Section 4.3 in the Infraction Procedure Guide (IPG) defines "A player uses or offers to use an outside-the-game method to determine the outcome of a game or match" as grounds for disqualification from a tournament. It then gives the following examples:
A. As time is called, two players about to draw roll a die to determine the winner.
B. A player offers to flip a coin to determine the winner of a match.
C. Two players arm wrestle to determine the winner of the match.
D. Two players play rock-paper-scissors to decide if they should play the match or draw
The way this is worded leaves a couple of ways for players to determine the winner outside of actually winning. There's a few reasons I can think of why Wizards would want to word this infraction the way they did. They might be okay with the idea of two players mutually agreeing to concede if they have the lower life-total on the last round when time is called, or if they have the weaker board state ect. However, the way this infraction is defined seems to leave room for players to determine the result of a game based on in-game random methods as long as they don't break other rules doing so (such as revealing the top card of your library when no effect would cause you to draw or reveal a card). Is this interpretation correct? If so, is the following scenario a tournament legal way for you to randomly determine the winner of a game?:
On the fifth turn of time before your opponent draws their card you state the following "Hey Jim, I have a proposal. Since this would be a draw if you are unable to win on this turn, and a draw would mean neither of us gets into top 8, what if you reveal the first card you draw this turn, and if it's a non-land card, I'll concede. If it's a land, and you can't win this turn you concede."
If that scenario isn't legal, why not? What part of which rule does it violate?
You have a card which allows you to actually flip a coin such as frenetic efreet and you propose you determine the winner based on the outcome of that flip, or the effects which happen as a result of the flip occurring.
You have two cards in hand. You reveal them to the opponent and then shuffle them quickly. You propose that the opponent guesses which card is which and you'll reveal them. If she guessed correctly you'll concede and and if not, she'll concede.
You and your opponent both are at 1 life and each have a shivan reef in hand. You decide to flip a coin/play rock paper scissors over who should win, but instead of conceding, make yourself lose the game as a result of in-game effects.
If the previous scenario would work, then it might follow that you could instead of killing yourself, cause yourself to lose by committing a game infraction such as agreeing the loser of a coin flip will draw an extra card and be penalized with a game loss. If infractions are not considered an in game method on the other hand this wouldn't be viable in any case.
If players mutually agree that at the end of 5 turns the player with the higher life total wins or they can agree who has the better board state and agree that player wins, those I'd be perfectly fine with. In these cases they are letting their game of magic determine the result of the game/match.
The others I would not be fine with and would DQ the player(s). The problem with the other methods is they are all random methods to determine the outcome of the match and have nothing to do with playing the game of magic. Even the frenetic efreet coin flip, you'd be using the result of that to determine something outside the effect of the ability, and since it's the result of the match it fits into USC - IDW.
If players mutually agree that at the end of 5 turns the player with the higher life total wins or they can agree who has the better board state and agree that player wins, those I'd be perfectly fine with. In these cases they are letting their game of magic determine the result of the game/match.
The others I would not be fine with and would DQ the player(s). The problem with the other methods is they are all random methods to determine the outcome of the match and have nothing to do with playing the game of magic. Even the frenetic efreet coin flip, you'd be using the result of that to determine something outside the effect of the ability, and since it's the result of the match it fits into USC - IDW.
Aren't players using the result of spells to determine something outside the effect of the ability when they decide board state or life totals determine the result of the match? Do you have a source for why you would DQ the player(s). The source I quoted doesn't mention anything specifically against random methods to determine outcomes of matches, just that the players use an outside-the-game method so I'm wondering where you're drawing the conclusion that they should be penalized with a DQ. In fact, a rule which states that players can't use in-game-methods if they depend on an element of randomness would mean virtually no in-game-method would be viable as board state and life totals all depend on top decks. You could even re-clarify such a rule to state that you can't use in-game-methods based purely on randomness, but then my first comment's example should sneak by as there are technically strategic ways to alter one's deck and increase chances of winning based on card type, such as fetching to thin one's deck before the draw step. Assuming you previously decided life totals would decide the game, this scenario is analogous to bolting your opponent's face when it would be better (if the game continued past round 5)to bolt one of their creatures.
You'll have to excuse me, but I'm unfamiliar with the acronym USC - IDW. What does it mean?
USC - IDW means "Unsporting Conduct - Improperly Determining a Winner".
So for the first two options where the players are letting the board state or life totals decide the winner, you said it yourself the players can aid themselves and use strategy to help them win based on these criteria. In the end they are letting their current game of magic determine the winner of the game/match, and not some outside or random element.
The other methods you suggested did not fit that criteria, in fact they were all random methods to determine the outcome. None of those methods had anything to do with playing magic. Let me go one step further, the methods you suggested could it not be considered a gamble? You are correct there is a certain amount of luck when playing magic, but there is also quite a bit of skill involved in playing. Using a random element like you suggested is removing the skill and relying on dumb luck, or in other words gambling on an outcome.
The two seem indistinguishable to me as I explained earlier. Both involve a random component, and both can contain a strategical component. You can thin your deck of as many lands as possible before your draw to increase likelihood of winning. It even bares some significance as to who would be more likely to win the game. In the late game drawing lands is most often a bad thing, as opposed to drawing gas. I don't see where you're drawing the line, and more importantly, why? What is your source for this? The IPG section I quoted mentions that outside-the-game methods aren't allowed, but only references randomness in its examples which all have an element of outside-the-game. There's nothing in the definition under improperly determining a winner which says having an element of randomness equates to improperly determining a winner, and there's certainly not anything that mentions how much randomness is allowed and where to draw the line.
I'm not a judge and am unfamiliar with the ethics/philosophy taught to them. Are they encouraged to rule according to the spirit of the IPG or the letter of the law? If judges are encouraged to rule according to the spirit of the law, then I could understand that the ruling for this scenario is subjective and dependent on the judge.
We're trained to follow the philosophy spelled out by the IPG and AIPG. That's why I linked it to you.
It's not that it's subjective - because that's not true. It's that the philosophy behind the IDW penalty excludes what you're trying to do, even if the letter doesn't.
I read the philosophy spelled out in the IPG and AIPG and I didn't read anything that would lead me to believe my scenario should be ruled as improperly determining a winner. Could you quote the specific line from it which my example breaches?
Sorry, first example in the first comment. Proposing to reveal the first card someone legally draws on a turn, and conceding if it's a non-land card, and having the opponent concede if it's a land.
EDIT: It would be extra helpful if you could explain why each of the 5 examples given is illegal, but if you only have the time to find the answer to one, the first one is the example I'd like to know the legality of most.
Sorry, first example in the first comment. Proposing to reveal the first card someone legally draws on a turn, and conceding if it's a non-land card, and having the opponent concede if it's a land.
From the AIPG:
"It is not allowed to make an offer like “If I drew another land I would win. If my next card is a land, you scoop to me, else, I’ll scoop to you.”"
But if it's revealing the card you draw legally it's fine. You can absolutely do that because you're using the board state plus cards in hand.
EDIT: It would be extra helpful if you could explain why each of the 5 examples given is illegal, but if you only have the time to find the answer to one, the first one is the example I'd like to know the legality of most.
You have a card which allows you to actually flip a coin such as frenetic efreet and you propose you determine the winner based on the outcome of that flip,
You're attaching an outside game action to an in game action. Bad.
or the effects which happen as a result of the flip occurring.
You're basing the decision on the current board state. Fine.
You and your opponent both are at 1 life and each have a shivan reef in hand. You decide to flip a coin/play rock paper scissors over who should win, but instead of conceding, make yourself lose the game as a result of in-game effects.
You're basing the result of the game on something that happens out of game. Bad.
Sure, you're losing based on an in-game effect, but that effect is only happening because of an out of game decision.
If the previous scenario would work, then it might follow that you could instead of killing yourself, cause yourself to lose by committing a game infraction such as agreeing the loser of a coin flip will draw an extra card and be penalized with a game loss. If infractions are not considered an in game method on the other hand this wouldn't be viable in any case.
Well, drawing an extra card isn't a game loss anymore. But intentionally breaking a rule (or allowing an opponent to) with the purpose of gaining an advantage is the definition of cheating so it's not improperly determining a winner - it's USC-Cheating.
I feel like you didn't actually read the AIPG so I'd like to quote this specificially.
As stated earlier, the results of Magic tournaments should be reached only through playing actual games of Magic. Doing otherwise compromises the integrity of the tournament. What does “compromise the integrity of the tournament” mean? It means we have games of Magic that are being determined by some method other than the Magic games the players are supposed to play, and that impacts the results of that match and the tournament as a whole. It affects other matches and other players’ standings in the event. Rolling a dice to determine the winner is playing the system, not playing the game.
Is there any recourse if a legal agreed upon method of deciding which player will concede is then not honored after the result? If I legally draw and reveal the land card that my opponent had agreed to scoop to I don't think there is anything in the rules stopping them from changing their mind and insisting on a draw.
Is there any recourse if a legal agreed upon method of deciding which player will concede is then not honored after the result? If I legally draw and reveal the land card that my opponent had agreed to scoop to I don't think there is anything in the rules stopping them from changing their mind and insisting on a draw.
From the AIPG:
"It is not allowed to make an offer like “If I drew another land I would win. If my next card is a land, you scoop to me, else, I’ll scoop to you.”"
But if it's revealing the card you draw legally it's fine. You can absolutely do that because you're using the board state plus cards in hand.
So the philosophy behind the IDW penalty does not exclude what the first scenario is trying to do. It is a legal course of action. Good to know.
You have a card which allows you to actually flip a coin such as frenetic efreet and you propose you determine the winner based on the outcome of that flip,
You're attaching an outside game action to an in game action. Bad.
or the effects which happen as a result of the flip occurring.
You're basing the decision on the current board state. Fine.
So as long as you word it so that you're determining the game based on the effects of a card's ability it's legal. Good to know.
You and your opponent both are at 1 life and each have a shivan reef in hand. You decide to flip a coin/play rock paper scissors over who should win, but instead of conceding, make yourself lose the game as a result of in-game effects.
You're basing the result of the game on something that happens out of game. Bad.
Sure, you're losing based on an in-game effect, but that effect is only happening because of an out of game decision.
I didn't read this in the AIPG section you linked, but it might be on another page. It would make sense that if you don't want players flipping coins to determine winners, you don't want them flipping coins for other things when not explicitly told to, but could you quote me where that wording is from? This would mean that flipping a coin when you're on the edge about making a decision and believe your opponent is playing mind games (such as if you wanted to flip a coin to help you decide whether to attack or not, or wanted to flip a coin to determine if you were planning on lying or telling the truth with a liar's pendulum) would be illegal too, which is news to me.
If the previous scenario would work, then it might follow that you could instead of killing yourself, cause yourself to lose by committing a game infraction such as agreeing the loser of a coin flip will draw an extra card and be penalized with a game loss. If infractions are not considered an in game method on the other hand this wouldn't be viable in any case.
Well, drawing an extra card isn't a game loss anymore. But intentionally breaking a rule (or allowing an opponent to) with the purpose of gaining an advantage is the definition of cheating so it's not improperly determining a winner - it's USC-Cheating.
Good to know.
I feel like you didn't actually read the AIPG
Not the whole thing no, but the part you linked. It sounds like I was correct in most my interpretations of it.
I didn't read this in the AIPG section you linked, but it might be on another page.
Nope, it's on that page.
It would make sense that if you don't want players flipping coins to determine winners, you don't want them flipping coins for other things when not explicitly told to, but could you quote me where that wording is from? This would mean that flipping a coin when you're on the edge about making a decision and believe your opponent is playing mind games (such as if you wanted to flip a coin to help you decide whether to attack or not, or wanted to flip a coin to determine if you were planning on lying or telling the truth with a liar's pendulum) would be illegal too, which is news to me.
We don't want you to determine the outcome of the game based on a coin flip. You can flip a coin to make a decision and if that loses the game for you that's one thing - it's different to say "Eh, I'll scoop if I get heads, you scoop if I get tails." What you're saying is that those two scenarios are equal and they're simply not.
I feel like you didn't actually read the AIPG
Not the whole thing no, but the part you linked. It sounds like I was correct in most my interpretations of it.
You apparently didn't even read the page I linked - because the paragraph I quoted was on that page. Blue text box - which is the annotation part. Mod note: Flame/troll warning issued. The word 'even' is enough to put this over the line. -MadMage
We don't want you to determine the outcome of the game based on a coin flip. You can flip a coin to make a decision and if that loses the game for you that's one thing - it's different to say "Eh, I'll scoop if I get heads, you scoop if I get tails." What you're saying is that those two scenarios are equal and they're simply not.
No, the shivan reef scenario is flipping a coin to make a decision which incidentally loses you the game, specifically not scooping, just like if you were to flip a coin to determine if you wanted to tap out to play jace, the mind sculptor or leave up manna for counterspell, ended up playing Jace, and got stormed out on your opponent's turn. It seems like if one of these scenarios were illegal, then they'd both have to be, unless their's another line of text specifying which of these is okay and which isn't that I'm missing.
Calling into question my reading abilities isn't contributing to the discussion. I read the AIPG you linked fully and nothing popped out as directly in contradiction to my examples.
Those scenarios aren't similar because you aren't flipping a coin to see if you are going to add red mana with Shivan Reef, you are specifically deciding if you are going to lose on purpose, the actual method of loss is irrelevant.
Those scenarios aren't similar because you aren't flipping a coin to see if you are going to add red mana with Shivan Reef, you are specifically deciding if you are going to lose on purpose, the actual method of loss is irrelevant.
That sounds right. The IPG doesn't specify how players have to determine the outcome of a match, just that the outcome isn't determined by an outside-the-game method. So intent is important.
So the first scenario where you determine off a legally drawn card works. The scenario where you determine based off the effects of a card with random elements works. The scenario where you flip a coin to decide which player will suicide doesn't work. The scenario where you do that but then break rules intentionally double doesn't work. That just leaves one scenario unaccounted for:
I chose two cards in my hand reveal them to by opponent, then shuffle them and have an opponent guess which card is which. Upon re-thinking through this scenario it seems to me like it qualifies as an outside-the-game method that happens to use in-game cards and is therefore a no-no.
Those scenarios aren't similar because you aren't flipping a coin to see if you are going to add red mana with Shivan Reef, you are specifically deciding if you are going to lose on purpose, the actual method of loss is irrelevant.
That sounds right. The IPG doesn't specify how players have to determine the outcome of a match, just that the outcome isn't determined by an outside-the-game method. So intent is important.
Which is what I said, really.
Also, the IPG absolutely does say how to determine the outcome of a match - by playing Magic. That's said multiple times in the page I linked to you.
I chose two cards in my hand reveal them to by opponent, then shuffle them and have an opponent guess which card is which. Upon re-thinking through this scenario it seems to me like it qualifies as an outside-the-game method that happens to use in-game cards and is therefore a no-no.
There's no real difference between that and flipping a coin to determine who scoops.
I would still not be comfortable using any of these random methods. Having a conversation about who is more likely to win or who gets the most value out of the win seem to be one animal. Both players agreeing to make the decision by some arbitrary or chance method is something else. I'm not sure that finding "in-game" indicators on which to base the arbitrary/chance decision takes it out of a grey area.
If both players were determined to do this, I expect it would be hard for a judge. Maybe they really do think that the likely outcome of the rest of the game would hinge on weather or not a player draws a land on turn 5 of extra turns.
At the same time, though, if one player made such a proposition, unsolicited, to me, and I called a judge claiming that my opponent had proposed to determine the result of the match illegally, could a Judge possibly find no violation? I'm not sure that any amount of "but this is technically within the letter of the rules" would convince me that my opponent's proposition, by any of these methods, was something other than offering to randomly determine the result of the match.
If it helps, I'll also add Uncle Scott's recent words (on a completely unrelated topic, but it's also relevant here):
Let me reiterate: not every oddball situation that players can (and will!) create, could possibly be covered by our policy documents. That's not a failing of policy, it's an acknowledgment that people do strange things, sometimes. Stop trying to interpret exactly the letter of the law, so to speak; instead, work that hard at understanding the philosophy behind our policies, so you're well-prepared to deal with the exceptions that will occur.
On that note, if you're using something other than the board state to determine who wins you should expect a USC-IDW penalty.
I would still not be comfortable using any of these random methods. Having a conversation about who is more likely to win or who gets the most value out of the win seem to be one animal. Both players agreeing to make the decision by some arbitrary or chance method is something else. I'm not sure that finding "in-game" indicators on which to base the arbitrary/chance decision takes it out of a grey area.
If both players were determined to do this, I expect it would be hard for a judge. Maybe they really do think that the likely outcome of the rest of the game would hinge on weather or not a player draws a land on turn 5 of extra turns.
At the same time, though, if one player made such a proposition, unsolicited, to me, and I called a judge claiming that my opponent had proposed to determine the result of the match illegally, could a Judge possibly find no violation? I'm not sure that any amount of "but this is technically within the letter of the rules" would convince me that my opponent's proposition, by any of these methods, was something other than offering to randomly determine the result of the match.
I get this line of thought, but I personally wouldn't avoid making a complex line of play just because a bad judge doesn't know the rules. As a player I'm going to follow and use the rules to the best of my ability and make the best plays possible.
If it helps, I'll also add Uncle Scott's recent words (on a completely unrelated topic, but it's also relevant here):
Let me reiterate: not every oddball situation that players can (and will!) create, could possibly be covered by our policy documents. That's not a failing of policy, it's an acknowledgment that people do strange things, sometimes. Stop trying to interpret exactly the letter of the law, so to speak; instead, work that hard at understanding the philosophy behind our policies, so you're well-prepared to deal with the exceptions that will occur.
On that note, if you're using something other than the board state to determine who wins you should expect a USC-IDW penalty.
I don't know who Uncle Scott is, but I don't think a quote from an unrelated topic can be said to apply here. I don't know the context of this quote (i did some quick google searches but didn't find this) but even if it was relating to the game of magic, I don't imagine unless published in an official format that it actually has any bearing on the official rules. I believe I asked earlier if judges were trained to follow the letter of the IPG or the spirit, which you replied saying that they're not trained to be subjective and that they follow the philosophy of the IPG and AIPG. That statement seems contradictory of what you're implying here. Can you clarify which you mean? Are judges trained to follow the letter or spirit of the law?
Concerning your last statement about using something other than board state to determine who wins, do you mean that you can't determine winners base off information elsewhere in the game such as the hand, life totals, poison counters, graveyard sizes ect.? If so I'd like to ask if you could provide the EXACT line of text in the AIPG which it states these are improper ways of determining a winner. From my 6th or 7th read over of section 4.3 I can only see reference to one type of improper way to determine the outcome of a game and that's if it's an outside-the-game method (including using illegal actions within the game), meaning other in-game information should be an appropriate way to determine a winner.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
A. As time is called, two players about to draw roll a die to determine the winner.
B. A player offers to flip a coin to determine the winner of a match.
C. Two players arm wrestle to determine the winner of the match.
D. Two players play rock-paper-scissors to decide if they should play the match or draw
The way this is worded leaves a couple of ways for players to determine the winner outside of actually winning. There's a few reasons I can think of why Wizards would want to word this infraction the way they did. They might be okay with the idea of two players mutually agreeing to concede if they have the lower life-total on the last round when time is called, or if they have the weaker board state ect. However, the way this infraction is defined seems to leave room for players to determine the result of a game based on in-game random methods as long as they don't break other rules doing so (such as revealing the top card of your library when no effect would cause you to draw or reveal a card). Is this interpretation correct? If so, is the following scenario a tournament legal way for you to randomly determine the winner of a game?:
On the fifth turn of time before your opponent draws their card you state the following "Hey Jim, I have a proposal. Since this would be a draw if you are unable to win on this turn, and a draw would mean neither of us gets into top 8, what if you reveal the first card you draw this turn, and if it's a non-land card, I'll concede. If it's a land, and you can't win this turn you concede."
If that scenario isn't legal, why not? What part of which rule does it violate?
You have a card which allows you to actually flip a coin such as frenetic efreet and you propose you determine the winner based on the outcome of that flip, or the effects which happen as a result of the flip occurring.
You have two cards in hand. You reveal them to the opponent and then shuffle them quickly. You propose that the opponent guesses which card is which and you'll reveal them. If she guessed correctly you'll concede and and if not, she'll concede.
You and your opponent both are at 1 life and each have a shivan reef in hand. You decide to flip a coin/play rock paper scissors over who should win, but instead of conceding, make yourself lose the game as a result of in-game effects.
If the previous scenario would work, then it might follow that you could instead of killing yourself, cause yourself to lose by committing a game infraction such as agreeing the loser of a coin flip will draw an extra card and be penalized with a game loss. If infractions are not considered an in game method on the other hand this wouldn't be viable in any case.
The others I would not be fine with and would DQ the player(s). The problem with the other methods is they are all random methods to determine the outcome of the match and have nothing to do with playing the game of magic. Even the frenetic efreet coin flip, you'd be using the result of that to determine something outside the effect of the ability, and since it's the result of the match it fits into USC - IDW.
Aren't players using the result of spells to determine something outside the effect of the ability when they decide board state or life totals determine the result of the match? Do you have a source for why you would DQ the player(s). The source I quoted doesn't mention anything specifically against random methods to determine outcomes of matches, just that the players use an outside-the-game method so I'm wondering where you're drawing the conclusion that they should be penalized with a DQ. In fact, a rule which states that players can't use in-game-methods if they depend on an element of randomness would mean virtually no in-game-method would be viable as board state and life totals all depend on top decks. You could even re-clarify such a rule to state that you can't use in-game-methods based purely on randomness, but then my first comment's example should sneak by as there are technically strategic ways to alter one's deck and increase chances of winning based on card type, such as fetching to thin one's deck before the draw step. Assuming you previously decided life totals would decide the game, this scenario is analogous to bolting your opponent's face when it would be better (if the game continued past round 5)to bolt one of their creatures.
You'll have to excuse me, but I'm unfamiliar with the acronym USC - IDW. What does it mean?
So for the first two options where the players are letting the board state or life totals decide the winner, you said it yourself the players can aid themselves and use strategy to help them win based on these criteria. In the end they are letting their current game of magic determine the winner of the game/match, and not some outside or random element.
The other methods you suggested did not fit that criteria, in fact they were all random methods to determine the outcome. None of those methods had anything to do with playing magic. Let me go one step further, the methods you suggested could it not be considered a gamble? You are correct there is a certain amount of luck when playing magic, but there is also quite a bit of skill involved in playing. Using a random element like you suggested is removing the skill and relying on dumb luck, or in other words gambling on an outcome.
https://blogs.magicjudges.org/rules/ipg4-3/
I'm not a judge and am unfamiliar with the ethics/philosophy taught to them. Are they encouraged to rule according to the spirit of the IPG or the letter of the law? If judges are encouraged to rule according to the spirit of the law, then I could understand that the ruling for this scenario is subjective and dependent on the judge.
It's not that it's subjective - because that's not true. It's that the philosophy behind the IDW penalty excludes what you're trying to do, even if the letter doesn't.
EDIT: It would be extra helpful if you could explain why each of the 5 examples given is illegal, but if you only have the time to find the answer to one, the first one is the example I'd like to know the legality of most.
From the AIPG:
"It is not allowed to make an offer like “If I drew another land I would win. If my next card is a land, you scoop to me, else, I’ll scoop to you.”"
But if it's revealing the card you draw legally it's fine. You can absolutely do that because you're using the board state plus cards in hand.
You're attaching an outside game action to an in game action. Bad.
You're basing the decision on the current board state. Fine.
You're basing the result of the game on something that happens out of game. Bad.
Sure, you're losing based on an in-game effect, but that effect is only happening because of an out of game decision.
Well, drawing an extra card isn't a game loss anymore. But intentionally breaking a rule (or allowing an opponent to) with the purpose of gaining an advantage is the definition of cheating so it's not improperly determining a winner - it's USC-Cheating.
I feel like you didn't actually read the AIPG so I'd like to quote this specificially.
There isn't.
So the philosophy behind the IDW penalty does not exclude what the first scenario is trying to do. It is a legal course of action. Good to know.
So as long as you word it so that you're determining the game based on the effects of a card's ability it's legal. Good to know.
I didn't read this in the AIPG section you linked, but it might be on another page. It would make sense that if you don't want players flipping coins to determine winners, you don't want them flipping coins for other things when not explicitly told to, but could you quote me where that wording is from? This would mean that flipping a coin when you're on the edge about making a decision and believe your opponent is playing mind games (such as if you wanted to flip a coin to help you decide whether to attack or not, or wanted to flip a coin to determine if you were planning on lying or telling the truth with a liar's pendulum) would be illegal too, which is news to me.
Good to know.
Not the whole thing no, but the part you linked. It sounds like I was correct in most my interpretations of it.
Nope, it's on that page.
We don't want you to determine the outcome of the game based on a coin flip. You can flip a coin to make a decision and if that loses the game for you that's one thing - it's different to say "Eh, I'll scoop if I get heads, you scoop if I get tails." What you're saying is that those two scenarios are equal and they're simply not.
You apparently didn't even read the page I linked - because the paragraph I quoted was on that page. Blue text box - which is the annotation part. Mod note: Flame/troll warning issued. The word 'even' is enough to put this over the line. -MadMage
No, the shivan reef scenario is flipping a coin to make a decision which incidentally loses you the game, specifically not scooping, just like if you were to flip a coin to determine if you wanted to tap out to play jace, the mind sculptor or leave up manna for counterspell, ended up playing Jace, and got stormed out on your opponent's turn. It seems like if one of these scenarios were illegal, then they'd both have to be, unless their's another line of text specifying which of these is okay and which isn't that I'm missing.
Calling into question my reading abilities isn't contributing to the discussion. I read the AIPG you linked fully and nothing popped out as directly in contradiction to my examples.
That sounds right. The IPG doesn't specify how players have to determine the outcome of a match, just that the outcome isn't determined by an outside-the-game method. So intent is important.
I chose two cards in my hand reveal them to by opponent, then shuffle them and have an opponent guess which card is which. Upon re-thinking through this scenario it seems to me like it qualifies as an outside-the-game method that happens to use in-game cards and is therefore a no-no.
Which is what I said, really.
Also, the IPG absolutely does say how to determine the outcome of a match - by playing Magic. That's said multiple times in the page I linked to you.
There's no real difference between that and flipping a coin to determine who scoops.
If both players were determined to do this, I expect it would be hard for a judge. Maybe they really do think that the likely outcome of the rest of the game would hinge on weather or not a player draws a land on turn 5 of extra turns.
At the same time, though, if one player made such a proposition, unsolicited, to me, and I called a judge claiming that my opponent had proposed to determine the result of the match illegally, could a Judge possibly find no violation? I'm not sure that any amount of "but this is technically within the letter of the rules" would convince me that my opponent's proposition, by any of these methods, was something other than offering to randomly determine the result of the match.
On that note, if you're using something other than the board state to determine who wins you should expect a USC-IDW penalty.
I get this line of thought, but I personally wouldn't avoid making a complex line of play just because a bad judge doesn't know the rules. As a player I'm going to follow and use the rules to the best of my ability and make the best plays possible.
I don't know who Uncle Scott is, but I don't think a quote from an unrelated topic can be said to apply here. I don't know the context of this quote (i did some quick google searches but didn't find this) but even if it was relating to the game of magic, I don't imagine unless published in an official format that it actually has any bearing on the official rules. I believe I asked earlier if judges were trained to follow the letter of the IPG or the spirit, which you replied saying that they're not trained to be subjective and that they follow the philosophy of the IPG and AIPG. That statement seems contradictory of what you're implying here. Can you clarify which you mean? Are judges trained to follow the letter or spirit of the law?
Concerning your last statement about using something other than board state to determine who wins, do you mean that you can't determine winners base off information elsewhere in the game such as the hand, life totals, poison counters, graveyard sizes ect.? If so I'd like to ask if you could provide the EXACT line of text in the AIPG which it states these are improper ways of determining a winner. From my 6th or 7th read over of section 4.3 I can only see reference to one type of improper way to determine the outcome of a game and that's if it's an outside-the-game method (including using illegal actions within the game), meaning other in-game information should be an appropriate way to determine a winner.