Careful Consideration - You Are Not a Pretty Pretty Princess
We could do with thicker skins.
Whenever I go to events or hear stories or read tournament reports, I’m struck by how sensitive people are to perceived slights. I see people get bent out of shape over the smallest of etiquette breaches, even when they aren’t really breaches at all, and far more drama is manufactured than is necessary.
There are a lot of great people who play the game, and overall I think Magic players get a bad rap for being socially awkward, but there is a grain of truth to the outsiders’ perception of said awkwardness. Basic rules of etiquette and human decency sometimes get lost in a sea of “unwritten rules,” and it’s necessary to take a step back from time to time and examine your behavior towards another human being who is, at the core of it all, playing the same game that you both love.
Let’s look at some situations where I think people have been far too sensitive.
He was not social at the table!
Magic’s a pretty tough game, and different people approach the game differently. Just because someone’s not chatty or engaging in small talk doesn’t mean they’re a bad person, nor does it necessarily indicate what their demeanor will be away from the table. I’m not talking about people who are abrasive or abusive, but people who are just not particularly social.
Some people take this personally and think that that person is generally just a “douchebag” or an “asshole,” and don’t want to go to parties with that person and have developed a dislike towards them. I have a couple of friends who are great, funny, socially awesome people whom I enjoy hanging around with, but if I’m matched against them at a PTQ, their presence suggests they want me to lose in fiery, horrific fashion that shatters my very soul. That’s fine.
Someone’s table demeanor does not necessarily translate to their real life persona. Just because they wouldn’t laugh at your jokes doesn’t mean that they hate you. Often, they just focus on what matters.
Now if that persona continues over to his off-table interactions, you have a case. Then it’s a case of the “real life” persona carrying over to his table demeanor. To be fair, I’ve never encountered anyone who was a jerk away from the table but was really nice when in front of you, but that distinction really should go only one way.
Princesses:
He was a stickler for the rules!
This really only applies to Competitive Rules Enforcement Level (REL) events. At an FNM or store draft, things are a little different. But when there’s a plane ticket, or money, or byes to a Grand Prix at stake, then you and your opponent have every right to stick to the rules.
I’ve had people get upset with me because I wouldn’t allow takebacks. If I attack with a bunch of creatures and you block with a Mogg Fanatic, then put your Mogg Fanatic in the graveyard and write down the damage you took from my creatures, then you cannot go back and say “wait, I meant to sacrifice the Mogg Fanatic at you.” Yes, you probably did, but you didn’t. I’m all for keeping things friendly, but it’s a PTQ. Suck it up.
An example of this came up between two friends of mine in a Cruise qualifier, a competitive level event with a $300 prize (entry to the Magic Cruise) at stake. The event was unsanctioned, but announced to be enforced at the Competitive REL.
Player A attacks with Boggart-Ram Gang.
Player B flashes in Plumeveil.
Player A plays Deathmark on the Plumeveil before blockers.
Player B puts the Plumeveil in the graveyard and takes three points of damage.
Player A passes the turn.
Player B (we’ll call him “Bob”) during his turn realizes that Deathmark is a sorcery, so the Plumeveil should not have died during the combat phase. Bob calls a judge, the judge determines that the situation is reversible. Player A (hereafter known as “Alfred”) says that this isn’t how the rules should be applied, that the turn has passed, and both players should get a warning, but the game state should stand. Alfred appeals to the head judge, and the Plumeveil ultimately ends up in the graveyard.
Alfred and Bob are very good friends with each other, and Alfred almost certainly did not cheat (he’s well-established as an honest player), but both were guilty of sloppy play. Bob felt that Alfred’s conduct to try to get the edge once the mistake was made was uncalled for because they were friends.
Bollocks.
There’s a multi-hundred dollar prize at stake here. You play to win, and you are free to take any legal edge you can. If Bob thought that Alfred had intentionally cheated by trying to sneak the Deathmark by him, that would be one thing, but that wasn’t the case. Bob never thought Alfred was trying to cheat, but that they were both guilty of sloppy play.
I don’t care if you’re my friend or not. I’m not going to allow a takeback at a competitive level event, even if you’re my best friend. I wouldn’t even allow that sort of thing if I were playing against my own wife. (Her response to this discussion: “It’s a PTQ! No takebacks! Not even with my own husband!” I married well.) And I expect my friends to treat me the same way. I want a takeback? Too bad. It’s nothing personal, and I won’t take it personally.
Princesses:
He tried to get a mental edge!
This one you don’t see very often, but I have seen it from time to time, and it can really get people upset.
The best example I can think of is from Noah Weil’s tournament report from Grand Prix: Seattle, particularly round 14 against Stan Bessey. Noah felt that Stan was a little too comfortable and also felt he was playing a little slow, so he called a judge to watch for slow play, killing two birds with one stone. Noah’s demeanor was intentionally to get Stan out of his comfort level, which elicited a pretty harsh response from Stan in his podcast the next week, calling him a “douchebag,” a “jackass”, and a “jerk,” and doing so in a very public way (for what it’s worth, the podcast was recorded before Noah’s article went up).
Both players had a shot at top eight for the Grand Prix at this point. So trying to get a mental edge seems like fair game to me. I like Stan an awful lot and I was very happy to see him succeed in Seattle (and make day two in Austin), but his reaction to a judge call was a little out of line my opinion. At the very least, it was quite princess-like.
Trying to get a mental edge is part of the game, and I don’t think it is in any way uncalled for or bush league.
One of my very favorite mental edge stories comes from a Cruise Qualifier last year. Bill Stark was playing in top eight and his opponent was complaining that he hadn’t eaten for hours and was quite hungry. Some of Bill’s friends had brought him a cheeseburger and fries, and Bill took the opportunity to try to get an edge. He ate the fries quickly, but instead of eating the cheeseburger (the original plan), he decided to just leave it in front of his opponent, opening the wrapper and letting the delicious cheeseburger aroma waft over to the guy who was complaining about starving.
It’s just part of the game. Is it really uncalled for or above and beyond the bounds of sportsmanship to show your opponent a delicious cheeseburger? That’s brilliant!
There are boundaries, of course. Anything personal is off-limits. If you find out that your opponent’s child is sick or something, you don’t go after that. Don’t make fun of their stutter or religion, either (both of which I’ve seen).
Princesses:
He took advantage of my lack of knowledge!
If you walk into a PTQ without the knowledge of the rules and someone gets you on a rules interaction, it’s not their fault. When Demigod of Revenge was first seeing play, I was able to power through a few Cryptic Commands because they didn’t understand the interaction with the Demigod trigger.
“Demigod of Revenge. Pass priority to you.”
“Cryptic Command, counter and draw a card.”
“Okay, Demigod goes to the graveyard. Pass priority to you.”
“Um, okay.”
“Demigod comes into play.”
“Wait, what?”
“We should call a judge, because this is kind of confusing.”
I chose my words carefully and said things in such a manner that whenever a judge was called in these situations, they would rule in my favor. There was no ambiguity as to whether or not I passed priority, and the judges always snap-ruled in my favor as a result.
A more iffy, but still completely legal rules interaction also features Bill Stark, who describes the situation this way (taken from thestarkingtonpost.com with permission):
“Here was the situation: my opponent, Sam Tian, and I were mired in a Zoo mirror match. The winner would get to double draw into the Top 8, and we were deep into the third game. Sam’s Domain Zoo was behind to my Ranger Zoo/Naya build when time was called. He was at just 1 life when I untapped for my final of five turns. Unfortunately for me, Sam had had just enough removal to kill all of my attackers on his turn. Sam couldn’t win, but as I cracked a sac land to maximize my draw step, I mentally calculated a small number of outs. I needed to hit any of the remaining burn spells in my deck in the form of a singleton Keldon Marauders, or a combination of Seal of Fire and Lightning Helixes (though I had already used some of them up over the course of the game).
What happened instead, as the crowd pressed in and I carefully peeled the last card from the top of my deck, was me drawing Ranger of Eos. For a split second my heart sank at the realization that I was about to get a draw where I felt I should have gotten a win had we had infinite time to finish our match, particularly considering my Ranger topdeck. For a second I considered playing Ranger, tutoring up two Wild Nacatls, then asking my opponent to concede to me as I was going to kill him if we had just one more turn.
Instead, I realized I had another plan. I could play Ranger, point out the Mogg Fanatics I had in my graveyard, and say something to the effect of “I play Mogg Fanatics, you’re at 1.” It would be a stone cold bluff as my list had only two Mogg Fanatics in it (the two in my graveyard) and all my opponent would need to do was say “Okay, show me” to earn a draw. At that point, I’d still be left with my original plan (try to earn a guilted concession which my opponent was under no obligation to provide and which I, in the same position, would not grant) but would have taken the opportunity to improve my lot in life with an additional grab at victory. In the course of a few seconds after drawing, that’s what I decided to do, confidently dropping the 3/2 on the board, pointing out a Fanatic in my graveyard and indicating my ability to tutor up another for the win. My opponent bit, opting to concede rather than force me to go through the motions, and I was able to double draw into the Top 8.”
Note the wording here. He didn’t misrepresent anything. He simply said, “I play Mogg Fanatics, you’re at 1.” Both statements are true, and his opponent should have taken the extra ten seconds to make Bill confirm that he had Mogg Fanatic in his deck. Bill pulled a win out of an unwinnable situation with a great bluff, and did so without breaking any of the rules. Had he said something like, “I’m going to get Mogg Fanatic and kill you,” maybe there might have been a grey area. But Bill’s knowledge of what he could and could not say, and also knowledge of how to say it while being legal and misleading, won him a match that would have otherwise been a draw.
If you don’t know the rules, don’t be surprised if you get taken down by the sharks.
(And if you aren’t sure about anything, call a judge. Don’t trust your opponent. Ever. That’s what judges are here for.)
At a casual competitive level, it’s totally different. I wouldn’t try to do any of these things at my local FNM, but rather explaining to my opponent why a Demigod trigger resolves or doesn’t, and using it as an opportunity to teach something new. But when it’s the PTQ level? It’s cutthroat, baby.
Princesses:
He cheated!
So your opponent cheated during your match, and because of an incorrect judge call or a judge being unable to prove intent, they get away with it. Maybe they drew an extra card and put it in their hand, then put it back on top of their library and blatantly lied about not drawing the card. There are situations where your opponent definitely cheated, you know they cheated, they know you know they cheated, and bad blood happens.
In those cases, those cheaters should be set on fire. All cheaters should be set on fire. Ban them, burn them at the stake, banish them to Siberia, whatever it takes to get them out of Magic. They have no place in the game.
You have a problem with a cheater? Good. You should. Everyone should.
Princesses:
Why, you’re not a princess at all!
He wouldn’t scoop!
I can understand this one, and it’s hard to fight off the visceral reaction when you get paired down and you have a shot at top eight, and your opponent for whatever reason wants to play it out. Maybe they want rating points, or maybe they just want better prizes. Since you can’t offer to give prizes in exchange for a concession, the best you can do is try to convince them that they will get good karma.
(Some people nudge nudge wink wink suggest that if they get a concession, they will get prizes in a roundabout way by saying things like, “I’m a nice guy,” or “I can’t make any promises, but good things happen to those in your position.” I’m pretty sure this is illegal.)
Sometimes they’re dreamcrushing because they want to get a friend into top 8 (which I’ve done in the past). Sometimes they’re dreamcrushing because they’re mad at their girlfriend and want to take it out on their opponents (I saw this happen once at a PTQ). Sometimes they want prizes. Whatever the reason, they won’t concede.
If you’re in that position, it’s unfortunate, but you aren’t owed anything. You aren’t entitled to that top eight slot, and you can still get it by winning your match. And if they scoop to you to get into top eight, then another guy doesn’t get in. Why are you more entitled to that slot than they are?
(And having been in the position where I would get into top 8 unless the guy getting paired down is scooped in, I’ve felt that pain, too. Why can’t I be entitled?)
It happens, but there’s no need to vow everlasting revenge, or to “take down his name” or some such.
Something kind of similar happened at a tournament I played in. It was the last round against a friend, and he and I discussed a prize split. The winner got prizes, the loser did not, and the prizes were substantial (worth $100 or more at the very least). We were trying to work out a split and we had a judge nearby just to make sure everything was legit, and the judge asked us to start playing or make an agreement. So we agreed to start playing, and we’d discuss things later.
We had a very, very long, drawn out game that was back and forth and took up 45 minutes or so, and it was unclear to either player who would win. He won, and we never finished game two, and that was the match to him. I was pretty upset because he ended up taking all the prizes even though we only started playing because the judge told us to.
Well, we didn’t have an agreement, so he won the match and got the prizes. But somehow I was still upset for some reason, as if I was entitled to a portion of the prizes. If we didn’t agree to a prize split, then we didn’t agree, and my getting upset about the situation was not really appropriate.
I was fitted for a nice sparkly dress and my tiara was beautiful.
Princesses:
Well, my prize split drama isn’t one princess. It’s a solid four.
OMG, a netdeck!
This happened to me once at City Champs. The winner of City Champs finals could bypass Regionals and get an invitation to Nationals, and the way you qualified for the finals was through feeder tournaments at smaller stores. This was shortly after Worlds 2008 when Chapin’s Dragonstorm deck had gone to the finals, and it looked like a fun deck to play.
My first round opponent was caught off guard and was unprepared for the potent combo deck, and he was dispatched fairly quickly. After the match, he started complaining to me about how I had no creativity and that I shouldn’t be playing a netdeck because it’s dishonorable. Making things worse, several other people at the shop chimed in, and I was getting yelled at for playing a netdeck.
I didn’t go back to that store again, but I did make the City Champs finals tournament via another store. In that tournament I saw the guy who started the whole whining about the netdeck thing. What was he playing?
…a deck he got off the Internet.
To paraphrase Oprah Winfrey, “You get a tiara! You get a tiara! You get a tiara! You get a tiara!”
I couldn’t go below ten on this one.
Princesses:
Special Handshake Session
Perhaps no other simple interaction has resulted in more hurt feelings, drama, and Princess-dom than the handshake. Extending the hand is a nice custom, it shows some good will, and it’s something we’ve been doing since Little League. You spend 50 minutes trying to smash your face in, but at the end of the day, it’s a game and a handshake shows good sportsmanship.
He won, then initiated the handshake!
This seems to be a bit of a regional thing. I’ve heard from people who have moved to the Northwest from the Midwest that the loser should always initiate the handshake. If the winner initiates the handshake, then it’s rubbing it in that they won.
How fragile. When the match is over, I don’t care or notice who initiated the handshake. It’s like two girls (or princesses, if you will) showing up at a party and agonizing over the protocol over what it means if one says hello to the other and IT’S A FREAKING HANDSHAKE FOR CRYING OUT LOUD THIS ISN’T THE PROTOCOL FOR THE ROMAN ARMY.
Ahem. Sorry.
We’re in “basic human decency” territory here. If someone extends a hand in good sportsmanship, it’s very rude to turn it down, but people have the smallest tolerance for perceived slights.
But I was manascrewed!
There was a bit of a hullabaloo in the forums of a Kyle Sanchez article last week. In the Last Chance Qualifier for Pro Tour: Austin, Kyle wrote that he was manascrewed and his opponent did lethal damage, then extended the hand. Because apparently handshake protocol is so specific that things should be gathered up before the hand is to be extended, and the loser should initiate the handshake, Kyle decided he would turn down the shake.
His opponent called him a name of sorts, and Kyle turned around and yelled at him.
In the forums, he defended his behavior by saying, “I turn around and explain vulgarly why your[sic] not supposed to shove your hand in the face of someone that just lost to screwed situations.”
Magic is a game with variance, and there are going to be times when you get screwed. It happens. Stop getting upset over it. Yes, it sucks to be stuck on two lands and not be able to play the cards in your hand, but it’s not your opponent’s fault. Does a handshake need to meet some sort of mood requirement pre-test?
I can understand being annoyed if the opponent is a little zealous in shaking the hand. There can be personal space issues which are violated, and that’s a legitimate concern/reason to be taken aback in the heat of the moment, but because you were screwed in the game?
Princess, did you draw enough land? Princess, were you able to cast your spells? Princess, did you mulligan?
It’s a freaking handshake. Just shake the hand and put down the sparkly wand.
(And if they turn down my handshake, oh well. I’m certainly not going to call after them and call them names. Pink dresses everywhere.)
Princesses:
He was a douchebag!
In the semifinals of Grand Prix: Tampa, Conley Woods was playing against John May (see the 5:55 mark of the video) and played a Mold Shambler with kicker, initially tapped one mana source too few, then shortly after tapped the forest to kick the Shambler and pointed at May’s Island to blow it up.
May called a judge to see if he could get a ruling on that, perhaps trying to get a judge to rule that Conley didn’t kick the Shambler. The judge quickly ruled by intent and let the Shambler be kicked. To me, this is fine; May was trying to get an edge. It was the top four of a Grand Prix, so the stakes are quite high. And Conley said he didn’t care about the judge call, either.
But according to Conley, May said afterwards, “You need to own up to your own mistakes and you should be punished for playing badly.”
So Conley proceeded to win the game and the match, and after the match, John extended the hand and Conley said, “No thanks.”
Conley’s reasoning was this:
“The shake implies good game, good sportsmanship, friendly competition. Once he made that remark, that all went out the window. I wasn’t having it.”
That’s a fair point. I don’t think a “good game” is necessary, but the handshake definitely implies good sportsmanship and friendly competition, and if the guy is making insults like that, well…it’s justifiable. I wouldn’t turn down the handshake personally after that, but I don’t fault Conley for doing so.
Princesses:
Of course, this is all in my opinion. There’s no etiquette book in Magic, and I expect there to be some disagreement over my opinions. But my wife often has observed that the drama that plays out over etiquette slights reminds her of when she went to an all-girls private school, where catty teenage drama played out every day over silly, insignificant things. That’s not a good comparison. Magic players could use a little social adjustment and be a little more thick-skinned.
At the end of the day, I think a good barometer is intent. Did I intend to slight you when I won the game and initiated the handshake? Was it my intent to do you personal harm if I don’t scoop you into the top eight of a PTQ? If you think the answer is “yes,” then there’s solid ground to be miffed. But if someone’s just clueless or they don’t subscribe to the same exacting rules of etiquette you do, is it really worth getting worked up over?
Yours sparklingly (with unicorns!),
-Zaiem
zaiemb at gmail dot com
zbeg on twitter
(Princess illustration by Frits Ahlefeldt-Laurvig under Creative Commons license.)
It’s pretty ironic the dichotomy of the two articles on Channelfireball. I read Brad Nelson’s article about the people and fun times he’s had playing live magic and thought, “hmm, maybe I should try finding a store and playing paper magic again for the first time since Mirrodin.” And then I read this one and say “yea, people are too shady to play without the rules being automatically enforced on MTGO.”
Comment by Joe — October 29, 2009 @ 9:35 pm
Completely agree with you, especially about the not deserving a scoop into T8.
Comment by Owen — October 29, 2009 @ 9:39 pm
In my opinion, “wah, why won’t you scoop to me?” deserves a few dozen princesses, because it shows that oh-so-princessish sense of entitlement. But others will disagree — we each have our own pet peeves. Cute article!
Comment by Ed — October 29, 2009 @ 9:44 pm
Ah yes, the Noah Weil incident. After reading his tournament report I found him to be quite a nice fellow. You see, I wasn’t mad about him calling a judge… it was the fact that he called a judge on me for slow play when he was the one playing slowly! I couldn’t wrap my poor little mind around why he might be doing that and went on tilt (which is what he wanted). Fortunately, I still won and now get it! XD
Comment by Stan Bessey — October 29, 2009 @ 9:44 pm
Everyone should be required to read this article before they start playing. I had one match where I mulled to five one game and then mulled to six and got mana screwed the next. At the end of the match I extended the hand and said good game like I always do. My opponent’s expression as he shook my hand was one of shock. He couldn’t understand why I wasn’t complaining loudly about my bad luck. I consider it common curtesy to shake hands and say good game after a game in all but the most extreme of circumstances. All of the crazy etiquette around handshakes drives me nuts, too. It’s hardly rubbing a loss in for the winner to extend the hand and say good game.
Comment by Phoenix — October 29, 2009 @ 9:52 pm
Conley did fuck up though, and should own up to it, I mean “intent” is pretty weak and you can tap extra mana to play your spells(usually to trick force spike effects but whatever)
Comment by Josh — October 29, 2009 @ 10:05 pm
I am not ok with the ‘call a judge to get an edge’. I have a friend of mine who does it all the time, and its clearly a way to get an edge and not a normal need for rulings/behavior.
I like Bill Stark but I think that showing that cheeseburger was an unsportsmanship conduct too.
Comment by Kenseiden — October 29, 2009 @ 10:10 pm
Josh, you do realize that Conely actually tapped the forest and it just spun all the way around again because of the slick sleeves on the surface of the table, right? Even if he didn’t, the ruling was completly correct for the situation. Pointing at the island is just as good as saying “with kicker” in as far as it shows his INTENT to play the molder shambler with kicker.
Comment by Phoenix — October 29, 2009 @ 10:13 pm
it def didn’t spin, it didn’t move at all, he missed it completely in the video
watch the video
Comment by Josh — October 29, 2009 @ 10:34 pm
@Josh
106.4a If a player passes priority while there is mana in his or her mana pool, that player announces what mana is there. If any mana remains in a player’s mana pool after he or she spends mana to pay a cost, that player announces what mana is still there.
You certainly can overtap to play around Force Spike… so long as you announce it. One more tactic done in by changes to the rules!
Comment by Seeker — October 29, 2009 @ 10:57 pm
Regarding cheeseburger shenanigans-
Most events I’ve been to ask that you remove any food & beverages from table/playing areas. Call a judge on someone who does.
Comment by sexxymonkey6669 — October 29, 2009 @ 11:03 pm
“Conley did fuck up though, and should own up to it, I mean “intent” is pretty weak and you can tap extra mana to play your spells(usually to trick force spike effects but whatever)”
With the M10 rules update, you’re required to announce any floating mana in your pool when you pass priority.
Even without this, just pointing at the target Island is a shortcut for saying “I’m playing it with kicker”.
Comment by Phil Y — October 29, 2009 @ 11:03 pm
Hey nice article buddy! And I agree with Phoenix, everyone should read this before playing. Hopefully that will keep princesses from getting their panties in a wad. :B
Comment by Cole Abernathy — October 29, 2009 @ 11:12 pm
Great article. So funny!
Comment by Aaron — October 29, 2009 @ 11:12 pm
Nice article. I agree with all of them except “He tried to get a mental edge!”
I have zero desire to play competitive magic when playing against people who try gamemanship like that. In fact, I have negative desire, because it means that I actively don’t want to play any magic at all, not just sanctioned tournaments. Having extremely negative experiences with ‘mental edgers’ has meant that I can’t be bothered playing nationals for the last five years even though I’m qualified on rating.
Like with any competitive sport, it’s up to the players to play to win and it’s up to the organisers (the DCI) to create and enforce a set of rules that make the game as attractive as possible to the fans (revenue source). I think that the DCI should be doing everything they can to stomp on ’sledging’ type behaviours, the same way cricket has.
Comment by merl — October 29, 2009 @ 11:44 pm
While I agree most of this is part of the game, I can’t help but compare this to profession Soccer players and the way they leap the to floor, covering their heads, any time they slightly get tapped.
It’s to try and get an advantage and it looks completely rotten and genuinely gives me a sick feeling when people try and weasel their way to a win.
The statements regarding the rules are fine. If you pass your turn and forgot something then you really need to check up on what you are doing because it’s not FNM. No problem there.
I’m glad Conley won that match and I support his ‘No thanks’ to the handshake. It’s not like John deserved a shake after that, nor is it mandatory so it’s a bit ridiculous to see him so bitter in his interview.
John, you lost and probably still would have if you had your island anyway. Suck it up.
Comment by Alex — October 30, 2009 @ 1:15 am
Hi,
In that book of hand shake step-by-step, because it’s a long list, people fail to read the last one. The highest break of ettiquette is to refuse an arm shake.
We have a saying in my country, ‘Not even the king refuses an extended arm’.
The arm shake is a two ways gesture, it is a form of respect towards one-self.
Presuming the other failed, and initiated the shake, by not accepting, you make a much worse gesture.
If I would exagerate to underline, the equivalent would be to take the hand and apply a judo procedure to propell the ‘enemy’ through something. In medieval age, this would be reason for duel to death.
However, there is a very elegant way out of it. It’s called the king shake. Politicians apply it a lot. When the hand is extended, stand up, grab the hand, watch the other in the eyes, smile, and grab his hand with the left one too. Like the king would do with a loyal subject.
The psichological effect could be read on the face (that is why you look in the eyes).
In the worse case scenario, you get respect.
If you reply disrespect with more disrespect, there is no difference between you and the ‘offender’.
Respect!
Comment by Tiberiu — October 30, 2009 @ 1:23 am
I have a question about the “He took advantage of my lack of knowledge!” part.
In the example, what it comes down to is making the opponent show or not show his final play. Though there are other things that fitunder this headline (like maybe the chapin “fear on all my legal targets”-thing), that particular situation is really blackish on the grayscale in my opinion. That’s not to say that it is wrong, just that it is not what the Most Honorable Player would do. Here is why: To avoid any such situations, it would be easy to just have a policy of always making my opponent show his play, and making sure I understand it. Be it fetching a goblin or going off on a crazy elf combo with a million tokens.
now, In the one goblin situation it doesnt take much extra time, but when it is pretty obvious that a combo has been successful, and it would take 20 minutes to do it by the book (and making sure I understand it, re-count tokens etc.), I’m sure many would feel that it would actually be right to NOT have this rigid policy and just concede. It would be the nice thing to do. That is why I think it is on the grayscale and not simply a matter of abiding the rules or not. It´s like when you skip through your whole turn without going through each phase and passing priority, and many other situations. So that particula play is shady because there are also unspoken rules about speeding up the game and giving credit to your opponent. That particular play takes some of the trust away, and the only answer to it is a rigid policy that will make the game less practical and enjoyable.
so, what do you think about this? Should everyone have such a policy or not? If yes, then that’s fine. But Keep in mind that it means that you always have to show your play, no matter how long it will take. If there is a point in giving your opponent any cred at all for being trustworthy about his plays, sparing him some time, such a rule wouldn’t be what you´d want.
Just one more thing, I don’t think it is a matter of degree between my opponent fetching a goblin or going off on a combo that takes 20 minutes to complete. Either it is right for me to have a policy to always make my opponent show their plays, or it is not, because its a question of whether to trust people at all. I think that is why I dislike it, it is a play that is based on the trust that nice magic players keep up, and that not-so-nice players pray on. Its not wrong, but it is not completely honorable either.
Comment by xtra — October 30, 2009 @ 2:21 am
@Joe: Don’t get me wrong. I’ve only highlighted some corner cases, and people are for the most part generally pretty amiable. But when there’s an incident over a handshake or a slight of some sort, it tends to blow up (look at the comments of Conley’s article; there are a few dozen debating the handshake thing at Grand Prix: Tampa). If I had a choice of never playing paper Magic again but having access to Magic: Online, or never playing Magic Online: again but being able to play paper Magic, I’d play paper Magic in a heartbeat.
I love the interaction with people, I love the social aspect of it, and I’ve met some really great people who have become fast friends. MODO is a great tool and I enjoy the game, but it’s nothing like playing paper Magic in my opinion.
Don’t let my examples of bad behavior dissuade you.
@Stan: Fair enough.
Are you sure though that he was calling a judge *on you* to watch for slow play, or was he calling a judge to watch for slow play? I’ve called a judge to watch for slow play before when my intent was to watch *myself* for slow play, and I know of others who have done the same thing as well. Although all that said, yeah…he probably was trying to put you on tilt. 
@Kenseiden: I guess it depends on where you draw the line between gamesmanship and unsportsmanlike behavior. To me, Bill didn’t do anything personally against the guy. He didn’t even say anything. He just displayed a cheeseburger. I don’t think it’s the player’s responsibility to ensure their opponents are well-fed, or are enjoying the correct room temperature, or appreciating the Fung Shui of their deckbox. And if their mindset is so delicate as to be upset by something like a cheeseburger, is it really Bill Stark’s fault that his opponent:
1. Didn’t bring snacks to eat or find time to eat during the day, and
2. Complained enough about being hungry that Bill would have any inkling at all that his opponent didn’t have protection from cheeseburgers?
I know that if something’s bothering me (and there ARE things that people could do to distract me, which I will never ever admit to anyone in any public or private setting ever), I would make sure to make every effort that my opponent had no idea, lest I be similarly victimized by a delicious meal.
@merl: I’m not familiar with the concept of “sledging” (having little familiarity with cricket). Can you explain?
@xtra: It was at the end of a 50 minute match plus five turns. It’s pretty reasonable to have the player make the opponent take an extra ten seconds to show the Mogg Fanatic in the deck.
I don’t think a system of shortcutting and agreeing to do what you say you will do should be binding. There are two reasons for this:
1. I rather like this element of bluffing, where you can lie about what’s in your deck (which is legal) and try to get your opponent to play around cards you don’t have access to. When UR Dragonstorm was around in Standard, you could lose if you drew all your dragons. So people would sometimes side out their dragons and then “go off”, storming for four, and the opponent would say, “Show me you have no dragons in your hand,” and they would show the dragonless hand, and then the opponent would concede. All the opponent would have to do instead is make them take a little longer to go off.
In Extended season a couple of years ago, I got at least two free wins that way when playing Enduring Ideal combo. There were two Dovescapes in the deck, and if you drew them, you really couldn’t go off. So a couple of times when I drew them, I would say, “You know the combo works. The combo of Solitary Confinement, then Dovescape, then Form of the Dragon would lock you out and eventually dome you to death. Do you really need me to go through the motions?” and they would concede, not realizing or knowing I had no way to actually combo out. The smart ones would say, “Okay, go off then,” and I’d be sunk. It’s a very easy thing to thwart.
2. While there is value in conceding if you think they can go off in order to save time, but if it’s in top eight or in game three, then make them do it! Even if they say they can go off and they think they can, people screw up. They mistap their lands or play the wrong land or forget a Nettle Sentinel trigger or play a bunch of elves and then pass the turn with a lethal attack on board, only to forget to pay for Summoner’s Pact. Or any number of things that could go wrong. There’s a vast, vast chasm between SAYING you’re going to go off and actually going off, even if the intentions of everyone are true and honorable. Sometimes people screw up playing their own decks. I’ve gotten multiple free wins off combo decks where they’ve fizzled by misplaying, which I wouldn’t have gotten if I just conceded the second they looked to be going off.
Comment by Zaiem — October 30, 2009 @ 3:00 am
Anyone who doesn’t agree with the things in this article should probably read Dave Sirlin’s Playing to Win articles: http://www.sirlin.net/ptw/
Comment by Daniel — October 30, 2009 @ 3:42 am
Acting as if you’re entitled to a handshake after playing like a donkey and winning anyway because of bad beats is worthy of many more princess points than refusing said handshake.
Comment by Zulo — October 30, 2009 @ 3:47 am
I agree to almost every point. I got an example of my own:
I was playing the combo elves deck yhe previous extended season and I was paired to a goblin deck. First game I won by going off the combo, but the second game he got me cause of Goblin Sharpshooter. I sided in a couple of Umezawa Jittes and drew for the third game a slacky hand wiyh just a creature and a Jitte. I won the game by just bashing for 1, adding counters on the Jitte and killing with it every single goblin who came out.
I then extended my hand after he scooped up, he smirked and said: “I’m not handshaking with you” and then he left. I was quite shocked. I know Jitte is good against, but as is his Sharpshooter against me. I played by the rules, my deck was better but that shouldn’t be a decider in whether I respect my opponent or not. My opinion.
Comment by Scalpelexis — October 30, 2009 @ 4:41 am
“Demigod of Revenge. Pass priority to you.”
“Cryptic Command, counter and draw a card.”
“Okay, Demigod goes to the graveyard. Pass priority to you.”
“Um, okay.”
“Demigod comes into play.”
“Wait, what?”
“We should call a judge, because this is kind of confusing.”
The effect on the demigod is not a may trigger that he missed. The game had not progressed to a point that couldnt be backed up to and to me it seems as though he didnt miss anything and you actually somehow convinced a judge to agree with you even though you were mostly, if not completely, in the wrong on this. i agree with everything else in the article but this example seems like rules lawyering in the worst degree. im all for playing by the rules and holding people accountable for making mistakes, but it just seems like he didnt make any.
Comment by jj — October 30, 2009 @ 4:50 am
The handshake bothers me a whole lot less than the phrase ‘Good game’. If I shake someone’s hand, that pretty much just says that I’m cool with them. If they won off my being super mana screwed or similar, that wouldn’t mean that I would have any problem with shaking someone’s hand. If my opponent is being a douchebag to the point that I’m not cool with them, then I won’t shake their hand.
If someone says good game, when clearly the game was not good, then I am more likely to get shirty, most likely pointing out if I disagree on that point. I will pretty much only say ‘good game’ if I genuinely believe it to be the case, and even then will probably try to say something a little more specific.
Another area that I’ve seen wind people up a little, is about the wishing of good luck on opponents. There are those who get a little cheesed if, upon wishing me good luck, I do not reciprocate. I’ll always be polite, but in all honesty, in a tournament setting, I would like to win.
TW
Comment by TWilloughby — October 30, 2009 @ 4:54 am
“the turn has passed, and both players should get a warning, but the game state should stand”
Er, what? Assuming it’s Bob’s first main phase, a turn _cycle_ hasn’t passed yet, which is all that matters. The Head Judge was obviously a friend of Alfred’s. There is nothing even remotely resembling a “takeback” here, Alfred played out-of-turn and the game should be rewinded. “says that this isn’t how the rules should be applied,” now THAT’S bullshit. It’s like the guy who refuses to accept “bolt your Ajani” then takes the judge who came to explain aside and tells him telling his opponent how planeswalkers work would be strategic advice so the judge should STFU. /rant
For some reason, choosing a winner randomly (like with, say, dice) is illegal, but deals are really not. Weird but true.
I don’t understand why there should be any dichotomy in Conley’s case — you can tap your mana before you cast the spell, or you can tap them during the casting. Yes, there’s an actual step in the casting process after targets are declared and total costs are determined where you can pay said costs, either by activating mana abilities, sacrificing or tapping creatures, discarding or whatever the heck the total cost is determined to be. Either Conley’s opponent didn’t know this or he was deliberately being a jerk. In either case, not shaking his hand would be correct in my book.
Comment by MH — October 30, 2009 @ 5:01 am
-Zaiem… you’re my new hero!
Comment by Mackatee — October 30, 2009 @ 5:27 am
Table judges aren’t allowed to back up game states without the head judge’s permission. It doesn’t sound intuitive, but I’m sure you’ve all had a judge at some point that you’re just not comfortable trusting with something like that.
I have to concur with Conley’s definition of handshake. If you tried to douche me on a call (legitimately) or the game was decided solely on the merits of randomization, then it was not a good game. I’ll still shake your hand if you say something like “sorry” or “better luck next round” or “it was nice meeting you” or whatever, but saying “good games” implies something about the outcome. I don’t know where people keep getting this “the midwest has very specific rules about handshakes” BS. I’ve been playing in Colorado/Nebraska/Iowa/Minnesota/Kansas for over ten years now and not once have I ever even heard of something like a handshake policy.
Comment by J_Klimek — October 30, 2009 @ 5:54 am
Great article. The reason so many people play only kitchen table magic is that the people around their kitchen table know how to treat each other with respect. Thanks for trying to make paper magic (and hopefully online magic) a little better.
Comment by Harry — October 30, 2009 @ 6:14 am
I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again here…the main problem with the Magic player handshake and saying “good game” after the match is that players consider them automatic. They’re not. Too many Magic players don’t understand how to interact with people socially, and so they fall back on conventions. They “always” shake hands and “always” say good game.
But sometimes it isn’t a good game. Sometimes your opponent is visibly frustrated at screw/flood/their dog dying. In a non-Magic situation, it would be callous to confidently say “good X” and offer a handshake. Try acting like, ya know, a human and say “Sorry man, that’s too bad you got flooded, wish we coulda played straight up” or something similar.
And if it truly was a good game, by all means, say so. If you really do wish them luck, then wish them luck. But don’t do it just because that’s what convention says. Convention is wrong.
Long story short, act like a human, not an automaton.
P.S. I also have lived in the Midwest a long time, and I’ve played/lived on the East Coast. There are no different “handshake rules” based on geography.
Comment by Snowden — October 30, 2009 @ 6:33 am
Can someone explain me the Demigod part? i got confused
Comment by Vito — October 30, 2009 @ 7:38 am
Nice article Zaiem, and something that definitely had to be written at some point by someone, but I disagree with a couple points, mainly the Gaining an Edge.
The way you write, it sounds like you are OK with anything happening “because this is a ptq”. I WOULD get mad with my friend for appealing to the Head Judge on the Deathmark play - come on, we BOTH know he should not have been able to deathmark it, and the judge already ruled that he can’t - in this situation, it is not the Plumeveil player being allowed a Takeback, but more like the Deathmark player being given one.
The cheeseburger thing I also dislike, and I think it’s just unpolite and unprofessional (and also you are not allowed food at the table. In my oponion, eating in the middle of a game shows a little bit of disrespect for your opponent and the situation you are in)
I think the situations you described are just too close to “I drew three exxtra cards, but he didn’t notice - come on, its a ptq, I’m trying to get an edge whenever I can!” for me to be comfortable with them.
On the handshake matter, I have no problem initiating handshakes, and I almost always do whether I won or lost, unless my opponent is a total idiot, but in that case they will probably not offer the hand, and neither will I. I don’t remember ever “No-thanks”ing a handshake, but I see no problems in doing it in Conley’s position, though most of the time Im just happy to win so other things are less relevant. On Kyle Sanche’s, though, I definnitely agree with you - it is not your opponents fault you got mana problems, some basic manners have never hurt anyone.
Comment by PV — October 30, 2009 @ 7:46 am
agree with the shakes.
heh
except that the winner shouldnt offer unless it’s clear that the opponent is conceding. reason obvious right?
sledging is name calling for the sake of trying to get a mental egde.
cricket and rugby players ramp this up…although were more touchy with the pc and all. too pc for me these days
as zaiem said ppl need thicker skins who cares if he said gg or gl or watever
Comment by Blyder — October 30, 2009 @ 7:56 am
I would just take my opponent’s cheeseburger and eat it.
Comment by Riki Hayashi — October 30, 2009 @ 8:13 am
I really dislike this article…
Especially the whole section entitled “he took advantage of my lack of knowledge”
Call me a purist, but I think the examples in that section do show players misleading other players. Whether or not statements are true versus whether or not they are misleading is a completely different thing.
In the Mogg Fanatic example, what the player said was technically true, but it was also completely misleading. There is absolutely no way anyone could argue that he was not trying to steer his opponent into making a certain decision based on inaccurate information. Yes, he does play mogg fanatic and yes his opponent is at 1 life, but it is completely wrong to end the explanation there.
I can agree that the opponent should have been a little more careful and asked him to play it out, but I also think that was really shady.
Comment by Carter — October 30, 2009 @ 8:19 am
so how does demigod come into play after it was countered?
i don’t get that at all
o.O
Comment by jerry — October 30, 2009 @ 8:28 am
The calling a judge for slow play is abhorrant when used like this. The judging staff at your average PTQ is overworked as is, and using them fir a tactical advantage is the scummiest of scummy moves. They have a job to do, and it’s not to psych out an opponent. Let them do what they do, and bring a bag of cheeseburgers next time.
Comment by Samstod — October 30, 2009 @ 8:59 am
“The reason so many people play only kitchen table magic is that the people around their kitchen table know how to treat each other with respect.”
Maybe with your friends, but if you’ve ever played with somebody new in a casual setting (say at a weekly EDH game), you know that douches can be douches in Magical Christmas Casual Land just as well as in tournament Magic. It all comes down to being an adult and realizing that not everyone is a nice person. Don’t be offensive, and don’t be offended when other people are. End of story.
And a ton of these rules examples (including Stark’s masterful cheeseburger play) can be solved by either asking your opponent to clarify, play out their intended play, or calling a judge. NEVER ASSUME ANYTHING.
jerry: Basically, it’s like this:
1. Play Demigod. It’s “When this is played…” trigger goes on the stack.
2. Opponent counters your Demigod, and it goes to the graveyard.
3. The Demigod’s trigger resolves and returns Demigod to play.
The way around it is to allow the trigger to resolve, and *then* counter the Demigod, while it’s still on the stack. Both players receive priority again after something comes off the stack.
Comment by Rick — October 30, 2009 @ 9:00 am
I have a few things to say concerning the rules knowledge advantage thing:
First, I graduated High School in ‘02, but my senior year Homecoming game was played late enough in the season that here in western New York, there was 3 inches of very wet and slippery snow on the ground. My school team was sliding all over the place and had a very difficult time running the ball as a result. The other team, however, had almost no problem at all, and so the couch of our team asked a ref to check to make sure the other teams cleats were legal. A perfectly reasonable request, which was honored. The other team had legal cleats and the ref was able to find out why the other team had no problems with the snow. They had sprayed their cleats with Pam cooking spray!!! He, of course, did not tell my school couch that as it was perfectly legal to do, and simply informed him that the cleats passed. It didn’t come out until afterword what happened when the couch for my school asked the couch of the other school how they did that, and was told with a bit of a smile. Of course people all over the school were furious that the other team had resorted to such shady tactics to win. I was furious too, but the direction of my anger was reveled when I asked “Why didn’t we do that too?”
That said, Magic is mostly the same in that those that have the better understanding of the rules SHOULD have the advantage in the match, but the judges are there to serve a purpose too. We all know that it is perfectly legal to have Lightning Bolt do 3 damage to Ajani, and the game provides a way for “Out of Order Sequencing” to be handled, and that is the ONLY thing the “Bolt your Ajani” player is guilty of. Informing a player that they performed their actions out of order and correcting the method of doing it is NOT giving strategic information. Telling a couch how the other team is avoiding the problem of the snow is strategic information. Telling a couch that if he doesn’t stop using profanities he will be ejected from the game and the team will have to continue without his is not strategic information. Probably not a great comparison, but it’s the closest one I’ve got from real life.
Comment by newager — October 30, 2009 @ 9:02 am
When you play Demigod, it’s ability triggers to put all copies of Demigod in your graveyard into play. If you pass priority at this point, and your opponent counters the Demigod prior to the trigger resolving, then when the trigger does resolve, it will put Demigod of Revenge into play.
The way to counter Demigod involves letting the trigger resolve, and then countering the 5/4 flyer.
It was something which initially caught out a lot of players, and proved an unfortunate exploit of some slightly weird rules.
There have been other examples of awkward rules exploits, which are certainly tricky, and push the bounds of acceptability. For example, back when UG Madness was a real deck, if someone discarded a Basking Rootwalla to their Wild Mongrel, an opponent could ask ‘What colour are you making that mongrel’ and if they responded, they could claim that they had chosen to pump the dog and skipped past their madness trigger. That one got sorted out with the Time Spiral madness rules update. Then there was the ‘If you cast Quiet Speculation and put it in the graveyard first, it can be ruled as a search without find’. These are niggly little rules points that I feel would be very cheesy to actually try and run on anyone, at any level.
Rules templating and judging guidelines now make awkward rules issues like that very rare, but it is still a shame when it happens.
Comment by TWilloughby — October 30, 2009 @ 9:10 am
Gotta agree with Riki on this one.
Comment by tldr — October 30, 2009 @ 9:15 am
“Acting as if you’re entitled to a handshake after playing like a donkey and winning anyway because of bad beats is worthy of many more princess points than refusing said handshake.”
Yup!
Comment by Michael — October 30, 2009 @ 9:29 am
So what are the consequences if you actually beatdown someone that decides to be smart? Actually asking out of couresity, not being a smarta$$
-Huck
Comment by Huck101 — October 30, 2009 @ 9:47 am
Great article, the only thing I disagree with is the “mental edge” part. The problem isn’t so much that there’s anything wrong with trying to get a “mental edge”, the problem is the assumption that it will work. It’s completely insulting to think that I care, in any way, hungry or not, if my opponent puts a cheeseburger on the table, and what’s worse, the assumption that it will affect my game. This one is too comical for me to really be offended by, but like, assuming calling a judge for slow play without just cause would put me on tilt is quite the insult, we’re not all small children who can’t control our emotions, and assuming this is pretty offensive, which is why I’d certainly refuse a handshake after and have choice words for my opponent. I wasn’t aware of the Noah Weil thing until now, but that sounds pretty douchey, and is made all the more funny by the fact he still lost.
On to the Kyle Sanchez thing, I totally missed that, but what can I say? The guy is probably the biggest donk in magic today, what did you expect? I like to think there are very few people as sad and pathetic in magic as Sanchez, but I know I’m likely wrong.
Comment by Dreamswept — October 30, 2009 @ 10:26 am
“so how does demigod come into play after it was countered?
i don’t get that at all”
Demigod puts a trigger to return cards named “demigod of revenge” on the stack. If the opponent does not allow that trigger to resolve before they counter the demigod just cast then that demigod is in the yard when its own trigger resolves returning it to play.
Comment by Robin — October 30, 2009 @ 10:39 am
I fail to see how basic principles of social interaction are negotiable in this game. Good article, Z. It appears that most players need this spelled out for them and believe these points to be negotiable.
* If someone offers the shake, just do it and don’t make a fuss. You lost for some reason, it’s not their fault.
*The guy across from you has one job - KILL YOU. Assume that he’ll do everything legal and some things that aren’t to achieve his goal. He drove X hour and paid Y dollars too. He’s in it to win, not cater to your dumb sensitivities.
*If you think a player is cheating or full of shit, call a judge. if you think the judge is full of shit, call the head judge. If you think he’s doing you wrong and slighting you, call your mother because no one else cares.
*Learn to get mana screwed. Magic is a game of variance, so practice getting mana screwed. Many mana screw games are still winnable. i’ve mulled to FOUR CARDS, missed my first land drop on the draw, and still won games.
*NEVER complain. Nothing that happens at a tournament, short of someone truly going Kird Ape on your ass, is new, different, or so terribly bad that we (your friends at the tournament or online) care. We’ve all been screwed, flooded, topdecked, rules lawyered and just blatantly fucked over by perfectly legitimate circumstances. IT. HAPPENS.
When you lose a match for top 8 due to mana screw, realize that sometimes, you’re supposed to lose because of screw. YOu probably could have mulliganed more or less aggressively anyway.
Basically, there’s no excuse for most of the behavior that takes place when things go sour. I rarely break my demeanor when I lose a match, and even when I do I mostly just chastise myself. Rarely, I slip and say something stupid but I always at least go back and apologize to the slighted party.
Zaiem - How many princesses would you give this one that I saw at a local shop?
Two semi-friend players are playing a tight game 3 of a match that is essentially the semi-finals of a small tournament. Winner of the tournament gets 10 bucks store credit (woo?). Player A is getting his face beat in while getting flooded and is not taking it well. He is making thinly veiled insults at his opponent (who knows he’s just an idiot and thinks the whole thing is hilarious, which only serves to piss him off further).
The tables are arranged in two LONG rows, and the mana flooded gentleman is seated on the end of the row on the interior. He also weighs close to 400 pounds and is thoroughly blocking any egress from the interior of the play area. He then refuses to move when another player needs to get out from the play space, purely out of spite for the universe.
After a few minutes of everyone telling him to quit being a douche, I had to physically move their table. That got the full Five Star Princess rating from me.
Comment by Kelly B Reid - www.quietspeculation.com — October 30, 2009 @ 10:40 am
to the people hating on conley woods…. this isnt modo. you cannot misclick.If you say i play this wit kicker and target your island then who cares if the land wasnt tapped right or w/e. this s the same thing that happens in casinos around the world….. I raise to 500$ i only put400$ in thepot i need to put that extra 100$ in there doesnt matter what i pushed out it matters what i said. alot of times at casinos there are string bet rules. I call your 100$ then raise 400$ more. if i dont say anything and just place the 100$ in the middle then its just a call, but if i say RAISE then place the 100$ in the middle for the call ican now raise w/e i like. imsorry you were getting scooped up in top 4 of a grand prix but stop acting like a child.
Comment by someone — October 30, 2009 @ 10:50 am
Just outplay your opponent…
Comment by Sean F — October 30, 2009 @ 10:51 am
Z, do you see a difference between being ambiguous in terms of strategy (e.g. - lying about your hand, Ranger for 2 Fanatics… which I think is fine) and being legally ambiguous about the game state (e.g. - saying (not-quite-illegal) things that make your opponent think you played a spell with kicker when you didn’t, stacking your lands such that your man-land is completely covered, etc.)? And do you think different standards apply for these cases when the two players speak a different language?
Comment by Phil Y — October 30, 2009 @ 11:09 am
This article expounds beliefs just as princessy as the ones it mocks. “I was Being Cutthroat” does not excuse douchbaggery. People shouldn’t be entitled to you speaking in a clear manner, making a real effort to communicate effectively…. yet you are always entitled to a handshake after the game? This is a ridiculous double standard. I especially loved the all capitals part were you got upset about people being being too easily upset. They have just as much of a right right to refuse your handshake as you do to offer it.
I agree with you on cheaters, not allowing takebacks once the gamestate has changed, etc. But this article comes across in a ‘now I can be the bully’ way.
In a seperate, but very related issue, if these cutthroat events took place on magic online then *none* of these disagreements would occur. Kibler would have lost in the quarterfinals of PT Austin, the demigod trigger would very rarely trick people, and deathmark does not get to be played as an instant against weak opponents. Is this a better world?
Comment by Trehizzle — October 30, 2009 @ 11:17 am
I’m one of those guys who will say good game if my opponents were in the game, and something more like “Sorry you got [screwed/flooded/whatever], I hope to play with you again soon.”
Unless they choose to be a [fill in the vulgar language], at which point I generally just pack up and leave. No matter how the in-game stuff goes, though, I feel like a hand shake is appropriate. It’s closure to that round of the tournament and a way of saying you appreciated them not being an a**.
Comment by The_Engineer — October 30, 2009 @ 11:23 am
I’m actually all for saying “good game,” and shaking hands, just as I did in sports as a kid and consistently do in chess as well.
However, it’s important to make it clear that we’re talking about a “good” game in terms of a fairly played contest, not necessarily one that had a high quality of play. That’s why it’s always the last thing I’ll say; if my opponent was clearly the victim of bad luck, or I topdecked something to win twice in a row, I’ll talk about that first, mention that it sucked, and then leave by saying something to the effect of “well, good game, good luck next round.” Usually that’s enough not to cause any offense. Honestly, if “good game” ever riles you up, even after the worst game you’ve ever played, you need slightly thicker skin…but that doesn’t mean there aren’t ways to make it less antagonizing. If I’m really afraid that a “good game” will anger my opponent, I can audible into “thanks for the game.”
Comment by Ed — October 30, 2009 @ 11:49 am
The only situation amongst those that even turned up the heat on my blood was the first one. . . You have your deck, I have my deck. You should know what the cards in your deck do, and, while maybe not as necessary, you should know what your opponent’s cards do.
Boggart Ram-Gang attacks because its a fantastic creature.
Plumeveil gets played, because its a great blocker that doesn’t immediately die to sorcery speed removal. . .
. . .
If I play Plumeveil before blockers are declared but after attacks, and my opponent throws down a sorcery at it, I’ve suddenly lost all respect for my opponent, because he or she either does not know what their cards do, which is disappointing, or is insulting my intelligence and trying to cheat a card in. . .
Shame on both players on that one. I might be biased, because I work at a card shop and draft obsessively, therefore knowing nearly every card in standard, but really, don’t enter high level events without knowing what your opponent can throw at you.
Unless you’re playing swans combo.
Comment by B19 — October 30, 2009 @ 11:52 am
Back when I played kids’ soccer, a handshake and a “good game” were always the norm as a gesture of respect. “Good game” never literally meant “that was a good game”; its message was mostly equivalent to that of a handshake. And it never mattered who initiated it. In fact, a winner not offering it would be considered disrespectful, as it’s like saying “you losers weren’t a worthy opponent.” I think the “winners shouldn’t initiate a handshake” thing may have stemmed from online gaming when “GG” started being used by douchebags to mock the opponent, so now all gestures like that are seen as mocking rather than genuine.
Comment by Phil Y — October 30, 2009 @ 11:59 am
Zaiem, others have explained what sledging was, so I won’t.
I think that there are some things which are being confused here. I personally (and I think the author too) have no problem with being competitive as possible *within the game* to win. And within the game, it is totally acceptable to lie about the contents of hidden information (your hand contents, what’s in your library etc). So the mogg fanatic and mold shambler judge calls are in my mind are fair. (The commentary after the Shambler judge call was ruled on however crossed the line to me)
HOWEVER, there are things which are outside the game which I don’t think should play any part of competitive or social magic, such as:
1. Calling judges for suprious reasons just to disconcert your opponent
2. Making comments to your opponent in an attempt to mentally intimidate them (i.e. sledging)
3. Speaking or acting threateningly to your opponent
4. Just being generally unpleasant (which can turn off other players in the immediate areas as well)
My unofficial rule of thumb about this stuff is if when the games are finished, would they want to continue playing another game against you? If the answer is no, then a line has probably been crossed somewhere (ignoring cases where there are GerryT or GadielS and don’t actually like playing magic).
Comment by merl — October 30, 2009 @ 1:05 pm
i lost to somebody who offered me the shake afterwards, i turned it down because his hands were the greasiest i have ever seen. etiquette or sanitary issue?
Comment by charlie — October 30, 2009 @ 1:10 pm
The Princess Scale is brilliant.
And yes, you married well!
Excellent reading.
Comment by SomeNoob — October 30, 2009 @ 1:17 pm
“I would just take my opponent’s cheeseburger and eat it.” - Riki, Super Judge.
LOL!!
Comment by amos c. — October 30, 2009 @ 1:34 pm
The funniest thing about people who lack ‘knowledge’ or ‘don’t know how to play’ is how arrogant they can be about their lack of knowledge.
A few years back, I was visiting family in Indianapolis, IN, I walked into a local store for an FNM, fished commmons out of the commons box and played u/g Madness at the FNM.
At the final, my mono black opponent was the typical white geeky cocky rich kid, and was unsurprisingly winning with his normal net deck vs my random commons-uncommons deck.
I hate a circular logic in my hand and a graveyard full of flashback spells, no other cards in hand or nonland permanents. It went like this:
McRandom: “Duress you”
Me: “sure” (show Circular Logic).
McRandom: *takes my card (c logic) and puts it in my graveyard… (boy i hate kids who touch my cards without asking!).
Me:”I’ll remove Circular Logic from the game”. *pickup logic from the graveyard, put it aside my deck in the RFG (now exiled) zone
McRandom: “Huh? what? whatever… durr… Haunting echoes you for your whole graveyard. You lose. gg”
Me:”I will pay the madness cost of my logic, and cast it targetting your haunting echoes”
McRandom: “Wait… what? Judge buddy of mine, save me!”
10 minutes of checking on the internet later, the judge had to agree I did the perfect play… and the mcrandom lost.
…………………………………………
You’ve no one to blame but yourself if you don’t take the time to read the rules and learn to play by them…
Comment by Someguy — October 30, 2009 @ 2:02 pm
i’m not a regular at this site…but man this was one of the best articles i’ve ever read!! i play a lot of poker tournaments and there’s a lot of bad blood flying around in that game as well over perceived slights over hand shakes and bad beats. it’s a game, sometimes you win when you shouldn’t and sometimes you shouldn’t win when you do. it’s not easy to take, but it happens. great job putting all these little “princess” things into words. well written!
Comment by mysticknight232 — October 30, 2009 @ 2:04 pm
The Conley thing has nothing to do with Judging by intent, he announced the spell with kicker, so it costs 6. If you find he tapped 5 you don’t magically decide he announced the spell a different way.
Seems pretty clear anyway he grabbed all 4 land and twisted them, but 1 didn’t move with the rest.
Comment by Panimu — October 30, 2009 @ 2:49 pm
Definitely the biggest problem I have in Magic is when people say good game after winning. I’m not a good loser, I’m from the Midwest, and I’ve played RTS’s online, competitively. All of that combined has made me absolutely hate the term good game. A lot.
I always say “good luck next round.” Same good intentions and all, no controversy ever. Unless my opponent says good game after a particularly sucky match; yes, Magic is a game of variance, but that doesn’t make the game “good.” Where’s the fun in one person getting mana screwed for two games? The loser certainly doesn’t feel good about it. If the winner feels like he accomplished something by winning against someone who was effectively not doing anything, something’s wrong with him.
At the PTQ in Fargo a few weeks ago, my 2nd round opponent got a game loss for misregistration, because he forgot to write the basic lands down in his first sealed PTQ. Yes, he ought to have known better, and it’s his own fault.
Game 2 my deck does exactly what it’s supposed to; play a guy every turn, while he has a slower hand that he kept mostly because he expected Gladehart to keep him alive if I had a quick hand, but then never drew a 4th land after keeping 3 in his opener. The game was completely one-sided, and he cast exactly 1 spell during the game.
Is that supposed to be a good game? A one-time mistake and his deck not giving him one of 15 lands in 5 draws? I just don’t agree at all. I didn’t extend my arm, and I didn’t say good game. “Good luck next round” was exactly what I meant, and when he extended the arm for the hand shake, I was fine with accepting it, because he started it. If he hadn’t, I wouldn’t have held anything against him. That was hardly a game, let alone an entire match.
Comment by Nick — October 30, 2009 @ 2:55 pm
So, it’s a cruise qualifier, I’m playing a buddy, and he tries to Deathmark my Plumeveil in the middle of combat. I tell him to put that back and thank him for the info. While we’re shuffling up for the next game I say “Hey, remember when you played Deathmark during attackers? Hilarious!” I do the same thing that night while we’re ordering at Applebees or whatever because nothing’s open. This is the play. Obviously.
What I do *NOT* do is call a judge on my friend and opponent, because I know he’s done this before today because I know he’s a donkey (but not a cheater), and I’m pretty sure they’ll upgrade. If I call the judge on him then he and all our mutual friends will think I am King Douche, and they will be right.
You cast your sorcery as an instant and then the judge tries to make you play correctly, and you appeal so you can get away with playing your sorcery as an instant? Oh, and you’re playing your *friend*?? Douche. Done.
Comment by jshapiro — October 30, 2009 @ 2:57 pm
I can’t believe no one has mentioned how sexist the basic premise of this article is. More sexism and exclusion is not what magic needs
Comment by Will — October 30, 2009 @ 3:32 pm
I realize this is probably a bit of a lost cause here, but I think a lot of these problems disappear if people keep in mind that they’re playing a card game. If you’re playing magic for money, fame or to boost your ego, something probably went wrong somewhere, because it’s pretty terrible for all of those. Just enjoy it, accept that sometimes you’ll get screwed by variance, and move on.
Of course, this is pretty contrary to all the advice that you’ve got to have “the fire” and pin your life to your success at magic. Guess I won’t be making the PT anytime soon.
Comment by Monk Realist — October 30, 2009 @ 6:08 pm
[...] This post was Twitted by aleksfelipe [...]
Pingback by Twitted by aleksfelipe — October 30, 2009 @ 6:35 pm
@Will - The women I’m friends with routinely use “princess” as a unisex derogatory (in about a 1:1 mix between that and “unique special snowflake”). I think it’s not nearly as gender-specific as it might once have been.
Comment by Alex — October 30, 2009 @ 8:55 pm
“Then there was the ‘If you cast Quiet Speculation and put it in the graveyard first, it can be ruled as a search without find’. These are niggly little rules points that I feel would be very cheesy to actually try and run on anyone, at any level.”
they fixed this with the new out of order sequencing rules a while back, so there is nothing to run anymore.
“Back when I played kids’ soccer, a handshake and a “good game” were always the norm as a gesture of respect. “Good game” never literally meant “that was a good game”; its message was mostly equivalent to that of a handshake. And it never mattered who initiated it. In fact, a winner not offering it would be considered disrespectful, as it’s like saying “you losers weren’t a worthy opponent.” I think the “winners shouldn’t initiate a handshake” thing may have stemmed from online gaming when “GG” started being used by douchebags to mock the opponent, so now all gestures like that are seen as mocking rather than genuine.”
We did that too when I played soccer.. but 90% of the people didn’t really mean it. shaking a hand and saying good game show no respect if you don’t mean it… it’s just an empty ritual. I find it more respectful than not doing it.
“I can’t believe no one has mentioned how sexist the basic premise of this article is. More sexism and exclusion is not what magic needs”
wha? what year are you living in that princess only refers to women.. or whatever else you where thinking.
Comment by whatisfgh — October 30, 2009 @ 10:22 pm
From Noah himself…
“Over the weekend I called a judge over to: retrieve and show the mustache trophy to my opponent (thanks Eelco!), retrieve the actual GP trophy for my feature match (boo random unfun judge), accuse my opponent of stalling just so he’d shut up for a minute, notify a judge two cards had stuck together and I saw the bottom one when I went to draw, appeal the warning I got for looking at the bottom card to the head judge (it didn’t help), retrieve a match slip 13 times, infer my opponent had marked sleeves (he did), and once to ask how his day was going. I was going to call over a judge to ask for the exact name of Swans for a Thought Hemorrhage, but the opponent got the gist.”
The accusing my opponent of stalling was me. He was trying to run the “chat a lot to make my opponent uncomfortable” thing (which he states in his tournament report), but I was better at it so he stooped to calling a judge to try and put me on tilt.
Comment by Stan Bessey — October 30, 2009 @ 10:41 pm
Zaiem, in cricket, sledging is the practice of verbally abusing the opposing team (usually the two batsmen on the receiving end of the sledges from the fieldsman) in the hope that they will become mentally unstable and lose their focus. I’m sure there are similar techniques in baseball, gridiron and other sports: its basically trash talk.
Comment by Rohan — October 30, 2009 @ 11:39 pm
Maybe I’m just imagining things, but people seem a lot nicer now than they used to (when I played around 15 years ago). Drafts and standard events were not treated as casual events in the past and people would get overly upset about the game. When playing competitively (for lots of money), people can still be a bit more rude than I would like.
Comment by James Gray — October 31, 2009 @ 2:35 am
Rohan, I don’t think “trash talk” is proper etiquette or good sportsmanship for Magic. Probably the best way to know etiquette for Magic is to know etiquette for Chess. Trash talk in Chess sounds pretty absurd.
Comment by James Gray — October 31, 2009 @ 2:37 am
Careful Consideration - You Are Not a Pretty Pretty Princess…
Your story has been summoned to the battlefield - Trackback from MTGBattlefield…
Trackback by MTGBattlefield — October 31, 2009 @ 5:27 am
@Someguy: Was this before some rules update? With the current rules, when you exile Circular Logic with Madness, you can indeed choose to exile it instead of putting it in your graveyard… however, when you do, the triggered ability ‘you may play it for its madness cost’ hits the stack and your opponent can’t play haunting echoes (sorcery speed). Is there something there I’m not getting ?
Comment by MH — October 31, 2009 @ 5:48 am
The sexism comment made me laugh.
Here’s to political correctness,
sometimes gets the best of us,
even though we’d think and say the same
so calling it out is pretty damn lame!
Comment by S1AL — October 31, 2009 @ 8:01 am
You ALWAYS shake hands. End of story.
Watch pro sports; no matter how much they tried to beat, injure, and crush their opposition, they always shake hands at the end. They want to win more than you do, and they’re still man enough to show respect.
You do this because it reflects well on you and your respect for the game. I have no use for Prima Donnas like Sanchez who believe in their entitlement to be the one in the room everyone else should fear. Sorry, but you’re just playing a card game, and there are bigger issues at hand, regardless of the prizes at stake.
If you can’t show your appreciation to the game and the opportunity to play it, then you shouldn’t be playing at all. Go back to mom’s basement and troll the forums instead. One day you’ll grow up, learn that karma’s a b*tch, and start acting in a way you won’t be ashamed of later.
Comment by allanhowls — October 31, 2009 @ 8:33 am
@Someguy: I also just looked this up and it seems that the trigger would hit the stack immediately after the card was exiled, not allowing your opponent to play haunting echoes.
Comment by William Anderson — October 31, 2009 @ 11:27 am
“Trash talk in Chess sounds pretty absurd.”
Not if you’re playing blitz.
In all seriousness, Magic will never be as formal as tournament chess, and that’s okay. Of course, you’ll really never be in the wrong if you’re that polite, but you don’t have to go that far (and in some ways, you can’t!) since it’s a game that requires you to interact with your opponent on a regular basis during the game.
Comment by Ed — October 31, 2009 @ 1:17 pm
Okay, I’m brand new at this game, I’ve never played in a major tournament, and it took me a while with Google to even figure out what you meant with the whole “scoop” point, but now that I know what’s going on…
Are there REALLY people who expect someone to concede to them in order to let them get into the top eight the easy way? If they really deserve to end up in the top eight, they should be able to win a game of Magic, especially if they’ve been paired down. If they can’t beat some random schlub, what makes them think they’ll be able to make headway in the top eight anyway?
Again, maybe I don’t understand the whole tournament scene, but why should etiquette ever dictate that one should hand a game to one’s opponent instead of making them win it the normal way?
Comment by Chris — October 31, 2009 @ 3:32 pm
@ William Anderson
The madness rules were different back then. The change was made rather recently.
Comment by amos c. — October 31, 2009 @ 6:23 pm
I have one story. It was an in-and-win match during last Extended season. I was playing Bant, and had the game basically in the bag. My opponent, who was also playing Bant, topdecked his one-of Cryptic Command to tap down my team and draw a card. He drew the Krosan Grip he needed to blow up my Worship to kill me. I kid you not he jumped out of his seat, and pumped the fist, exclaimed, danced around obnoxiously, etc. After a minute of this I signed the slip, packed up my cards, and left. Later on he berated me for not sticking around for a handshake.
Was I wrong to do this? I don’t think so. If you think I’m going to sit in my chair and watch you do a victory dance after getting lucky, you’ve got something coming. I wasn’t upset about his luck or losing; I was upset at his etiquette.
p.s. He lost in the quarterfinals to a lucky topdeck in game three. His opponent, a TEPS player, beat him through two Ethersworn Canonists and a Stifle. Facing lethal damage, the TEPS player Remanded a spell that drew him the Mind’s Desire he needed to win. Never have I witnessed such a moment of pure irony.
Comment by Mike — November 1, 2009 @ 3:11 am
This was a really good article. But I have to agree with Carter that the Ranger of Eos situation is in the wrong category. Bluffs could have been their own category, a lot of people get sour when they realize they lost to a bluff. At a shadowmoor block draft once my opponent and I were both hopelessly gridlocked on board, nobody was going to win by damage ever. So we started counting cards in our decks. I was going to lose based on information available. So I said “I haven’t drawn an Oona’s Grace yet” (which I hadn’t, because I wasn’t playng one) and flashed a hand full of lands. Then he scooped to save time. I’d call that a clean win any day, but he was none too happy about it when he heard the story from someone else 2 weeks later.
Comment by Bosh N Roll — November 1, 2009 @ 7:25 am
@Chris
If I can’t T8, why would I knock my opponent out? It’s in my best interest to have someone think of me as a standup guy who might get scooped to in future. Besides, who really wants to play Magic when you’re seven rounds in and it turns out you’re out of contention?
Comment by Seeker — November 1, 2009 @ 1:25 pm
I’ve played a lot of online chess over the years and the topic of thanking your opponent has come up a lot. Now, IRL, in serious tournament games, you shake hands with your opponent before and after the game, with very few exceptions (from my experience). It’s something that everyone is taught from day one. I’d say that it pretty much becomes ingrained after a while.
Online chess is a completely different animal. The formality of chess goes right out the window when you’re playing faster games. In particular, I’ve played a lot of one-minute games. Mouseslips and psychology are all a part of the game. Thanking is generally frowned upon.
However, another facet of online chess that works differently from Magic is that you can pick your opponent (most of the time) and rematch each other after every game (playing a series). A good way to put your opponent on tilt during a long series is to thank him every so often after you win games. Some people absolutely despise being the recepient of a thanking after losing a game. You’ll either get him to quit playing you (and even block you) or, if you thank the right people, increase his levels of hate, which you can exploit in later games. There are people out there that absolutely refuse to quit and are exploitable because of that attitude. Here’s a few examples:
a. You’ve won the past few games on time. Your opponent starts to move faster than he was before, though now he’s getting sloppy. After you win a few more games (because he’s playing like garbage), he wants to start moving almost instantly. Once you sense this, you play a game where you hang a piece early in the game to his queen, but he doesn’t see it and you take his queen next move. From there, depending on your opponent, the win is almost academic. You can even sneak in things like four-move checkmates against opponents like that.
b. A good way to gain time or win a time scramble (and cause more hate) is to move a piece to a square that blocks your opponent’s next move (which he likely had hovering over the square he wanted to move it to). Now your opponent has to stop and drag the piece he wanted to move all the way back to that square. A similar concept is to make a move that doesn’t place your opponent in check, but would put him in check if he made his planned move. Suddenly, his intended move is illegal and he has to make another move.
c. Another way to gain a few seconds is to check your opponent, even if it does nothing. This comes up a lot more in endgames with rooks and queens but it takes your opponent off his game for the time being. It’s almost like that old saying, “Patzer sees check, patzer gives check.”
Sorry for going off on a bit of a chess tangent there, but the way opponents react in both online chess and Magic is pretty interesting.
Comment by Dionesotes Rex — November 1, 2009 @ 2:49 pm
[...] the rules: Zaiem Beg argued that players who “break the rules” on accident shouldn’t take back their [...]
Pingback by Recoculous.com: Magic the Gathering Articles » Magic: the Gathering Etiquette — November 26, 2009 @ 1:16 am