I think what really gets me is when a Judge is sarcastic or dismissive. It's like dealing with the real court system, which isn't fun at all. And when you refuse to examine your own possibility of bias...disturbing.
My point was that you were arguing an issue that wasn't relevant, and you weren't there. You were also arguing in an inflammatory manner rather than a constructive one. You chose to directly attack me, rather than discussing the decision.
The key issue is intent.
If you can assess intent of a 3rd party from an Internet forum post, you're a better man than I.
I still want to know if he would have been given a match loss if they had found the Checklist infraction at the same time as the 6x Archdruids. 2x Losses in one match could have been backbreaking in his quest for the win. 2x losses spread between 2x matches he ended up winning...not so much.
It also feels wrong that he was allowed to make his deck whole with 2x Mystics. Seems like they should have been forests.
No, he would have only received one game loss, not two, had we caught everything at the same time. The deck was fixed as per policy.
I don't expect judges to be experts on the metagame, but saying such an obviously false statement as "Archdruid can't drop until turn 3" in a deck which runs 1-drop mana creatures (as you acknowledge a couple sentences later) really does not make you look good.
In case you missed it, he was running archdruids in place of his 1-drop mana creatures.... That makes it hard to drop stuff 'till turn 3.
There have been a number of allegations made about the winner of the 7/27 Houston PTQ Theros. As the Head Judge at this event, I think it is important for me to make a few statements about what did (and did not ) happen. This will be my only statement on the issue, because arguing further seems futile.
First and foremost, the biggest complaint about the player in question is that he played too many copies of Elvish Archdruid. At one point, the player in question did have multiple Archdruids in play and revealed one for a +1 activation of Garruk. This much is true. After this point, the facts of what happened have already started to break down. There is some speculation from those not involved in the call that, at this point, the player tried to hide things. This is simply not true. What happened was that, a judge was called and upon comparison with the deck list, 6 copies of the archrduid were found where it was listed as a 4/4 split between Elvish Archdruids and Elvish Mystics. (NOT Avacyn's pilgrims, BTW, as white mana is useless in this mono-green deck.) Both players waited for the ruling, and nothing was hidden or shuffled away. The judge said that the current game was over (which was correct, since the penalty for a deck list problem is a GL) and THEN the players started to shuffle. The deck was also corrected at this point, so the rest of the event was played with a deck that was legal and matched the list.
As an aside... some would like to point out the significance of the Archdruids here, but I think that's overstated. Archdruid can't drop until turn 3. This deck likes to play turn a threat turn 2, like predator ooze. That can't happen without a 1-drop mana creature. This is not to say that Archdruids are not quality, and do not have an impact on the game--just that I think the particular significance is being overstated.
How did this happen? The player stated that he bought the deck in its entirety the day before. He sent his list to a store, got the cards and just sleeved it. Seems a bit of a stretch at first, but how many players have you heard had a friend hand them a deck? Further, I had an employee for the store in question on my staff. Talking with that employee, the question was raised of whether this is an understandable error. The answer is that the person who pulls cards has been known to be quite sloppy. Also, as a long-time judge in this area, I know the reputation of many of the regular players. I know from experience with this player that this is consistent with how he operates in getting decks at the last minute. So, as it happens, the answer is that yes--it is quite believable that this happened exactly as presented.
A second complaint about the player is that he had his deck in clear sleeves. These were not just penny sleeves, mind you--they were the nice ultra-pro or dragon shield sleeves. I've been a judge for a long time; I'm no stranger to marked cards or sleeves. Let me tell you: these cards were not marked in any way. Just about every deck in the room playing solid color sleeves looked much worse than these cards. In fact, I had several players who were very unhappy to receive game loss penalties because I could see their transform cards through their sleeves during the day--but I digress. The cards were not marked.
During the top 4 I picked up his SB to look through it. This was not for any particular reason. I tend to do this while waiting on top X matches; I'll grab a sideboard that's on the table and look at it. What I found surprised me: 17 cards. I looked more closely, and noticed 2 copies of Garruk and 2 checklist cards. OK, 17 makes sense; you can't play the Garruk in clear sleeves, so there are checklist cards. Then I looked at those checklist cards... and they had nothing marked. I really wish we had caught this at the same time we caught the other issue, but the fact is that we didn't. I saw no reason in this case to deviate from policy. I knew he had no other transform cards, I knew we had missed it earlier, and I still issued a game loss in the Top 4. Bam, go to game 3.
I've heard complaints of illegal blocks made by the same player during the day--Mutavault blocking Stromkirk Noble, for example. Yes, this was illegal. Mistakes happen, and this is an easy one to miss or forget when your deck doesn't (ostensibly) contain any humans. Guess what? The opponent didn't say anything and didn't call a judge when it happened, so obviously his opponents missed it too. I guess this came up in conversation later, because someone pointed it out and we (as judges) DID hear about it. A floor judge talked to the player, and we believe it to have been missed. Also, because we talked with him it wouldn't happen again--or, if it did, we knew he had been told--but we couldn't help until someone told a judge.
I've heard complaints, too, that he "always seemed to have his sideboard cards." Well, guess what? I watched him side as many as 8 in. When you side in 8 cards, you're going to draw at least a couple. In the final game, he drew 2 copies of Plummet. His opponent drew 2 Olivias. It was a perfect foil, but how did he know his opponent would have 2 copies of Olivia? If that had been 2 copies Huntmaster of the Fells instead, those 2 Plummets would have been dead draws.
At the end of the day, the player received 2 game losses during the day, with one of them during the Top 4. The player STILL managed to win through 9 rounds of swiss and the top 8. Did he do it with dumb errors? Yes. Did he do it with some "run good" ? Sure, but I'm not about to start disqualifying players simply because "they're running too hot" or because they do dumb things like not verifying their purchased decks. Those who know me, know that I won't hesitate to remove someone from my events. I had no cause to do so at this event, and we have a winner.
As a final note... I think it's shameful that, as a community, we don't report errors when they happen but instead wait to tear someone down when they're on top. If you are concerned about something happening at an event, report it immediately. If you're going to wait and complain on forums, expect to be treated the same way should you ever manage to climb to the top. After all, to make the top 8 at a 9 round PTQ, "you have really good luck, or you cheat."
My point was that you were arguing an issue that wasn't relevant, and you weren't there. You were also arguing in an inflammatory manner rather than a constructive one. You chose to directly attack me, rather than discussing the decision.
The key issue is intent.
If you can assess intent of a 3rd party from an Internet forum post, you're a better man than I.
Ok, ya got me. Your game knowledge is perfect, your forum skills are impeccable. Your credentials and abilities are clearly superior to mine.
Too bad you weren't there; your insights would have been invaluable.
No, he would have only received one game loss, not two, had we caught everything at the same time. The deck was fixed as per policy.
In case you missed it, he was running archdruids in place of his 1-drop mana creatures.... That makes it hard to drop stuff 'till turn 3.
First and foremost, the biggest complaint about the player in question is that he played too many copies of Elvish Archdruid. At one point, the player in question did have multiple Archdruids in play and revealed one for a +1 activation of Garruk. This much is true. After this point, the facts of what happened have already started to break down. There is some speculation from those not involved in the call that, at this point, the player tried to hide things. This is simply not true. What happened was that, a judge was called and upon comparison with the deck list, 6 copies of the archrduid were found where it was listed as a 4/4 split between Elvish Archdruids and Elvish Mystics. (NOT Avacyn's pilgrims, BTW, as white mana is useless in this mono-green deck.) Both players waited for the ruling, and nothing was hidden or shuffled away. The judge said that the current game was over (which was correct, since the penalty for a deck list problem is a GL) and THEN the players started to shuffle. The deck was also corrected at this point, so the rest of the event was played with a deck that was legal and matched the list.
As an aside... some would like to point out the significance of the Archdruids here, but I think that's overstated. Archdruid can't drop until turn 3. This deck likes to play turn a threat turn 2, like predator ooze. That can't happen without a 1-drop mana creature. This is not to say that Archdruids are not quality, and do not have an impact on the game--just that I think the particular significance is being overstated.
How did this happen? The player stated that he bought the deck in its entirety the day before. He sent his list to a store, got the cards and just sleeved it. Seems a bit of a stretch at first, but how many players have you heard had a friend hand them a deck? Further, I had an employee for the store in question on my staff. Talking with that employee, the question was raised of whether this is an understandable error. The answer is that the person who pulls cards has been known to be quite sloppy. Also, as a long-time judge in this area, I know the reputation of many of the regular players. I know from experience with this player that this is consistent with how he operates in getting decks at the last minute. So, as it happens, the answer is that yes--it is quite believable that this happened exactly as presented.
A second complaint about the player is that he had his deck in clear sleeves. These were not just penny sleeves, mind you--they were the nice ultra-pro or dragon shield sleeves. I've been a judge for a long time; I'm no stranger to marked cards or sleeves. Let me tell you: these cards were not marked in any way. Just about every deck in the room playing solid color sleeves looked much worse than these cards. In fact, I had several players who were very unhappy to receive game loss penalties because I could see their transform cards through their sleeves during the day--but I digress. The cards were not marked.
During the top 4 I picked up his SB to look through it. This was not for any particular reason. I tend to do this while waiting on top X matches; I'll grab a sideboard that's on the table and look at it. What I found surprised me: 17 cards. I looked more closely, and noticed 2 copies of Garruk and 2 checklist cards. OK, 17 makes sense; you can't play the Garruk in clear sleeves, so there are checklist cards. Then I looked at those checklist cards... and they had nothing marked. I really wish we had caught this at the same time we caught the other issue, but the fact is that we didn't. I saw no reason in this case to deviate from policy. I knew he had no other transform cards, I knew we had missed it earlier, and I still issued a game loss in the Top 4. Bam, go to game 3.
I've heard complaints of illegal blocks made by the same player during the day--Mutavault blocking Stromkirk Noble, for example. Yes, this was illegal. Mistakes happen, and this is an easy one to miss or forget when your deck doesn't (ostensibly) contain any humans. Guess what? The opponent didn't say anything and didn't call a judge when it happened, so obviously his opponents missed it too. I guess this came up in conversation later, because someone pointed it out and we (as judges) DID hear about it. A floor judge talked to the player, and we believe it to have been missed. Also, because we talked with him it wouldn't happen again--or, if it did, we knew he had been told--but we couldn't help until someone told a judge.
I've heard complaints, too, that he "always seemed to have his sideboard cards." Well, guess what? I watched him side as many as 8 in. When you side in 8 cards, you're going to draw at least a couple. In the final game, he drew 2 copies of Plummet. His opponent drew 2 Olivias. It was a perfect foil, but how did he know his opponent would have 2 copies of Olivia? If that had been 2 copies Huntmaster of the Fells instead, those 2 Plummets would have been dead draws.
At the end of the day, the player received 2 game losses during the day, with one of them during the Top 4. The player STILL managed to win through 9 rounds of swiss and the top 8. Did he do it with dumb errors? Yes. Did he do it with some "run good" ? Sure, but I'm not about to start disqualifying players simply because "they're running too hot" or because they do dumb things like not verifying their purchased decks. Those who know me, know that I won't hesitate to remove someone from my events. I had no cause to do so at this event, and we have a winner.
As a final note... I think it's shameful that, as a community, we don't report errors when they happen but instead wait to tear someone down when they're on top. If you are concerned about something happening at an event, report it immediately. If you're going to wait and complain on forums, expect to be treated the same way should you ever manage to climb to the top. After all, to make the top 8 at a 9 round PTQ, "you have really good luck, or you cheat."