用户
差别
这里会显示出您选择的修订版和当前版本之间的差别。
| 后一修订版 | 前一修订版 | ||
|
ipg:3.7 [2017/07/03 19:01] 127.0.0.1 外部编辑 |
ipg:3.7 [2019/05/22 18:32] (当前版本) |
||
|---|---|---|---|
| 行 3: | 行 3: | ||
| <box 20% left>Penalty 处罚</box|Warning 警告> | <box 20% left>Penalty 处罚</box|Warning 警告> | ||
| ===== DEFINITION 定义 ===== | ===== DEFINITION 定义 ===== | ||
| - | **A player violates the Player Communication policy detailed in section 4.1 of the Magic Tournament Rules. This infraction only applies to violations of that policy and not to general communication confusion.**\\ | + | **A player violates the Communication policies detailed in section 4 of the Magic Tournament Rules and the judge believes their opponent has taken an in-game action or clearly chosen not to act based on the erroneous information. This infraction only applies to violations of that policy and not to general communication confusion.**\\ |
| - | ++牌手违反了于《万智牌比赛规则》之第4.1节详述的牌手交流原则。此违规仅适用于违反了前述原则的情况，一般情况下的沟通不清并不适用此违规。|\\ | + | ++牌手违反了于《万智牌比赛规则》之第4章详述的交流原则，同时裁判相信对手针对此错误信息进行了任何游戏中动作或明显的基于此错误信息而选择不做动作。此违规仅适用于违反了前述原则的情况，一般情况下的沟通不清并不适用此违规。|\\ |
| - | If there was an award for the most incorrectly given infraction, Communication Policy Violation would have a shelf in its living room cluttered with them. It is a common misconception that any time there is a miscommunication between players it's a Communication Policy Violation. It was so commonly misunderstood that in Feb 2013 the infraction was renamed from “Player Communication Violation” to “Communication Policy Violation” to help drive home the point that we are talking a specific policy violation and not general problems with player communication. This infraction covers violations of the Communication Policy in the Magic Tournament Rules (section 4.1) which is summarized in the philosophy section below.\\ | + | It is important to remember that this infraction only covers violations of the Communication Policy in the Magic Tournament Rules (section 4) and only if the judge believes that the opponent has made decisions based upon the incorrect information.\\ |
| - | 如果IPG有个“最多误用奖”的话，违反交流原则得的奖杯绝对能摆满一书架。一个常见的误读是：只要牌手之间的交流出现了误解那么就是违反交流原则。这个误读实在太常见了，以至于在2013年2月这条从“牌手交流违规”更名为“违反交流原则”，这样能够帮助裁判理解这一条针对的是违反一条特定的方针，而不是一般的牌手间交流问题。这项违规囊括了违反MTR 4.1中所述的交流原则的行为，这些行为被总结在了接下来的原则部分中。\\ ++ | + | 很重要的是，记住这个违规只涵盖对于《万智牌比赛规则》中的交流方针（MTR第四章）的违反，且仅当裁判认为对手基于错误信息做出了决定的情况下才能适用。\\ ++ |
| ===== EXAMPLE 范例 ===== | ===== EXAMPLE 范例 ===== | ||
| - | **A. A player is asked how many cards he has in his hand and answers “Three.” A few moments later, he realizes that he has four.**\\ | + | **A. A player is asked how many cards they have in their hand and answers “Three.” A few moments later, their opponent casts a discard spell and they realize that they have four.**\\ |
| - | **A. 牌手被问及手牌有几张，回答“三”。片刻之后，他发现应该是四张。**\\ | + | **A. 牌手被问及手牌有几张，回答“三”。片刻之后，对手施放了一个弃牌咒语，此时他们发现应该是四张。**\\ |
| - | **B. A player claims she hasn’t played her land for the turn, but it is determined that she had and forgot.**\\ | + | **B. A player keeps their Llanowar Elf in with their land, and their opponent attacks thinking they have no blockers.**\\ |
| - | ++B. 牌手主张他本回合还没使用过这回合可使用的地，但是经判定只是他忘记自己已使用过。|\\ | + | **B. 牌手将罗堰妖精放在地中间，对手以为没有阻挡者并进行攻击。**\\ |
| - | In the first example, we have a situation where a player was incorrect about derived information. In the second example, we have the player being incorrect about free information. These two types of examples are the most common. Note that neither of these examples involves a situation where one player thought he heard his opponent say something else, or confusion about what step or phase they are in.\\ | + | **C. A player casts Path to Exile, and forgets to remind their opponent that they have the opportunity to search for a basic land.**\\ |
| - | 在第一个例子中，一位牌手弄错了推断信息。第二个例子中，牌手弄错了自由信息。这两个例子属于此违规中最为常见的类型。注意这两个例子都与下面两种情形无关：一位牌手听错了对手说的一些东西、或者不知道自己处在哪个游戏阶段或步骤中。\\ ++ | + | ++C. 牌手施放流放之径，并且忘记提醒对手有机会可以搜寻一张基本地。|\\ |
| + | In each of these examples, a player takes an action or fails to take an action in a way that is impacted by illegal communication. In the first example, the opponent makes a choice regarding the discard spell assuming that the player has three cards in their hand, while they actually have four. In the second, the player has violated section 4.7 of the MTR by keeping a creature with their lands, and the opponent assumes that the player has no blockers. In the third case, the player violates MTR 4.2 by assuming that the opponent chose not to search. In each case, it isn't the illegal information that causes the infraction, but rather the opponent acting on the illegal information. If a player keeps their Llanowar Elf with their lands, but the opponent doesn't make an attack assuming that the player has no blockers, then no infraction has occurred. However, judges should step in to clarify the board state before an infraction occurs.\\ | ||
| + | 在这些例子中，由于不合法的交流产生的影响，牌手因此要么做出了一些游戏动作，要么是未能做出一些游戏动作。在第一个例子中，对手认为牌手手中有三张牌而做出了施放弃牌咒语的动作，但他手中实际有四张牌，在第二个例子中，牌手违反了MTR4.7节，将生物与地牌放在一起，使得对手以为他没有生物可用来阻挡。在第三个例子中，牌手默认对手选择不找地，这违反了MTR4.2节。在每个每个例子中，并非是不合法的信息导致了违规，而是因为对手根据不合法的信息而做出了动作。如果牌手将罗堰妖精和地放在一起，但对手并没有因为他没有阻挡者而攻击，那么就没有违规发生。但是，裁判应当介入，在违规发生之前就厘清场面状态。\\ ++ | ||
| ===== PHILOSOPHY 原则 ===== | ===== PHILOSOPHY 原则 ===== | ||
| - | **Clear communication is essential when playing Magic. Though many offenses will be intentional, it is possible for a player to make a genuine mistake and these should not be penalized harshly. Refer to section 4.1 of the Magic Tournament Rules for a full explanation of the policy. It can be summarized as:**\\ | + | **Clear communication is essential when playing Magic. Though many offenses will be intentional, it is possible for a player to make a genuine mistake that causes confusion and these should not be penalized harshly.**\\ |
| - | ++交流通畅是顺利进行万智牌游戏的关键要素。虽然这类违规多为蓄意，但仍有可能牌手犯下的是无心之失；在这种状况下，便不该给予严厉的处罚。|\\ | + | ++交流通畅是顺利进行万智牌游戏的关键要素。虽然这类违规多为蓄意，但仍有可能牌手犯下的是无心之失并让对手造成了迷惑；在这种状况下，便不该给予严厉的处罚。|\\ |
| - | We all agree that playing magic face to face is quite different from playing Magic Online on a computer. Clear communication should help players express their thoughts and ensure that the game can be played. We want players to talk to each other. We want them to communicate. But players are human, and they will make mistakes. For those wrong answers which you believe are unintentional, the player should be given a Warning. We don't want a more severe penalty, because we don't want players scared to communicate with each other for fear of getting a penalty.\\ | + | We all agree that playing magic face to face is quite different from playing Magic Online on a computer. Clear communication should help players express their thoughts and ensure that the game can be played. We want players to talk to each other. We want them to communicate. But players are human, and they will make mistakes. For these violations, the player should be given a Warning. We don't want a more severe penalty, because we don't want players scared to communicate with each other for fear of getting a penalty.\\ |
| - | 我们都知道面对面的玩万智牌跟你在电脑上玩Magic Online是有很大不同的。清楚明白的交流可以帮助牌手们准确表达他们想要做的游戏动作，让游戏顺利进行。我们希望牌手间能够用语言进行交流。但是大家都是人，都会犯错误。对于你认为牌手因为无心之失而回答的错误答案，应该给予警告的处罚。我们不想给出严厉的处罚，因为我们不想牌手因为怕吃到判罚而惧于跟对手交流。\\ ++ | + | 我们都知道面对面的玩万智牌跟你在电脑上玩Magic Online是有很大不同的。清楚明白的交流可以帮助牌手们准确表达他们想要做的游戏动作，让游戏顺利进行。我们希望牌手间能够用语言进行交流。但是大家都是人，都会犯错误。对于此类违反，应该给予警告的处罚。我们不想给出更严厉的处罚，因为我们不想牌手因为怕吃到判罚而惧于跟对手交流。\\ ++ |
| - | **欲知牌手交流原则之完整说明，请参照《万智牌比赛规则》之第4.1节。此原则可概述如下：** | + | |
| + | **A player may commit this infraction in situations where they have not spoken. A physically ambiguous board state is not automatically a penalty, but judges are encouraged to tell players to fix ambiguous placements before they might become problematic.**\\ | ||
| + | ++牌手可能在没有讲话的情况下犯下此违规。|\\ | ||
| + | This can occur in many different ways. As another example, a player might control Dusk Charger, but not have represented that they have the city's blessing. If the opponent acts on the belief that the player does not have the city's blessing and assumes that the Dusk Charger is only a 3/3, a CPV has occurred.\\ | ||
| + | 这种情形会以很多方式发生。举另外一个例子，一个牌手操控暮影战马，但却没有表示其拥有黄金城祝福。如果对手因为相信他没有黄金城祝福、暮影战马仍然是3/3而采取行动，此时就发生了CPV。\\ ++ | ||
| + | ++桌面上出现迷惑的局面并不会自动导致判罚，但是应鼓励裁判在可能出现问题之前，让牌手改正迷惑的局面。|\\ | ||
| + | As above, in the example where Llanowar Elves was with the player's lands, no CPV occurs until the opponent acts on the bad information. Judges should encourage clear board states even before an infraction occurs.\\ | ||
| + | 在上面罗堰妖精和地混在一起的示例中，在对手因为错误信息做出动作前，没有CPV发生。即使还没有违规发生，裁判也应当鼓励牌手保持清晰的游戏状态。\\ ++ | ||
| + | |||
| + | **Misapplication of a shortcut is usually not a Player Communication Violation, as the default interpretation applies in ambiguous situations and the opponent is able to act on that shortcut. Any deviation from a tournament shortcut requires a clear explanation.**\\ | ||
| + | ++错误的使用简化一般不是违反交流原则，因为默认的解释只适用于不明确的情况，而此时对手可以针对该简化做出动作。任何偏离比赛规定的简化都必须有清晰的解释。|\\ | ||
| + | Just misunderstanding a shortcut isn't a CPV. Since the default shortcuts described in MTR 4.2 are well-defined, those definitions can be applied in ambiguous situations.\\ | ||
| + | 仅仅是错误理解某种简化本身并不是CPV。由于MTR4.2中描述的默认简化定义的很好，这些定义也可以在不明确的情况下适用。\\ ++ | ||
| - | **• Players must answer all questions asked of them by a judge completely and honestly, regardless of the type of information requested. Players may request to do so away from the match.**\\ | ||
| - | **• 牌手必须完整、诚实地回答裁判询问他们的所有问题，无论裁判询问的信息类型为何。牌手可请求在远离对战区域的地方回答问题。**\\ | ||
| - | **• Players may not represent derived or free information incorrectly.**\\ | ||
| - | **• 牌手不得对推断信息和自由信息进行错误表现。**\\ | ||
| - | **• Players must answer completely and honestly any specific questions pertaining to free information.**\\ | ||
| - | ++• 牌手必须完整、诚实地回答有关于自由信息的明确询问。|\\ | ||
| - | The policy is a bit more complicated than the summary above, so I urge you to read it. In short, the Communication Policy in the MTR governs what information players must provide their opponents with. A player can withhold some information from his or her opponent, but not from a judge. Judges expect (and can require) players to answer their questions. If you answer a question/or make a statement about free or derived information, it must be correct. If a player is asked about free information, he or she must answer completely and truthfully. If asked about derived information, the player is only required to be truthful to the opponent, but does not have to answer completely.\\ | ||
| - | 这个原则其实要比上面总结的复杂一点点，所以我强烈建议你去读一下MTR中的相关部分。简单来说，MTR中的交流原则规定了哪些信息是牌手必须要提供给对手的。牌手可以保留一些信息不告诉对手，但是不能不告诉裁判。裁判期望（并且可以要求）牌手能够回答裁判提出的问题。如果你回答了一个包含推断/自由信息的问题或者叙述了推断/自由信息，那你必须保证你说的是正确的。如果一位牌手被问到了自由信息，那么他必须完整诚实的回答它。如果是问的推断信息，那么牌手对对手的回答只需要诚实，而不必回答的全面。\\ ++ | ||
| ===== ADDITIONAL REMEDY 进一步的修正 ===== | ===== ADDITIONAL REMEDY 进一步的修正 ===== | ||
| - | **A backup may be considered in cases where a player has clearly acted upon incorrect information provided to him or her by his or her opponent. The backup should be to the point of the action, not the erroneous communication.**\\ | + | **A backup may be considered to the point of the action, not the erroneous communication.**\\ |
| - | ++如果明显属于牌手根据对手提供的错误信息采取行动的情形，则可考虑倒回。倒回时应倒回至执行动作的时点，而非产生错误交流的时点。|\\ | + | ++可考虑倒回至执行动作的时点，而非产生错误交流的时点。|\\ |
| - | Sometimes a Communication Policy Violation doesn’t matter. Sometimes it does. Typically you, as judge, will only get calls “when it matters,” and will need to consider a rewind. If I ask you what the power/toughness of your creature is, and you say “2/3,” I can feel safe attacking with my 3/3. But if we discover during declare blockers that it’s a 3/4, well, I would have done things differently had you answered correctly. I based my decision on information you provided me, since I should be able to expect honest answers about certain things. This wasn’t a case where I made a play mistake or a strategic error. In the the case where it is clear that a player took actions based on the incorrect data, then a rewind, as outlined in IPG 1.4 Backing Up, can be considered.\\ | + | Sometimes a violation of the communication policy doesn’t matter. Sometimes it does. Typically a judge, will only get calls “when it matters,” and will need to consider if a backup is appropriate. If when asked what the power/toughness of a creature is, the player responds “2/3,” the opponent might feel safe attacking with a 3/3. If during declare blockers it’s discovered to be a 3/4 then different choices could have been made. This wasn’t a play mistake or a strategic error, and if a judge is being called, it is clear that a player took actions based upon that incorrect information. In this instance a backup to before attackers have been declared, as outlined in section 1.4 Backing Up, should be considered.\\ |
| - | 有些违反交流原则的行为并不会影响局面，但是另一些会。通常来说，裁判只会在交流问题会影响局面的时候才会被叫过去。这时裁判需要考虑是否倒回。如果我问你那个生物是几几的，你说“2/3”，然后我就放心的拿3/3人宣攻了。但是在宣告阻挡者时我们发现，这个生物其实是3/4的，那么如果你正确回答我的问题我就不会宣攻了。因为我本应期望你对于一些事物的回答是诚实的，因此我的选择是基于你给出的信息做出。这与我出现行动失误或者犯了战术错误是不一样的。如果牌手的行动显然是基于对手给出的错误信息作出的，那么可以根据IPG的1.4的内容进行倒回。\\ ++ | + | 有些违反交流方针的行为并不会有影响，但是也有另一些会有影响。通常来说，裁判只会在交流问题会影响局面的时候才会被叫过去。这时裁判需要考虑倒回是否合适。如果问一位牌手某个生物是几几的，回答说“2/3”，对手可能就放心的拿3/3人宣攻了。但是如果在宣告阻挡者时才发现这个生物其实是3/4的，那么对手可能原本就会做出不同的选择。这不属于犯包或者策略失误，如果此时叫来裁判，很清楚就能知道一位牌手根据错误的信息做出了动作。在这种情况下可以考虑根据IPG的1.4的内容，将游戏倒回到宣告攻击者之前。\\ |
| + | Any backup should only go to when the opponent acted on the incorrect information, and not before then. If a Llanowar Elves were with a player’s lands since turn 1, but the opponent only attacked into them on turn 10, the backup isn’t to turn 1.\\ | ||
| + | 只能倒回到对手根据错误信息做出动作的时间点，且不能比此时间点更早。如果一个罗堰妖精在第一回合开始就跟牌手的地混在一起，但对手在第十回合才宣告攻击，倒回不能直接倒到第一回合。\\ ++ | ||
| <WRAP center round box 60%> | <WRAP center round box 60%> | ||
| [[:IPG:3.6|3.6. 比赛失误～违反限制赛流程]] | [[:IPG|返回IPG目录]] | [[:IPG:3.8|3.8. 比赛失误～有记号的牌]] | [[:IPG:3.6|3.6. 比赛失误～违反限制赛流程]] | [[:IPG|返回IPG目录]] | [[:IPG:3.8|3.8. 比赛失误～有记号的牌]] | ||