Player Management Thread

[bishop]

http://www.igforums.com//threads/8411

I'd like to see this discussed. I know that John Danker is around here too and will most likely have some great input as well as some practical advice to share concerning situations like this. As more and more of you are moving up the food chain into Regional judging and SJC judging, situations like this are important to explore so that you are prepared for anything.

 

[daivahataka]

For scenario one it's the passerby who I feel is at fault as you really shouldn't pass comment on a player's hand/face down cards while the duel is still in progress.
Second Scenario I'd rewind back to the previous turn but perhaps issue a warning to the player with Sangan since they got to see what their opponent wanted to summon so the game can't entirely be reset.

 

[JOls]

Well, I'm not a judge, so my opinion won't count for anything. But I like to stick my opinion where it doesn't belong, so here's what I would do:

Situation 1: Banter is part of the game and should not be discouraged. It makes it fun. You wouldn't taking bluffing out of poker, would you? What should be discouraged is the outside influence. The "passing person" should be sought out and told not to comment on anything in the players hand, even to suggest something. Or even a reminder to all spectators not to participate in an active game. The suggestion could have hurt the player just as much as it helped, by revealing a card in their hand to the opposing player. No, when we are in a tournament, we alone should know the cards in our hand. So, what to do now the damage was already done? My answer would depend on what had happened immediately after RoD was played. Did the turn player acknowledge the resolution of the card and was the RoD then placed in the graveyard? If it wasn't, then the card had not yet resolved and therefore could legally be chained even though it might not have been had the suggestion not come. If the other player had already resolved it and put it into the graveyard, then the turn player had already acknowledged no chain. Yes, I know, it's being nitpicky, but in that situation, you kinda have to be.

Situation #2: If you forget to do a card resolution for your own card, and the opposing player said nothing (even if he knew about it), you should forfeit the effect. Numerous times have I lost my Fox Fire because I forgot to bring him back from the graveyard before I drew and started the next turn. I don't think it's necessary to cause a game loss just because an effect was forgotten, or misplayed.

 

[jdos]

Scenerio 1.

I'd say the turn player gets the loss. No one should be commenting, that's true, but if he was in the process of concedeing and someone gave him the play, that's just too bad. He should have looked at his hand for a minute before saying anything. I would also track down the passerby if at all possible and warn him that if something like that should occur again, he'll be removed from the tournament for outright intentional cheating (if he's playing) or asked to leave the tournament area (if he's not).

Scenerio 2.

The game state has changed too much to rewind. The opponent has already drawn and summoned a monster. If the other player is allowed to search for Sangan's effect, the result of that search may have an effect on the other player's strategy. If you rewind now and allow the (now turn) player to take back the summon as a result of the Sangan search, the opponent now knows a card in the other players hand that they would not have known had they not made the mistake.

I'd say, continue the game from where it is, no search, and warn the owner of Sangan about the procedural error.

 

[masterwoo0]

Scenario 1:

two players are at the end of their duel. a player flips over Ring of Destruction targetting a monster during a player's draw phase of which they just drew their card.

the turn player comments that there's really nothing and that it looks like he's lost.

another individual passes, looks at the turn player's hand, and sees a Book of Moon in it (the card that was just drawn) and comments, "heck, just Moon it", then continues to walk past.

the turn player looks down, sees the Moon, and states that they are going to chain the Moon to the Ring.

the opponent calls for the judge and asks for assistance.

Minus the "crosstalk", this scenario happens all the time with players. Call it, "The Heart of the Cards" Syndrome. Player A hopes against hope Player B doesnt play anything good, then BAMM, "Ring of Destruction". Player A then losses control of all Reasoning and throws in the towel without even taking the opportunity to look at his hand or any magic or traps on the field.

As a casual observer, you have seen Player A glance several times at his face-down Solemn Judgment, or his set Call of the Haunted (with Jinzo in the Graveyard), and even that Compulsory Evacuation Device. Player A was just not focused on using the cards for defense and got rattled when Player B seemed to pull out the win.

As tempted as you may be to give a hint or two, it is totally wrong to interfere with a Duel/Match between 2 opposing players in a Tournament. I'm sure that the walker-by may not have intentionally meant to blurt out Player A's hand, and as such, give him a much needed slap in the face that the game wasnt over, but this isnt a question of Player B noticing that Player A drew a card from his deck while Solemn Wishes was active and forgot to add 500 life points.

The contents of each players hand is not public knowledge unless a card effect renders them so. To reveal game strategy to an active player during a duel SHOULD result in a Warning Penalty for that player who gained the advantage, even though its hard to say if when he calmed down, he may not have done exactly what took place anyway. And the individual who "blurted out" the info, if he was entered into the Tournament, he should be DQ'd as he showed poor sportsmanship (cheating) even though he wasnt playing at the time.

You can never know if that "just in time" comment was from a gallery member, or a "plant" who casually watches his buddies opponents then relays hints for game strategy. There should be a clear understanding before the start of the Tourney that all comments to active players in a Match will not be tolerated.


Scenario 2:

a player forgets to search for a Sangan during their Last Turn.

now, the opponent notes that they forgot to search, and calls the judge over.
the opponent has already begun their turn, drawn, and summoned a monster.

This is the most common event ever! We have all probably seen a Sinister Serpent or two get left in the Graveyard during the Standby Phase, and not because the player chose to leave it there. We have all sent a Witch or Sangan to the Graveyard in the heat of a focused battle, and forgotten to resolve the mandatory effect (unless negated), usually because of simultaneous effects resolving.

This scenario is a tough one only because it causes so much to be remembered. Did the owner really not search for a card? Was the effect negated? Did Sangan actually even leave the field and go to the Graveyard?

If the opponent of the player summons a monster, I would have a difficult time allowing them to search for a monster as now they have an advantage over their opponent because they know part of his strategy.

Would they merely have searched for Cyber Jar, not knowing what their opponent would have done on their turn, or know that their opponent has summoned Black Luster Soldier, they would choose instead to search for Exiled Force. I would not allow the search and issue a warning penalty.

 

[exiledforcefreak]

I already submitted a response to the judges forum

 

[Dillie-O]

I think I would line up on the side of most of you here. I'm going to take this backwards to focus more on scenario 1.

Scenario two looks like one that you can ignore the effect and keep the game going without any serious damage. To some extent it hurt the player that forgot to search, because they could have gotten a momentum changing card in their hand, but its no sweat off the other players back at this point and they are just starting the next turn.

Scenario one is really difficult for me. As an aspiring Level 2 and maybe even Level 3 judge, I've learned that I have a lot to grow in with player management. Its hard to "roll back" this scenario or simply ignore the effect because it is at the end of the game. Since the other player had already conceeded at this point, then you have to base things on his initial reaction and leave it at that. I remember one duel I was in where I was down to the wire and I had a whole slew of monsters in defense position, so much so that they came close to my graveyard and I thought my graveyard was anotehr monster (there was only one card in it). I lost, thinking I couldn't summon another monster and realized it just as I had dropped the cards. What can ya do at that point?

In a more "hard lined" approach, I might even consider giving the person that blurted out a game loss next round. I have no idea at this point if this is possible at this point, but maybe it gets a point across. There is a decent chunk of duelists out here at the regionals and usually a comic club or two that comes in for the event. There are too many times I've seen the members, or friends in a pack swarm around their remaining duelist friend and make comments on the side while the match is going on, which can often lead to secrets or cheating leaked out during the match. At the same time, there an be a lot of people that just like being beligerant, regardless of who gets affected by it. I may be a little pessimistic on things, but I almost think they try to make things like that happen just to boost themselves up in the ranks. I want to discourage this highly, and I usually try to keep the lanes clear inbetween matches. I don't mind if they want to stand at the end of the table and watch the rest of the duel, but there has to be enough space that I can walk in there and make a ruling without having to part the red sea. I understand that there are some general newbies to the match at any given time and they are usually too timid to speak out about anything except their own duel.

In the grand scheme of things, I want people to have as much fun as possible during their duels, but have the utmost respect for each other, and for the crowd. There is general bantering and bluffing which is fun to the match, but then there is general deriding and harassing that detracts from the match. If you keep a tight ship early on so that everybody knows the ground rules, then it is easier to loosen up slightly later on to increase the enjoyment of the environment.

That's why I struggle so much with Scenario 1. Is it a bantering problem person, or is it a genuine mistake by somebody? Am I missing the boat on this one?

ick...gotta step off my soapbox now 8^D

 

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

We can not forget a mandatory effect.

Creating a precedent where "forgotten" effects are not resolved creates an unfair environment:

With Sangan, what if the player new that he/she didn't have any 1500- monsters left in the deck, and so "Forgot" to use Sangans effect in order to avoid showing the deck to the opponent. Or what if the player was playing against a deck destruction deck and "forgot" to search for Sangan in order to avoid taking a mosnter that would jsut be discarded by Card Destruction or Morphing Jar.

Sangan is played often: it's a card that everyone should know how it works, so the consequences of forgetting its effect can apply to both players. So for the opponent should be able to accept the consequences of giving the Sangan-player more information to make the choice.

However, when resolving disputes with the neighbourhood kids we often break the rules of cards to make it fair: In this environment, we could modify Sangan's effect so that it would be taking a random 1500- card from the deck, or that Sangan's opponent would pick the card.

But i don't think that would hold up in a sanctioned tournament as many of are other solutions wouldn't: (e.g when player a's mistake causes player b to falsely reveal (activate) a set m/t, player b would be allowed to shuffle the s/t on his side of the field)

 

[jdos]

We can not forget a mandatory effect.

Creating a precedent where "forgotten" effects are not resolved creates an unfair environment:

If the game cannot be rolled back to the point where the error was made without damaging the current state, you most certainly can ignore a mandatory effect. What if they'd both realized that mistake 2-3 turns later? Do you roll back the entire duel? Nope. You ignore the effect because it would cause irreparable damage to the current game state to go back. The player who owned the effect should then get a warning and play should continue.

[edit]Going back over the penalty guidelines...technically the player who forgot Sangan's effect should get a game loss due to the irreparable damage done to the game state...but I think that's a little harsh for a local tourney. At the store level you should be able to give a waning and continue as I stated above. But at a regional or SJC, I can see giving a game loss for this. Let's face it, at that level of competition, you can't be fair to both players and lenient on infractions at the same time. The players should know going into it that at something that big, the letter of the law will likely apply.

 

[blade146]

What people are forgetting is this happened at an SJC event. These are regional events with better prizes. If you enter this type of event be prepared to get dealt harsh rulings for errors.

In the first example I would have to give the player a game loss. Granted it isn't fair but he did concede to his opponent before hearing the advice. As for the person that gave the advice I would give a game loss if they were playing. If they were not playing I would ask them to leave the dueling area.

The second example is a game loss for the player who forgot to get Sagan's effect. The game has progressed to far to be repaired.


Now if this was just a weekly tournament the penalties wouldn't be half as bad but at this tournament you have to be perfect in every move you make.

 

[helpoemer316]

Well, I've had these scenerio's before, I'll tell you what our policy for Star City Games events and what we will do in cases like this.

Scenerio 1:

If the person walking by and comments is a player in the tournament, they are taken aside and have a long discussion on why they should not become involved within a match, depending on what happened in the situation, you do retain the right to either DQ the person if he was a player or ask them to leave the building/room if they're a spectator. Depending on the severity of the situation depends on the action taken. In this case, if it were me (every judge thinks differently) I would issue a game loss penalty to the passerby for the advice he gave to the player was game changing and irreversable. Granted, you also need to keep in mind that this is if I was not in the location at the time.

If myself or another judge were in the location at the time it happened, if I had heard the player say "I guess I've lost." I would take that as a sign of conceeding and the comment that the player gave as he was passing by would be ignored, the player who "conceeded" would take his lost and move on. The passerby would still go through the long discussion.

The situation matters in this case as always and severity is always a major concern. Players must always be responsible for their own actions in higher level events and to just slip and give advice to another player should be something that someone knows to be just wrong and considered cheating by all degrees.

Scenerio 2:

This scenerio is touchy just for one reason. What determines whether a game loss penalty is needed or not is on the situation and if it's repairable or not. An irrepairable situation would be the player forgot to search for Sangan a few turns went by and then both players realize that he had forgotten to search for Sangan. At this moment, every card that had been drawn by the one player who had forgotten during those turns wouldn't have been the same cards that he would have drawn if he had searched and shuffled. The game state is irrepairable, the player who forgot to search is issued a game loss penalty, end of story.

But in this case, the game state is repairable. Since the player who forgot has not searched their deck but has also not drawn a card, the deck is in the same state as it was if he had searched it the prior turn. It's as simple as the player searching the deck for the card for Sangan and shuffling. A warning being issued for the missed game play and the game continuing on as if nothing happened.

I might want to note that people shouldn't call a judge over with the intent to try fishing for penalties. I had a case at the Durham, NC regionals this past weekend where I was head judging and someone called me over and was purposely trying to propose reasons why their opponent should be disqualified. Both states that he gave were repairable game states, I repaired them while I was there and issued a warning, the opponent wanted to argue with me. I issued him a warning for stalling and afterwards issued another warning saying that fishing for penalties is considered unsportsmanlike conduct and can warrant a DQ from the event.

 

[StRiKe_NiNjA]

Scenario1:
The outisde interference isn't an issue, as the Player has already submitted defeat. But if play continued, a game loss would be awarded regardless as the Player referenced information from outside the duel from a spectator, which is inappropriate play and is a cheating act.

Scenario2:
I wouldn't recommend rewinding play, your too far into play. To be honest, I wouldn't recommend rewinding play at all, unless it is a confusion between on how a chain resolves, then we must look at steps. I would simply have the effect forfeited, as a Player and controller of the effect, you should have been well aware of what goes into the graveyard. I mean, how many people have forgotten Sinister Serpent? Even as the opposing Player, shouldn't submit information that might disrupt the game if the opposing Player were to lose. If Player2 asked if Player1 were to be damaged by 1 more direct attack, would it be game?

At a local tournament, convention, confrences, regional, etc. Players should be more than prepared for rulings, especially those if hard to swallow. Staying focused is key.

 

[Maester Bacman]

I agree with the approach of helpoemer316 in this.

I consider the first scenario the most difficult to resolve. Even if the controller of Book of Moon is going to take advantage of the comment, I can't and I shouldn't give a Warning or a Game Loss to him, because this has happened by an action that was not his fault. The passerby is the only guilty here, for playing "Yami-Yugi". The penalty could vary; it really depends on the comment and the state of the duel.

Let's say that your opponent reveals a card from his hand accidentaly. I should give the player that made the mistake a warning for altering the game state. The main problem is that you can't forget the card you have just saw, and I can't ask you as Head Judge to forget that card and act like if you had never know which was it. You just have to do what you think is the best action; if you know now something helpful, good.

In the second situation:
-The player has already summoned a monster X, instead of the monster that could have helped him in a better way, thanks to Sangan.
-The player has also already revealed a card that has to be returned to the deck/hand. The game state is damaged.
-An action or strategy that would rely on the player's hand is totally changed. Example: The opponent could have a Trap Dustshoot in his hand.
-The drawn card may be totally unknown.
-Until when do we have to roll back in the previous turn? Main Phase 2? Battle Phase? STANDBY PHASE?
Too much trouble. Game loss.

 

[helpoemer316]

Different situations dictate different penalties. Really, there is no need to discuss a specific penalty or type. Once you do that, people use that as a guide to say that whenever something similar to that happens you use the same penalty, which is not the case.

Severity always has to be considered, plus with the changing scenerio's there will be changing penalties.

There are guidelines to follow but ultimately the decision will always be up to the Head Judge of the event on what penalty is assigned. Whether it's right or wrong in the eyes of the people there it's their decision, not ours. Sad thing is, discussions like these, even though they give insight I feel help no one in the end as far as what they plan on accomplishing. A Head Judge has to have the ability to think by themselves in situations such as these, assign what they feel is best after reviewing the guidelines and then move on.

If they wish to ask if they did the right thing later they can, but it's always going to be a matter of opinion in the end as you can see from this very discussion. There is no wrong or right answer as long as you decide to assign a penalty, there can only be suggestions and ideas from it. Get my point?

 

[novastar]

Helpoemer[/ycard]316]Well, I've had these scenerio's before, I'll tell you what our policy for Star City Games events and what we will do in cases like this.

Scenerio 1:

If the person walking by and comments is a player in the tournament, they are taken aside and have a long discussion on why they should not become involved within a match, depending on what happened in the situation, you do retain the right to either DQ the person if he was a player or ask them to leave the building/room if they're a spectator. Depending on the severity of the situation depends on the action taken. In this case, if it were me (every judge thinks differently) I would issue a game loss penalty to the passerby for the advice he gave to the player was game changing and irreversable. Granted, you also need to keep in mind that this is if I was not in the location at the time.

If myself or another judge were in the location at the time it happened, if I had heard the player say "I guess I've lost." I would take that as a sign of conceeding and the comment that the player gave as he was passing by would be ignored, the player who "conceeded" would take his lost and move on. The passerby would still go through the long discussion.

The situation matters in this case as always and severity is always a major concern. Players must always be responsible for their own actions in higher level events and to just slip and give advice to another player should be something that someone knows to be just wrong and considered cheating by all degrees.

I have to admit, this is spoken like a true seasoned judge.

With the lack of ruling issues in Vs. we've had lots of time to discuss actual Judging and really getting involved with "how" to deal with judging situations according to UDE's policy.

I would handle it exactly as you would. The way Gary has described it, it seems that the real issue is the passerby and the comments that were made.

It is really tough to fault the Turn Player in this case and award a Game Loss to him/her because in reality, they did nothing to cheat. If the comment was never made, there would be no dispute here.

In the end i would do as you did, take the passerby aside give him/her a stern talking to, and issue a Game Loss to that player. I would also consider a DQ if i felt that it was a bad enough offence or that player was getting out of line with me. (if not a player, i would ask them to stay out of the playing area or to leave the buliding). Of course if it was a second (or more) offence, it would be an automatic DQ, no questions asked.

This is definately the kind of action that you want every player in the room to understand is unacceptable, so a stiff Game Loss to the first couple of players that try it, might properly get the word out that it is a zero tollerance policy on this. I view this as a zero tollerance prohibited action.

As far as the 2 current players, if i was present for or had heard the conceading talk, and really felt that the Turn Player was going to give up, i would issue a Game Loss and get on with it. Otherwise, i would ask them to continue on as normal and finish the duel, issuing no warning.

Scenerio 2:

This scenerio is touchy just for one reason. What determines whether a game loss penalty is needed or not is on the situation and if it's repairable or not. An irrepairable situation would be the player forgot to search for Sangan a few turns went by and then both players realize that he had forgotten to search for Sangan. At this moment, every card that had been drawn by the one player who had forgotten during those turns wouldn't have been the same cards that he would have drawn if he had searched and shuffled. The game state is irrepairable, the player who forgot to search is issued a game loss penalty, end of story.

But in this case, the game state is repairable. Since the player who forgot has not searched their deck but has also not drawn a card, the deck is in the same state as it was if he had searched it the prior turn. It's as simple as the player searching the deck for the card for Sangan and shuffling. A warning being issued for the missed game play and the game continuing on as if nothing happened.

I might want to note that people shouldn't call a judge over with the intent to try fishing for penalties. I had a case at the Durham, NC regionals this past weekend where I was head judging and someone called me over and was purposely trying to propose reasons why their opponent should be disqualified. Both states that he gave were repairable game states, I repaired them while I was there and issued a warning, the opponent wanted to argue with me. I issued him a warning for stalling and afterwards issued another warning saying that fishing for penalties is considered unsportsmanlike conduct and can warrant a DQ from the event.

Once again i totally agree.

Since the player who forgot Sangan's effect has not drawn cards yet, the state is repairable. I would ask him or her to resolve Sangan's effect right then and there, and then issue a Warning to that player.

Barring any other misconduct, play would carry on from there.

In the case of a search effect, it really comes down to whether the player has done any more deck manipulation or drawing since having forgotten to resolve the effect.

A Game Loss would only be issued if the game had already progressed 2 or 3 turns ahead.

 

[Oskar Darktide]

Scenario 1: In this case, the turn player has given up so the game is over. As far as the passerby goes, if they're able to be found they should be issued a warning.

Scenario 2: I have always ruled that the effect Disappears and no penalties are given out. Like many have said, it changes the state of the game by giving the owner of Sangan an advantage by allowing them to get almost any car from there deck which can completely change the game. However, I feel that the opponent of Sangan's controller should have spoke up and reminded his opponent about Sangan's effect out of respect.

 

[Digital Jedi]

Curious. In the Sangan scenario, wouldn't it be more Appropriate to make a decision based on the particular circumstances? I mean, arbitrarily making a decision here and now (whether for the search or against the search) strikes me as being a bit hasty. I would think it would be more Appropriate to asses the situation first and then decide if the game needed to rewound, the effect "burned" or let him have the search.

 

[helpoemer316]

Curious. In the Sangan scenario, wouldn't it be more Appropriate to make a decision based on the particular circumstances? I mean, arbitrarily making a decision here and now (whether for the search or against the search) strikes me as being a bit hasty. I would think it would be more Appropriate to asses the situation first and then decide if the game needed to rewound, the effect "burned" or let him have the search.

It is more Appropriate to base it on the situation. The situation will always dictate what penalty is given, which is why I said if it had been something that were several turns later, then it would garner a different penalty.

Hense it's a different situation.

Oskar: Unfortunately the reason why you should repair the fact that Sangan's effect wasn't met or give a penalty for it is because Sangan's effect is manditory. Effects that are manditory cannot be skipped or "Disappear". Unfortunately when an effect is played it must be played to it's entirity, this goes as well with cards like Graceful Charity if someone draws only 2 cards by accident and discards 2 then. There is still 1 card that wasn't drawn, the effect doesn't Disappear and the card is drawn and a warning is assessed. However, if Sangan's effect was an optional effect, which means it was like Peten or something else that has the word "can" in it's effect saying you "can" activate it if it's sent to the grave and it was forgotten, then it would be skipped for good. The player couldn't say I want to search because skipping the effect like so is a legal move since you can choose to activate it or not and if you skip it, you basically say you don't want to activate it. Sangan isn't optional, you must search your deck for a monster and then shuffle, which means that if anything if there isn't a monster to even get, you have to search and then shuffle afterwards. So the effect is manditory which is why a penalty is placed afterwards.

 

[John Danker]

Okay, I'll give my take on these situations....

Scenario 1:

First of anytime there is a situation that isn't a cut and dry ruling and depends on a judge's discreation any judge must take additional time and make sure to listen to each player's "story" starting with the turn player. During that time sizing up the situation according to what a judge sees beyond their stories may very well determine the ruling. What do people's tone of voice say? What do the eyes say? Are there other clues?
At this point a judge should ask any additional relavent questions. Sometimes, as with this scenario, a story may need to be interupted in order to bring in additional parties. The passerby who made additional comment should be sought out by another judge while the judge at the table in question continues there. The table shouldn't be left alone at this point as tempers can escilate and a crowd can gather. It's important to keep order and either player's friends out of the scenario and it's conclusion.

Once the passerby had been located and it's confirmed that the story told is as suspected first we give the ruling to the table to move the tournament along. In this scenrio I would have ruled turn player's comments as conceding defeat. This having been done the game is over. This ruling given with explination, praise, and thanks for calling a judge over immediately upon there being a problem.

Now that the situation at the table has been taken care of attention turns to the passerby. Determine of course weather that person is a player in the tournament. If no, explain the expectations of spectators and remove the person from the tournament area. If yes explain the expecations for player behavior and issue a game loss for unsportsmanlike conduct, and warn the passerby that any additional unsportsmanlike behavior will result in a disqualification from the tournament.

Sceanrio 2

Scenario 2 I consider to be much more difficult.
Explaination should first be given to both players that Sangan is a mandatory effect and that it is the responsability of both players to make sure mandatory effects are completed. It must also be explained that there is no "rewinding" of the game. That having been said, inform the players that each will recieve a warning for procedual error.

The explination having been given move to resolving the situation.

Though it is indeed both player's responsability to complete a mandatory effect it is ultimately the owner of the card who bares the brunt of the responability. As there is a turn in progress and what the non-turn player wishes to search for could effect the current turn I would give turn player the option of completing their turn before the other player searches or having them search at this time.


That's my story and I'm s..s..s..sticking to it!

 

[novastar]

First of anytime there is a situation that isn't a cut and dry ruling and depends on a judge's discreation any judge must take additional time and make sure to listen to each player's "story" starting with the turn player. During that time sizing up the situation according to what a judge sees beyond their stories may very well determine the ruling. What do people's tone of voice say? What do the eyes say? Are there other clues?
At this point a judge should ask any additional relavent questions. Sometimes, as with this scenario, a story may need to be interupted in order to bring in additional parties. The passerby who made additional comment should be sought out by another judge while the judge at the table in question continues there. The table shouldn't be left alone at this point as tempers can escilate and a crowd can gather. It's important to keep order and either player's friends out of the scenario and it's conclusion.

It's great that you brought this up.

I think this goes without saying, the first order of business before making any sort of judgement call is the collect all the facts. Keeping the crowd calm and civil is one of the most important elements to being a judge.

Once the passerby had been located and it's confirmed that the story told is as suspected first we give the ruling to the table to move the tournament along. In this scenrio I would have ruled turn player's comments as conceding defeat. This having been done the game is over. This ruling given with explination, praise, and thanks for calling a judge over immediately upon there being a problem.

I still have a hard time doing that. There have been many times where comments could be made only to dig deeper and find an action that you could perform that might help.

That said, your judgement might be more suitable. It might be better to simply call the game over and move things along for the sake of keeping things calm. It is most likely a situation where the game would have been over in a few moves anyway, so the Book of Moon efforts might have been moot.

Though it is indeed both player's responsability to complete a mandatory effect it is ultimately the owner of the card who bares the brunt of the responability. As there is a turn in progress and what the non-turn player wishes to search for could effect the current turn I would give turn player the option of completing their turn before the other player searches or having them search at this time.

That is very intersting and something i've never thought of. Giving the player the option seems reasonable in this case for one main reason, in Gary's example the Turn Player had already summoned, so the opponent would have a lot of information by that point. My thoughts have always been that you could infact "rewind" the game depending on the situation at hand. I don't feel that this is one of those instances.

If all that had happened was the Turn Player drawing, then resolving Sangan right there might be fine. Of course a double warning would be in order.

Great stuff