Small Business Hater

L2 mtg judge

[Small Business Hater @ResonantQuasar]

The 3 former groups earn their wage directly from the capitalist, and the latter is forced to subsidize their wages with a social contract between themselves and the customer of the restaurant. Mfw person makes 30 an hour doesn’t demand tips and the 2.13/hr does. WOW!

[Small Business Hater @ResonantQuasar]

People often don’t know where wages come from or what they mean. All 4 produces nothing but their wages. The owner of the farm, the trucks/warehouse, the restaurant sells the actual products of labor. The wage worker just sells their labor power. No shit the waiter wants tips 1/2

[Small Business Hater @ResonantQuasar]

@rcondon_ Qualms about qualitative vs quantitative analysis side, strict math says don’t play around it. .75*x> .95/4; x=31.67%. If you really ascertain that those are the numbers, then you only play around it if you’re at least ~1/3 likely to win if they have it. .05<1/3 can’t play rnd it

[Small Business Hater @ResonantQuasar]

@rcondon_ That math is without context. If you’ve been deducing the entire game, you should have a general feeling about if they have the card or not based on when they should have played it, which I think is hard to realistically quantify

[Small Business Hater @ResonantQuasar]

How do you realistically quantify percentages for these scenarios? I feel like you can instead use more qualitative words. I feel like there’s not a numerical threshold you can quantify to decide at what point you say “I choose to play around this even though I have a 5% (1/2)

[r-condon.bsky.social @rcondon_]

You're playing a game of Magic! You believe the following:

* If you play optimally assuming opponent has card X, you are 5% to win the game
* If you play optimally assuming opponent does not have card X, you are 95% to win the game
* Opponent is 75% to have card X

[Small Business Hater @ResonantQuasar]

@rcondon_ I think Reid wrote a really good article about deduction a while back maybe a couple years ago. It’s so hard to say “I’m 5% to win if they have it, and they are 75% to have it, so I’m 75/20 to win if I play around it. Like you *could do that math* but I think 1/2

[Small Business Hater @ResonantQuasar]

@CEliatamby @AVS_MTG What did your qf affinity opponent do that caused them to win

[Small Business Hater @ResonantQuasar]

@ivilivilivilivi @Taidhgt0 In this context, the “other player” gets to choose if we put the cards back now or the next time we receive priority. Since this error was discovered while we were resolving Urza’s saga search, that player didn’t have access to the targets they forgot. Seems acceptable.

[Small Business Hater @ResonantQuasar]

@LezRey1312 @Taidhgt0 Here is the ipg’s full breakdown of the philosophy. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to disagree with its position, but that’s the position and philosophy we enforce currently.

[Small Business Hater @ResonantQuasar]

@LezRey1312 @Taidhgt0 The philosophy behind it is that when you’re presenting your deck, this is where your opponent “agrees with the validity of the deck” so during presenting, this is where your opponent can pinpoint errors. After that point, the philosophy is that your opp has agreed with validity

[Small Business Hater @ResonantQuasar]

@ohmyjosh94 @PugfaceMtg So… the OP made it so the affinity player didn’t have access to those specific cards while resolving their Urza’s saga search. Seems fine to me. We are currently resolving an ability and now affinity player doesn’t have access to the cards in question.

[Small Business Hater @ResonantQuasar]

@Taidhgt0 If it’s still game 1, and your opp is in the middle of searching from saga ch 3, you’d be (should be) given the opportunity to shuffle in the correct cards the next time they would receive priority which is after the tutor resolves, meaning they don’t have access while searching

[Small Business Hater @ResonantQuasar]

@Taidhgt0 Also just want to point out that I feel that this is missing important context. Was it game 1? Was this a post sideboard game? Were we actively searching during the resolution of saga chapter 3? If it’s game 2 there needs to be more happening than just shuffling in the cards 1/2

[Small Business Hater @ResonantQuasar]

@Free_CentralPA @tankienetrunner @billgoldwater It’s not that it doesn’t count, it’s that I don’t believe you can truly engage with core standpoints of a movement with just one pamphlet. To engage with it probably requires a greater deal of reading and introspection

[Small Business Hater @ResonantQuasar]

@Taidhgt0 @DirkMantooth This is important context that you didn’t clarify in your initial post. You should’ve been prompted if you’d want to shuffle the cards in now or after priority is gained.

[Small Business Hater @ResonantQuasar]

@DirkMantooth @Taidhgt0 It depends. If we are actively tutoring off the saga, then the ruling is actually incorrect, and the judge should’ve prompted the opponent (the OP) if they’d like to shuffle now or as soon as someone gains priority. If this player was not asked this, then their appeal is correct

[Small Business Hater @ResonantQuasar]

@onya_fartin @MirandaHqv Imagine a scenario in which you consult a cookbook and run into a problem and can talk to your friend about it or get help, etc. or you just ask AI to parse the cookbook for you.

[Small Business Hater @ResonantQuasar]

@allyrosemgmt @PugfaceMtg If that is the context, which it sounds like it is, and the judge just decided to shuffle the cards in without prompting the opponent whether they’d like to shuffle now or the next priority gain, then that’s an issue, but the OP doesn’t bring that up, seems they’d just prefer GL.

[Small Business Hater @ResonantQuasar]

@PugfaceMtg If that is the case and the judge shuffled them in now, then it’s incorrect. If we discovered the infraction randomly then it’s correct. We should rule out cheating because it is exploitable for sure, but once we rule out cheating and the above context, the call is correct

[Small Business Hater @ResonantQuasar]

@PugfaceMtg The context we are missing is whether or not we are actively resolving Urza’s saga’s 3rd chapter to search (in which case the opposing player could choose to wait until priority is gained to actually have them shuffle the cards in thus not having access to them now)