Marked cards

[John Danker]

I learned something this weekend I hadn't realized previously. It was obvious I hadn't read quite well enough the explination on Marked Cards-Major (Penalty: Match Loss) which states this...

The following penalty applies when a player has a significant number of cards marked and it appears that there is an unintentional, but noticeable pattern among those. Although this infraction assumes accidental marking, having significant markings can give players an advantage in tournaments and therefore requires a relatively strict penalty. It is appropriate to investigate further to make sure that the player did not do this intentionally. Intentionally marking cards is Unsporting Conduct "“Cheating and requires immediate disqualification.

This is the only case I know where an unintentional problem mandates a match loss.

The situation was that I was deck checking when I noticed that 5 cards spread throughout the deck were turned upside down. The cards were all monsters, both of the players Chaos Sorcerers, Treeborn Frog, Blowback Dragon, and 1 of his 2 Spirit Reapers. The end of the cards showed white card edges. I was sorely tempted to give a game loss but assumed the cards being flipped around were unintentional, remembering (or at least I thought) that unintentional penalties madate warnings I issued a very strong one and added that if I'd deemed it was intentional I could have given a Disqualification without Prise for Unsporting Conduct-Cheating.

After discussing the situation with another judge I was informed that in actuality the penalty should have been a match loss even if it was unintentioal....I learned something this weekend once again.

I just thought I'd bring this exception to the rule up. Many of you may have already realized it but it was the first time I had.

 

[SPK]

Yup, sometimes that does come up, but personally I think it's a harsh issue, because sometimes the marking could have been a previous owner's fault, if the individual got it in a trade etc, and I consider it unfair for a player to be issued a Match Loss...a warning I believe would suffice...

If the marking was intentional however, then I would have no issue with the Disqualification...and that issue with those cards called, has me wondering if that instance was intentional or not, given the general importance of the cards that came up as such...

Marked cards IMO is one of the more sensitive areas to punish players....

 

[Jason_C]

the marking could have been a previous owner's fault,

UDE is very specific that it is 100% YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to ensure that your deck meets the requirements of the Banned / Limited list and the YGO rulebook and is not marked in any way, as it is also YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to ensure that it is shuffled properly. Nobody else can be held accountable if your cards are deemed to be marked.

Personally, I think the reason for this "exception" to the rule is that it's so very difficult to prove that a person did not intentionally mark their cards and then claim it was an accident, so UDE is extra-careful about that.

 

[Kyhotae]

Well, the more I thought about that after you pointed it out to me, John, the more sense it made. Considering that intentional marking is penalized with Disqualification, then one step down from that would be a Match Loss for unintentional marking. Unfortunately, you didn't show me that particular passage before I gave a simple warning for that kid that had peices of paper in his sleeves that could be seen though the back of the sleeves. I should have given him a Match Loss at best. Considering he knew they were and didn't take them out I probably should have consulted with your for the DQ, but since he didn't appear to realize that was truly marking, maybe a Match Loss would have sufficed. Too bad I only gave him a warning...

 

[John Danker]

Remember though that judges can move a penalty up or down the ladder depending on the situation. If a player is young, obviously is inexperienced, and it's obvious that they ...well, I don't know how else to put it...don't know their rear from a hot rock....and wouldn't know how to take advantage of a marked deck ...it may be appropriate to down grade the penalty (I did so once last Sat. for a marked card penalty giving a game loss rather than a match loss to a young man...I can't remember weather it was the one Kyhotae was involved in or not)

We do need to remember that these are guidelines and we are allowed to down grade / upgrade them as is appropriate for the paticular scenario.

 

[Evil Fiber Jar]

Remember though that judges can move a penalty up or down the ladder depending on the situation. If a player is young, obviously is inexperienced, and it's obvious that they ...well, I don't know how else to put it...don't know their rear from a hot rock....and wouldn't know how to take advantage of a marked deck ...it may be appropriate to down grade the penalty (I did so once last Sat. for a marked card penalty giving a game loss rather than a match loss to a young man...I can't remember weather it was the one Kyhotae was involved in or not)

We do need to remember that these are guidelines and we are allowed to down grade / upgrade them as is appropriate for the paticular scenario.

I agree. If you have a beginner and didn't know better, a warning would be appropriate and explain to him/her the situation. But a more experienced player should already know.

 

[masterwoo0]

Unfortunately, you didn't show me that particular passage before I gave a simple warning for that kid that had peices of paper in his sleeves that could be seen though the back of the sleeves. I should have given him a Match Loss at best. Considering he knew they were and didn't take them out I probably should have consulted with your for the DQ, but since he didn't appear to realize that was truly marking, maybe a Match Loss would have sufficed. Too bad I only gave him a warning...

Oh that is an easy call. I mean, not only could he probably feel the paper from the back of the Sleeve, but what other purpose would there be for it to even be in the Sleeve? One Sleeve=One Card. Nothing else should be in there.

Just this past weekend, I saw some kid playing almost a whole Deck of Proxies at a Books A Million, and everyone he played was not happy in the least when they saw a Sleeved Yugioh Card Back, with the name of the Card it was mimicking (which happened to be Cyber Dragon's, Merchant's, and a few other's).

The player kept saying that, "This isnt a real Tourney." And they other player's would say, "Well, we are playing with REAL CARDS!!" I have never liked seeing proxies, and if he "at least" HAD the cards, it would have been more of a argument in his favor. But, it isnt fair for player's who actually are using real cards to play against a deck full of useless paper, representing a Championship Deck, that the person doesnt even own.

 

[Jathro]

Currently, are there any rules against people "coloring" their cards? At the last regionals I attended, I saw several players who were coloring their regular silver rares with a yellow marker to make them look Ultra-like. (For example, a PGD Spirit Reaper with a yellow card name. Or a Sakuretsu Armor that the background was colored purple.) I don't think it would make any significant differences to the weight of the card and they're probably just doing it to make them unique, but should this type of practice be put to a stop?

 

[rjh1967]

'Major art modification' isn't allowed... it's really a judgement call.

Cards turned around in decks can be a major problem though, who's to say that their opponent when shuffling didn't 'drop' a portion of the cards and then shuffle them into the deck incorrectly?

 

[John Danker]

Oh that is an easy call. I mean, not only could he probably feel the paper from the back of the Sleeve, but what other purpose would there be for it to even be in the Sleeve? One Sleeve=One Card. Nothing else should be in there.

No, it's not necessarily an easy call. I've seen the same thing where the little piece of paper had a date on it. For some reason this young man (13-14 years old) had a "thing" for when he aquired his cards. <shrug> Perhaps he was some kind of organizational maniac. In the paticular case I'm speaking of the young man explained this, was quite shaken at the prospect of disturbing his organization....but of course complied. There are a lot of people that enter a regional tournament that really aren't as up on the game as a whole as one would think. You could look at it this way as well.....what kind of idiot puts white paper in their sleeves with the purpose of cheating? It's so blatant and obvious that the person would have to be an absolute fool to believe no one would notice.....then again, perhaps they really ARE an absolute fool....that's the real judgment call.

I also once new a young man who would put a small piece of paper in the front face of the sleeve of the cards he sided in so he could remember which ones he was suppose to take out at end of match. This kid was as honest as the day is long....he just didn't even give thought to the prospect of "feeling" the card to see what it was.

No, it's not quite so simple. You have to look at situations on an individual basis and do a bit of detective work.

 

[Digital Jedi]

There are a lot of people that enter a regional tournament that really aren't as up on the game as a whole as one would think.

This last Regional I attended, when the TO was making his usual announcements about making sure you turn in your Deck Lists and stuff, one young man turned to the people at my table and said "What's a Deck List?" Now see, this is something I took for granted that you would have to know before entering a regional event. I'm presuming he pre-registered, because they would have handed him a deck sheet like they did me when I registered at the desk. But if he pre-registered that means he had to look up the info and I would have thought that information would have gone hand in hand. It just goes to show, that not every player knows what he's doing or has been playing the game, or events, very long.

 

[DarkLogicianOfCaos]

Had a fellow at the last regionals that was playing with very worn deck sleeves. I asked to do a quick deck chech and found them to be random, with no descernable pattern, so I waited until after that match (he lost) to let him know that there were paople at the tournament who were intentionally getting people match losses to move forward and asked him to get new sleeves. He later came and thanked me for giving him the heads up...he must have seen one of them in action.

"Hey, this guy has a piece of lint on his card! Marked deck! Marked deck!"

"Excuse me sir, is there a reason you waited until you were behind by 6000 LP in the third round to bring this up?"

 

[ygo doc]

There are advantages to being the Head Judge at times...

John, I ran into similar problems during my last Regionals and even though Jon Lacey was there primarily as scorekeeper and ops for Pastimes, I rendered similar judgments for some players. I definitely used the power of the Head Judge to upgrade or downgrade penalties as s/he feels is warranted by the situation.

During the 5th of 7 Swiss Rounds, I deck-checked Table 1 and 3. This includes the top 1,2,5 and 6th players via MANTIS. I ended up giving all 4 players a game loss.

Situation 1. #1 player had a sixteen card side deck with 1 extra card not listed in his decklist. Deck Error - Illegal Deck = game loss. Situation was interesting because this player had been deck-checked 2 rounds earlier and had no problems with his side deck.

Player #2 was playing with a side deck not listed in his original decklist. I could have ruled this a Deck Error - Illegal Decklist and only issued a warning; however, I could also rule that the player could no longer use his side deck, since he never listed one. Since the player wanted to continue to use his side deck, I let him correct the decklist but upgraded him to a game loss. He was a veteran player and should have known better.

Both these players actually seemed to be pleased with this as they considered themselves equally penalized with a 1 game match remaining. Question for you here: If a player receives a game loss, can players then side deck for the next game?

Situation #3. Player #5 had purchased a weird pack of sleeves. When the cards were completely in the sleeve, you could see the very bottom of each card protruding from the sleeve, no matter how much you tapped down the cards. I knew for a fact, that this player just purchased these new plain colored sleeves for regionals and he still had his original receipt from the store we were playing in. However, when I checked through his Deck, he had a very old "Mirror Force" card in it which could easily be distinguished from all other cards by looking at the edges. I should have issued a Marked Cards - Major penalty which warrants a match loss per UDE, but since these guys hadn't started their match, and I believed the markings were unintentional, I downgraded the penalty to a game loss. Jon Lacey frowned on me for this, reminding me that this should be a match loss, but also stated, "You're the Head Judge, so you can change it as you see fit". He didn't say much later as he noticed no body was complaining about their penalties.

Situation #4. Player #6 was playing a Deck with a Fusion Deck, but didn't list the Fusion Deck on his Decklist. This is a similar situation as with Player #2 who didn't list his Side Deck. Rather than issue a warning and have Player #6 not use a Fusion Deck, he accepted a game loss, corrected his Deck list and I now had another single game match started.

Now usually, when I have to issue a game loss penalty, someone is upset and whispering how unfair I was. Luckily, I'm here in my meta where I play often and everyone knows me and respects me, and I had 4 players all verbally beating themselves and telling them how stupid they were for making such mistakes. Only the player with the short sleeves was still angry, primarily at the store owner for selling him the short sleeves. They mutually settled their dispute later.

doc

 

[John Danker]

In the case of a game loss for penalty, yes, players are allowed to side deck between games.

 

[ygo doc]

One other comment:

I don't remember if you were part of the Top 8 Deck Check team at the last Chicago SJC, but at both SJC's in Chicago, one player had like about 10 cards, half his Spell/Trap cards distinguishable from the back by tic marks (slight bends or folds in the sleeves) near the top of each sleeve.

Both Chris (Head of Deck Checks) and I could go through the Deck and easily select 10 cards all of which were Spell/Trap cards. We informed Jon of this and he chose to issue only a warning and have the player resleeve those 10 cards. As I read the UDE penalty guideline, this could easily have been ruled a match loss. The guidelines say this: "The following penalty applies when a player has a significant number of cards marked and it appears that there is an unintentional, but noticeable pattern among those." The question is what constitutes "significant"? I thought selecting half the Spell/Trap cards was significant; perhaps, the player or someone with training could select ALL the Spell/Traps!

Anyways, when I watched the player play later, I agreed it was a good ruling. Players that have the nervous habit of constantly checking their Spell/Trap cards by peeking at the tops, cause the tics or dents to be placed in their sleeves. I did not see any play where they could use the marks to their advantage. To the contrary, I could see where the opponent armed with this knowledge could take advantage whenever discarding a card from the player's Hand.

doc

 

[John Danker]

That phrase you highlighted in red was the major point of my original post doc...it's the only scenario I'm aware of where an unintentional occurance mandates such a stiff penalty. I guess I'm a little confused by it. If it's unintentional how does it create an advantage? I'm assuming that by unintentional we're talking...without the player's knowledge of existing. I'd group an unintentonal marking of a card WITH knowlege of it and without action to remedy it as intentional, however, if both the marking of the card(s) and no knowledge that the card is marked in my eyes makes for no advantage....so how does it create an unfair game state?

 

[ygo doc]

John, I would agree with you here, which is why I DOWNGRADED the punishment, not the infraction. I felt Jon downgraded the penalty to a lower class penalty altogether.

If you truly believe the player is not cheating, why such a stiff penalty? I suspect that when discussing the issue, UDE staff thought that perhaps the person was cheating, but really couldn't prove it, but the POTENTIAL to cheat was definitely there; hence the stiff penalty.

I would prefer to lower the current penalty to a game loss.

doc

 

[John Danker]

The "potential" was certainly there to cheat in the scenario I outlined originally. The player had 5 monsters reversed in the deck...it so happens they were both of his Chaos monsters, Treeborn Frog, Blowback Dragon, and one of his two Spirit Reapers. All monsters I'd consider to be "key" players. So there was certainly a select "group" (monsters) and a number of them (5) and they were key players in the deck. If I'd have known the way the penalty guideline read I'd have issued a match loss as it did fit the description and there were too man coincedental commonalities (is that a word?) Did I KNOW this player was not cheating? ...not at all. He could just have easily stacked his deck as not. In THIS paticular instance if I'd have known the ruling I'd NOT have given at least a game loss if not a match loss. In many other instances though I would downgrade it.

 

[LordLight2]

Now I noticed that all the situations pertain to the back of the card. But what about the front? I have known a few players to put a small "s" on a corner on the front of their cards with a sharpie. This is to indicate that it belongs in their side deck for faster un-side decking. What would the rulings be on this situation? True, it's "marking" the cards, but not in any way to give them an advantage. Thoughts?

 

[John Danker]

Personally I don't have a problem with that...so long as you can't "feel" the marking through the sleeve. Technically though the face of the card is not suppose to be obstructed in any way. With the amount of card "coloring" that is going on though and it being overlooked I'd be hard pressed to see a judge ruling that that small "s" is a marked card and the colored ones are not.