Searching for Reality

Ghosts of the Past
With Time Spiral on shelves and entering into the Magic environment, nostalgia is in the air. Everyone's eyes seem to be on history, and it seems a good time for Feature Friday to spend some time contemplating the past as well. Specifically, consider the history of the procedural error formerly known as a "failure to agree on reality."

Like the original cards that are paid homage to in Time Spiral, that penalty is long gone, with merely its influence felt in modern judging. And, just as players can better understand today's cards through an understanding of those now past, judge can learn a lot through a good analysis of this penalty from the past.

Failure to Agree
For those that have been with the judging program for a number of years, the words "Failure to Agree on Reality" should be immediately familiar. The "reality" in question was the state of the game, and this particular flavor of procedural error referred to cases in which players disagreed on the game state and were unable to come to a consensus. Note that this differs from the cases in which the game state is broken, but in a way that the players agree upon.

Generally speaking, this penalty was used in one of a number of ways: before, during, and after the investigation of an incident. First, the existence of the penalty served as a reminder to players to keep track of their game state, so that a disagreement never happens in the first place. Second, during an investigation, the penalty often served as a useful reminder that there were consequences to allowing disagreements to occur, something that could help players to be more cooperative. Finally, it was used as a fallback penalty that was easy to give whenever such a situation arose, even if the situation was resolved, which allowed for tracking of those who were prone to being careless (or worse).

While this functionality has been rolled into today's generic Procedural Errors, the fact that this is was called out specially at one point is no surprise. Though the penalty is gone, the specific situation that it addressed—when players actively don't agree on the state of a game—is one that is not uncommon. Furthermore, these situations can be among the most delicate that judges have to address, as such disagreements tend to arise in critical junctures of games, and are ones in which one person is very likely to feel slighted by the outcome.

As we've discussed in the past, in such a situation, the best thing to do is to ensure that you get the situation correct. While both players may not end up happy, in the long run, unraveling these situations correctly and doing so in a fair manner will eventually benefit all players. Luckily, there are techniques that some of the more experienced judges have devised over the years to help make it easier to do this successfully.

The Goals of Intervention
Before diving into any situation that involves a player disagreement about game state, it is very important to identify the ultimate goal of a judge in that situation. Simply stated, the goal of the judge is to deduce and determine the truth of what happened, and then to apply standard judging practice to best restore the situation to that state, when possible. This is different from simply deciding which player is correct and which one is mistaken.

At first blush, these two approaches sound like the same thing, but the distinction between the two is critical. When each player is convinced that they're completely correct and the other player is completely wrong, it is not always the case that one of them is right. In fact, in many cases, the truth lies somewhere in between, as both players can get confused as things go awry, and both are inclined to see things through a lens that is most beneficial to their position (though, note that we're not talking about cases where a player is actively deceptive or lying to benefit themselves, which falls under Cheating, as do all intentional offenses).

This is extremely important to remember during the investigation, as it is easy for this guiding principle to get lost during the tension of a situation and for a judge to simply pick between the two options that are presented. The actual job of the judge is to take all of the available information, not only from the players, but that from the game itself and any available other sources, and to figure out what actually happened.

With that out of the way, let's examine some of the most important sources of information available (and the specific types of disputes in which they're relevant) and how to best incorporate them into an investigation.

Hearing the Players
Of course, one of the most obvious sources of information, regardless of the specifics, is the players themselves. As the old adage goes, however, an eyewitness is actually not a great source of information. People are fallible; they're not always paying attention; and they tend to decide on what they think happened and then stick to it. None of this is necessarily out of malice, it's just the way that people tend to think and behave.

In general, the information that you can glean out of the game situation itself is better to rely on than that of the memories of the players, as it stands as factual evidence. This doesn't mean, however, that the players are not a vital source. They can provide things that the board state cannot—chronology, intent, and behavior.

Chronology refers to the order and the way in which things played out over time. The state, as is visible at any moment, is very useful for seeing how things currently are (subject to any errors that have occurred up to this point), but doesn't do a good job of providing anything more than hints as to the history of how the game has played out. For an accounting of that information, there is no better source than the players, who have obviously been following along.

Intent, or what the players desired to have happen, is tricky, and shouldn't be overemphasized, but can be an important tool in determining how things have gotten the way that they have. Again, this is information that you can't get from the board state alone, as it can tell you what has happened, but not what the players wanted to have happen or where they were trying to get.

Behavior refers to two things. One is the data that a judge might be able to deduce from the behavioral cues that players give off as the situation unfolds. Do they seem confident, unsure, confused? All of these things can show in the way that they express themselves. The other is the way in which they play the game, and the actions that they've taken in various situations through this and other games. That behavior can be useful in making educated guesses about what they likely did or didn't do when a similar situation presents itself.

The way to get this information from the players is by interviews, but these need to be done carefully in order to be fair and to actually get useful data. First off, experience has generally shown that the best way to interview the players in most cases is with them both physically present, at the table, but only with one person ever talking at a time.

Regardless of whether you're allowing them to tell their story or whether you're directing them with questions to find out what you specifically want to know, it's very important for each player to have a chance to speak without interruption from the other player. This can be difficult to enforce, but is vital and is the most important thing to ensure as you conduct an investigation. It allows the players to think more clearly and to actually be able to compose their thoughts without being distracted or confused by the other player. This is particularly important if there is one aggressive player and one shy player, as the former will often bowl over the latter if not checked.

At the same time, while you want them to take their turns and speak separately, it's useful to have them both present. Partly to listen to what the other person has to say (it's actually amazing how often these situations can resolve themselves; a judge's presence can allow the players to articulate the game state and recognize the confusion, without further prompting needed by the judge), and partly to see reactions to the other player's statements.

Once you have the situation under control and both players are settled, here are some tips for how to best get information from them:

• First, ask each player to tell you what happened from the point that they think things first started to matter. Let them tell you their whole story, without interruption from you or from the other player. This allows you to begin with a good sense of what each player is thinking and what lead to the dispute. As you listen, keep track of things that might be relevant or things that sound like they might be fishy.
• Ask them to back up further than they did and start again. This isn't always necessary, but can be handy if you think they might have missed something because they aren't thinking clearly through everything that was relevant. While players may get fixated on the situation itself, it's often the full history of how you got there that is most likely to help figure out where things actually stand.
• Ask focused questions about any elements that came up during the stories that seemed like they might need clarification. Players may not know what was and wasn't important, and you need to make sure that you have a good understanding of what happened, or what the players think happened, before you can make any judgments.
• Get the story from them several times. Ask players to reiterate their story in slightly different ways, or to back up further, or start from a more recent point. Having people have to repeat things can help them to differentiate between things that they're sure about and things that they're shaky about, as the elements that are less certain will start to be told differently.
• Don't be afraid to ask people who have been watching the match as to whether they have any input, but make sure to take this information with a large grain of salt. Remember that you can never know whether they've been watching for long enough, if they've been paying close enough attention, or whether they have any ulterior motives. That said, if a large consensus of people saw things happen in the same way, then that might serve as useful evidence to have.
• Don't forget to track that these things are happening, usually through a Procedural Error, and tell both players that you are doing this. This helps in two ways. It helps the players to remember to be more cautious in the future, and it helps the DCI to track if the same people are being careless on a consistent basis.

Tallying Life
One of the most common types of disagreement involves life totals, where one player believes that they have more or less life than the other person believes. A brief aside here—oftentimes, the best way to deal with these problems is to ensure that they never arise, by making sure that each player in your tournament keeps track of both life totals. Tracking life totals with paper and pen, rather than using dice, counters, or other things that can accidentally be jostled, will prevent many of these problems from even arising in the first place. Unsurprisingly, paper and pen is thus the norm among more experienced players and at the highest levels of play.

Even if a discrepancy arises, paper and pen provides you with an important advantage, in the form of historical data that can be referenced separately from the players' memories. Lacking this, you'll have to use your player interviewing skills to try and infer as much of this data as possible.

Generally, when players call a judge to settle a life total dispute, they will be concentrating on a small slice of the game—the slice that they think is specifically relevant to the dispute. As the judge, it can be useful to step back and take a broader view of the game, as reconstructing more data will oftentimes either provide hints that you might otherwise miss, or will help expose inconsistencies in the recollection of one of the players.

Most of the time, the damage has been done by creatures, and in regular chunks of similar amounts. By looking at the creatures in play, and those that were formerly in play, along with the history of the life totals, you can frequently deduce what damage players have been taking from creatures. This can resolve many issues on its own, or at least help to distill the disagreement down to a specific case (I've seen, more often than not, a discrepancy about how many times a player thinks that a particular creature has attacked).

Even if there are effects in play that caused damage in a way that wasn't from creatures, they should be easily pieced together from looking at the cards that have been played. If a direct damage effect was used, figure out if it was used against a player or against a creature (this is something that players will usually remember). Remember to check for any lands that might have inflicted damage upon use.

Once you're confident that the issue has been isolated to a particular effect or a particular creature attack, you can start to hone in on looking for clues as to what actually happened. Oftentimes, just knowing what you're trying to determine specifically will allow you to tune your questions for the players well enough that you'll be able to easily figure out what happened.

Counting the Cards
Another common class of issues comes with the number of cards in somebody's hand, or the number of lands that they have in play. When one player asserts that their opponent somehow has too many lands in play, or that they feel like their opponent has too many cards in their hand, how do you determine whether this is true, whether everything is actually correct, or if the opposite problem exists (the player making the assertion is actually short)?

In addition to the usual tools of interviewing players and looking at the board state, a vital technique to be familiar here is commonly known as "doing a count". The idea of doing a count is that there are two things in a game of Magic that are relatively easy to count, and for which there is usually a deterministically right answer. Those two things are the total number of cards that each player has "touched", and the number of lands that each player has played. Just looking at what both players have on the board and doing some quick counts of the cards available can provide a lot of information.

Let's talk first about "touched" cards. A touched card is, with a few exceptions, every card that is not in a player's library, meaning that it has somehow involved itself in the game. Barring card drawing effects, effects that return cards to the library, and mulligans, this number is deterministic and is based on the turn of the game. Further, there's a concrete and simple relationship between the counts of the two players. Note that effects like discard don't matter, since that merely changes which non-library zone a card is in.

As a baseline, the player who went first will have touched cards equal to six plus the number of turns they've taken, counting the current turn if relevant. The player who went second will have seven plus the number of turns they've taken. This means that—mulligans aside—counting the total number of cards not in the library for both players can tell you if anything is awry (if it's the first player's turn, they should be equal; otherwise, the player that went second should have one extra card). Additionally, it can tell you what turn number this is.

This is, of course, altered by the number of mulligans taken, as well as the aforementioned effects (card drawing and returning cards to the library), but for the most part, these are not difficult to determine. Players tend to recall the number of mulligans they have taken, and most card drawing effects are one-shot and can be handled during the count. This isn't perfect, and repeatable card draw can be difficult to work around, but most of the time a count of total touched cards is possible. Ultimately, if the count is off, you know that something bad has happened with respect to drawn cards.

Lands work similarly, up to one per turn. This isn't as easy to work with as touched cards, since it's more likely that there have been turns where a player hasn't played a land, but using a total count to deduce the turn number and then checking the lands in play relative to that turn number can prove useful in a surprising number of cases.

Finding Patterns
Most players—most people—are creatures of habit. They have mannerisms in the way that they do things, and will stick to them time and again. Whether it's the specific phrasing that they choose to use when dealing with combat or the order in which they organize their lands, in most cases there is a specific way that a player will carry out their game actions, from which they'll rarely deviate.

This means that looking for these mannerisms and patterns can help to trace what they've done during a game and construct what's actually happened. Some of these patterns can be easy to pick up on. Need to determine whether or not somebody attacked with a particular creature last turn? Perhaps they always put the creatures they attack with each turn on the same side of the table. Some of them can be trickier. Suppose you need to determine which two of a set of three creatures were played last turn. Many players will tend to separate out piles of lands as they play spells, so if you notice that a player plays this way, you can look to the clusters of tapped lands to figure out what was most likely played.

Discovering these patterns can happen in a number of ways. Sometimes you'll know from having watched them play previous games in the tournament. Some will be obvious just from staring at the board. Don't be afraid to ask the players themselves about their play habits and mannerisms. Presuming that they're not trying to cheat, most players stuck in this situation want to help decipher what's going on so that they can move on with the game. They will be forthcoming with their play habits, if you know to ask for them.

Wrapping Up
Finally, one last reminder that fixing the game state in any manner assumes that any mistake that occurred was an unintentional mistake. If, by the players' reactions, or for any other reason, you believe that there may actually be foul play and intentional advantage involved, we're talking about cheating and possible disqualification, not about restoring game state.

Judging philosophies have evolved, and will continue to do so. Though our ultimate goal remains to ensure that games proceed as correctly and as fairly as possible, the way that we interpret and ensure this has changed. And while we may not have the single-minded emphasis that we used to on fixing the game state to be absolutely accurate in all cases, the techniques used to do this are still a valuable part of a judge's arsenal. Hopefully you'll find that these tips will help you in your judging, and that their usefulness will long outlive the penalty that helped to create them.

One last note: this is one of those tough areas of judging that involve judgment calls and incomplete information, and it's certainly true that you won't get every call absolutely correct. While judges should always be striving to do better more often, it's worth noting that they also shouldn't get hung up with guilt about every last call. After all, if you left it to players, the rate of success in resolving these issues would be well under 50% (if they flipped a coin, they'd get things right roughly half of the time, except for the cases where neither player is right). As long as you're doing better than this, you're still adding to the tournament experience.

Next week: Johanna Virtanen returns with the latest on the tournament Magic scene in Finland.

Next month: Not a big deal … just swoop in, check to ensure the deck is clean, the sleeves are good, the cards are what we expect, the sideboard is intact, the deck is sufficiently randomized, and a dozen other things. Oh … and do it in no more than eight minutes, and that's on a slow day. We'll talk about techniques for performing a speedy, yet thorough deck check.

---
Nicholas J. Fang
DCI Certified Level 3 Judge—Redmond, WA
mtgjudge@gmail.com
Agbaar and Ag|Work on EFnet's #mtgjudge