NoPoke said:
An honest player has a muligan and believes that they showed it to their opponent. They then realise that the opponent didn't see the mulligan. Maybe they flashed the cards too quickly.
Game Loss ? I hope not!
An honest player won't have this problem, they will make sure their opponent sees and if the opponent is dishonest and still tries to dispute it then it would end up Warning for both, since the honest player will say they did and the dishonest one will say that they didn't.
Now if a player actually does forget to show a mulligan (something that has been part of the rules since the begining of the game), then by the penalty guidelines it should be a Game Loss. The opponent who didn't get to see the hand doesn't know whether the mulliganing player is honest or not, so it should still stand Game Loss.
What's the difference between this and later in the game shuffling your hand in? The player that shuffled their hand in could have done it accidentally or could have done it on purpose, either way, it's still a Game Loss.
-------------------------------
NoPoke said:
An honest player believes that they have a mulligan and shows then shuffles away. Opponent says hey you had a fossil/ or I saw a basic. The honest player is now uncertain
Game Loss? Again I hope not.
Most players check and double check before performing a mulligan, so a player should be pretty certain in what they have (usually they are able to even name off all the cards in their hand). If the player is uncertain enough that they feel they might have had a basic of some sort and (being the honest player that you are describing) says that "oh yeah, I forgot fossils were basics" or something like that, then it DOES warrent a Game Loss. The player shuffled their hand in without being allowed to by the rules, gamestate is broken. The player should've been more careful.
Just because it was an accident doesn't mean anything. Ask players at Nationals (US) or Worlds who accidently shuffled their hand in mid game if they got cut any slack because it was an accident. I'm sure the answer is no.
------------------
NoPoke said:
As a judge you see a player has a rubbish openning hand. All seven cards are examined by the player. Instead of placing a basic they hide the card and attempt a flash and mulligan claim. (Hey the game is lost anyway! so might as well try it on)
Game Loss? I hope not.
I'm assuming that you mean you hope it's a DQ not a Game Loss, or were you just leading up to the next few paragraphs?
---------------------------
NoPoke said:
Which just leaves the dishonest player, and a disputed mulligan, which no one else saw. this breaks down several ways...
1) The dishonest player has a bad start and the opponent mulligans. The dishonest player trys for a cheap win if the penalty is a game loss.
Maybe I'm not following, so let me say what I think this is saying. The player with a bad hand but has a basic, waits for his opponent to say that he's mulliganing and to show their cards, and then calls a judge over saying that his opponent didn't show in order get a win?
If that is correct, then I'm pretty sure the player that mulliganed and did show would dispute it which would be Warnings to both.
NoPoke said:
2) The dishonest player has a bad start and the opponent mulligans. The dishonest player trys for a fake mulligan so they both draw seven.
3) The dishonest player has a bad start and the opponent doesn't mulligan. So a fake muligan is attempted.
1) Is only worth trying if the penalty is a game loss.
2) and 3) both end up with he said she said.
Having a game loss penalty as the starting point allows more options to cheat not fewer!
As I said, they all end up with he said she said, no extra benefit to the dishonest player than there has been in the past.
===============
NoPoke said:
Word will get around between the PTOs of any player who picks up a warning for a disputed muligan procedural error. Expect a judge to be watching those players at future events. We already have players accusing POP of being too quick to deactivate players and here is a proposal to assume that players are dishonest and should be considered as guilty first and need to prove their innocence rather than the other way around. Given the disputed circumstances there is no way of proving your innocence.
By going for a warning I wont catch the guilty first time, but I wont penalise the honest majority who makes an innocent mistake either. A big penalty like a game loss requires certainty. So get em on the second occasion. Note that this applies to the honest mistake too: procedural errors do add up.
I'm not saying they are guilty until proven innocent. If they dispute, it will be Warnings to both, (so you will get them on the second time just like normal) but say both players in the match next to them saw a player shuffle in without showing. Now we have something more to go off of. Or say a staff member saw it but that staff is not actually a judge so they can't officially hand out penalties. Now, with those last two sentences in mind, I still think that (other than maybe the word of the staff member) the player who was playing against the dishonest player should be the one to bring it up to the judge, not asked the question "did he shuffle with out showing you?" since then they might be tempted to say yes even if the hand was shown.
Overall, this will not hurt the honest player anymore than the rules have in the past (read: Nats (US) and Worlds), and whether we think that is is appropriate or not for a Game Loss to be the penalty, that is where PUI has put it in their guidelines, that shuffling in a hand without a cause is a Game Loss.