I would rather lose and learn than lose and not learn. If he was unfamiliar with the game state, and how the stack works, then you actually did far better by accepting the win and educating him than would have likely happened otherwise, which would be many people accepting the win, snorting, and not helping him understand the rules better.
You did great, IMHO.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently playing:
Standard: WBRG Aggro-Reanimator Humans GRBW
Modern: UR Twinning RU G Venus Fly Trap G U Artifacts Aggro U
Now, you clearly think I'm a terrible human being, and I don't like that. I'm not trying to get you to enjoy competition, I'm trying to explain why I (and other people) like it. Do you understand?
I never claimed not to understand why you and players like you act they way you do. I get it, it's not hard to grasp. I don't agree with it, and never will. We have different priorities when it comes to MTG. I value things you do not value, and vice versa.
I never claimed not to understand why you and players like you act they way you do. I get it, it's not hard to grasp. I don't agree with it, and never will. We have different priorities when it comes to MTG. I value things you do not value, and vice versa.
Someone beating another person, even a noob, is not necessarily a bad thing. I would not be as good as I am now if it were not for the fact that I used to get stomped repeatedly by better players. It made me want to get better, and now I know the rules better than they do, and play the game better than they do. Did they do me harm? No. They did me a favor by not taking it easy on me.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Currently playing:
Standard: WBRG Aggro-Reanimator Humans GRBW
Modern: UR Twinning RU G Venus Fly Trap G U Artifacts Aggro U
I never claimed not to understand why you and players like you act they way you do. I get it, it's not hard to grasp. I don't agree with it, and never will. We have different priorities when it comes to MTG. I value things you do not value, and vice versa.
Personally, I'm bored when my opponents don't know how to play, or bring some horrible combo deck that takes ten turns and a lot of the opponent doing nothing to go off. If they don't know how to play magic, I'll help them. But, I'd much rather play some one who can give me some competition.
I'm also relatively certain Valarin has been posting his comments in an express attempt to start an Internet flame battle, but I'm going to post nonetheless.
That's my point. You consider MTG a cut throat competition.
At Regular REL, I'll hand over games to players all day long. However, when one walks into a PTQ, or a GPT, an SCG Open, a Grand Prix or even the Pro Tour, one is there to test skill. Regular REL has lenient judge calls and different trigger rules so that players learn how to play there. Then, they compete at Competitive and Professional; those RELs are tests of skill. It's almost two different games.
I'm also relatively certain Valarin has been posting his comments in an express attempt to start an Internet flame battle, but I'm going to post nonetheless.
Why's that?
I came right out and admitted my opinion on this matter is in the minority. I never called anyone right or wrong or a better or worse person for disagreeing with me.
I read that article, it was another spectator, not the opponent who got penalized for telling the player that he could untap his opponent's land. What made it weird was that then after the judge call finished, the player just ended his turn, apparently forgetting the advice within ten seconds.
Would you happen to have a link to the article, I'd really like to read it. If it was a spectator who said it then the call makes more sense to me. I wouldn't really think of it as a strange call because even though that might not have any strategic benefit to the game that's still outside assistance. Maybe the player felt weird about using that information if a player got penalized for telling it to him. I just hope that after the game was over the Garruk player was explained on what he could do with Garruk's +1.
If it was in an article like that, don't mention it like it was a valid call. However the judge reasoned in his own head it was wrong, and if someone informed the DCI about it he/she would likely lose the judge license.
I didn't mention it like it was a valid call. I said it was a strange call before I got into the details. There is no sort of judge license, maybe you mean judge certification. I highly doubt someone would lose their judge cert over a bad call like this. People make mistakes, judges are people like everyone else and from time to time can make some bad calls.
I would rather lose and learn than lose and not learn. If he was unfamiliar with the game state, and how the stack works, then you actually did far better by accepting the win and educating him than would have likely happened otherwise, which would be many people accepting the win, snorting, and not helping him understand the rules better.
You did great, IMHO.
I echo this sentiment. Winning isn't everything (as some people think the proper course of action seemed to be "letting" your opponent have the win.) Education is more important and if your opponent leaves that night thinking their opponents will point out how to beat them then they're having a disservice done to them. The way that their educated (tone, language, information) is much more important than that player getting self satisfaction that they won a game. Even then I feel like they would have left with a feeling of a tarnished victory.
I think that in both cases show here into this tread the right thing to do was calling a judge.
In tagnol's case the judge should've been called because that is a clear case of outside assistance, also you can ask the to or the judge to move the specators away if you feel justified.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
From Supernatural:
Sam: a demon summoning spell ? why?
Lucifer: to summon a demon (auto censorship here)
====
The Wizard of Oz: A juvenile delinquent runs away from home, kills the first person she meets in a foreign land, robs her corpse, then promptly forms a gang with three complete strangers in order to kill again.
====
The opportunity to be a teacher? What does Magic give you in life? Really dude, a win is a win.
Yep. It's not shady in ANY respect. Is it shady that I didn't tell my High Tide opponent how they could have gone off and won? I feel that the opponent is more likely to remember the mistake if they lost because of it. If they win when their opponent tells them how to play, they will continue to make the mistake.
I have 2 situations to contribute:
1. At a PTQ in Round 4 playing UW Control vs. UB Control during Jund heydays, I conceded to my opponent while he had Abyssal Persecutor on the field. He asked me, "am I sure?" and I said, "yes." He then told me that I don't actually lose regardless of the life total until Abyssal Persecutor is gone. I learned a big lesson from this, especially that I should sleep more than 2 hours for a PTQ. Since then, I've always gotten a "somewhat" decent amount of sleep.
2. At FNM, my Round 4 opponent playing Bant Control flashed in a Restoration Angel, targeting Thragtusk. He then said that he gains 5 life, then put a 3/3 Beast into play. I asked him if he's sure that's the order he wanted to do and he agreed. Then I said that he did the "enter the battlefield" trigger before the "leave the battlefield" trigger. I allowed him to get both triggers because at our FNM, the judge will allow it anyway. The bad part was that I didn't even tell him how it works since I was too concerned with my poor shuffling leading to mana clumps. I should have told him and I regret that.
Legacy - Sneak Show, BR Reanimator, Miracles, UW Stoneblade
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/ Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander - Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build) (dead format for me)
2. At FNM, my Round 4 opponent playing Bant Control flashed in a Restoration Angel, targeting Thragtusk. He then said that he gains 5 life, then put a 3/3 Beast into play. I asked him if he's sure that's the order he wanted to do and he agreed. Then I said that he did the "enter the battlefield" trigger before the "leave the battlefield" trigger. I allowed him to get both triggers because at our FNM, the judge will allow it anyway. The bad part was that I didn't even tell him how it works since I was too concerned with my poor shuffling leading to mana clumps. I should have told him and I regret that.
He can actually do that, just fine. In fact, he put the triggers on the stack in the 'right' order. Neither of Thraggy's triggers go on the stack until after Restoration Angel's trigger resolves, and then the controller of Thragtusk chooses the order to put them on the stack; he could do what he did, which has the 'leaves play' trigger on the bottom, and the 'enters play' trigger on the top; those resolve normally, he gains 5 life, and puts a beast into play- the same order you described. He could also, if he wanted, put the 'enters play' trigger on the bottom and the leaves play trigger on top and get the beast and then the life.
Quote from MTG CR »
603.3b If multiple abilities have triggered since the last time a player received priority, each player,
in APNAP order, puts triggered abilities he or she controls on the stack in any order he or she
chooses. (See rule 101.4.) Then the game once again checks for and resolves state-based actions
until none are performed, then abilities that triggered during this process go on the stack. This
process repeats until no new state-based actions are performed and no abilities trigger. Then the
appropriate player gets priority.
I came right out and admitted my opinion on this matter is in the minority. I never called anyone right or wrong or a better or worse person for disagreeing with me.
Your posts just give off a huge 'holier than thou' vibe.
Some people want to play the game for there opponents, others don't.
it's a game. a game needs a winner and a loser. you aren't here to give handouts to people who don't know how to play, OP. you're here to win. as long as you keep that in mind, you should have zero trouble. being a nice guy and telling him after was just you being decent.
Take your monoblack deck, then set aside 14 swamps. Add 4 Creeping Tar Pits, 4 Darkslick Shores, 4 Drowned Catacombs, and 2 Jwar isle Refuge and add 4 Jace, the Mindsculptors. Your monoblack deck is instantly better. Better yet, drop those refuges, throw in some islands and some mana leaks, and lo and behold, you're now playing a real deck. Congratulations. Welcome to the world of competitive M:TG.
Magic is a game. And like every game, neither player plays the game perfectly. So when someone makes a mistake you have to capitalize. There's nothing to feel guilty about, dude didn't see the path to victory and lost, it's not YOUR fault.
I think that in both cases show here into this tread the right thing to do was calling a judge.
In tagnol's case the judge should've been called because that is a clear case of outside assistance, also you can ask the to or the judge to move the specators away if you feel justified.
Yeah that's the problem with a small island community. We don't have judges because it costs quite literally hundreds of dollars to get trained and become a L1 judge (a ticket to the nearest city that actually plays magic is 5-700$). It has come down to where we have several people that have to take a pseudo rules advisor position. But because we can't do anything typically you'll get people disregarding stuff if it's not in it's favor. The other week one guy wanting me to give a game loss to someone for improper side board. Got mad at me when I said I wouldn't because I'm pretty sure even though I'm a TO I wasn't sure if I had the authority to do so.
At Regular REL, I'll hand over games to players all day long. However, when one walks into a PTQ, or a GPT, an SCG Open, a Grand Prix or even the Pro Tour, one is there to test skill. Regular REL has lenient judge calls and different trigger rules so that players learn how to play there. Then, they compete at Competitive and Professional; those RELs are tests of skill. It's almost two different games.
This is pretty much my stance on this, though I add in if we are playing for packs you get no passes from me. Ill tell you what you did wrong after the match but part of tournament play is knowing you deck and being able to run it in whatever mindset you are in. Im not going to penalize myself because you are not on your game when there are prizes on the line
Especially in a big tourney, where its every man for themselves and opponents will do anything for a win.
English isn't my first language, that's why I mixed up license/certification. I do think someone could lose their certification if he DQed the opponent for outside assistance because a DQ is quite serious. I've been judging for almost a year now and so far I've never given anyone a DQ (and other penalties for the matter, mostly judge and play regular REL).
If it was a spectator that got DQed I don't see much wrong, maybe the judge could have handled the situation better by being clear to anyone near that they can not interrupt but technically the judge did nothing wrong.
Outside assistance at Competitive is a match loss in the MIPG. Unless this was a second offense, the HJ who issued the DQ would have a lot of explaining to do.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Hey all... I'm retired, not dead. Check out what I'm doing these days (and beg me to come back if you want):
At Regular REL, I'll hand over games to players all day long. However, when one walks into a PTQ, or a GPT, an SCG Open, a Grand Prix or even the Pro Tour, one is there to test skill. Regular REL has lenient judge calls and different trigger rules so that players learn how to play there. Then, they compete at Competitive and Professional; those RELs are tests of skill. It's almost two different games.
I would never do that. Only because the only way I can play optimally is playing like it is a Grand Prix all the time. If I'm playing in a tournament than I'm playing to practice for something like a Grand Prix, I have to play at my best all the time.
I would point out to opponents if they made some crazy mistake that wasn't immediately obvious to them however, but I never give wins. Gotta earn 'em.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I just want people who redraft to admit this:
"I can't draft objectively unless I am able to guarantee that I receive at least 3 rares. I am also better than most average/new players so I want to make sure that I get the best rares and they end up with worse ones. I care more about the monetary value of cards than actually playing the game for decent prizes."
Yeah that's the problem with a small island community. We don't have judges because it costs quite literally hundreds of dollars to get trained and become a L1 judge (a ticket to the nearest city that actually plays magic is 5-700$). It has come down to where we have several people that have to take a pseudo rules advisor position. But because we can't do anything typically you'll get people disregarding stuff if it's not in it's favor. The other week one guy wanting me to give a game loss to someone for improper side board. Got mad at me when I said I wouldn't because I'm pretty sure even though I'm a TO I wasn't sure if I had the authority to do so.
Every sanctioned event is required to have a head judge. The Head judge need not necessarily be a person with actual judge status. Individuals judging an event have all of the responsibilities and capabilities as one who actually is a judge. If people disagree with the rulings of an acting judge, or disobey said rulings, the acting judge is well within his/her rights to do as he/she sees fit.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
L1 judge since 1/30/12 (lapsed as of 1/30/13)
My Friend Code is: 0146-9645-8893
Really? Interesting, mind if you give me exact place where I say so, since I'm the person down there with most knowledge on rules it'll be nice for the next time someone calls me over midgame, make a call, then get told they don't agree with me as it's not beneficial for them.
New players take losses because they make mistakes. Mistakes cause them to either learn the rules or (bend them often to) become very bad players.
Take the win, point out the mistake. Don't be patronizing. Soon as he concedes, sign the slip.. "oh btw I think you actually could have won".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Out of the blackness and stench of the engulfing swamp emerged a shimmering figure. Only the splattered armor and ichor-stained sword hinted at the unfathomable evil the knight had just laid waste.
In a limited game last night, it was my turn. I was at 2 life with an unblockable Sewer Shambler and some other irrelevant blocker. My opponent was at 4 life with an untapped Lobber Crew enchanted with Stab Wound and two other blockers.
Going into my turn, my hand is irrelevant and as far as I can see, I'm dead on board to Lobber Crew + Untap ping while Stab Wound is on the stack. Even though I can get through with Sewer Shambler to put him at 2, his untap step will let him kill me with Lobber Crew before Stab Wound resolves.
However, my opponent looking at the board concedes to me. Realizing that him not seeing his on-board win, I realize I actually have an opportunity to win. How do you handle this delicate situation?
I asked if he was conceding and he was confused as to why he wouldn't. This repeated and I said we could play it out to completion instead if he wanted. I assumed he would see the win.
At some point the player next to him (whom I know personally) became involved with the situation. I don't remember exactly how he entered our exchange, but I knew it could potentially spoil this win if he said too much unprompted. He was trying to answer a question, but I wasn't paying attention too carefully. I told him that he shouldn't interfere with the match, but let him continue explaining whatever it was.
If my opponent had a specific rules question, I don't mind him having it answered, but I didn't want the third player just pointing out that he could ping me in response to the trigger.
My opponent stuck with his concession and that win won me the match 2-0. I think he may have been confused what all the fuss was about.
After I confirmed his concession, I pointed out what he missed. At that point, the third player realized what the life totals were and I think he understood the situation I was in as well. I think my opponent was under the impression that Stab Wound damages you as your turn starts and didn't understand that it went onto the stack and could be responded to. He was upset, but glad to learn.
He could just as easily have been furious or outraged at this point and I don't know what I would have done.
Did I do anything wrong? Should I feel guilty about not offering to do a game 3 anyway?
I think I would feel bad (or at least much worse) if I had hadn't asked him if he was indeed conceding no less than three times.
I think it's a jerk move to do this at an LGS. I mean, if they mess up, like for example put bonds of faith on their own guy and pacify it, that's one thing - that's their own fault.
If he concedes to you, that's fine. But to kind of prompt or induce the concession when you know that he has lethal on board is kind of questionable ethically to me. At a GP or SCG (which now has limited events, btw! :)), sure, be callus. At an FNM or local store against an inexperienced player, it's kind of mean to just browbeat them into a concession. At least to me.
Also, this "other player" should not have been involved. That's outside assistance, and even at the FNM level, I would avoid it.
I play magic because I like pitting my skill against other players. That is my reward. Winning is a validation of my skill being greater, but secondary to the satisfaction I get from the test of skill.
Knowing the rules is part of the skill in playing magic. If an opponent makes a mistake, then why should he win? However, despite that philosophy, I'm pretty lenient, depending on my mood, if my opponent is being an ass, and just how flagrant the offense is, and the level of the event. If we're friendly, sure, take back that land you just played if you want to play another. Strictly speaking, I'm well within my rights not to allow a takeback, but whatever.
As for the OPs situation, likely I'll ask "are you sure?." If he says yes, then I win, then maybe explain why I shouldn't have later (again, depending on my mood). Again, depends on my mood. I've been in a similar situation where I showed my opponent a blue elemental blast which would have resulted in my win, except I didn't have any blue mana sources. My opponent would have conceded, thinking I'd hit his red creature and on my turn I'd attack and kill him, but I said, no, you should win this game, so I concede first and lets play game 3 instead. Hey, what can I say, he's a fine, upstanding guy. I would not have been done it for a douchenozzle.
As for the spectator, I've had bad experiences with spectators. I'll call a judge and let him handle it, as I have no authority to tell the person to leave, and getting angry would accomplish nothing.
I think it's a jerk move to do this at an LGS. I mean, if they mess up, like for example put bonds of faith on their own guy and pacify it, that's one thing - that's their own fault.
If he concedes to you, that's fine. But to kind of prompt or induce the concession when you know that he has lethal on board is kind of questionable ethically to me. At a GP or SCG (which now has limited events, btw! :)), sure, be callus. At an FNM or local store against an inexperienced player, it's kind of mean to just browbeat them into a concession. At least to me.
Also, this "other player" should not have been involved. That's outside assistance, and even at the FNM level, I would avoid it.
Note that he wasn't prompting a concession. The OP was at a point where the opponent said he wanted to concede, and the OP said "Let's play it out anyway." The opponent considered this, and after thinking decided to just concede anyway, at which point the OP told the opponent how he had lethal on the board.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with this and honestly it is way nicer than I would be in that situation. I would have just accepted the concession then explained his path to victory after the slip was signed.
Assuming everything went down the way the OP describes it, it sounds like you acted honorably to me.
I think if it's a tournament, then by all means let your opponent concede (and then point out his mistake afterwards if you think he would take it well). If it's a casual game or FNM or something though then I think teaching, learning, being friendly, social, etc is far, far more important than winning. In this specific situation, I think letting him lose was probably the best way to teach because the loss happened so immediately afterwards. It made it easy to make the direct connection.
I'll take the win and explain the situation to them afterwards. You might look like the bad guy but most people will take a lot more away knowing that you stole their win than if you just handed it to them. By taking the win for yourself you're helping them become a stronger player.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You did great, IMHO.
Standard:
WBRG Aggro-Reanimator Humans GRBW
Modern:
UR Twinning RU
G Venus Fly Trap G
U Artifacts Aggro U
Legacy:
B Reanimator B
WU Stoneblade UW
EDH
WBGGhave, Guru of SporesGBW
URGRiku of the Two ReflectionsGRU
WUBRGScion of the Ur-DragonGRBUW
Casual
Far too many to list
I never claimed not to understand why you and players like you act they way you do. I get it, it's not hard to grasp. I don't agree with it, and never will. We have different priorities when it comes to MTG. I value things you do not value, and vice versa.
Someone beating another person, even a noob, is not necessarily a bad thing. I would not be as good as I am now if it were not for the fact that I used to get stomped repeatedly by better players. It made me want to get better, and now I know the rules better than they do, and play the game better than they do. Did they do me harm? No. They did me a favor by not taking it easy on me.
Standard:
WBRG Aggro-Reanimator Humans GRBW
Modern:
UR Twinning RU
G Venus Fly Trap G
U Artifacts Aggro U
Legacy:
B Reanimator B
WU Stoneblade UW
EDH
WBGGhave, Guru of SporesGBW
URGRiku of the Two ReflectionsGRU
WUBRGScion of the Ur-DragonGRBUW
Casual
Far too many to list
Personally, I'm bored when my opponents don't know how to play, or bring some horrible combo deck that takes ten turns and a lot of the opponent doing nothing to go off. If they don't know how to play magic, I'll help them. But, I'd much rather play some one who can give me some competition.
I'm also relatively certain Valarin has been posting his comments in an express attempt to start an Internet flame battle, but I'm going to post nonetheless.
At Regular REL, I'll hand over games to players all day long. However, when one walks into a PTQ, or a GPT, an SCG Open, a Grand Prix or even the Pro Tour, one is there to test skill. Regular REL has lenient judge calls and different trigger rules so that players learn how to play there. Then, they compete at Competitive and Professional; those RELs are tests of skill. It's almost two different games.
Sig by Ace of Spades studio at http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?t=451747
I'm a child playing an adult's card game.
Esper CONTROL: http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showpost.php?p=10441008&postcount=239
I'm a Rules Advisor. Woo-hoo.
Gamer's Armory in Raleigh, NC. Best bad store ever.
Why's that?
I came right out and admitted my opinion on this matter is in the minority. I never called anyone right or wrong or a better or worse person for disagreeing with me.
Would you happen to have a link to the article, I'd really like to read it. If it was a spectator who said it then the call makes more sense to me. I wouldn't really think of it as a strange call because even though that might not have any strategic benefit to the game that's still outside assistance. Maybe the player felt weird about using that information if a player got penalized for telling it to him. I just hope that after the game was over the Garruk player was explained on what he could do with Garruk's +1.
I didn't mention it like it was a valid call. I said it was a strange call before I got into the details. There is no sort of judge license, maybe you mean judge certification. I highly doubt someone would lose their judge cert over a bad call like this. People make mistakes, judges are people like everyone else and from time to time can make some bad calls.
I echo this sentiment. Winning isn't everything (as some people think the proper course of action seemed to be "letting" your opponent have the win.) Education is more important and if your opponent leaves that night thinking their opponents will point out how to beat them then they're having a disservice done to them. The way that their educated (tone, language, information) is much more important than that player getting self satisfaction that they won a game. Even then I feel like they would have left with a feeling of a tarnished victory.
In tagnol's case the judge should've been called because that is a clear case of outside assistance, also you can ask the to or the judge to move the specators away if you feel justified.
Sam: a demon summoning spell ? why?
Lucifer: to summon a demon (auto censorship here)
====
The Wizard of Oz: A juvenile delinquent runs away from home, kills the first person she meets in a foreign land, robs her corpse, then promptly forms a gang with three complete strangers in order to kill again.
====
with R i'll burn you and with B youll'be maimed
Yep. It's not shady in ANY respect. Is it shady that I didn't tell my High Tide opponent how they could have gone off and won? I feel that the opponent is more likely to remember the mistake if they lost because of it. If they win when their opponent tells them how to play, they will continue to make the mistake.
I have 2 situations to contribute:
1. At a PTQ in Round 4 playing UW Control vs. UB Control during Jund heydays, I conceded to my opponent while he had Abyssal Persecutor on the field. He asked me, "am I sure?" and I said, "yes." He then told me that I don't actually lose regardless of the life total until Abyssal Persecutor is gone. I learned a big lesson from this, especially that I should sleep more than 2 hours for a PTQ. Since then, I've always gotten a "somewhat" decent amount of sleep.
2. At FNM, my Round 4 opponent playing Bant Control flashed in a Restoration Angel, targeting Thragtusk. He then said that he gains 5 life, then put a 3/3 Beast into play. I asked him if he's sure that's the order he wanted to do and he agreed. Then I said that he did the "enter the battlefield" trigger before the "leave the battlefield" trigger. I allowed him to get both triggers because at our FNM, the judge will allow it anyway. The bad part was that I didn't even tell him how it works since I was too concerned with my poor shuffling leading to mana clumps. I should have told him and I regret that.
Premodern - Trix, RecSur, Enchantress, Reanimator, Elves https://www.facebook.com/groups/PremodernUSA/
Modern - Neobrand, Hogaak Vine, Elves
Standard - Mono Red (6-2 and 5-3 in 2 McQ)
Draft - (I wish I had more time for limited...)
Commander -
Norin the Wary, Grimgrin, Adun Oakenshield (taking forever to build)(dead format for me)He can actually do that, just fine. In fact, he put the triggers on the stack in the 'right' order. Neither of Thraggy's triggers go on the stack until after Restoration Angel's trigger resolves, and then the controller of Thragtusk chooses the order to put them on the stack; he could do what he did, which has the 'leaves play' trigger on the bottom, and the 'enters play' trigger on the top; those resolve normally, he gains 5 life, and puts a beast into play- the same order you described. He could also, if he wanted, put the 'enters play' trigger on the bottom and the leaves play trigger on top and get the beast and then the life.
Your posts just give off a huge 'holier than thou' vibe.
Some people want to play the game for there opponents, others don't.
Yeah that's the problem with a small island community. We don't have judges because it costs quite literally hundreds of dollars to get trained and become a L1 judge (a ticket to the nearest city that actually plays magic is 5-700$). It has come down to where we have several people that have to take a pseudo rules advisor position. But because we can't do anything typically you'll get people disregarding stuff if it's not in it's favor. The other week one guy wanting me to give a game loss to someone for improper side board. Got mad at me when I said I wouldn't because I'm pretty sure even though I'm a TO I wasn't sure if I had the authority to do so.
This is pretty much my stance on this, though I add in if we are playing for packs you get no passes from me. Ill tell you what you did wrong after the match but part of tournament play is knowing you deck and being able to run it in whatever mindset you are in. Im not going to penalize myself because you are not on your game when there are prizes on the line
Especially in a big tourney, where its every man for themselves and opponents will do anything for a win.
Outside assistance at Competitive is a match loss in the MIPG. Unless this was a second offense, the HJ who issued the DQ would have a lot of explaining to do.
https://twitch.tv/annorax10 (classic retro speedruns & occasional MTGO/MTGA screwaround streams)
https://twitch.tv/SwiftorCasino (yes, my team and I run live dealer games for the baldman using his channel points as chips)
I would never do that. Only because the only way I can play optimally is playing like it is a Grand Prix all the time. If I'm playing in a tournament than I'm playing to practice for something like a Grand Prix, I have to play at my best all the time.
I would point out to opponents if they made some crazy mistake that wasn't immediately obvious to them however, but I never give wins. Gotta earn 'em.
Watch Play Read
Twitter
Every sanctioned event is required to have a head judge. The Head judge need not necessarily be a person with actual judge status. Individuals judging an event have all of the responsibilities and capabilities as one who actually is a judge. If people disagree with the rulings of an acting judge, or disobey said rulings, the acting judge is well within his/her rights to do as he/she sees fit.
My Friend Code is: 0146-9645-8893
Take the win, point out the mistake. Don't be patronizing. Soon as he concedes, sign the slip.. "oh btw I think you actually could have won".
I think it's a jerk move to do this at an LGS. I mean, if they mess up, like for example put bonds of faith on their own guy and pacify it, that's one thing - that's their own fault.
If he concedes to you, that's fine. But to kind of prompt or induce the concession when you know that he has lethal on board is kind of questionable ethically to me. At a GP or SCG (which now has limited events, btw! :)), sure, be callus. At an FNM or local store against an inexperienced player, it's kind of mean to just browbeat them into a concession. At least to me.
Also, this "other player" should not have been involved. That's outside assistance, and even at the FNM level, I would avoid it.
*DCI Rules Advisor*
Knowing the rules is part of the skill in playing magic. If an opponent makes a mistake, then why should he win? However, despite that philosophy, I'm pretty lenient, depending on my mood, if my opponent is being an ass, and just how flagrant the offense is, and the level of the event. If we're friendly, sure, take back that land you just played if you want to play another. Strictly speaking, I'm well within my rights not to allow a takeback, but whatever.
As for the OPs situation, likely I'll ask "are you sure?." If he says yes, then I win, then maybe explain why I shouldn't have later (again, depending on my mood). Again, depends on my mood. I've been in a similar situation where I showed my opponent a blue elemental blast which would have resulted in my win, except I didn't have any blue mana sources. My opponent would have conceded, thinking I'd hit his red creature and on my turn I'd attack and kill him, but I said, no, you should win this game, so I concede first and lets play game 3 instead. Hey, what can I say, he's a fine, upstanding guy. I would not have been done it for a douchenozzle.
As for the spectator, I've had bad experiences with spectators. I'll call a judge and let him handle it, as I have no authority to tell the person to leave, and getting angry would accomplish nothing.
"Sometimes, the situation is outracing a threat, sometimes it's ignoring it, and sometimes it involves sideboarding in 4x Hope//Pray." --Doug Linn
Note that he wasn't prompting a concession. The OP was at a point where the opponent said he wanted to concede, and the OP said "Let's play it out anyway." The opponent considered this, and after thinking decided to just concede anyway, at which point the OP told the opponent how he had lethal on the board.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with this and honestly it is way nicer than I would be in that situation. I would have just accepted the concession then explained his path to victory after the slip was signed.
I think if it's a tournament, then by all means let your opponent concede (and then point out his mistake afterwards if you think he would take it well). If it's a casual game or FNM or something though then I think teaching, learning, being friendly, social, etc is far, far more important than winning. In this specific situation, I think letting him lose was probably the best way to teach because the loss happened so immediately afterwards. It made it easy to make the direct connection.