[Trick]

Share your thoughts or input here. Did you agree? Disagree? Love it or hate it?

-- Trick

[Skyblast2]

when i try to download it off itune is has an error and won't download

[Trick]

Thanks for the heads up, I'm looking into it.

[Trick]

Fixed, thanks for speaking up about it. It broke in the time between my leaving the house for work and my getting to work. Damn commutes!

PS - Skyblast, you get an avatar!

[Skyblast2]

Thank You!

[swingfor8]

if I see someone 2:1 shuffling when they present their deck I pile shuffle it into three piles then give it back to them. that way the ratio is all lands and all spells lol

starcity and salvation say that you would get in trouble for doing this, fyi.
http://mtgsalvation.com/215-cranial-insertion-i-3-tournaments.html
http://www.starcitygames.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=271306 (j_orlove)

[Trick]

Indeed, Erik Mock weighed in on this in the article I posted today. A big oversight on our part.

-- Trick

[leesteht]

What's the oversight?

[Trick]

If someone 3-pile shuffles a deck the opponent has mana-weaved, they both get DQs.

[imachampion]

If someone 3-pile shuffles a deck the opponent has mana-weaved, they both get DQs.

Couldn't you just use the idea of ignorance is bliss type of deal here? Pile Shuffling for a cut is considered to be a way of cutting. If you didn't say anything about seeing your opponent weave his cards and you casually pile shuffled...how could you be DQed? Ignorance is bliss. Right?

[Trick]

*shrugs* Not for me to say I'm just repeating what Erik put in his article on Saturday.

[imachampion]

*shrugs* Not for me to say I'm just repeating what Erik put in his article on Saturday.

I know. I am just saying...I find it hard to believe that you could get DQed without proof that you maliciously stacked someones deck. Sure...if you admited to knowing the results of the pile shuffle...then you could get DQed. However...if you don't say anything and maintain the stance of presenting a randomized deck...I fail to see how you could be DQed. If your opponent calls a judge...he is admitting that he stacked the deck. You however have done nothing wrong. I wonder if Erik is making this ruling with other variables in mind. Clarification?

[leesteht]

Fact is, many infractions are resolved by judges using a questioning strategy that requires the defendant to "admit" to the infraction.

Make no mistake, the Plaintiff can make mistakes too, but it is highly unlikely.

That's why you really do have to have a reliable way of recounting situations (life, cards, etc) If the judge doesn't see it + you cannot prove it + your opponent doesn't admit it = it didn't happen.

[imachampion]

That's why you really do have to have a reliable way of recounting situations (life, cards, etc) If the judge doesn't see it + you cannot prove it + your opponent doesn't admit it = it didn't happen.

This is my point. If my opponent stacks his deck and hands it to me. I don't have to tell him that I saw him stack the deck. If I know that pile shuffling equals win or mulligan...I will gladly let him call the judge on himself. If I am questioned on my integrity I don't even have to lie. All I have to say is that I pile shuffled his deck to ensure randomization.

[Trick]

I'm not disagreeing. But it puts a bad face on the show for us to knowingly encourage people to lie or only tell half-truths to the judges to avoid penalties. We're not here to teach people how to bend the rules of proper game play.