It is worth noting that Kent's opponent wouldn't get in trouble as the rules state, "Lying to strengthen your case".
True. My point is just because Kent touched his graveyard and failed to tell the judge about it.... does not mean he was lying by omission.
What he did was a "gray" area in the magic rules. Technically not cheating... but not 100% legitimate either.
People who flirt with that line often end up putting their foot in their mouth at some point.
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.
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 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.
There is no competitive REL rule that says there are defined zones.
You claim that he moved his GY to exile and that's relative information because it acknowledges a trigger taking place.
Nothing in the rules states that this is the case. As a result Kent could easily say "I did not think it was relative because there are no defined Zones. Picking up the GY and putting it back down is not an official acknowledgement of the trigger".
Now if a judge told him that WAS important information... and it happened again (and he omitted it) then that would be cheating.
But that didn't happen. So I implore the community to stop grasping at straws.
Additionally if he had also answered with "I picked up my cards because I thought my opponent was going to exile them. When he didn't, I returned them to maintain game-state" That would also be truthful and not cheating.
No one asked the questions though to prompt those type of responses. That's not Kent's fault either.
His lack of disclosing the information to the judge (which was highly relevant to the ruling) is considered lying through omission.
If that were true... why wasn't he DQed?
The judge was aware of the discrepancy before the event ended.
From what I read... the judge said he would rule differently had he known kent had picked up his cards.
That doesn't mean Kent was lying by omission. Those are two completely different situations unless you can prove Kent purposefully didn't mention he picked up his cards to get a ruling in his favor.
(and I don't think any judge was claiming he did).
I just want to again reiterate that I have had numerous judges confirm that lying by omission will get you a DQ (at a minimum) under 4.8 in the IPG. You could *maybe* try to argue intention, but that's a separate argument (and still a losing one at that). However, the objective fact that lying by omission to a judge is considered lying is not up for debate
I implore you, whatever your opinion on this specific case may be, DO NOT play definition games with judges because I 100% guarantee you will not win. You are required to give them ALL the relevant information to any inquiry they make, regardless of whether they ask for that specific detail or not. If there is any remote possibility in your mind that any given detail could be relevant to a ruling, DO NOT try to omit it in the hopes that the judge will rule in your favor due to not knowing that detail.
Did you ask judges at the event whether Kent was lying by ommission?
Yes lying by ommission can get you DQed. But there is no substantial proof that this occoured besides one's opinion.
Because (I've stated this multiple times) there are no defined zones picking up your graveyard is not full-proof acknowledgement of the trigger.
Picking up the GY is ONLY significant if it's an acknowledgement of the trigger. And because there are no predefined zones... it is not.
TLDR: If Kent thought picking up his GY wasn't significant than it isn't since no rules say it's significant. Now if a judge had told him previously "picking up your gy is an acknowledgement of the trigger" then you'd be correct. But (I sound like a broken record at this point) that never happened.
There is no competitive REL rule that says there are defined zones.
You claim that he moved his GY to exile and that's relative information because it acknowledges a trigger taking place.
Nothing in the rules states that this is the case. As a result Kent could easily say "I did not think it was relative because there are no defined Zones. Picking up the GY and putting it back down is not an official acknowledgement of the trigger".
Now if a judge told him that WAS important information... and it happened again (and he omitted it) then that would be cheating.
But that didn't happen. So I implore the community to stop grasping at straws.
Additionally if he had also answered with "I picked up my cards because I thought my opponent was going to exile them. When he didn't, I returned them to maintain game-state" That would also be truthful and not cheating.
No one asked the questions though to prompt those type of responses. That's not Kent's fault either.
You watch it again and you tell me why he moved his GY: https://youtu.be/RPwnclSzLgc?t=1m17s It takes 1 second for Kent to move his GY away after RIP hits the board. RIP lands at 1:24, the GY is moved at 1:25. At 1:27 (2 seconds later) he moves it back. A few seconds later (by about 1:31), Frank notices Kent's GY is still there. We don't have audio, but it was later explained that Kent said something along the lines of "missed trigger," despite acknowledging it with the movement of his GY (which lines up exactly with the timing and actions of the triggered ability). Kent then omits the fact that he moved his GY when talking to the judge, which would have been information directly relevant to the cards and zones in question with respect to the game state and acknowledgement of triggers.
He cheated, he lied, and he got away with it. I do not understand how someone would willingly defend such behavior.
I think everyone is on the same page here, just arguing semantics. What he did was shady of course. But what axman is saying, and is 100% correct on, is that you cannot prove that he lied by omission on purpose. There is no way you can prove otherwise sparing a confession from Kent that he did so.
Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, what if Kent was only preparing to exile his yard in response to the trigger, but realized that it was never called and moved his graveyard back? In that case the onus is on his opponent for not staying up on the game. In the end we will never know what his true intents were unless he came forward about the incident. All of this is, of course, irrelevant because he's already been judged in the court of public opinion. He'll carry this with him for the rest of his magic days.
The important lesson is to be mindful of the shortcuts you take. The trigger announce was assumed to be shortcuted by the viewers through actions taken (moving the graveyard) at spell resolution. Kent moved to act on the trigger, the opponent didn't specify, and he acted as though his opponent missed it. There's probably a million other gray areas that could occur just like this, where I start resolving the trigger for my opponent and then have a moment of clarity and stop handing the game away. If my opponent says bolt? And I go to move my dork off the field, I've shortcutted the target part of the spell cast if they didn't specify. The community does this crap ALL the time.
It's not pretty magic, and I agree that full information should have been shared and the GYs should have been gone. Just have a functional reprint of RIP that triggers end of every main phase and fix the freaking issue. The game is meant to be played across language and age barriers, the unsportsmanlike conduct like this is bad for the game.
Kents actions were legal, his information to the judge was sketch, the result rightfully left a sour taste in the community's mouth. Remember the pithing needle and borborygamos garbage at the 2015 Feb SCG open? Yeah the rules can't shore up everything but when they fall flat it can be quite hard to watch.
For what it's worth I'm in favor of the yards being wiped out. The card should have been printed differently imo.
The important lesson is to be mindful of the shortcuts you take. The trigger announce was assumed to be shortcuted by the viewers through actions taken (moving the graveyard) at spell resolution. Kent moved to act on the trigger, the opponent didn't specify, and he acted as though his opponent missed it. There's probably a million other gray areas that could occur just like this, where I start resolving the trigger for my opponent and then have a moment of clarity and stop handing the game away. If my opponent says bolt? And I go to move my dork off the field, I've shortcutted the target part of the spell cast if they didn't specify. The community does this crap ALL the time.
It's not pretty magic, and I agree that full information should have been shared and the GYs should have been gone. Just have a functional reprint of RIP that triggers end of every main phase and fix the freaking issue. The game is meant to be played across language and age barriers, the unsportsmanlike conduct like this is bad for the game.
Kents actions were legal, his information to the judge was sketch, the result rightfully left a sour taste in the community's mouth. Remember the pithing needle and borborygamos garbage at the 2015 Feb SCG open? Yeah the rules can't shore up everything but when they fall flat it can be quite hard to watch.
For what it's worth I'm in favor of the yards being wiped out. The card should have been printed differently imo.
This is better worded argument than I was making. And sums up 100% my feelings.
The important lesson is to be mindful of the shortcuts you take. The trigger announce was assumed to be shortcuted by the viewers through actions taken (moving the graveyard) at spell resolution. Kent moved to act on the trigger, the opponent didn't specify, and he acted as though his opponent missed it. There's probably a million other gray areas that could occur just like this, where I start resolving the trigger for my opponent and then have a moment of clarity and stop handing the game away. If my opponent says bolt? And I go to move my dork off the field, I've shortcutted the target part of the spell cast if they didn't specify. The community does this crap ALL the time.
It's not pretty magic, and I agree that full information should have been shared and the GYs should have been gone. Just have a functional reprint of RIP that triggers end of every main phase and fix the freaking issue. The game is meant to be played across language and age barriers, the unsportsmanlike conduct like this is bad for the game.
Kents actions were legal, his information to the judge was sketch, the result rightfully left a sour taste in the community's mouth. Remember the pithing needle and borborygamos garbage at the 2015 Feb SCG open? Yeah the rules can't shore up everything but when they fall flat it can be quite hard to watch.
For what it's worth I'm in favor of the yards being wiped out. The card should have been printed differently imo.
That's not a comparable situation. Omitting information to a judge is not the same thing as accidentally naming the wrong card. I can believe that he made a mistake by assuming his opponent was going to acknowledge the trigger and took it upon himself to acknowledge it first, but quickly realized after doing it he should have waited, and wanted to take it back. However, it's not an excuse to withhold that information and try to pretend you didn't make the mistake.
Show me in the rules where moving your graveyard is an acknowledgement of the trigger.
People keep insisting that he "acknowledged" the trigger by moving his graveyard. There is no rule in the IPG that you can cite that defends this.
The only way to defend this is to cite intention. Which is fair more difficult to say and typically can not be proven just from a single event.
What he did was scummy. No one is trying to argue otherwise. But within the realm of current rule structure.
I don't think he cheated. But I do think it was a scum move. People who do thinks like that are not good for the community.
The important lesson is to be mindful of the shortcuts you take. The trigger announce was assumed to be shortcuted by the viewers through actions taken (moving the graveyard) at spell resolution. Kent moved to act on the trigger, the opponent didn't specify, and he acted as though his opponent missed it. There's probably a million other gray areas that could occur just like this, where I start resolving the trigger for my opponent and then have a moment of clarity and stop handing the game away. If my opponent says bolt? And I go to move my dork off the field, I've shortcutted the target part of the spell cast if they didn't specify. The community does this crap ALL the time.
It's not pretty magic, and I agree that full information should have been shared and the GYs should have been gone. Just have a functional reprint of RIP that triggers end of every main phase and fix the freaking issue. The game is meant to be played across language and age barriers, the unsportsmanlike conduct like this is bad for the game.
Kents actions were legal, his information to the judge was sketch, the result rightfully left a sour taste in the community's mouth. Remember the pithing needle and borborygamos garbage at the 2015 Feb SCG open? Yeah the rules can't shore up everything but when they fall flat it can be quite hard to watch.
For what it's worth I'm in favor of the yards being wiped out. The card should have been printed differently imo.
That's not a comparable situation. Omitting information to a judge is not the same thing as accidentally naming the wrong card. I can believe that he made a mistake by assuming his opponent was going to acknowledge the trigger and took it upon himself to acknowledge it first, but quickly realized after doing it he should have waited, and wanted to take it back. However, it's not an excuse to withhold that information and try to pretend you didn't make the mistake.
Show me in the rules where moving your graveyard is an acknowledgement of the trigger.
People keep insisting that he "acknowledged" the trigger by moving his graveyard. There is no rule in the IPG that you can cite that defends this.
The only way to defend this is to cite intention. Which is fair more difficult to say and typically can not be proven just from a single event.
What he did was scummy. No one is trying to argue otherwise. But within the realm of current rule structure.
I don't think he cheated. But I do think it was a scum move. People who do thinks like that are not good for the community.
The rules don't have a line in them for each individual Magic card that was ever printed that says "Here are the guidelines for what constitutes responding to the trigger on this card!" You are asking for something you know damn well does not and cannot possibly exist. If there is a trigger, and you physically do the thing that the trigger requires you to do (which in this case is a very publicly visible thing as you are changing the zones of all the cards in your graveyard), you are acknowledging that trigger.
How can you seriously argue that physically performing the actions necessary to resolve that specific trigger is NOT acknowledging it? Does the word "acknowledge" have any meaning to you whatsoever? If he wasn't acknowledging any particular trigger, are you saying he was just casually exiling cards from his graveyard because he felt like it?
I will say this again. There is no dedicated exile zone.
To quote one of the users above me
Just to play devil's advocate for a moment, what if Kent was only preparing to exile his yard in response to the trigger, but realized that it was never called and moved his graveyard back? In that case the onus is on his opponent for not staying up on the game. In the end we will never know what his true intents were unless he came forward about the incident. All of this is, of course, irrelevant because he's already been judged in the court of public opinion. He'll carry this with him for the rest of his magic days.
The important lesson is to be mindful of the shortcuts you take. The trigger announce was assumed to be shortcuted by the viewers through actions taken (moving the graveyard) at spell resolution. Kent moved to act on the trigger, the opponent didn't specify, and he acted as though his opponent missed it. There's probably a million other gray areas that could occur just like this, where I start resolving the trigger for my opponent and then have a moment of clarity and stop handing the game away. If my opponent says bolt? And I go to move my dork off the field, I've shortcutted the target part of the spell cast if they didn't specify. The community does this crap ALL the time.
It's not pretty magic, and I agree that full information should have been shared and the GYs should have been gone. Just have a functional reprint of RIP that triggers end of every main phase and fix the freaking issue. The game is meant to be played across language and age barriers, the unsportsmanlike conduct like this is bad for the game.
Kents actions were legal, his information to the judge was sketch, the result rightfully left a sour taste in the community's mouth. Remember the pithing needle and borborygamos garbage at the 2015 Feb SCG open? Yeah the rules can't shore up everything but when they fall flat it can be quite hard to watch.
For what it's worth I'm in favor of the yards being wiped out. The card should have been printed differently imo.
That's not a comparable situation. Omitting information to a judge is not the same thing as accidentally naming the wrong card. I can believe that he made a mistake by assuming his opponent was going to acknowledge the trigger and took it upon himself to acknowledge it first, but quickly realized after doing it he should have waited, and wanted to take it back. However, it's not an excuse to withhold that information and try to pretend you didn't make the mistake.
Show me in the rules where moving your graveyard is an acknowledgement of the trigger.
People keep insisting that he "acknowledged" the trigger by moving his graveyard. There is no rule in the IPG that you can cite that defends this.
The only way to defend this is to cite intention. Which is fair more difficult to say and typically can not be proven just from a single event.
What he did was scummy. No one is trying to argue otherwise. But within the realm of current rule structure.
I don't think he cheated. But I do think it was a scum move. People who do thinks like that are not good for the community.
I literally posted a page back that IPG 4.8, in regards to Triggers, specifically states that it is the responsibility of each player to make sure that their opponents act accordingly to their triggers and make appropriate actions. Kent clearly exiled his graveyard, thus made appropriate actions. Ken was therefore at fault, which goes along with what the Judge later said in regards to the matter.
I disagree that he "clearly" exiled his graveyard. We have no audio to prove otherwise. It certainly looked like he did, but that is far from "clearly". All we have proof of is Kent manipulating the placement of his GY after his opponent played RIP. This situation has certainly riled some folks up. What would you do if you were in the situation that Kent's opponent was in? If he recognized that Kent had exiled his GY he would have most definitely brought that up with the judge, as I'm sure all of us would. The fact that he didn't mention it to the judge tells me that he not only didn't call out his trigger, but that he also did not acknowledge/see Kent moving his graveyard in the first place. Without audio to go with the video, I see this situation as Kent attempting to exile his GY, but realize as he was doing so that his opponent would have to call out his own triggers if he wanted them.
That's not a comparable situation. Omitting information to a judge is not the same thing as accidentally naming the wrong card. I can believe that he made a mistake by assuming his opponent was going to acknowledge the trigger and took it upon himself to acknowledge it first, but quickly realized after doing it he should have waited, and wanted to take it back. However, it's not an excuse to withhold that information and try to pretend you didn't make the mistake.
Show me in the rules where moving your graveyard is an acknowledgement of the trigger.
People keep insisting that he "acknowledged" the trigger by moving his graveyard. There is no rule in the IPG that you can cite that defends this.
The only way to defend this is to cite intention. Which is fair more difficult to say and typically can not be proven just from a single event.
What he did was scummy. No one is trying to argue otherwise. But within the realm of current rule structure.
I don't think he cheated. But I do think it was a scum move. People who do thinks like that are not good for the community.
I literally posted a page back that IPG 4.8, in regards to Triggers, specifically states that it is the responsibility of each player to make sure that their opponents act accordingly to their triggers and make appropriate actions. Kent clearly exiled his graveyard, thus made appropriate actions. Ken was therefore at fault, which goes along with what the Judge later said in regards to the matter.
I disagree that he "clearly" exiled his graveyard. We have no audio to prove otherwise. It certainly looked like he did, but that is far from "clearly". All we have proof of is Kent manipulating the placement of his GY after his opponent played RIP. This situation has certainly riled some folks up. What would you do if you were in the situation that Kent's opponent was in? If he recognized that Kent had exiled his GY he would have most definitely brought that up with the judge, as I'm sure all of us would. The fact that he didn't mention it to the judge tells me that he not only didn't call out his trigger, but that he also did not acknowledge/see Kent moving his graveyard in the first place. Without audio to go with the video, I see this situation as Kent attempting to exile his GY, but realize as he was doing so that his opponent would have to call out his own triggers if he wanted them.
He moved his graveyard so far away from where it used to be, it may as well have been on another planet. You can disagree all you want with that, but the video evidence doesn't lie. This has nothing to do with Frank at this point and everything to do with the fact that Kent had an obligation to tell the judge that he moved his cards in response to the trigger and yet chose not to do so. Nothing else matters here. He did something, he knew if he disclosed it, the judge would almost certainly rule against him and purposely didn't mention it.
It's entirely possible that Frank was going to miss that trigger had Kent not acted, but Kent obviously didn't miss it, and took it upon himself to resolve the trigger. You don't get to undo that action just because you realized afterwards that it was a mistake to do it. You especially don't get to try and hide your mistake when the judge starts asking questions.
Hey man, I agree with you. All I'm arguing is that while those things happened, you still have to PROVE that Kent's nondisclosure of the graveyard manipulation was INTENTIONAL to prove cheating. You use words like CHOSE and PURPOSELY like you were in Kent's head and heard his thoughts. You can't prove any of that stuff. And Frank doesn't get a pass because Kent was shady. He's obligated to follow the text on his cards just as much as his opponent.
That's not a comparable situation. Omitting information to a judge is not the same thing as accidentally naming the wrong card. I can believe that he made a mistake by assuming his opponent was going to acknowledge the trigger and took it upon himself to acknowledge it first, but quickly realized after doing it he should have waited, and wanted to take it back. However, it's not an excuse to withhold that information and try to pretend you didn't make the mistake.
Show me in the rules where moving your graveyard is an acknowledgement of the trigger.
People keep insisting that he "acknowledged" the trigger by moving his graveyard. There is no rule in the IPG that you can cite that defends this.
The only way to defend this is to cite intention. Which is fair more difficult to say and typically can not be proven just from a single event.
What he did was scummy. No one is trying to argue otherwise. But within the realm of current rule structure.
I don't think he cheated. But I do think it was a scum move. People who do thinks like that are not good for the community.
I literally posted a page back that IPG 4.8, in regards to Triggers, specifically states that it is the responsibility of each player to make sure that their opponents act accordingly to their triggers and make appropriate actions. Kent clearly exiled his graveyard, thus made appropriate actions. Ken was therefore at fault, which goes along with what the Judge later said in regards to the matter.
I disagree that he "clearly" exiled his graveyard. We have no audio to prove otherwise. It certainly looked like he did, but that is far from "clearly". All we have proof of is Kent manipulating the placement of his GY after his opponent played RIP. This situation has certainly riled some folks up. What would you do if you were in the situation that Kent's opponent was in? If he recognized that Kent had exiled his GY he would have most definitely brought that up with the judge, as I'm sure all of us would. The fact that he didn't mention it to the judge tells me that he not only didn't call out his trigger, but that he also did not acknowledge/see Kent moving his graveyard in the first place. Without audio to go with the video, I see this situation as Kent attempting to exile his GY, but realize as he was doing so that his opponent would have to call out his own triggers if he wanted them.
He moved his graveyard so far away from where it used to be, it may as well have been on another planet. You can disagree all you want with that, but the video evidence doesn't lie. This has nothing to do with Frank at this point and everything to do with the fact that Kent had an obligation to tell the judge that he moved his cards in response to the trigger and yet chose not to do so. Nothing else matters here. He did something, he knew if he disclosed it, the judge would almost certainly rule against him and purposely didn't mention it.
It's entirely possible that Frank was going to miss that trigger had Kent not acted, but Kent obviously didn't miss it, and took it upon himself to resolve the trigger. You don't get to undo that action just because you realized afterwards that it was a mistake to do it. You especially don't get to try and hide your mistake when the judge starts asking questions.
That's not a comparable situation. Omitting information to a judge is not the same thing as accidentally naming the wrong card. I can believe that he made a mistake by assuming his opponent was going to acknowledge the trigger and took it upon himself to acknowledge it first, but quickly realized after doing it he should have waited, and wanted to take it back. However, it's not an excuse to withhold that information and try to pretend you didn't make the mistake.
Show me in the rules where moving your graveyard is an acknowledgement of the trigger.
People keep insisting that he "acknowledged" the trigger by moving his graveyard. There is no rule in the IPG that you can cite that defends this.
The only way to defend this is to cite intention. Which is fair more difficult to say and typically can not be proven just from a single event.
What he did was scummy. No one is trying to argue otherwise. But within the realm of current rule structure.
I don't think he cheated. But I do think it was a scum move. People who do thinks like that are not good for the community.
I literally posted a page back that IPG 4.8, in regards to Triggers, specifically states that it is the responsibility of each player to make sure that their opponents act accordingly to their triggers and make appropriate actions. Kent clearly exiled his graveyard, thus made appropriate actions. Ken was therefore at fault, which goes along with what the Judge later said in regards to the matter.
I disagree that he "clearly" exiled his graveyard. We have no audio to prove otherwise. It certainly looked like he did, but that is far from "clearly". All we have proof of is Kent manipulating the placement of his GY after his opponent played RIP. This situation has certainly riled some folks up. What would you do if you were in the situation that Kent's opponent was in? If he recognized that Kent had exiled his GY he would have most definitely brought that up with the judge, as I'm sure all of us would. The fact that he didn't mention it to the judge tells me that he not only didn't call out his trigger, but that he also did not acknowledge/see Kent moving his graveyard in the first place. Without audio to go with the video, I see this situation as Kent attempting to exile his GY, but realize as he was doing so that his opponent would have to call out his own triggers if he wanted them.
[b]He moved his graveyard so far away from where it used to be, it may as well have been on another planet[b]. You can disagree all you want with that, but the video evidence doesn't lie. This has nothing to do with Frank at this point and everything to do with the fact that Kent had an obligation to tell the judge that he moved his cards in response to the trigger and yet chose not to do so. Nothing else matters here. He did something, he knew if he disclosed it, the judge would almost certainly rule against him and purposely didn't mention it.
It's entirely possible that Frank was going to miss that trigger had Kent not acted, but Kent obviously didn't miss it, and took it upon himself to resolve the trigger. You don't get to undo that action just because you realized afterwards that it was a mistake to do it. You especially don't get to try and hide your mistake when the judge starts asking questions.
And? The rules do not disallow this. You could put your GY anywhere on the table theoretically without breaking any rules.
That is the point. Technically speaking he could have left his cards where he moved them and it still wouldn't have been considered exiled as long as he maintained it as his gy.
And? The rules do not disallow this. You could put your GY anywhere on the table theoretically without breaking any rules.
That is the point. Technically speaking he could have left his cards where he moved them and it still wouldn't have been considered exiled as long as he maintained it as his gy.
...Nope, we're done here. That was the single dumbest statement you have made thus far, and I can no longer take you seriously. You are making the claim that the DREDGE player moved his GRAVEYARD OFF CAMERA and that he could have gone on playing the rest of his game like that, rather than accept that he moved cards into exile. I literally don't know how to respond to that. How disconnected from reality would you have to be to believe that? We are done. Adding you to ignore list now.
You obviously don't care about the rules.
Half of your post is completely unecessairy.
If kent didn't acknowledge that he was moving his gy to exile and his opponent didn't acknowledge that is what he thought he was doing than for all extensive the gy was not exiled. Because no player recognized it.
That's the rules. Argue it all you want doesn't change the facts.
That's not a comparable situation. Omitting information to a judge is not the same thing as accidentally naming the wrong card. I can believe that he made a mistake by assuming his opponent was going to acknowledge the trigger and took it upon himself to acknowledge it first, but quickly realized after doing it he should have waited, and wanted to take it back. However, it's not an excuse to withhold that information and try to pretend you didn't make the mistake.
Show me in the rules where moving your graveyard is an acknowledgement of the trigger.
People keep insisting that he "acknowledged" the trigger by moving his graveyard. There is no rule in the IPG that you can cite that defends this.
The only way to defend this is to cite intention. Which is fair more difficult to say and typically can not be proven just from a single event.
What he did was scummy. No one is trying to argue otherwise. But within the realm of current rule structure.
I don't think he cheated. But I do think it was a scum move. People who do thinks like that are not good for the community.
I literally posted a page back that IPG 4.8, in regards to Triggers, specifically states that it is the responsibility of each player to make sure that their opponents act accordingly to their triggers and make appropriate actions. Kent clearly exiled his graveyard, thus made appropriate actions. Ken was therefore at fault, which goes along with what the Judge later said in regards to the matter.
I disagree that he "clearly" exiled his graveyard. We have no audio to prove otherwise. It certainly looked like he did, but that is far from "clearly". All we have proof of is Kent manipulating the placement of his GY after his opponent played RIP. This situation has certainly riled some folks up. What would you do if you were in the situation that Kent's opponent was in? If he recognized that Kent had exiled his GY he would have most definitely brought that up with the judge, as I'm sure all of us would. The fact that he didn't mention it to the judge tells me that he not only didn't call out his trigger, but that he also did not acknowledge/see Kent moving his graveyard in the first place. Without audio to go with the video, I see this situation as Kent attempting to exile his GY, but realize as he was doing so that his opponent would have to call out his own triggers if he wanted them.
I have no reason to debate this and no investment either way on this matter. All I'm pointing out is the ruling (as requested). Kent acted accordingly to the trigger, that is all that is needed to know about the matter as the rules are concerned. Had he of left his graveyard alone and waited until his opponent passed without calling out the trigger there wouldn't be a problem here. It's the potential manipulation, intentional or not, caused by Kent moving his GY that is causing people (understandably) to get annoyed.
This is exactly how I feel. I personally could possibly have not announced the trigger for my opponent, but I never would move the card, trying to look like I was manually exiling it, and then put it back in so that the trigger was missed.
And the reason why I posted this was just to warn players potentially playing in an SCG Open or Grand Prix to be more wary of their opponents.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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)
And? The rules do not disallow this. You could put your GY anywhere on the table theoretically without breaking any rules.
That is the point. Technically speaking he could have left his cards where he moved them and it still wouldn't have been considered exiled as long as he maintained it as his gy.
...Nope, we're done here. That was the single dumbest statement you have made thus far, and I can no longer take you seriously. You are making the claim that the DREDGE player moved his GRAVEYARD OFF CAMERA and that he could have gone on playing the rest of his game like that, rather than accept that he moved cards into exile. I literally don't know how to respond to that. How disconnected from reality would you have to be to believe that? We are done. Adding you to ignore list now.
You obviously don't care about the rules.
Half of your post is completely unecessairy.
If kent didn't acknowledge that he was moving his gy to exile and his opponent didn't acknowledge that is what he thought he was doing than for all extensive the gy was not exiled. Because no player recognized it.
That's the rules. Argue it all you want doesn't change the facts.
Wait, wait, wait. So you're telling me that someone on a level like Kent Ketter just moved his graveyard around, literally 1 second after an opponent played a Rest in Peace, for absolutely no reason? That there is no connection between a card hitting the table that triggers an action and him carrying out that exact action?
Are you sure you know what the word acknowledge means? What other possible other reason could he have for moving his graveyard so specifically and in such perfect timing to the card that had just been played?
Not even taking into account that he did not represent the actions that had happened on the table properly to the judge when confirming game state, he acknowledged the trigger and then reversed it. It was plain as day, on camera, and everybody saw it. It was unsportsmanlike, unethical, and he lost his job over it. I think that says more than the mistakes of one judge who was working on half information during a long a hectic weekend.
And? The rules do not disallow this. You could put your GY anywhere on the table theoretically without breaking any rules.
That is the point. Technically speaking he could have left his cards where he moved them and it still wouldn't have been considered exiled as long as he maintained it as his gy.
...Nope, we're done here. That was the single dumbest statement you have made thus far, and I can no longer take you seriously. You are making the claim that the DREDGE player moved his GRAVEYARD OFF CAMERA and that he could have gone on playing the rest of his game like that, rather than accept that he moved cards into exile. I literally don't know how to respond to that. How disconnected from reality would you have to be to believe that? We are done. Adding you to ignore list now.
You obviously don't care about the rules.
Half of your post is completely unecessairy.
If kent didn't acknowledge that he was moving his gy to exile and his opponent didn't acknowledge that is what he thought he was doing than for all extensive the gy was not exiled. Because no player recognized it.
That's the rules. Argue it all you want doesn't change the facts.
Wait, wait, wait. So you're telling me that someone on a level like Kent Ketter just moved his graveyard around, literally 1 second after an opponent played a Rest in Peace, for absolutely no reason? That there is no connection between a card hitting the table that triggers an action and him carrying out that exact action?
Are you sure you know what the word acknowledge means? What other possible other reason could he have for moving his graveyard so specifically and in such perfect timing to the card that had just been played?
Not even taking into account that he did not represent the actions that had happened on the table properly to the judge when confirming game state, he acknowledged the trigger and then reversed it. It was plain as day, on camera, and everybody saw it. It was unsportsmanlike, unethical, and he lost his job over it. I think that says more than the mistakes of one judge who was working on half information during a long a hectic weekend.
The problem: there are no defined zones Yes. You can argue his intent was to move it to exile. But that doesn't mean he did or that the cards actually made it to exile.
Many people are arguing he cheated because he exiled his gy and "took it back". Unfortunately because of no defined zones the "fact" that he exiled his cards is opinion.
Unless you are arguing him picking up his gy was him acknowledging the trigger itself, forcing him to respect the trigger and execute it.
But I feel like that would be a hard argument to make since competitive REL states that if a person misses a beneficial trigger that person's opponent decides whether to put it on the stack or not.
It was unsportsmanlike, unethical, and he lost his job over it
Agreed. No one will dispute this. Although he lost his job because apparently people reported other incidents.
His actions where not unusual. Pro players and competitive players will do that all the time and it's "technically" not cheating.
There is a reason why people are supporting him at the higher levels.
My biggest complaint is how he handled the situation.
And? The rules do not disallow this. You could put your GY anywhere on the table theoretically without breaking any rules.
That is the point. Technically speaking he could have left his cards where he moved them and it still wouldn't have been considered exiled as long as he maintained it as his gy.
...Nope, we're done here. That was the single dumbest statement you have made thus far, and I can no longer take you seriously. You are making the claim that the DREDGE player moved his GRAVEYARD OFF CAMERA and that he could have gone on playing the rest of his game like that, rather than accept that he moved cards into exile. I literally don't know how to respond to that. How disconnected from reality would you have to be to believe that? We are done. Adding you to ignore list now.
You obviously don't care about the rules.
Half of your post is completely unecessairy.
If kent didn't acknowledge that he was moving his gy to exile and his opponent didn't acknowledge that is what he thought he was doing than for all extensive the gy was not exiled. Because no player recognized it.
That's the rules. Argue it all you want doesn't change the facts.
Wait, wait, wait. So you're telling me that someone on a level like Kent Ketter just moved his graveyard around, literally 1 second after an opponent played a Rest in Peace, for absolutely no reason? That there is no connection between a card hitting the table that triggers an action and him carrying out that exact action?
Are you sure you know what the word acknowledge means? What other possible other reason could he have for moving his graveyard so specifically and in such perfect timing to the card that had just been played?
Not even taking into account that he did not represent the actions that had happened on the table properly to the judge when confirming game state, he acknowledged the trigger and then reversed it. It was plain as day, on camera, and everybody saw it. It was unsportsmanlike, unethical, and he lost his job over it. I think that says more than the mistakes of one judge who was working on half information during a long a hectic weekend.
The problem: there are no defined zones Yes. You can argue his intent was to move it to exile. But that doesn't mean he did or that the cards actually made it to exile.
Many people are arguing he cheated because he exiled his gy and "took it back". Unfortunately because of no defined zones the "fact" that he exiled his cards is opinion.
Unless you are arguing him picking up his gy was him acknowledging the trigger itself, forcing him to respect the trigger and execute it.
But I feel like that would be a hard argument to make since competitive REL states that if a person misses a beneficial trigger that person's opponent decides whether to put it on the stack or not.
YES. That is exactly what I am arguing. Specifically and deliberately handling your graveyard 1 second after a card triggers you to handle your graveyard is an acknowledgement of the trigger. Just go back and watch the video again. And then again. And then again. And then tell us why he is moving his graveyard so specifically and deliberately IMMEDIATELY after a Rest in Peace resolves. I literally feel stupider every time I have to make this point, so I will not be posting about it in this thread again. The judge himself even said that if this highly relevant information was made known to him, his ruling would have been different. This means that Kent's attempts to cheat via lying through omission to the judge worked. And you are supporting such behavior in "pros." You're as bad as people who support PEDs in sports, as long as athletes don't get caught.
...Nope, we're done here. That was the single dumbest statement you have made thus far, and I can no longer take you seriously. You are making the claim that the DREDGE player moved his GRAVEYARD OFF CAMERA and that he could have gone on playing the rest of his game like that, rather than accept that he moved cards into exile. I literally don't know how to respond to that. How disconnected from reality would you have to be to believe that? We are done. Adding you to ignore list now.
You obviously don't care about the rules.
Half of your post is completely unecessairy.
If kent didn't acknowledge that he was moving his gy to exile and his opponent didn't acknowledge that is what he thought he was doing than for all extensive the gy was not exiled. Because no player recognized it.
That's the rules. Argue it all you want doesn't change the facts.
Wait, wait, wait. So you're telling me that someone on a level like Kent Ketter just moved his graveyard around, literally 1 second after an opponent played a Rest in Peace, for absolutely no reason? That there is no connection between a card hitting the table that triggers an action and him carrying out that exact action?
Are you sure you know what the word acknowledge means? What other possible other reason could he have for moving his graveyard so specifically and in such perfect timing to the card that had just been played?
Not even taking into account that he did not represent the actions that had happened on the table properly to the judge when confirming game state, he acknowledged the trigger and then reversed it. It was plain as day, on camera, and everybody saw it. It was unsportsmanlike, unethical, and he lost his job over it. I think that says more than the mistakes of one judge who was working on half information during a long a hectic weekend.
The problem: there are no defined zones Yes. You can argue his intent was to move it to exile. But that doesn't mean he did or that the cards actually made it to exile.
Many people are arguing he cheated because he exiled his gy and "took it back". Unfortunately because of no defined zones the "fact" that he exiled his cards is opinion.
Unless you are arguing him picking up his gy was him acknowledging the trigger itself, forcing him to respect the trigger and execute it.
But I feel like that would be a hard argument to make since competitive REL states that if a person misses a beneficial trigger that person's opponent decides whether to put it on the stack or not.
YES. That is exactly what I am arguing. Specifically and deliberately handling your graveyard 1 second after a card triggers you to handle your graveyard is an acknowledgement of the trigger. Just go back and watch the video again. And then again. And then again. And then tell us why he is moving his graveyard so specifically and deliberately IMMEDIATELY after a Rest in Peace resolves. I literally feel stupider every time I have to make this point, so I will not be posting about it in this thread again. The judge himself even said that if this highly relevant information was made known to him, his ruling would have been different. This means that Kent's attempts to cheat via lying through omission to the judge worked. And you are supporting such behavior in "pros." You're as bad as people who support PEDs in sports, as long as athletes don't get caught.
But that's the thing: your opponent must acknowledge the trigger. It is his responsibility. That is based on the current rules.
His opponent did not.
From the IPG definition of a missed trigger (IPG 2.1)
A Triggered ability triggers, but the player controlling the ability doesn't demonstrate awareness of the triggers' exsistance the first time it would affect the game in a visible fashion
In competitive REL the controller must acknowledge it or it's a missed trigger.
Based on the rules, Kent "acknowledging" the trigger doesn't matter. It's all about the controller.
The argument is whether or not Kent executed the trigger. Due to no defined zones it's a gray area.
Still scummy and leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth.
*EDIT*
I am aware that the judge would have ruled differently had he known the additional information. But that's not because Kent "acknowledged" the trigger.
A judge could argue that moving his graveyard was an attempt to execute the trigger which is different than acknowledgement.
Depending on the interaction between judge and player, that ruling theoretically could go either way.
A judge could also rule that Kent picked up his graveyard acknowledging the trigger, but never executed it because his opponent never put it on the stack.
(which would be 100% legal based on current rules).
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.
True. My point is just because Kent touched his graveyard and failed to tell the judge about it.... does not mean he was lying by omission.
What he did was a "gray" area in the magic rules. Technically not cheating... but not 100% legitimate either.
People who flirt with that line often end up putting their foot in their mouth at some point.
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
once again... this is a wikipedia definition. Not a IPG competitive REL definition.
Additionally a key component of that definition is
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.
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
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.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
There is no competitive REL rule that says there are defined zones.
You claim that he moved his GY to exile and that's relative information because it acknowledges a trigger taking place.
Nothing in the rules states that this is the case. As a result Kent could easily say "I did not think it was relative because there are no defined Zones. Picking up the GY and putting it back down is not an official acknowledgement of the trigger".
Now if a judge told him that WAS important information... and it happened again (and he omitted it) then that would be cheating.
But that didn't happen. So I implore the community to stop grasping at straws.
Additionally if he had also answered with "I picked up my cards because I thought my opponent was going to exile them. When he didn't, I returned them to maintain game-state" That would also be truthful and not cheating.
No one asked the questions though to prompt those type of responses. That's not Kent's fault either.
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
If that were true... why wasn't he DQed?
The judge was aware of the discrepancy before the event ended.
From what I read... the judge said he would rule differently had he known kent had picked up his cards.
That doesn't mean Kent was lying by omission. Those are two completely different situations unless you can prove Kent purposefully didn't mention he picked up his cards to get a ruling in his favor.
(and I don't think any judge was claiming he did).
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
Did you ask judges at the event whether Kent was lying by ommission?
Yes lying by ommission can get you DQed. But there is no substantial proof that this occoured besides one's opinion.
Because (I've stated this multiple times) there are no defined zones picking up your graveyard is not full-proof acknowledgement of the trigger.
Picking up the GY is ONLY significant if it's an acknowledgement of the trigger. And because there are no predefined zones... it is not.
TLDR: If Kent thought picking up his GY wasn't significant than it isn't since no rules say it's significant. Now if a judge had told him previously "picking up your gy is an acknowledgement of the trigger" then you'd be correct. But (I sound like a broken record at this point) that never happened.
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
You watch it again and you tell me why he moved his GY: https://youtu.be/RPwnclSzLgc?t=1m17s It takes 1 second for Kent to move his GY away after RIP hits the board. RIP lands at 1:24, the GY is moved at 1:25. At 1:27 (2 seconds later) he moves it back. A few seconds later (by about 1:31), Frank notices Kent's GY is still there. We don't have audio, but it was later explained that Kent said something along the lines of "missed trigger," despite acknowledging it with the movement of his GY (which lines up exactly with the timing and actions of the triggered ability). Kent then omits the fact that he moved his GY when talking to the judge, which would have been information directly relevant to the cards and zones in question with respect to the game state and acknowledgement of triggers.
He cheated, he lied, and he got away with it. I do not understand how someone would willingly defend such behavior.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
It's not pretty magic, and I agree that full information should have been shared and the GYs should have been gone. Just have a functional reprint of RIP that triggers end of every main phase and fix the freaking issue. The game is meant to be played across language and age barriers, the unsportsmanlike conduct like this is bad for the game.
Kents actions were legal, his information to the judge was sketch, the result rightfully left a sour taste in the community's mouth. Remember the pithing needle and borborygamos garbage at the 2015 Feb SCG open? Yeah the rules can't shore up everything but when they fall flat it can be quite hard to watch.
For what it's worth I'm in favor of the yards being wiped out. The card should have been printed differently imo.
This is better worded argument than I was making. And sums up 100% my feelings.
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
Show me in the rules where moving your graveyard is an acknowledgement of the trigger.
People keep insisting that he "acknowledged" the trigger by moving his graveyard. There is no rule in the IPG that you can cite that defends this.
The only way to defend this is to cite intention. Which is fair more difficult to say and typically can not be proven just from a single event.
What he did was scummy. No one is trying to argue otherwise. But within the realm of current rule structure.
I don't think he cheated. But I do think it was a scum move. People who do thinks like that are not good for the community.
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
I will say this again. There is no dedicated exile zone.
To quote one of the users above me
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
RGTron
UGInfect
URStorm
WUBRAd Nauseam
BRGrishoalbrand
URGScapeshift
WBGAbzan Company
WUBRGAmulet Titan
BRGLiving End
WGBogles
Hence why I have repeatedly said
And? The rules do not disallow this. You could put your GY anywhere on the table theoretically without breaking any rules.
That is the point. Technically speaking he could have left his cards where he moved them and it still wouldn't have been considered exiled as long as he maintained it as his gy.
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
You obviously don't care about the rules.
Half of your post is completely unecessairy.
If kent didn't acknowledge that he was moving his gy to exile and his opponent didn't acknowledge that is what he thought he was doing than for all extensive the gy was not exiled. Because no player recognized it.
That's the rules. Argue it all you want doesn't change the facts.
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
This is exactly how I feel. I personally could possibly have not announced the trigger for my opponent, but I never would move the card, trying to look like I was manually exiling it, and then put it back in so that the trigger was missed.
And the reason why I posted this was just to warn players potentially playing in an SCG Open or Grand Prix to be more wary of their opponents.
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)Wait, wait, wait. So you're telling me that someone on a level like Kent Ketter just moved his graveyard around, literally 1 second after an opponent played a Rest in Peace, for absolutely no reason? That there is no connection between a card hitting the table that triggers an action and him carrying out that exact action?
Are you sure you know what the word acknowledge means? What other possible other reason could he have for moving his graveyard so specifically and in such perfect timing to the card that had just been played?
Not even taking into account that he did not represent the actions that had happened on the table properly to the judge when confirming game state, he acknowledged the trigger and then reversed it. It was plain as day, on camera, and everybody saw it. It was unsportsmanlike, unethical, and he lost his job over it. I think that says more than the mistakes of one judge who was working on half information during a long a hectic weekend.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
The problem: there are no defined zones Yes. You can argue his intent was to move it to exile. But that doesn't mean he did or that the cards actually made it to exile.
Many people are arguing he cheated because he exiled his gy and "took it back". Unfortunately because of no defined zones the "fact" that he exiled his cards is opinion.
Unless you are arguing him picking up his gy was him acknowledging the trigger itself, forcing him to respect the trigger and execute it.
But I feel like that would be a hard argument to make since competitive REL states that if a person misses a beneficial trigger that person's opponent decides whether to put it on the stack or not.
Agreed. No one will dispute this. Although he lost his job because apparently people reported other incidents.
His actions where not unusual. Pro players and competitive players will do that all the time and it's "technically" not cheating.
There is a reason why people are supporting him at the higher levels.
My biggest complaint is how he handled the situation.
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
YES. That is exactly what I am arguing. Specifically and deliberately handling your graveyard 1 second after a card triggers you to handle your graveyard is an acknowledgement of the trigger. Just go back and watch the video again. And then again. And then again. And then tell us why he is moving his graveyard so specifically and deliberately IMMEDIATELY after a Rest in Peace resolves. I literally feel stupider every time I have to make this point, so I will not be posting about it in this thread again. The judge himself even said that if this highly relevant information was made known to him, his ruling would have been different. This means that Kent's attempts to cheat via lying through omission to the judge worked. And you are supporting such behavior in "pros." You're as bad as people who support PEDs in sports, as long as athletes don't get caught.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate
But that's the thing: your opponent must acknowledge the trigger. It is his responsibility. That is based on the current rules.
His opponent did not.
From the IPG definition of a missed trigger (IPG 2.1)
In competitive REL the controller must acknowledge it or it's a missed trigger.
Based on the rules, Kent "acknowledging" the trigger doesn't matter. It's all about the controller.
The argument is whether or not Kent executed the trigger. Due to no defined zones it's a gray area.
Still scummy and leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth.
*EDIT*
I am aware that the judge would have ruled differently had he known the additional information. But that's not because Kent "acknowledged" the trigger.
A judge could argue that moving his graveyard was an attempt to execute the trigger which is different than acknowledgement.
Depending on the interaction between judge and player, that ruling theoretically could go either way.
A judge could also rule that Kent picked up his graveyard acknowledging the trigger, but never executed it because his opponent never put it on the stack.
(which would be 100% legal based on current rules).
Twitter: twitter.com/axmanonline
Stream: twitch.tv/axman
Current Decks
Modern: Affinity
Standard: BW Control
Legacy: Death and Taxes :symw::symr:
Vintage: NA
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.
UR ....... WUBR ........... WB ............. RGW ........ UBR ....... WUB .... BGU
Spells / Blink & Combo / Token Grind / Dino Tribal / Draw Cards / Zombies / Reanimate