Subject: Re: Penalty Guideline Loopholes, by E. Hamilton
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 17:57:48 -0700
From: Ed Grubaugh <thebruce@uclink4.berkeley.edu>
To: fkusumot@ix.netcom.com

The penalty guideline that has been put together as general minimum
penalties for generally disrupting the game play by not playing magic by the
rules is definitely a step in the right direction.  The article by E.
Hamilton, where he attempts to create loopholes in some quasi-intellectual
fashion, achieving nothing more than mild banter.

One thing expressed as a loophole is the distinction between an ejection and
a disqualification.  The author claims that they should not be different,
but this fails to take into account penalties accrued in a fashion where
intent may not be determinable (and defining penalties for assumed
accidental mistakes seems to be one of the great accomplishments of the
penalty guidelines) in tournaments with lots of prizes - such as a pro tour.
Whether or not there should be a distinction is not a fault of the guidelines.

The author then proceeds to rant on about rules he does not agree with, such
as replacing cards in a deck or not having suitable life tracking methods.
He even suggests that there should be no penalty for no life total, since,
as he states, "Oh, come on now.  Do I even NEED to discuss this one?  How
hard is it to find a pen and paper?"  This completely ignores the fact that
someone may not have adequate means to keep track of life.

Then there is raving about misrepresenting cards and going back in time.
The author suggests the highly feasible idea of invalidating the duel and
starting over, failing to take into consideration time limits and possibly
the idea that if this is an isolated incident, than invalidating the duel
(and possibly the match) is too harsh of a penalty to both players.
Allowing the duel to be replayed without consideration to the time limit is
penalizing the rest of the participants in the tournament.

Majestic foresight is then used to examine draft warnings, suggesting DQ
instead of the complicated and highly unreasonable idea of letting someone
play with 44, 40, or even the impossible-to-build-a-deck-with 35 cards
drafted.

Though I haven't discussed all the incredible successes the author put forth
in criticizing the penalty guidelines, I do believe that these successes
fail to bring up any loopholes whatsoever, and, in fact, criticize a well
formed set of guidelines which attempt to insure a higher quality of play
and a lesser degree of cheating.  By attempting to lower the guidelines to
the level of intellectual excrement the author so desires to properly place
him in some elevated and enlightened position, he in fact diminishes the
great qualities of the "loophole[ed]" and pockmarked document of guidelines.

The guidelines, without requiring strict enforcement for extenuating
circumstances, and allowing for stricter enforcement, establish a set of
minimum penalties for not playing magic responsibly.  Be irresponsible; play
sloppy; act in manners that could be construed as cheating; and you will be
penalized.  This should make the arduous task of determining who is cheating
and who is not less significant (though still important) since everyone will
be penalized.

On the whole, the guidelines are a good step forward.  Criticizing necessary
aspects of the guidelines to account for people not so enlightened as to
always bring dice or paper serves only to prevent a more thorough
examination of said guidelines to see if they really do work.  And for that,
only time will tell.

-Ed Grubaugh