddy enforcement, I agree. He should have been picked up earlier.
>at
>this point, David was wronged by the secrecy of these rules and should
>not be DQed because these rules CANNOT be valid, assuming WotC wishes to
>maintain the integrity of the Pro Tour.
There are absolutely hundreds of rules that most players don't know about. How
many people know that if you sacrifice a creature during damage prevention,
all the trample damage on it is removed, so you can use a Soldevi Adnate to
stop a Polar Kraken? Not many. Just because you don't know a rule doesn't mean
it doesn't exist. Maybe you should try to memorise D'Angelo's summaries some
time, and then you'll realise just _why_ there are so many rules you've never
heard of (they're 270 pages long).
Note that not all the rules are written down everywhere - if a new situation
comes up, a ruling will have to be made on the spot. This doesn't happen much
(and it didn't happen in this case), but it has happened before.
>2. If you are wrong, than the decision to not DQ Mills was obviously
>correct, and we have to wonder (like I am right now) how David was able
>to recieve warnings for rules that didnt exist.
Not strictly. If I'm wrong (which I'm not - Tom Wylie agrees with me, as he
made that ruling), then we have to look very carefully at _why_ the hell David
Mills was warned at all, but the initial problem of the DCI reducing the
penalty is still there.
>either way, Pro players, and level 3 plus judges alike were completely
>unaware of this rule that you claim exists. a similair incident happened
>at PTAtlanta where Chris Pikula was informed of a rule he thought was
>unfair, and when he asked to see a copy of the official Pro Tour rules
>that they were quoting, he was informed that they were in Seattle.
That's completely out of order. They should have the rules with them at all
times. Every judge in the building should have had a copy, so there should
have been no problems finding one.
>>>WHY WAS DAVID MILLS FORCED TO ADJUST HIS LEGAL PLAY STYLE IN THE MIDDLE
>>>OF THE FINAL ROUNDS OF A MATCH?
>>
>>It wasn't legal. Therefore he had to change it.
>>
>well, this is the debate now isnt it? if it wasnt legal as you claim,
>then serious questions have to be asked, like why wasnt David (and the
>rest of us) informed of this rule before the finals.
Nobody tells you the "you can only declare 1 attack per turn" rule before
every tournament. It's assumed (completely wrongly) that all players know all
the rules. 95% of Pro Tour players are at an average or lower level on the
rules. 99.9% of all players in total are not very good with the rules. There
are maybe 10 people in the whole world outside the rules team at WotC who
seriously know the rules inside out.
I've heard the "you
>cant be everywhere at once" excuse before, but it doesnt apply. if it was
>againts the rules, someone should have noticed his play style and warned
>him during the semis at least.
Yep. This was a clear faliure on their part. It's a result of "different
judge, different penalties". Tom Wylie is a real stickler for the rules being
spot on, so he is far more likely to catch people for minor offences.
>>P.S. A lot of people think that the fact that David Mills was warned was the
>>problem. It isn't the real problem is the fact that th DCI didn't follow their
>>own rules.
>the real problem is that the DCI isnt clearly defining its rules, paul,
>get it straight.
I have got it completely straight, thank you very much. And I agree that this
is a problem. But it's the tournament rules, not the game rules that have all
the problems (no way are they detailed enough). I think you'll agree with me
on this one. The complaint I sent had several ideas for the DCI to use to
hopefully solve this problem.
>BTW, with regards to your letter to the DCI. it's no secret that I am
>rather irritated with it (I sent a flamingly offensive reply to the MPA,
>which apparantly Elf decided not to put through to the list, for some
>reason)
Maybe if you thought before you flamed, it would make you more friends. Maybe
if you thought and didn't flame, people would actually take you more seriously.
>perhaps I was a bit too brash in jumping on your case (at least
>as harshly as I did) but, that may be fair, because I believe you were a
>bit too quick to send the complaint in the first place.
I think that 2 weeks is plenty of time for the facts to become known. The DCI
have a long-running policy of "don't say anything", so I felt that we needed
to give them a little nudge in the right direction. If you don't like the
complaint, I suggest you explain politely exactly what you don't like about it.
>There is no way that the problem is David not being DQed. not
>Disqualifying him was without a doubt the only option that could maintain
>the integrity of the pro tour.
Hell, Rudy, the rules say that the only penalty availible for 2 warnings was
ejection. Therefore, he should have been ejected, even though the offence
didn't deserve it. The Pro Tour has zero integrity by now, as they've made a
mockery of their own rules.
Paul Barclay.
DeAnn Iwan
Paul Barclay wrote:
>
>
> I agree. There is no question on both whether he should (yes) and whether he
> deserved to (no) have been ejected from the tournament.
>
football. Officials see things that are or might be penalties, and make
a call. The refs may discuss what happened a bit before making an
official call. But once they make a call (holding, facemask, whatever),
they apply the penalty that's called for by the rules. They don't say
"well, I think that giving Dallas a 15 yard penalty here is just too
steep, so we'll make it 2 yards this time and proceed with the game."
Refs miss stuff, sometimes they make the wrong call (tv replay may
clearly show a players had was under the ball that the ref said was
trapping and an incomplete pass, etc.), and sometimes they even give the
wrong penalty for something obscure and seldom encountered (usually a
coaching staff points this out immediately and it is corrected
immediately). But they never rewrite the rule book based on their gut
feel for how the "best" way to proceed is. And if they started doing
that, pro football cease to be a sport and start to be staged
entertainment (like pro wrestling and roller derby).
Daniel O'Mahoney-Schwartz
Excerpts from netnews.rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc: 14-Mar-97 Re:
Rudy's Critique of PTLA.. by Ste...@aol.com
>
> Steven O'Mahoney-Schwartz
THIS is why I think my brother is the best ;-). I don't think anyone
can sum it up better than this, and if you disagree with what he wrote,
you have no heart. Of course, you could just rewrite it with better
spelling and grammar, but for the most part, this pretty much makes it
clear that making a big deal about this whole thing is kinda silly.
Daniel O'Mahoney-Schwartz
Rudy Edward
PB...@cam.ac.uk (Paul Barclay) wrote:
>>Why did Tom Wylie allow Mike Long to play with cards facing outward in
>>his hand? (that incident was reported by Peter Lieher, BTW,)
>
>He did???
>
>When this question was asked on MTG-L, at around the time of Paris, Bethmo
>answered with "There is no provision in the rules for showing your cards
>arbitrarily to your opponent".
>
1) because she said there is 'no provision for' something, obviously
means there is also 'no provision againts' it, which means it's legal
until a judge interprets it as unsportsmanlike conduct
2) if this *was* a ruling againts showing your opponnent your cards
(which it isnt) why hasnt it been repeated in a non-net based format. a
rule *cannot* be official until it's accessable to more than the 10% of
us with net-access.
>
>I'll quote you the relevant parts of D'Angelo's in an e-mail in a >minute.
>
1) wotc continually states that they dont recognize D'Angelo's as rules,
so this cannot be considered a source of the rules
2) If for some reason it WAS considered the rules, it's still not
available to Pro players without Net Access, so refer back to my
argument, 'why arent the rules published in a format where all players
have access to them'
3) as you've seen in my email reply, D'Angelo does not distinguish
between 'announcing a spell' and 'declaring your intention to cast a
spell', (showing an opponnent your card) so it does not apply to the
rules in this case because we all know that David wasnt casting his spell
when he threw it down, because he didnt have the resources available.
(remember the original argument in this thread?)
>>at
>>this point, David was wronged by the secrecy of these rules and should
>>not be DQed because these rules CANNOT be valid, assuming WotC wishes to
>>maintain the integrity of the Pro Tour.
>
>There are absolutely hundreds of rules that most players don't know >about.
there is a huge difference between rules that players dont know about,
and rules that players DONT HAVE ACCESS TO. so, the first and most simple
way for WotC to begin solving this problem is to confirm and publish
D'angelo's rulings (or publish something similair) and maitain them.
there is no professional competition that I know of besides Magic, where
the professionals aren't given access to all the rules. the mere idea of
trying to promote magic as an intellectual sport before taking care of
this problem, is futile.
>
>Note that not all the rules are written down everywhere - if a new situation
>comes up, a ruling will have to be made on the spot. This doesn't happen much
>(and it didn't happen in this case), but it has happened before.
there is also a huge difference between card rulings (which are
impossible to maintain constantly) and play rulings (which there is no
excuse for not having explained in detail in some published format)
>
>>2. If you are wrong, than the decision to not DQ Mills was obviously
>>correct, and we have to wonder (like I am right now) how David was able
>>to recieve warnings for rules that didnt exist.
>
>Not strictly. If I'm wrong (which I'm not - Tom Wylie agrees with me, as >he made that ruling),
tom didnt make the ruling, he agreed with it. I was in the room when it
happened.
>then we have to look very carefully at _why_ the hell David
>Mills was warned at all, but the initial problem of the DCI reducing the
>penalty is still there.
>
havent I been saying this all along? apparently you didnt understand that
I was contesting the validity of the ruling? how is that possible?
>>either way, Pro players, and level 3 plus judges alike were completely
>>unaware of this rule that you claim exists. a similair incident happened
>>at PTAtlanta where Chris Pikula was informed of a rule he thought was
>>unfair, and when he asked to see a copy of the official Pro Tour rules
>>that they were quoting, he was informed that they were in Seattle.
>
>That's completely out of order. They should have the rules with them at all
>times. Every judge in the building should have had a copy, so there should
>have been no problems finding one.
>
why Paul, you seem to be seeing the light, uh, i mean <<COME TO THE DARK
SIDE, PAUL>> the Pikula incident was just as out of order as the Mills
incident, where the judges made a ruling that could NOT be shown.
>Nobody tells you the "you can only declare 1 attack per turn" rule before
>every tournament. It's assumed (completely wrongly) that all players know all
>the rules.
the difference is, you can pick up a rule book and find out that you can
only declare one attack per turn.
95% of Pro Tour players are at an average or lower level on the
>rules. 99.9% of all players in total are not very good with the rules. There
>are maybe 10 people in the whole world outside the rules team at WotC who
>seriously know the rules inside out.
apparently, Tom Wylie is the only person ALLOWED to know the rules inside
out. remember his "I *am* the rules" quote?
>
>>BTW, with regards to your letter to the DCI. it's no secret that I am
>>rather irritated with it (I sent a flamingly offensive reply to the MPA,
>>which apparantly Elf decided not to put through to the list, for some
>>reason)
>
>Maybe if you thought before you flamed, it would make you more friends. Maybe
>if you thought and didn't flame, people would actually take you more seriously.
>
where did this come from? 'How to make friends and influence people 101
by Paul Barclay' ?? I thought long and hard before I flamed, and quite
frankly I'm still as offended by your letter as I was then, I want
apologizing for the harshness, Paul, merely explaining why I *was* so
harsh, and expressing my twangs of doubt about my opinion of you.
>I think that 2 weeks is plenty of time for the facts to become known. The DCI
>have a long-running policy of "don't say anything", so I felt that we needed
>to give them a little nudge in the right direction.
2 weeks was obviously not plenty of time, we're still debating the point,
arent we?
>If you don't like the
>complaint, I suggest you explain politely exactly what you don't like about it.
>
I felt that my harsh reply to your letter was just as polite as your
quick action to complain to the DCI.
>Hell, Rudy, the rules say that the only penalty availible for 2 warnings was
>ejection. Therefore, he should have been ejected, even though the offence
>didn't deserve it. The Pro Tour has zero integrity by now, as they've made a
>mockery of their own rules.
>
Um, yeah, that 'Pro Tour Director' clause Andrew Finch has wasnt adequite
enough to allow them the leniency to do this? even though you admit that
David didnt deserve to be ejected? I dont see what you're trying to
accomplish anymore. If you feel that David didnt deserve to be ejected,
then you obviously must feel that the outcome was acceptable.
The integrity of the Pro Tour does seem to be pretty low, but dammit,
dont we all want WotC to do the right thing? dont we all benifit from
that?
-Rudy Edwards
Michael Falkner
In article <19970314001...@ladder01.news.aol.com>, ste...@aol.com says...
>
>I've really got to agree with a lot of why Rudy said through out his post.
> Is what David did illegal?
By the rules of the game of Magic, yes. That you chose not to enforce them was
your decision. You could have well called a judge and asked him to force Mills
to play correctly.
>I also think that everyone who's been complaining
>about WOTC decision of the matter is wrong. My guess is that most of you
>who say that weren't there to see what really happend and the atmosphere
>of the tournement at the time. The pro tour is a really unique thing and
>sometimes different actions need to be taken. What they did didn't change
>the tournement atmosphere in general it just gave David Mills the money
>and pro tours spots he earned.
What this can only mean is that now you are maintaining that the Pro Tour be
played under a different set of rules ENTIRELY [Floor, game, and otherwise] than
other tournament Magic. Am I correct in this??
Then how does the DCI justify full sanctioning of the event, if that be the case?
Michael Falkner -- star...@hotmail.com
Michael Falkner
In article <5gasu3$o...@argentina.earthlink.net>, Rudy says...
>Paul, if this is true, then why cant *ANYONE* show me the rule where it
>says you arent allowed to show the cards in your hand to your opponnent?
>Why did Tom Wylie allow Mike Long to play with cards facing outward in
>his hand? (that incident was reported by Peter Lieher, BTW,)
That last question is a very good question, under the rule -- the thing is, you quoted
the rule yourself -- it was that same rule about paying all costs before
playing a spell or effect that you quoted from the Mirage rulebook in the
article we're responding to.
>I think what you are referring to was probably a judge who interpreted
>someone showing their opponnent a spell as unsportsmanlike conduct (which
>seems to me to be a fair call in most cases) however, David was not
>warned for unsportsmanlike conduct, he was warned for a rules infraction
>that DOESNT EXIST.
Baloney!! And even if he weren't, I'd still say that would be a reasonable
enough call that this beef really is not relevant. Mills' play style is
illegal under the Mirage rulebook, AND it constitutes UC.
>If the judge had interpretted Mills's action as UC,
>then we'd be debating a whole different can o worms here, but to this day
>no one has been able to provide me with more than MI rulebook p. 32 (and
>you've seen this analysis already)
Which your analysis of it is WRONG. Since he did not have the costs paid, he
[technically] has no right to play the spell -- NONE.
>1.If you are Right, then that means there is a set of rules that pro
>players dont know about, that level 3 or greater judges dont know about,
>and that are being enforced only in the later rounds of the Pro Tour.
I think this is well possible -- even if he's wrong, I think there still is
this possibility. Two warnings for the same offense have = disqualification ever since
rule 1.1a has been put into effect -- but since this was not enforced here, I
have the same questions to that that you do -- but the other direction, toward
leniency.
Also, I think it's a rule that a lot of people know, BUT NO ONE ENFORCED, until
this particular judge did.
>this point, David was wronged by the secrecy of these rules and should
>not be DQed because these rules CANNOT be valid, assuming WotC wishes to
>maintain the integrity of the Pro Tour.
I think the question of the entire integrity of the Pro Tour is a VERY open one,
yes!
>2. If you are wrong, than the decision to not DQ Mills was obviously
>correct, and we have to wonder (like I am right now) how David was able
>to recieve warnings for rules that didnt exist.
If this is the case, the only recourse would be suspension of the judge who did.
I'm surprised, given the vehemence of a lot of the arguments, that a counter-
complaint asking for the judge's removal from sanctioned competition judging
has not been filed with the DCI.
I think you would be best, with your opinions, to file a complaint much like
ours, but requesting the removal of the judge who did it [even if it is a Tom
Wylie] from continuing to judge at least Pro Tour events.
>either way, Pro players, and level 3 plus judges alike were completely
>unaware of this rule that you claim exists. a similair incident happened
>at PTAtlanta where Chris Pikula was informed of a rule he thought was
>unfair, and when he asked to see a copy of the official Pro Tour rules
>that they were quoting, he was informed that they were in Seattle. <<you
>know, why would you need the official Pro Tour rules at a Pro Tour? it's
>obvious they are much more useful in the vacant WotC headquarters
>building>>
As I said, the integrity of the Pro Tour is in great question. My question
to you, specifically, is what was Pikula's question?
>well, this is the debate now isnt it? if it wasnt legal as you claim,
>then serious questions have to be asked, like why wasnt David (and the
>rest of us) informed of this rule before the finals.
None of his opponents called him on it. It's that simple. I've asked that
question myself -- and the ONLY answer to which I can come is that the
opponents never called the judge on it -- had they, and that judge enforced
the rules, Mills would NEVER have made it that far. He'd have been DQ'd a
long time before this.
>I've heard the "you
>cant be everywhere at once" excuse before, but it doesnt apply. if it was
>againts the rules, someone should have noticed his play style and warned
>him during the semis at least.
Of course. I'm wondering how the judges in the quarters and semis dealt with
it... Given that he was warned and cautioned only six times in the 3+ games
leads me to believe that he was able, at times, to play legally.
>>P.S. A lot of people think that the fact that David Mills was warned was the
>>problem. It isn't the real problem is the fact that th DCI didn't follow their
>>own rules.
>the real problem is that the DCI isnt clearly defining its rules, paul,
>get it straight.
AGREED THERE!!!
>BTW, with regards to your letter to the DCI. it's no secret that I am
>rather irritated with it (I sent a flamingly offensive reply to the MPA,
MPA? Just asking...
>which apparantly Elf decided not to put through to the list, for some
>reason) perhaps I was a bit too brash in jumping on your case (at least
>as harshly as I did) but, that may be fair, because I believe you were a
>bit too quick to send the complaint in the first place.
I disagree. This decision basically ends the allowable authority of the DCI
to impose any penalty for a violation of the Floor Rules.
Also, this decision sets up a chaotic situation for PT-Paris... Can you imagine
all the rules lawyering that is going to go on with some of this precedent on
the books? I gave some examples to Raver Efreet [one regarding unsportsmanlike/
Baxterian conduct] earlier in this thread.
>There is no way that the problem is David not being DQed. not
>Disqualifying him was without a doubt the only option that could maintain
>the integrity of the pro tour.
We disagree there. The Pro Tour has lost a lot of integrity with this decision.
Now, I believe the option is either to make the rules consistent, or get
the DCI out of the Pro Tour business before gaffes like this destroy the entire
game of Magic.
Not disqualifying David Mills could finally begin Magic: The Crash.
If this game/sport is dead a year from now, you can point back to this as the
beginning of the end.
Michael Falkner -- star...@hotmail.com
Daniel O'Mahoney-Schwartz
Excerpts from netnews.rec.games.trading-cards.magic.misc: 14-Mar-97 Re:
> the DCI out of the Pro Tour business before gaffes like this destroy
the entire
> game of Magic.
>
> Not disqualifying David Mills could finally begin Magic: The Crash.
>
> If this game/sport is dead a year from now, you can point back to this as the
> beginning of the end.
>
> Michael Falkner -- star...@hotmail.com
?????????
Really, this is taking it way too far. Come on! Nearly all of the
people that this situation pertains to were present for this event...if
we and/or they had a problem with this, we/they would be making a big
deal about it. People who have never been involved in a Pro Tournament
(from what I gather, anyway) shouldn't be threatening us with these
statements that sound like they'd come from the mouth from a deranged
radical politician.
Take it easy, guys! It is just a damn good game! Do you really think
the people at wotc are braindead, or that they don't care??? Take a
chill pill or whatever and relax, pals.
Daniel O'Mahoney-Schwartz
Michael Falkner
In article <4n=4=7C00iW...@andrew.cmu.edu>, Daniel says...
>Really, this is taking it way too far. Come on! Nearly all of the
>people that this situation pertains to were present for this event...if
>we and/or they had a problem with this, we/they would be making a big
>deal about it.
Talk to Mr. Justice, who, to my knowledge, was making a BIG DEAL about it at the
time.
>People who have never been involved in a Pro Tournament
>(from what I gather, anyway) shouldn't be threatening us with these
I'm not threatening you unless you consider it a threat. As far as I am
concerned, Magic will continue until something major happens to kill it, and
this MIGHT be the first step.
>statements that sound like they'd come from the mouth from a deranged
>radical politician.
That's not the point -- I ask you in all seriousness -- how many people are
really involved in Magic the _game_ anymore?? Most times you want to even play
"for fun", you still have to construct the deck at least by similar rules
[players will ask "Type I or II or 1.5?"] that you would for tournaments.
Magic is past the stage now where it is just a fad, and I would even say that
it is now past the stage where it can be considered a game. If you take the
tournament player out of Magic by basically allowing the tournament scene to
denigrate into chaos, Magic _will_ die. There will be only a limited secondary
market, and then the primary market will also suffer.
>Take it easy, guys! It is just a damn good game! Do you really think
>the people at wotc are braindead, or that they don't care??? Take a
>chill pill or whatever and relax, pals.
Perhaps both. And THAT is what I am talking about.
That's why we need to complain.
Michael Falkner -- star...@hotmail.com
Rudy Edward
I've been taken my debate with Paul to private E-mail, fundamentally
because we've taken to responding so quickly to each other, it was far
too fast for usenet. Michael Faulkner brings up many of the same
questions/arguments/responses that Paul does, so I've decided to respond
to Michael's 2 separate reply posts of my Critique here, in one bunch.
This may become hard to follow because I copied Michael's second post
from a separate thread as the second half of this response.
A lot of this debate is quickly becoming outdated. for the record:
1. After PTLA, it is obvious that David's Play style is againts the rules
any debate within this post is soley about whether or not it was againts
the rules before David recieved a warning, and if it was againts the
rules, whether or not that rule was adequetly represented.
2. I am not protesting the ruling. rather, I am responding to Michael and
Paul's letter of protest to the DCI, in which they declare their view
that David should have been booted from the tournament, and not recieved
his money or invites. I am, however, also interested in any discussion
that may lead to less of this type of problem in the future, and have the
interest of the pro tour at heart.
This argument is beginning to seem quite trivial after my experience in
Kentucky this weekend, what a farce of a qualifier! read my "tourney
report" on that one if you really want something to complain about.
star...@hotmail.com (Michael Falkner) wrote:
>Posted to both .strategy and .rules
>
>In article <5g75t7$6...@bolivia.earthlink.net>, Rudy says...
>>
>
>>Most of you know how I felt about the format for this pro tour. to recap,
>>about 3 months ago, I posted the following sentiments:
>>
>>1. I felt that WotC had given us less than ample time to begin our
>>practice of the format, and I was critical of the lateness with which
>>they announced the "exact" format
>
>WotC now assumes that if you are of the type to be playing in a Pro Tour, that you
>have the sophistication to be ready for the format, no matter what it may mean.
>Read: They have a standing assumption that you know what a Rochester Draft is
>before you get in the door.
>
yeah, we all knew what a Rochester draft was. We all knew it involved 2
people. my original complaint was about how long it took WotC to announce
the exact format (in other words, how we were to play rochester with 8
people) notice that I ended up more or less satisfied with this, so it
wasnt really a problem (except for the few last minute changes they made
to the format)
>
>>2. while WotC had obviously learned from thier past mistakes, they
>>obviously hadnt given the structure of this format much thought. this
>>tournament would have easily been 2 or 3 times better had the 2nd draft
>>not been powered (meaning all 3-0's at the same table) perhaps WotC hadnt
>
>Problem with this is to do otherwise violates the idea of Swiss.
>
"the idea" of Swiss Style, as you put it, does not take into account the
groupings that are necessary for rochester draft. so why are we
religously following this "idea" of swiss when it's obviously not
formulated for 8 person Rochester?
>>considered the intentional draw rule when designing this system, but it
>>essentially turned the tourney into 2 tournaments. a 3 round single
>>elimination tournament to the top 64, and a losers bracket 6 round
>>tournament to the top 64. in retrospect, I could have made the top 64
>>having only WON one actual game, had I drawn in rounds 4,5, and 6 (which
>>was totally possible, because I was at the half 3-0 table.)
>
>This is why they need to get rid of the ID rule NOW -- but they have more concerning
>things to take care of first.
>
>>Most of you will cry that this is the fault of the intentional draw rule,
>>and I disagree. I like the intentional draw rule, however, it has to be
>>paired with a tournament system that doesnt allow it to be abused.
>
>ANY tournament system can have abuse of the ID rule. Let me give you a concrete
>example:
>
<<Michael's excellent example of a format that allows abuse
of the Intentional Draw snipped for brevity>>
>
>>the 2nd Draft been power-protected rather than powered, no one would have
>>drawn until AT THE EARLIEST 5th round, most of the draws would occur
>>during the 6th round, and everyone who did so would have felt the weight
>>of the tie breakers the next day.
>
The ID rule is necessary to avoid the pitfalls of any system that makes
it to your favor to work with your opponnent in a competitive arena. In
your example as well, the problem was not intentional draw, but a
tiebreaking system that allowed it to be abused. note my concept for an
unabusable system above
>I still like the rumored but incorrect solution that was stated on e-mail:
>
>Prisoners' Dilemma. Before each round that an ID would be considered, you mark
>a slip of paper "Draw" or "Play". Two "Draws" or "Plays" determine the result,
>but a split means that the "Play" player WINS THE MATCH WITHOUT PLAY.
>
>I think that would effectively end the ID rule without really ending it.
>
and return us to the days of the "unintentional intentional draw"
>>2. In light of the above, remember that all my statements about this
>>matter assume that the integrity of the tournament is the number one
>>concern of the officials.
>
>Agreed, but paramount on said integrity is that all the Floor Rules are followed.
>
above the best judgement of the Pro Tour staff? isnt this scenario of
Finch changing the rules when necessary allotted for in the Pro Tour
rules? Arent the Standard Floor Rules the law only because they are so
allocated in the Pro Tour Rules, which give Finch the ability to adjust
how they work for the good of the Pro Tour?
>>3. I have known David for awhile now, and while you may not know him, I
>>do know that revealing a spell before he casts it is his personal play
>>style, and he has played like that for years, under the assumption that
>>it was not againts the rules (whether or not it was againts the rules I
>>will debate later)
>
>Problem is, it is!! Or at least the Judge of the final match so ruled.
>
>Now, if David is that set on it -- then it's a rule that either has never been
>enforced, or one must wonder how the heck he got through to the final match of
>a Professional Tournament before this all came out.
>
thats easy, David got to the finals because he wasnt the only person who
didnt have this particular rule available to him. Even if we assume that
you are correct, and that David's play style was illegal, it begs the
question, why are there rules that Pro Players without internet access
have no access to?
(I know you feel that the MI rulebook handles the rule, but I'll get to
that later in this post)
>
>>IS DAVID'S PLAY STYLE IN AND OF ITSELF ILLEGAL?
>>
>>this argument has been raging on IRC, usenet, and heck even on the Queen
>>Mary that night.. the primary argument has been quotation of the MI
>>rulebook pages 31-32:
>>> you must have all the necessary resources available to play a cost; for
>>> example, you tap lands for mana before playing a spell, not while
>>> playing it.
>
>This is the point of rule - the mana must be in the pool before playing the
>spell. This is consistent with another rarely enforced rule: a spell with
>an illegal target goes back into the hand, but the mana is still in the pool
>and burn can [and often does] result.
>
>Hence, if he does not tap his mana, he does not have the resources available
>for playing the spell, and then it is like he is revealing cards out of his
>hand, which can most certainly be declared illegal.
>
BINGO! you've hit the nail damn smack right on the head! as you say,
revealing cards out of his hand most certainly can be declared illegal,
because it can be declared unsportsmanlike, however, David was not warned
for UC, which is the whole basis for my argument.
>>the problem is, that because it is in the rulebook in this way, it is
>>impossible to cast a spell without having the resources in your pool to
>>play the spell. so, when david shows his spell by laying it on the table,
>>ACCORDING TO THE RULES he must be announcing his intention to cast the
>>spell,
>
>Wrong. The rule essentially states [and has been interpreted] that he must already
>have the resources in question allocated before he can play anything. Is it
>universally enforced? Of course not. But it was here.
>
>So, yes, David's style of play is illegal under the rules of the game of Magic.
>And it was under this that he was penalized.
>
>>and he cant be casting the spell until the resources are in his pool.
>
you are right, he cant be casting the spell until.. blah blah blah, thats
why he is announcing his intention to cast the spell, and therefore
revealing cards in his hand, and therefore should've been warned for UC
or not at all (at least until WotC could clarify their rules, as they are
now doing)
>This is what that rule says. The mana must be in the pool upon announcement of
>the spell's casting. The only reason, hence, that a Fireball can't be countered
>by a Mana Short is that the announcement of the spell is faster than the Mana
>Short. But given this rule, it's no longer that obvious.
Hearing this analysis, I'm beginning to wonder if you have any clue as to
how Magic works. this obviously has nothing to do with why Mana short
cannot counter a Fireball.
Mana Short 101 by Rudy Edwards
If David was to show his opponnent his Fireball, (and not be declared
unsportsmanlike) and his opponent said "in that case, I'll Mana short
you" David would still have the right to say, "No, first I'll cast a
fireball cause I'm the active player." had he shown his opponent the
fireball, and declared his intention to leave his main phase, his
opponent could then cast a mana short and keep him from casting a
fireball. your concept of "countering" a fireball has even less
legitimacy because, guess what Magic fans, Mana Short is, and has always
been an instant, and has NEVER been fast enough to clear a mana pool
before a spell can be cast.
>
>>the MI rulebook, therefore, establishes that <before he recieved a
>>warning for his play style> David Mills was not breaking the rules.
>>however, things changed once he had recieved a warning.
>
>Patently false. Since Mills was revealing cards illegally out of his hand, he
>was in violation of the rules of the game, and, hence, we get to your next
>question.
>
what? now you agree with me again? a moment ago you said that he wasnt
revealing cards illegally but rather casting them without the proper
resources? its really hard to have an intellegent debate while you
continue to waffle the issues, here by juggling your positions.
>>WHY WAS DAVID MILLS FORCED TO ADJUST HIS LEGAL PLAY STYLE IN THE MIDDLE
>>OF THE FINAL ROUNDS OF A MATCH?
>
>The simple answer to this is above: he was in violation of the rules of the game
>of Magic -- see above for why. Especially under Finch's directive, if a judge
>declares something illegal, THEN it becomes illegal.
>
>>understand that when the judge gave him a warning for his play style,
>>when he did not appeal the warning, David was setting himself up for this
>>whole mess.
>
>Agreed -- David should have stopped the match at this point and questioned it.
>If he did not receive a satisfactory response, he is left with three choices
>under the rules as stated: change the play style, quit the match, or be
>disqualified.
while we disagree with the specifics here, it's obvious that we agree
that David created his own mess by accepting the warning, therefor making
his play style illegal.
>
>>Since his play style was not in and of itself againts the rules, If the
>
>We obviously are in disagreement on this point.
>
>>judge felt that David was deliberately trying to gain an unfair advantage
>>by announcing his spells first, he should have recieved a warning for
>>unsportsmanlike conduct.
>
>If you wish, we may go this route -- although WotC states that the warning was
>for that, you may go this route if it satisfies. You may, therefore, assume
>that the judge feeling it necessary to warn did give him a feeling that an
>unfair advantage was being gained.
>
wow, do you know what happened? let me enlighten you:
1. The Judge gave Mills a warning for illegal play style
2. The Judge DID NOT give Mills a warning for Unsportsmanlike Conduct
3. Now that we see the judge could have given a warning for UC, but
shouldnt have given a warning for IPS, that does not change facts 1 & 2.
>>this is the same as playing with your balance
>>tucked into your hat, or counterspells facing your opponent. Fortunately,
>>even this would have been a tough call, because the final DQ was given
>>in a situation where David could obviously gain no advantage from the
>>play style.
>
>It doesn't matter -- once warned -- ANY future offense becomes assumed that there
>is either a flagrance, as to ignore the judge's directive, or that there is
>advantage to be gained.
>
AAAAARGH! thats not what he was warned for! NOT NOT NOT NOT!
>>This is a really tough call. I personally feel that there SHOULD be a
>>rule againts David's play style,
>
>There is. I showed you where it was throughout the rulebook.
>
Um, no, you didnt. you agreed with me that David's play style could be
interpreted as Unsportsmanlike. go read your post again.
>>or, as Chris Pikula said, "anyone who thinks David Mills deserved to be
>>kicked out of the tournament is an asshole" ....
>
>Then I am an asshole, and I believe that anyone who follows the rules is an
>asshole as well.
>
>With an attitude like yours or Chris', pray we never meet, as players or player
>and judge, in a big tournament.
>
with an attitude like "pray we never meet as player and judge", I hope
you arent allowed to judge in any self respecting promoter's big
tournament.
>Michael Falkner -- star...@hotmail.com
The following was Michael's response to my debate with Paul on a separate
thread. I figured I'd bunch it all together here. It might be tough to
determine who said what cause I copied the thread rather than quoting it.
In article <5gasu3$o...@argentina.earthlink.net>, Rudy says...
>>Paul, if this is true, then why cant *ANYONE* show me the rule where it
>>says you arent allowed to show the cards in your hand to your >>opponnent?
>>Why did Tom Wylie allow Mike Long to play with cards facing outward in
>>his hand? (that incident was reported by Peter Lieher, BTW,)
>That last question is a very good question, under the rule -- the thing >is, you quoted
>the rule yourself -- it was that same rule about paying all costs before
>playing a spell or effect that you quoted from the Mirage rulebook in >the
>article we're responding to.
>>I think what you are referring to was probably a judge who interpreted
>>someone showing their opponnent a spell as unsportsmanlike conduct >>(which
>>seems to me to be a fair call in most cases) however, David was not
>>warned for unsportsmanlike conduct, he was warned for a rules >>infraction
>>that DOESNT EXIST.
>Baloney!! And even if he weren't, I'd still say that would be a >reasonable
>enough call that this beef really is not relevant. Mills' play style is
>illegal under the Mirage rulebook, AND it constitutes UC.
No, weve determined in our debate above that It must be UC or nothing at
all, because he *cant* cast the spell. It's impossible for it to be both.
>>If the judge had interpretted Mills's action as UC,
>>then we'd be debating a whole different can o worms here, but to this >>day
>>no one has been able to provide me with more than MI rulebook p. 32 >>(and
>>you've seen this analysis already)
>Which your analysis of it is WRONG. Since he did not have the costs >paid, he
>[technically] has no right to play the spell -- NONE.
Man, you *must* work at a Waffle house. cant you stick to one analysis?
>>1.If you are Right, then that means there is a set of rules that pro
>>players dont know about, that level 3 or greater judges dont know >>about,
>>and that are being enforced only in the later rounds of the Pro Tour.
>I think this is well possible -- even if he's wrong, I think there still >is
>this possibility. Two warnings for the same offense have = >disqualification ever since
>rule 1.1a has been put into effect -- but since this was not enforced >here, I
>have the same questions to that that you do -- but the other direction, >toward leniency.
OK, I think everybody wants a compilation of official Pro Tour rules that
can be available (even for purchase if necessary) to all PT players and
all tourney level judges. why hasnt it happened yet?
>>this point, David was wronged by the secrecy of these rules and should
>>not be DQed because these rules CANNOT be valid, assuming WotC wishes >>to maintain the integrity of the Pro Tour.
>I think the question of the entire integrity of the Pro Tour is a VERY >open one,
>yes!
>>2. If you are wrong, than the decision to not DQ Mills was obviously
>>correct, and we have to wonder (like I am right now) how David was able
>>to recieve warnings for rules that didnt exist.
>If this is the case, the only recourse would be suspension of the judge >who did.
>I'm surprised, given the vehemence of a lot of the arguments, that a >counter-
>complaint asking for the judge's removal from sanctioned competition >judging
>has not been filed with the DCI.
>I think you would be best, with your opinions, to file a complaint much >like
>ours, but requesting the removal of the judge who did it [even if it is >a Tom
>Wylie] from continuing to judge at least Pro Tour events.
two reasons, first, since I'm still involved in a debate over the
subject, I'm interested in knowing the facts and am unlikely to ever
protest a judges actions when I dont know all the details. (yep, that was
meant to insinuate that you were too quick to file your complaint with
the DCI) second, I dont feel that even if the decisions were wrong, that
any of the judges involved made errors that were POSSIBLE to avoid. this
was bound to happen sooner or later, given the lack of a universal
standard of the Pro Tour rules, and will happen again no matter WHO
judges the PT, unless WotC compiles thier Rules for players to access.
>>I've heard the "you
>>cant be everywhere at once" excuse before, but it doesnt apply. if it >>was
>>againts the rules, someone should have noticed his play style and >>warned him during the semis at least.
>Of course. I'm wondering how the judges in the quarters and semis dealt >with
>it... Given that he was warned and cautioned only six times in the 3+ >games
>leads me to believe that he was able, at times, to play legally.
trust me, David has always played like that. it's not that he was playing
differently the rest of the time.
>>P.S. A lot of people think that the fact that David Mills was warned was the
>>problem. It isn't the real problem is the fact that th DCI didn't follow their
>>own rules.
>the real problem is that the DCI isnt clearly defining its rules, .
>AGREED THERE!!!
>>BTW, with regards to your letter to the DCI. it's no secret that I am
>>rather irritated with it (I sent a flamingly offensive reply to the >>MPA,
>MPA? Just asking...
Magic Player's Assocition List. It started out as an attempt to start a
players association, and it failed, it is, however, still a place where
people who care toss thier thoughts back and forth and on occasion even
make official statements (I just argue and respond to polls) someone
posted your letter on the list.
>Not disqualifying David Mills could finally begin Magic: The Crash.
>If this game/sport is dead a year from now, you can point back to this >as the
>beginning of the end.
Whatever. If this game/sport is dead a year from now you can point to
World War III as the cause. that's not to say things wont drastically
change....
-Rudy Edwards
for some reason always near the controversy when it happens in Magic
Aziz
> That's not the point -- I ask you in all seriousness -- how many people are
> really involved in Magic the _game_ anymore?? Most times you want to even play
> "for fun", you still have to construct the deck at least by similar rules
> [players will ask "Type I or II or 1.5?"] that you would for tournaments.
>
Plenty are still involved in the game that have little or no interest in
tourneys. They play in their homes where you can't see them, which is why
you think they're disappearing. Most of us started the same way, as
players for fun, then we started playing for money, but just because the
same people you used to play with don't play for fun anymore, doesn't mean
no one does. I know this because there are no Magic tourneys in
Tallahassee, only ONE at the same time each year. People do get together
and play, without tourney rules, I see it.
> it is now past the stage where it can be considered a game. If you take the
> tournament player out of Magic by basically allowing the tournament scene to
> denigrate into chaos, Magic _will_ die. There will be only a limited secondary
> market, and then the primary market will also suffer.
The chaos isn't really all that chaotic. No one involved with the
incident is arguing about it. If a bunch of people started arguing about
a ref's call in Basketball would it suffer? Sure there are differences
between the two things, but on a basic level, you see what I mean. The
percentage of the Magic population that is still concerned about this is
very low. Alot of people made a big deal when it happened, but the real
craze is over, it's now just a bunvh of people on the net talking back and
forth. And the sad thing is, most of the people involved are too set to
change their minds, so nothing is going to change!
WotC is smart and they know the significance of what has happened, they
will take steps to make sure something similar doesn't happen. Magic is a
new game, it still has kinks to work out, especially in the tourney
environment. Be patient, and don't be so negative and the game will last
a long time.
Aziz
Team 5 Guys With a Peter
sj...@ibm.net
In <PB207.505...@cam.ac.uk>, PB...@cam.ac.uk (Paul Barclay) writes:
>Rudy Edward <bjexc...@earthlink.net> writes:
>>IS DAVID'S PLAY STYLE IN AND OF ITSELF ILLEGAL?
>
>Simply, yes. You aren't allowed to show the cards in your hand to your
>opponent. You don't show your opponent a spell until after you've paid it's
>costs (you show it when the spell goes to Limbo). These have both been rules
>for a very long time.
At the risk of seeming rude, bullshit. I can show my opponent my entire
hand if I want to. There is absolutely nothing in the rulebook that says
otherwise. A spell being in limbo has nothing whatsoever to do with
whether your opponent has seen it or not. It simply means that the costs
have been paid and the spell announced but it hasn't resolved yet.
Whether my opponent saw the card before I paid the costs or vise versa
is completely irrelevant.
>
>>MI rulebook pages 31-32:
>>> you must have all the necessary resources available to play a cost; for
>>> example, you tap lands for mana before playing a spell, not while
>>> playing it.
>>the problem is, that because it is in the rulebook in this way, it is
>>impossible to cast a spell without having the resources in your pool to
>>play the spell.
>
>Yep.
But this begs the question of exactly what constitutes "casting" of a spell?
If I reveal a card, am I trying to cast it? Not necessarily, I have to
announce that I am casting that spell. But there is no reason that I cannot
reveal a card, tap the mana, and then declare that I am casting a spell.
The rules do NOT explicitly prevent me from revealing a card, they
simply prevent me from announcing that I am casting a spell until the
appropriate mana has been added to my pool.
In short, I think Mr. Mills got shafted by a ruling on a non existant rule.
If WotC intended that you cannot intentionally reveal cards, they should
have stated that expicitly in the rule book, and the simple fact is that
they didn't. Now if they warned him that they were doing this, and he
didn't change what he was doing, Mills was a bit foolish, but it really
shouldn't have been an issue in the first place.
Craig Sivils
maxc...@aol.com (MaxCassie) wrote:
>I am a bit confused about this . . . just where exactly do the rules state
>that you cannot show your opponent your card or cards?
The order of play part states that you should tap the mana first.
This can be abused.
*************
DISCLAIMER, I MADE A MISTAKE IN THE FOLLOWING EXAMPLE
I KNOW IT, I REGRET IT, I'M AWARE OF IT
*************
In a sealed deck toureny I had 3 cards in my hand, my opponent had
two. He stated that he was going to mind warp me. He had enough mana
to dump my entire hand, (MAKING A MISTAKE) I assumed he would.
When I showed him my hand, he saw I had two land, so he tapped enough
mana to discard only my one non-land card! I felt that was a cheap
thing to do, but I shouldn't have showed my hand until he tapped the
mana.... But the following the letter of the rules can stop things
like this.
This 2 mana difference was important because it meant that he could
also cast his big critter the same turn rather than having to wait til
the next turn. Not everyone will try to abuse a simple rule like
this.
But some will......
Craig
David J. Low
Daniel O'Mahoney-Schwartz <dani...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>People who have never been involved in a Pro Tournament [...]
See another post about trees and forests :-)
You see, the PT is (at present) pretty small and limited. Those of us
who have been involved in similar things for a while occasionally feel
like sharing that knowledge and experience with those who, perhaps, are
having their first taste of organised competition. You can listen, or
not, as you like :-)
>Do you really think
>the people at wotc are braindead, or that they don't care???
Are you offering me a choice? :-) What if I want a bit of each? :-)
Regards,
David.
--
{ David J. Low | dl...@kurasc.kyoto-u.ac.jp }
{ JSPS Postdoctoral Fellow | http://www.kurasc.kyoto-u.ac.jp/~dlow }
{ Radio Atmospheric Science Center | "The words of the Prophets are }
{ Kyoto University, Uji, Kyoto 611 | written on the subway walls...." }
Craig Sivils
DeAnn Iwan <di...@mitre.org> wrote:
>Paul Barclay wrote:
>>
> >
>> I agree. There is no question on both whether he should (yes) and whether he
>> deserved to (no) have been ejected from the tournament.
>>
>
> Compare this to what happens in an established Pro sport--say
>football. Officials see things that are or might be penalties, and make
>a call. The refs may discuss what happened a bit before making an
>official call. But once they make a call (holding, facemask, whatever),
>they apply the penalty that's called for by the rules.
There are two flaws with this analogy.
1. The penalties in football are much less than absolute
disqualification.
2. In sports the Ref can "correct" a mistake by just calling something
on the other team (but we never see that.......)
Craig
Steve1O
<What this can only mean is that now you are maintaining that the Pro Tour
be
<played under a different set of rules ENTIRELY [Floor, game, and
otherwise] <than
<other tournament Magic. Am I correct in this??
Yes you are correct. Yesterday in the mail I recieved my players packet
for the Paris Pro Tour, with rules in addition to the floor rules. It
says that the pro tou now has a different warning policy, with verbal
warnings (there are 2 levels of those) and written warning (there are 3
leves of these, single, double, and tripple). It also gives different
levels of suggested warnings, but that doesn't limit the judge.
Steven O'Mahoney-Schwartz
Michael Falkner
In article <5gk24r$12...@fidoii.cc.lehigh.edu>, sj...@ibm.net says...
>At the risk of seeming rude, bullshit. I can show my opponent my entire
>hand if I want to. There is absolutely nothing in the rulebook that says
>otherwise. A spell being in limbo has nothing whatsoever to do with
>whether your opponent has seen it or not. It simply means that the costs
>have been paid and the spell announced but it hasn't resolved yet.
But note that it has to be done in the order you stated it in the last sentence.
The costs must be paid before the spell is announced. That's the foul here
that Mills repeatedly committed.
>But this begs the question of exactly what constitutes "casting" of a spell?
>If I reveal a card, am I trying to cast it? Not necessarily, I have to
>announce that I am casting that spell.
No, you have to announce that you are casting _a_ spell, then tap the mana,
then declare what spell you are casting [it is only that this is one continuous
effect that does not allow someone to Mana Short a Fireball, for example...].
This is not normally that discussable a point, but when you are playing for
thousands and thousands of dollars...
This is one of the side effects of the Pro Tour.
>But there is no reason that I cannot
>reveal a card, tap the mana, and then declare that I am casting a spell.
>The rules do NOT explicitly prevent me from revealing a card, they
>simply prevent me from announcing that I am casting a spell until the
>appropriate mana has been added to my pool.
The thing is is that the latter is what the judge ruled Mills was doing, and a
similar judge would probably rule similarly in your case.
>In short, I think Mr. Mills got shafted by a ruling on a non existant rule.
>If WotC intended that you cannot intentionally reveal cards, they should
WotC stated that the rule violated was the playing of a card before tapping
mana, which does exist, was quoted, and is illegal.
As I've said before, if that is your beef, you should be protesting to WotC
to get the judge in question removed from further PT judging. Not only that,
but if what you said is right, Mills might, in fact, have some civil recourse,
especially since he was leading in the match.
>have stated that expicitly in the rule book, and the simple fact is that
>they didn't. Now if they warned him that they were doing this, and he
>didn't change what he was doing, Mills was a bit foolish, but it really
>shouldn't have been an issue in the first place.
But Mills not changing it made it an issue.
Michael Falkner -- star...@hotmail.com
Michael Falkner
In article <Pine.A32.3.95.970317...@garnet2.acns.fsu.edu>, Aziz says...
>Plenty are still involved in the game that have little or no interest in
>tourneys. They play in their homes where you can't see them, which is why
>you think they're disappearing. Most of us started the same way, as
>players for fun, then we started playing for money, but just because the
>same people you used to play with don't play for fun anymore, doesn't mean
>no one does. I know this because there are no Magic tourneys in
>Tallahassee, only ONE at the same time each year. People do get together
>and play, without tourney rules, I see it.
There's only one big weekend worth in Milwaukee, and that's only because of
GenCon. The problem is simple -- is there enough of a market in those players
that if you were to take out the pro players and the wannabes [of which if I
played, I'd consider myself the latter, natch] that they could still sell cards
to the degree that they can keep it going?
I don't think so.
There's another important side to this -- the secondary market. I think if you
looked at a lot of the players to whom you refer, they do hope someday to sell
their collections for a mint. If there is no sport to Magic anymore, will that
market be there?? Chances are slim.
Basically, to return Magic to game status, you'd have to re-evaluate everything
that Magic has become. Take the secondary market and deflate it. Can the
Pro Tour and most of the big money tournaments that come about as a result.
Those two things would only be a start.
>The chaos isn't really all that chaotic. No one involved with the
>incident is arguing about it.
You obviously didn't hear about the near-riot that broke out in LA when the call
was made...
>If a bunch of people started arguing about
>a ref's call in Basketball would it suffer? Sure there are differences
>between the two things, but on a basic level, you see what I mean.
I see it -- but if a bunch of people in the right places are talking about the
degree of difference of calls made, say, against a Jordan and a Ewing, then
yeah, the game can suffer. See "The Jordan Rules" and a Sports Illustrated from
about two weeks ago that wonders if the foregone conclusion of a number of more
championships for the Bulls is a good thing for the NBA...
>percentage of the Magic population that is still concerned about this is
>very low.
Because of the fact that the rest of the Magic population doesn't see what can
happen. I've talked to several store owners and many players in Milwaukee, and
they can see my concerns. A couple added their names to Barclay's complaint to
the DCI.
>Alot of people made a big deal when it happened, but the real
>craze is over, it's now just a bunvh of people on the net talking back and
>forth. And the sad thing is, most of the people involved are too set to
>change their minds, so nothing is going to change!
Call me on that when WotC comes out with their investigation results -- word is
they should have it done today. Jason Carl has been keeping in touch with us
on it.
>WotC is smart and they know the significance of what has happened, they
>will take steps to make sure something similar doesn't happen. Magic is a
>new game, it still has kinks to work out, especially in the tourney
>environment. Be patient, and don't be so negative and the game will last
>a long time.
Thing is, it's not me that will be that impatient.
Michael Falkner -- star...@hotmail.com
Aziz
> There's only one big weekend worth in Milwaukee, and that's only because of
> GenCon. The problem is simple -- is there enough of a market in those players
> that if you were to take out the pro players and the wannabes [of which if I
> played, I'd consider myself the latter, natch] that they could still sell cards
> to the degree that they can keep it going?
Of course they could! The pro tour might be small or gone, but there
would still be people buying the cards and playing for fun. Christ, how
many card games are there besides Magic that do decent enough business?
Dozens! Magic is just the biggest one.
> There's another important side to this -- the secondary market. I think if you
> looked at a lot of the players to whom you refer, they do hope someday to sell
> their collections for a mint. If there is no sport to Magic anymore, will that
> market be there?? Chances are slim.
Just like I said, there is no Pro Tour for Doomtrooper or Vampire:TES
(last I checked anyway) and people still buy those games.
> >The chaos isn't really all that chaotic. No one involved with the
> >incident is arguing about it.
>
> You obviously didn't hear about the near-riot that broke out in LA when the call
> was made...
Actually, I was part of it. The main instigator of the whole thing was
Mark Justice, and I was standing right next to him and some others,
watching the Finals. We were all confused when we saw Mills pick up his
cards, and when we found out what happened, Justice and some others
exploded. But that's beside the point. What I meant about the chaos is
that it's gone already. I said that the arguments were severe for a
while, and you tried to make it out to be some colossal Magic disaster,
the possible first step to the end of Pro Magic. What I should've said
instead of "No one involved with the incident is arguing about it." is "No
one involved with the incident is arguing about it ANYMORE." And here we
are a whole two weeks later or so.
> Call me on that when WotC comes out with their investigation results -- word is
> they should have it done today. Jason Carl has been keeping in touch with us
> on it.
>
Well, as we know (or if not, you do now), they have restructured the
warnings system to allow for things like this to be taken care of without
small riots breaking out. I was disgusted by what happened, but it'll
take an awful lot more than that to make me want to stop playing Magic.
Most players can agree to that, I'll bet. Most of us like Magic too much
to quit over something like this.
Greycat Sharpclaw
There is an allegation that star...@hotmail.com (Michael Falkner)
wrote:
Several good points... but he brings up the "importance" of the
secondary market's cash value, and here I disagree strongly:
>There's another important side to this -- the secondary market. I think if you
>looked at a lot of the players to whom you refer, they do hope someday to sell
>their collections for a mint. If there is no sport to Magic anymore, will that
>market be there?? Chances are slim.
So? The speculators get burnt - their risk in speculating.
Pure collectors will not mind the few cards they *don't* have becoming
cheaper... and the *players* will definately consider it a benefit,
except for the card-rich who will see their advantage go away.
BTW - I have a stock of cards I bought for resale later, so I'm not
ranting about the "evil speculators" - speculating is OK - but *the
speculator* takes the risk, and has no beef if he guesses wrong. And
I know that speculating in card futures is not important to the *game*
I love, either.
>Basically, to return Magic to game status, you'd have to re-evaluate everything
>that Magic has become. Take the secondary market and deflate it. Can the
>Pro Tour and most of the big money tournaments that come about as a result.
>Those two things would only be a start.
Actually, except for the old power cards (with limited production),
the market is self-regulating... how many cards were listed at
rediculous prices when new, and now can be gotten for a fraction of
their previous price?
So shifting to balanced (i.e. not type-I), stable (i.e. not type-II)
tourneys will stabalize the cost of playing, and the attractiveness of
the tourney game to people who don't want to spend a fortune. Type
1.5 is helpful, and I've seen many suggestions for a "type-II powered,
OOP allowed" tourney format (i.e. cut out the duals and many other
expensive cards in 1.5).
That is for tourney play. Casual play is popular, and doesn't need
even that. Hey, I got 7 decks that don't stand a chance in a tourney,
but I play at the local shop because they're *fun*... and I win >50%
with them, because the other decks aren't wallet busters either.
Greycat
Gre...@tribeca.ios.com
Does anyone have any spare tunafish??
Raver Efreet
I need to take 5 seconds here to defend Michael Falkner, in regards to
the very snooty post by Rudy Edwards. As many of you are aware, Mike
and I have been debateing ad nauseum on this topic as well, and I would
just like to point out that Mike IS an intelligent person (though a
little misoriented on things, but Im working on that ;)) who deserves
better than the response he got from you. Rudy, Mills play style was
illegal before the tourney even started, and if you took a second and
re-read through Mikes post, youll understand why. Also, the judge did
not have to declare it as UC, though he could have, but that was not
mandatory. If you need further clarification, just email me.
Raver Efreet
"art as expression, not as market campaigns
will still capture our imagination"
-rush-natural science-
Steve1O
<You obviously didn't hear about the near-riot that broke out in LA when
the ,call was made... <
Whoa, where are you getting your information from? I was sitting right
there at the LAPT and there was nothing that can close to a riot, people
were supprised about what had happend and there was a lot of discussion
about what had happened, but no one was fighting with each other.
Steven O'Mahoney-Schwartz