(Darkness Upgrades) Zawadx 3-0 TheArrogantOne (sub) (Entropy Salvage)

[Jenkar]

"Entro are fine about it" is no argument.
I'm fine for having the penalty being Zawd drawing a picture of a sanctuary. Hence, by your logic, Zawd should start drawing.

The only persons that have power to make ruling decisions is the warmasters (and admins, to a less/more important degree, depending on your opinion). Leave it to them.

[JonathanCrazyJ]

This would be the height of petty penalising.
Like docking your secretary's pay for sharpening the wrong pencil. Not a euphemism.

[Jenkar]

sharpening the wrong pencil

Your talent at innuendoes scares me. Please teach me, master.

[Zawadx]

I could see the case for a penalty if a player for Team Darkness with a mark subbed me and used the mark, but that didn't happen.
If I had let someone from Team Darkness without a darkness mark sub me and replace the mark with a pillar, this match would have had no penalty at all.
But because I didn't unnecessarily delay, I apparently ought to be penalized.

Also to those worried about this setting a precedent, allowing people to downgrade from a mark card to a pillar anytime seems alright to me.

[Higurashi]

Also to those worried about this setting a precedent, allowing people to downgrade from a mark card to a pillar anytime seems alright to me.

Until you have two bigger stacks of Marks and Pillars and wish to adjust the amount because you're facing EQ.

This case is an inconsequential violation, but a violation nonetheless. Since the outcome wouldn't change with a card change, I wouldn't penalize any wins, but there is an argument for a minor penalty because of the EQ case and not changing the precedent we have in place. There is also an argument for no penalty in the spirit of the event, but it's inconsistent considering a different case involving EQ should be deemed a loss for the offender.

In the end, I think we need to start weighing intent and harm in organized PvP, just as they do in law. There's no malicious intent and no harm was done here. The rule in question is in place to fix a problem, and that problem didn't rear its head here.

Still, it's interesting to debate. It comes down to a philosophical stance.

[Zawadx]

Also to those worried about this setting a precedent, allowing people to downgrade from a mark card to a pillar anytime seems alright to me.

Until you have two bigger stacks of Marks and Pillars and wish to adjust the amount because you're facing EQ.

This case is an inconsequential violation, but a violation nonetheless. Since the outcome wouldn't change with a card change, I wouldn't penalize any wins, but there is an argument for a minor penalty because of the EQ case and not changing the precedent we have in place. There is also an argument for no penalty in the spirit of the event, but it's inconsistent considering a different case involving EQ should be deemed a loss for the offender.

Of course, but then we have the issue that subs can switch out the marks while the original player can't, providing an incentive to sub.

In the end, I think we need to start weighing intent and harm in organized PvP, just as they do in law. There's no malicious intent and no harm was done here. The rule in question is in place to fix a problem, and that problem didn't rear its head here.

Still, it's interesting to debate. It comes down to a philosophical stance.

That would be great, especially for large events like War which plays an integral role in our community. I've tried to push Trials rules in this direction with the leniency to people who accidentally lose their connection to the game. Maybe we can open a thread to discuss this?

[andretimpa]

Until you have two bigger stacks of Marks and Pillars and wish to adjust the amount because you're facing EQ.

If you impose that either all marks are swapped or none are swapped, then swapping will never improve your split.

[majofa]

First of all, this is an issue that needs to be addressed by the WMs.

Cards should not be included in a deck that the player themselves cannot play.

However, there should be NO PENALTY for this, as it didn't affect the outcome of the game at all.

The problem is that it could be abused, where the sub could have the Marks, but not the original player.. especially if there's no way in knowing if the original player has that amount of Marks or not.

In conclusion, there should be no penalty, but the rules should be amended to address this.

[JonathanCrazyJ]

The problem is that it could be abused, where the sub could have the Marks, but not the original player.. especially if there's no way in knowing if the original player has that amount of Marks or not.

Could be proved. Original player must play a game against a WM with only pilars and the marks involved. (if there is any suggestion of foul play)

[majofa]

The problem is that it could be abused, where the sub could have the Marks, but not the original player.. especially if there's no way in knowing if the original player has that amount of Marks or not.

Could be proved. Original player must play a game against a WM with only pilars and the marks involved. (if there is any suggestion of foul play)

"...I thought I was in Deck Manager, but it was really the Bazaar and now all my Marks are gone..."

[JonathanCrazyJ]

The problem is that it could be abused, where the sub could have the Marks, but not the original player.. especially if there's no way in knowing if the original player has that amount of Marks or not.

Could be proved. Original player must play a game against a WM with only pilars and the marks involved. (if there is any suggestion of foul play)

"...I thought I was in Deck Manager, but it was really the Bazaar and now all my Marks are gone..."

How depressing, here, have a penalty.

(this is theoretical, still think this instance is obviously no-penalty)

[killsdazombies]

So new round posted and no ruling? I support no penalty, but iD like a WM ruling