How can you "attempt to execute a trigger" without acknowledging the trigger itself?
This line of reasoning is ridiculous. Either you honestly don't know what the word "acknowledged" means or you're just purposely messing with us at this point.
According to the rules the controller must acknowledge the trigger or it's considered a missed trigger.
Did Kent acknowledged the trigger? Absolutely. But he is not the controller. His opponent, the controller of the trigger, did not. As a result it is a missed trigger according to IPG rules.
Whether or not Kent acknowledged the trigger is irrelative according to the rules.
Why would a player need to announce a trigger for which the opponent already acted upon?
"acted upon" references execution. It goes beyond "acknowledging the trigger". It implies that the ability resolved and all necessary steps were taken to resolve that ability.
Because there are no defined zones the argument that he moved his gy to exile (executing the trigger) is subject to interpretation.
To answer your question...
Why would a player need to announce a trigger for which the opponent already acted upon?
A player wouldn't. But in this specific case (due to no defined zones) you can't 100% say that he executed the ability.
He acknowledged the trigger, sure. But according to the rules that does not mean anything.
Note: when I say you can't 100% say that he executed the ability... I say that as a player.
It's a judgement call that comes down to a Judge's ruling.
So a player touching their graveyard and moving it to a clear and distinctly different position and orientation, within 1 second of a card triggering the exile of graveyards resolves, is not an acknowledgement of the trigger created by Rest in Peace. Gotcha. We're done here.
So a player touching their graveyard and moving it to a clear and distinctly different position and orientation, within 1 second of a card triggering the exile of graveyards resolves, is not an acknowledgement of the trigger created by Rest in Peace. Gotcha. We're done here.
Yea we are. There is a difference between acknowledging the trigger and executing it. Can't make it any more clear.
If an opponent acknowledges a trigger (without resolving it) the controller of the trigger must still acknowledge it or according to the rules it is missed.
EDIT: no one is arguing
So a player touching their graveyard and moving it to a clear and distinctly different position and orientation, within 1 second of a card triggering the exile of graveyards resolves, is not an acknowledgement of the trigger created by Rest in Peace
I'll rephrase: Carrying out the specific actions of a triggered ability immediately after a card that causes that ability is played both acknowledges and resolves that trigger. This isn't MTGO and you don't have to F2 through every phase and action. Especially AFTER your opponent ALREADY carried out the action.
I'll rephrase: Carrying out the specific actions of a triggered ability immediately after a card that causes that ability is played both acknowledges and resolves that trigger. This isn't MTGO and you don't have to F2 through every phase and action. Especially AFTER your opponent ALREADY carried out the action.
That is the part that is up for debate.
The Carrying out the specific actions of a triggered abilityrest in peace is exiling cards. Not moving them to exile. But actually exiling them.
Because the exile zone is not defined... you can not assume that his cards made it to exile. And if they did not make it to exile, Carrying out the specific actions of a triggered ability did not take place.
I'll rephrase: Carrying out the specific actions of a triggered ability immediately after a card that causes that ability is played both acknowledges and resolves that trigger. This isn't MTGO and you don't have to F2 through every phase and action. Especially AFTER your opponent ALREADY carried out the action.
That is the part that is up for debate.
The Carrying out the specific actions of a triggered abilityrest in peace is exiling cards. Not moving them to exile. But actually exiling them.
Because the exile zone is not defined... you can not assume that his cards made it to exile. And if they did not make it to exile, Carrying out the specific actions of a triggered ability did not take place.
Are you suggesting that every time I do something that Exiles a card of my opponents I should double check with them that they are in fact exiling the card...Like I swords a creature and then he puts in a pile that is not his graveyard I should say, "that is in exile right?" And when I exile his next creature I should check again after he puts it on top of the first creature "That is still where you are keeping your exile cards?" because I cannot be sure without asking if that is his exile pile or his graveyard...Maybe his non defined graveyard zone just spread out over the exile zone and he is putting it there because his year is too large...
There has to be a world where you understand that playing against someone who was treating triggers and the exile zone that way would not be enjoyable to watch or play which are both pretty important for the direction that magic is going. It is very much like Marines at Guantanimo Bay not having meals because it doesn't say where the mess hall is in the Git-Mo handbook. Turns out some norms exist and should be followed even if they are not written down.
I'll rephrase: Carrying out the specific actions of a triggered ability immediately after a card that causes that ability is played both acknowledges and resolves that trigger. This isn't MTGO and you don't have to F2 through every phase and action. Especially AFTER your opponent ALREADY carried out the action.
That is the part that is up for debate.
The Carrying out the specific actions of a triggered abilityrest in peace is exiling cards. Not moving them to exile. But actually exiling them.
Because the exile zone is not defined... you can not assume that his cards made it to exile. And if they did not make it to exile, Carrying out the specific actions of a triggered ability did not take place.
Are you suggesting that every time I do something that Exiles a card of my opponents I should double check with them that they are in fact exiling the card...Like I swords a creature and then he puts in a pile that is not his graveyard I should say, "that is in exile right?" And when I exile his next creature I should check again after he puts it on top of the first creature "That is still where you are keeping your exile cards?" because I cannot be sure without asking if that is his exile pile or his graveyard...Maybe his non defined graveyard zone just spread out over the exile zone and he is putting it there because his year is too large...
There has to be a world where you understand that playing against someone who was treating triggers and the exile zone that way would not be enjoyable to watch or play which are both pretty important for the direction that magic is going. It is very much like Marines at Guantanimo Bay not having meals because it doesn't say where the mess hall is in the Git-Mo handbook. Turns out some norms exist and should be followed even if they are not written down.
Exiling in those cases are part of the resolution of the spell.... not a triggered ability.
Which means it's mandatory and can not be missed. If an ability is part of the resolution of a spell... it resolves if both players acknowledge the spell resolves.
TL&DR: You do not have to make sure the creature removed by swords to plowshares is exiled because it is mandatory (it will ALWAYS be exiled).
You have to make sure that graveyards are exiled in response to Rest in Peace because it is not mandatory (and can be missed).
I'll rephrase: Carrying out the specific actions of a triggered ability immediately after a card that causes that ability is played both acknowledges and resolves that trigger. This isn't MTGO and you don't have to F2 through every phase and action. Especially AFTER your opponent ALREADY carried out the action.
That is the part that is up for debate.
The Carrying out the specific actions of a triggered abilityrest in peace is exiling cards. Not moving them to exile. But actually exiling them.
Because the exile zone is not defined... you can not assume that his cards made it to exile. And if they did not make it to exile, Carrying out the specific actions of a triggered ability did not take place.
Are you suggesting that every time I do something that Exiles a card of my opponents I should double check with them that they are in fact exiling the card...Like I swords a creature and then he puts in a pile that is not his graveyard I should say, "that is in exile right?" And when I exile his next creature I should check again after he puts it on top of the first creature "That is still where you are keeping your exile cards?" because I cannot be sure without asking if that is his exile pile or his graveyard...Maybe his non defined graveyard zone just spread out over the exile zone and he is putting it there because his year is too large...
There has to be a world where you understand that playing against someone who was treating triggers and the exile zone that way would not be enjoyable to watch or play which are both pretty important for the direction that magic is going. It is very much like Marines at Guantanimo Bay not having meals because it doesn't say where the mess hall is in the Git-Mo handbook. Turns out some norms exist and should be followed even if they are not written down.
Exiling in those cases are part of the resolution of the spell.... not a triggered ability.
Which means it's mandatory and can not be missed. If an ability is part of the resolution of a spell... it resolves if both players acknowledge the spell resolves.
So let me try and sum up your position:
1. A player deliberately moving his graveyard to a distinct and different position and orientation is not exiling his graveyard, unless the he explicitly says he are exiling it.
2. Triggered abilities are not acknowledged or resolved, even if the player(s) for whom the trigger affects carries out the action of that trigger, unless the controller of the trigger explicitly announces and confirms its addition to the stack, waits for a response, moves to resolution, and announces the resolution.
3. Carrying out the action of moving a graveyard, as described in (1), immediately after a card which exiles graveyards is played, does not count as acknowledging the trigger or resolving the trigger.
4. His movement of the graveyard was entirely coincidental and completely irrelevant to any other actions or attributes of the current game state.
5. Players move their graveyards around all the time and it was a completely innocent misunderstanding of actions.
Call a spade a spade. You can only twist his actions through the lens of ignorance so much before everyone sees through the BS. The guy was Top 8ing events and contributed to a large online MTG site. He was not making these "mistakes." He was deliberately capitalizing on a misrepresentation of information to judges in order to get himself an advantage in the form of a ruling which should not have happened. He knew exactly what he was doing and knew that if the judge did not know about his graveyard movement, he would get away with it. If he had simply never touched his graveyard in the first place and enough time went by that his opponent didn't notice, I would even be on his side about a missed trigger! BUT HE MOVED HIS DAMN GRAVEYARD! ON CAMERA! FOR EVERYONE TO SEE!!
If you truly believe he did nothing wrong, then you are just as bad as he is in terms of competitive Magic.
I'll rephrase: Carrying out the specific actions of a triggered ability immediately after a card that causes that ability is played both acknowledges and resolves that trigger. This isn't MTGO and you don't have to F2 through every phase and action. Especially AFTER your opponent ALREADY carried out the action.
That is the part that is up for debate.
The Carrying out the specific actions of a triggered abilityrest in peace is exiling cards. Not moving them to exile. But actually exiling them.
Because the exile zone is not defined... you can not assume that his cards made it to exile. And if they did not make it to exile, Carrying out the specific actions of a triggered ability did not take place.
Are you suggesting that every time I do something that Exiles a card of my opponents I should double check with them that they are in fact exiling the card...Like I swords a creature and then he puts in a pile that is not his graveyard I should say, "that is in exile right?" And when I exile his next creature I should check again after he puts it on top of the first creature "That is still where you are keeping your exile cards?" because I cannot be sure without asking if that is his exile pile or his graveyard...Maybe his non defined graveyard zone just spread out over the exile zone and he is putting it there because his year is too large...
There has to be a world where you understand that playing against someone who was treating triggers and the exile zone that way would not be enjoyable to watch or play which are both pretty important for the direction that magic is going. It is very much like Marines at Guantanimo Bay not having meals because it doesn't say where the mess hall is in the Git-Mo handbook. Turns out some norms exist and should be followed even if they are not written down.
Exiling in those cases are part of the resolution of the spell.... not a triggered ability.
Which means it's mandatory and can not be missed. If an ability is part of the resolution of a spell... it resolves if both players acknowledge the spell resolves.
So let me try and sum up your position:
1. A player deliberately moving his graveyard to a distinct and different position and orientation is not exiling his graveyard, unless the he explicitly says he are exiling it.
2. Triggered abilities are not acknowledged or resolved, even if the player(s) for whom the trigger affects carries out the action of that trigger, unless the controller of the trigger explicitly announces and confirms its addition to the stack, waits for a response, moves to resolution, and announces the resolution.
3. Carrying out the action of moving a graveyard, as described in (1), immediately after a card which exiles graveyards is played, does not count as acknowledging the trigger or resolving the trigger.
4. His movement of the graveyard was entirely coincidental and completely irrelevant to any other actions or attributes of the current game state.
5. Players move their graveyards around all the time and it was a completely innocent misunderstanding of actions.
Call a spade a spade. You can only twist his actions through the lens of ignorance so much before everyone sees through the BS. The guy was Top 8ing events and contributed to a large online MTG site. He was not making these "mistakes." He was deliberately capitalizing on a misrepresentation of information to judges in order to get himself an advantage in the form of a ruling which should not have happened. He knew exactly what he was doing and knew that if the judge did not know about his graveyard movement, he would get away with it. If he had simply never touched his graveyard in the first place and enough time went by that his opponent didn't notice, I would even be on his side about a missed trigger! BUT HE MOVED HIS DAMN GRAVEYARD! ON CAMERA! FOR EVERYONE TO SEE!!
If you truly believe he did nothing wrong, then you are just as bad as he is in terms of competitive Magic.
1) True. Or if his opponent acknowledged that action as removing his graveyard. (or a judge rules that was the intent/action)
2) No. If any player executes the ability it is considered resolved.
3) It would count as acknowledging the trigger, but not necessarily resolving it.
4) Based on the rules as the currently stand. Yes. The only way you can argue otherwise is by citing intent (and only a judge can make that call).
5) Yes and No. You can pick up your graveyard and move it at any time. However if you did it too often... you could get in trouble for making game-state confusing.
In Modern/Standard you can even rearrange your gy as often as you'd like.
TLDR: acknowledging a trigger != executing trigger. Controller must be the one to acknowledge the trigger *unless* his opponent executes it.
Also: I do believe what he did was wrong. Ethically and morally. But it wasn't cheating. The only aspect that could potentially be classified cheating is lying through omission... and that is subject to personal opinion.
Can we all agree to disagree and move to a relevant topic, like how twin should be unbanned (for the love of god I'm joking). Both sides have exhausted their points, and it seems to have been boiled down to either A. scummy and illegal or B. scummy, but legal. Announce your triggers, watch your opponent, and don't be shy to call judges at competitive REL if you're unsure about ANYTHING.
So is dredge the de-facto most played deck for the upcoming SCG/GP events, or will it be like the last surge where it was immediately hated out?
Lying by omission
Also known as a continuing misrepresentation, a lie by omission occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions. For example, when the seller of a car declares it has been serviced regularly but does not tell that a fault was reported at the last service, the seller lies by omission. It can be compared to dissimulation. An omission is when a person tells most of the truth, but leaves out a few key facts that therefore completely change the story.
once again... this is a wikipedia definition. Not a IPG competitive REL definition.
Additionally a key component of that definition is
when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception
You have to actually prove that Kent purposefully left out him picking up his graveyard to foster misconception.
I don't really think you can prove that from this one scenario. But you are welcome to that opinion.
Lying to a judge is against the rules. Lying through omission is a form of lying (as described above). It seems you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. What he did was wrong and against the rules. He has already lost his job over this and ruined his public image. Arguing semantics and technicalities really does nothing to defend what he did. If the judge had all information available (or was able to review tapes), the call would have been quick and easy. Kent's omission that he moved his GY was both malicious and intentional. His lack of disclosing the information to the judge (which was highly relevant to the ruling) is considered lying through omission.
If you feel he did no wrong, I don't feel anything else that hasn't already been discussed would lead you to believe otherwise. Carry on.
Ten thumbs up. The fact that the judge said he would have made a different call had Kent mentioned that he moved his graveyard makes that information relevant. The fact that he omitted said information and that said omission benefits him means he lied to a judge with intent. We know he had this information because there is video footage him doing it. End of story.
Lying by omission
Also known as a continuing misrepresentation, a lie by omission occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions. For example, when the seller of a car declares it has been serviced regularly but does not tell that a fault was reported at the last service, the seller lies by omission. It can be compared to dissimulation. An omission is when a person tells most of the truth, but leaves out a few key facts that therefore completely change the story.
once again... this is a wikipedia definition. Not a IPG competitive REL definition.
Additionally a key component of that definition is
when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception
You have to actually prove that Kent purposefully left out him picking up his graveyard to foster misconception.
I don't really think you can prove that from this one scenario. But you are welcome to that opinion.
Lying to a judge is against the rules. Lying through omission is a form of lying (as described above). It seems you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. What he did was wrong and against the rules. He has already lost his job over this and ruined his public image. Arguing semantics and technicalities really does nothing to defend what he did. If the judge had all information available (or was able to review tapes), the call would have been quick and easy. Kent's omission that he moved his GY was both malicious and intentional. His lack of disclosing the information to the judge (which was highly relevant to the ruling) is considered lying through omission.
If you feel he did no wrong, I don't feel anything else that hasn't already been discussed would lead you to believe otherwise. Carry on.
Ten thumbs up. The fact that the judge said he would have made a different call had Kent mentioned that he moved his graveyard makes that information relevant. The fact that he omitted said information and that said omission benefits him means he lied to a judge with intent. We know he had this information because there is video footage him doing it. End of story.
You derogatorily refer to people as a 'mob' instead of listening to their arguments. Bravo.
If you're so interested in 'moving on', then why don't you do so?
Hello? What have I been trying to do in my last two posts? I have not made a comment on the current discussion in hopes that it will end. I will say my piece one last time then I'll stop even trying to get other people to stop as well.
I am of the position that the play discussed earlier was shady/scummy/whatever you want to call it, but it was within the legal rules of the game, and any actual evidence needed to prove cheating is impossible to obtain. We can only speculate at best that the lie by omission was intentional. I have read all the arguments and taken it all into consideration. The problem is that any presentation of new evidence to repudiate the claims that cheating was undeniably proved is met with the exact same argument, which seems to ignore any of the new arguments set forth by the opposite party. The conversation has not budged. I tried to move off of the topic. I obviously failed.
The mob metaphor wasn't meant to be derogatory. I thought it perfectly highlighted the pro-cheating crowd's anger toward the situation and their refusal to let it go despite evidence that the cheating "technically" didn't happen. If you did the same as I, and listened and considered the views of the opposition, and still feel that my views are wrong, you are certainly entitled to that. But surely you must know that no one is getting anywhere in regards to the topic at hand. I will now attempt to move on for a third time. Hopefully this will be good enough for you to believe me.
You derogatorily refer to people as a 'mob' instead of listening to their arguments. Bravo.
If you're so interested in 'moving on', then why don't you do so?
Hello? What have I been trying to do in my last two posts? I have not made a comment on the current discussion in hopes that it will end. I will say my piece one last time then I'll stop even trying to get other people to stop as well.
I am of the position that the play discussed earlier was shady/scummy/whatever you want to call it, but it was within the legal rules of the game, and any actual evidence needed to prove cheating is impossible to obtain. We can only speculate at best that the lie by omission was intentional. I have read all the arguments and taken it all into consideration. The problem is that any presentation of new evidence to repudiate the claims that cheating was undeniably proved is met with the exact same argument, which seems to ignore any of the new arguments set forth by the opposite party. The conversation has not budged. I tried to move off of the topic. I obviously failed.
The mob metaphor wasn't meant to be derogatory. I thought it perfectly highlighted the pro-cheating crowd's anger toward the situation and their refusal to let it go despite evidence that the cheating "technically" didn't happen. If you did the same as I, and listened and considered the views of the opposition, and still feel that my views are wrong, you are certainly entitled to that. But surely you must know that no one is getting anywhere in regards to the topic at hand. I will now attempt to move on for a third time. Hopefully this will be good enough for you to believe me.
Fair enough, I understand your position and I'm glad you elaborated on it. I agree there is some pitchforking going around, and although I don't like scummy behaviour in general (who does?), it's pretty silly to punish someone for following the rules. That being said, I don't understand how you think this could possibly be the case:
We can only speculate at best that the lie by omission was intentional.
For this to be true, Ketter would either have to have
a) not realized he moved his own cards, or
b) thought that leaving his cards in the graveyard did not benefit himself, or
c) forgotten that he moved his cards and then moved them back
I don't see any other way that he could have reasonably omitted the fact that he moved his GY when talking to the judge and I don't think any of the above scenarios are remotely feasible.
The fact that he moved his graveyard could have also just slipped his mind when talking to the judge. Now, do I think he intentionally withheld that info? Yes I do. But that is really the crux of my argument. That it is only my opinion. There is no way for me to be able to actually prove that.
There is a great deal of motive for him to withhold that information from the judge, and all the signs seem to point that way, but there is no hard evidence to say that is exactly what transpired. We can certainly prove the physical actions that took place, but we cannot prove why they were preformed. I know this may seem like a strange thing to be hung up on, but I feel that we cannot condemn a man unless we know for certain that he played/presented play dishonestly. And the only real proof would be an admittance of guilt by Kent. We can't really tell why he didn't mention that to the judge, only Kent knows that, and for that reason we cannot label the lie as intentional or not.
Since this event transpired, plenty of stories have come about Mr. Ketter and his shady past play. All purely anecdotal, but they paint a picture of his play style. Is this something that is limited to a few players or is it more widespread? To bring in the PED in sports example brought up earlier in the discussion, are these tactics used by some players desperate to keep up since the competition is so tight at the higher levels and every little edge matters? I really can't say, since my magic is pretty much on the FNM level, but we can take some lessons from this. If you are ever in a situation where you are invested in a game/match/tournament, it behooves you to stay on top of both your, and your opponents game. There is nothing wrong with trying to keep people honest.
There is no hope. There is a reason why I stopped responding a page ago lol.
It's tempting to respond... because alot of the claims are not based on actual rules but rather "opinion" of what should have happened.
But eh. I have better things than explain over and over again how competitive REL works.
And it's not productive. At this point it's safe to agree to disagree, because no one is changing anyone's mind.
To migrate topics:
I wounder if sideboard hate will be enough to ring in Dredge, or if Dredge will continue to outperform despite graveyard hate.
All the new toys they have received in the last few sets are scary.
I could see dredge becoming the new ban target if it continues to do well on the modern scene.
Mostly because some people struggle with definitions of basic words. Nothing much else to write home about.
As for SCG, not much else to talk about until Modern GP this weekend and the Modern Open after that. Will definitely continue painting the picture of the Garbage Fire that Modern has become.
Mostly because some people struggle with definitions of basic words. Nothing much else to write home about.
As for SCG, not much else to talk about until Modern GP this weekend and the Modern Open after that. Will definitely continue painting the picture of the Garbage Fire that Modern has become.
I completely agree with your first point. It seems silly to me to suggest that Kent Ketter did not break the rules or to have an 'agree to disagree' stance about the whole thing given the evidence.
That being said, talking about the format as a Garbage Fire is disingenuous and extremely hyperbolic. You're obviously still broken up (SURPRISE) over what you see as some irredeemable atrocity.
But please, for the Timmys, stop taking the opportunity to bash Modern in every post you make because your pet deck got banned.
This is a textbook example of confounding variables. "Dredge won through the best possible hate available" isn't the full story. "Dredge won through the best possible hate available AND the opponent mulled to 4/5" is more like it. It's no surprise that a mull to 4 is a death sentence for almost any deck (except maybe Dredge itself ). Lantern Control managed to beat a horrible Burn matchup in the quarterfinals a GP after the Burn player mulled to 4.
Anyway, we still have a GP this weekend, which would give us more data about Dredge. Dredge underperformed at the previous GP weekend - now with Cathartic Reunion in the mix, the deck is stronger than before and there's really no excuse if it fails a second time.
According to the rules the controller must acknowledge the trigger or it's considered a missed trigger.
Did Kent acknowledged the trigger? Absolutely. But he is not the controller. His opponent, the controller of the trigger, did not. As a result it is a missed trigger according to IPG rules.
Whether or not Kent acknowledged the trigger is irrelative according to the rules.
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
"acted upon" references execution. It goes beyond "acknowledging the trigger". It implies that the ability resolved and all necessary steps were taken to resolve that ability.
Because there are no defined zones the argument that he moved his gy to exile (executing the trigger) is subject to interpretation.
To answer your question...
A player wouldn't. But in this specific case (due to no defined zones) you can't 100% say that he executed the ability.
He acknowledged the trigger, sure. But according to the rules that does not mean anything.
Note: when I say you can't 100% say that he executed the ability... I say that as a player.
It's a judgement call that comes down to a Judge's ruling.
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
Yea we are. There is a difference between acknowledging the trigger and executing it. Can't make it any more clear.
If an opponent acknowledges a trigger (without resolving it) the controller of the trigger must still acknowledge it or according to the rules it is missed.
EDIT: no one is arguing
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
That is the part that is up for debate.
The Carrying out the specific actions of a triggered ability rest in peace is exiling cards. Not moving them to exile. But actually exiling them.
Because the exile zone is not defined... you can not assume that his cards made it to exile. And if they did not make it to exile, Carrying out the specific actions of a triggered ability did not take place.
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
Are you suggesting that every time I do something that Exiles a card of my opponents I should double check with them that they are in fact exiling the card...Like I swords a creature and then he puts in a pile that is not his graveyard I should say, "that is in exile right?" And when I exile his next creature I should check again after he puts it on top of the first creature "That is still where you are keeping your exile cards?" because I cannot be sure without asking if that is his exile pile or his graveyard...Maybe his non defined graveyard zone just spread out over the exile zone and he is putting it there because his year is too large...
There has to be a world where you understand that playing against someone who was treating triggers and the exile zone that way would not be enjoyable to watch or play which are both pretty important for the direction that magic is going. It is very much like Marines at Guantanimo Bay not having meals because it doesn't say where the mess hall is in the Git-Mo handbook. Turns out some norms exist and should be followed even if they are not written down.
Exiling in those cases are part of the resolution of the spell.... not a triggered ability.
Which means it's mandatory and can not be missed. If an ability is part of the resolution of a spell... it resolves if both players acknowledge the spell resolves.
Rest in Peace's triggered ability is 100% different than swords to plowshares
And it's handled 100% different in the rules as well.
TL&DR: You do not have to make sure the creature removed by swords to plowshares is exiled because it is mandatory (it will ALWAYS be exiled).
You have to make sure that graveyards are exiled in response to Rest in Peace because it is not mandatory (and can be missed).
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
So let me try and sum up your position:
1. A player deliberately moving his graveyard to a distinct and different position and orientation is not exiling his graveyard, unless the he explicitly says he are exiling it.
2. Triggered abilities are not acknowledged or resolved, even if the player(s) for whom the trigger affects carries out the action of that trigger, unless the controller of the trigger explicitly announces and confirms its addition to the stack, waits for a response, moves to resolution, and announces the resolution.
3. Carrying out the action of moving a graveyard, as described in (1), immediately after a card which exiles graveyards is played, does not count as acknowledging the trigger or resolving the trigger.
4. His movement of the graveyard was entirely coincidental and completely irrelevant to any other actions or attributes of the current game state.
5. Players move their graveyards around all the time and it was a completely innocent misunderstanding of actions.
Call a spade a spade. You can only twist his actions through the lens of ignorance so much before everyone sees through the BS. The guy was Top 8ing events and contributed to a large online MTG site. He was not making these "mistakes." He was deliberately capitalizing on a misrepresentation of information to judges in order to get himself an advantage in the form of a ruling which should not have happened. He knew exactly what he was doing and knew that if the judge did not know about his graveyard movement, he would get away with it. If he had simply never touched his graveyard in the first place and enough time went by that his opponent didn't notice, I would even be on his side about a missed trigger! BUT HE MOVED HIS DAMN GRAVEYARD! ON CAMERA! FOR EVERYONE TO SEE!!
If you truly believe he did nothing wrong, then you are just as bad as he is in terms of competitive Magic.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
1) True. Or if his opponent acknowledged that action as removing his graveyard. (or a judge rules that was the intent/action)
2) No. If any player executes the ability it is considered resolved.
3) It would count as acknowledging the trigger, but not necessarily resolving it.
4) Based on the rules as the currently stand. Yes. The only way you can argue otherwise is by citing intent (and only a judge can make that call).
5) Yes and No. You can pick up your graveyard and move it at any time. However if you did it too often... you could get in trouble for making game-state confusing.
In Modern/Standard you can even rearrange your gy as often as you'd like.
TLDR: acknowledging a trigger != executing trigger. Controller must be the one to acknowledge the trigger *unless* his opponent executes it.
Also: I do believe what he did was wrong. Ethically and morally. But it wasn't cheating. The only aspect that could potentially be classified cheating is lying through omission... and that is subject to personal opinion.
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
So is dredge the de-facto most played deck for the upcoming SCG/GP events, or will it be like the last surge where it was immediately hated out?
Affinity
Death & Taxes
Mardu Nahiri
Forcing people to merge with twitch is stupid
Ten thumbs up. The fact that the judge said he would have made a different call had Kent mentioned that he moved his graveyard makes that information relevant. The fact that he omitted said information and that said omission benefits him means he lied to a judge with intent. We know he had this information because there is video footage him doing it. End of story.
Heh. One of them is, anyway.
No.
Kent Ketter lied to a judge to benefit himself. Saying that what he did was 'scummy but not against the rules' is garbage.
If you're so interested in 'moving on', then why don't you do so?
I am of the position that the play discussed earlier was shady/scummy/whatever you want to call it, but it was within the legal rules of the game, and any actual evidence needed to prove cheating is impossible to obtain. We can only speculate at best that the lie by omission was intentional. I have read all the arguments and taken it all into consideration. The problem is that any presentation of new evidence to repudiate the claims that cheating was undeniably proved is met with the exact same argument, which seems to ignore any of the new arguments set forth by the opposite party. The conversation has not budged. I tried to move off of the topic. I obviously failed.
The mob metaphor wasn't meant to be derogatory. I thought it perfectly highlighted the pro-cheating crowd's anger toward the situation and their refusal to let it go despite evidence that the cheating "technically" didn't happen. If you did the same as I, and listened and considered the views of the opposition, and still feel that my views are wrong, you are certainly entitled to that. But surely you must know that no one is getting anywhere in regards to the topic at hand. I will now attempt to move on for a third time. Hopefully this will be good enough for you to believe me.
Fair enough, I understand your position and I'm glad you elaborated on it. I agree there is some pitchforking going around, and although I don't like scummy behaviour in general (who does?), it's pretty silly to punish someone for following the rules. That being said, I don't understand how you think this could possibly be the case:
For this to be true, Ketter would either have to have
a) not realized he moved his own cards, or
b) thought that leaving his cards in the graveyard did not benefit himself, or
c) forgotten that he moved his cards and then moved them back
I don't see any other way that he could have reasonably omitted the fact that he moved his GY when talking to the judge and I don't think any of the above scenarios are remotely feasible.
There is a great deal of motive for him to withhold that information from the judge, and all the signs seem to point that way, but there is no hard evidence to say that is exactly what transpired. We can certainly prove the physical actions that took place, but we cannot prove why they were preformed. I know this may seem like a strange thing to be hung up on, but I feel that we cannot condemn a man unless we know for certain that he played/presented play dishonestly. And the only real proof would be an admittance of guilt by Kent. We can't really tell why he didn't mention that to the judge, only Kent knows that, and for that reason we cannot label the lie as intentional or not.
Since this event transpired, plenty of stories have come about Mr. Ketter and his shady past play. All purely anecdotal, but they paint a picture of his play style. Is this something that is limited to a few players or is it more widespread? To bring in the PED in sports example brought up earlier in the discussion, are these tactics used by some players desperate to keep up since the competition is so tight at the higher levels and every little edge matters? I really can't say, since my magic is pretty much on the FNM level, but we can take some lessons from this. If you are ever in a situation where you are invested in a game/match/tournament, it behooves you to stay on top of both your, and your opponents game. There is nothing wrong with trying to keep people honest.
RGTron
UGInfect
URStorm
WUBRAd Nauseam
BRGrishoalbrand
URGScapeshift
WBGAbzan Company
WUBRGAmulet Titan
BRGLiving End
WGBogles
There is no hope. There is a reason why I stopped responding a page ago lol.
It's tempting to respond... because alot of the claims are not based on actual rules but rather "opinion" of what should have happened.
But eh. I have better things than explain over and over again how competitive REL works.
And it's not productive. At this point it's safe to agree to disagree, because no one is changing anyone's mind.
To migrate topics:
I wounder if sideboard hate will be enough to ring in Dredge, or if Dredge will continue to outperform despite graveyard hate.
All the new toys they have received in the last few sets are scary.
I could see dredge becoming the new ban target if it continues to do well on the modern scene.
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
Mostly because some people struggle with definitions of basic words. Nothing much else to write home about.
As for SCG, not much else to talk about until Modern GP this weekend and the Modern Open after that. Will definitely continue painting the picture of the Garbage Fire that Modern has become.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
I completely agree with your first point. It seems silly to me to suggest that Kent Ketter did not break the rules or to have an 'agree to disagree' stance about the whole thing given the evidence.
That being said, talking about the format as a Garbage Fire is disingenuous and extremely hyperbolic. You're obviously still broken up (SURPRISE) over what you see as some irredeemable atrocity.
But please, for the Timmys, stop taking the opportunity to bash Modern in every post you make because your pet deck got banned.
https://www.twitch.tv/scglive/v/83567546?t=1h49m25s - Dredge beats Jund with the T0 Leyline. Jund mulled to 5.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPwnclSzLgc - Dredge beats Bant Eldrazi with the T2 RIP. Eldrazi mulled to 4.
This is a textbook example of confounding variables. "Dredge won through the best possible hate available" isn't the full story. "Dredge won through the best possible hate available AND the opponent mulled to 4/5" is more like it. It's no surprise that a mull to 4 is a death sentence for almost any deck (except maybe Dredge itself ). Lantern Control managed to beat a horrible Burn matchup in the quarterfinals a GP after the Burn player mulled to 4.
Anyway, we still have a GP this weekend, which would give us more data about Dredge. Dredge underperformed at the previous GP weekend - now with Cathartic Reunion in the mix, the deck is stronger than before and there's really no excuse if it fails a second time.
| Ad Nauseam
| Infect
Big Johnny.