Latest news for zenegra 100mg pills $72.00

Average Rating: 4.7 out of 5 based on 251 user reviews.

At Grand Prix Sydney, a player was disqualified. He claims it was unjustified, and due to a simple misunderstanding. The official disqualification was for Improperly Determining the Winner of a Game. The account of the condemned disqualified, is available . If you don't want to read the account first hand, the brief summary is that a player rolled a die in game (4), had his opponent roll a die (6), and then subsequently conceded. A judge watching this was concerned and started an investigation. The player in question insisted that the die rolls were not a direct way of determining the outcome of the game in question, but rather a request for a numerological sign. This is a fairly unique argument against a DQ, so lets look at it in depth. But first, remember that most of my comments are based in the context of only one person's account, and as such are influenced and biased, and that I'm speaking as an interested third party rather than as any sort of official in this instance. says that Numerology is a belief in a mystical relationship between numbers and physical objects. That's an overly broad definition, but these sort of loose concepts tend to resist being pushed into neat molds. Numerology in some form has existed throughout history; there are references in the Bible, in the work of Greek and Roman philosophers, and in the specific ratios in sites such as Stonehenge and the Pyramids of Egypt. In the current day, it's most often practiced around the Pacific Rim, from Asia to California, and can be as serious as a dedicated comprehensive lifestyle or as simple and absentminded as thinking horseshoes are lucky or throwing salt over your shoulder.  In other words, some people take it as seriously as going to church every Sunday, and some people do it because of force of habit and don't ascribe much meaning to it zenegra 100mg pills $72.00, if any. Could the player in question have been looking for a sign of some sort from the Universe?  Sure.  Locally in Northern California, and a few times at premier events elsewhere, I've watched opponents shuffle and roll a die, shuffle and roll a die, over and over until an auspicious number is rolled.  If I remember correctly, this would be a nine on a D10 or a six on a D6.  I have therefore witnessed empirical evidence that this sort of (for lack of a better term) decision making occurs.  Even when there is serious money on the line, some people choose to use a method than could be described as random to make critical choices.  Is it actually random?  Science says yes, they say no, who am I to argue with millions of devout people (or with science)? But we must remember that the penalty assigned here is not "Randomly Determining a Winner" (a phrasing that may have been used in the past), it is "Improperly Determining a Winner. "  What is the proper way of figuring out who won? Any inside-the-game method.  Can a player then be disqualified for conceding a game based upon the results of a table two down from him?  Not really, but you're forgiven for the assumption, as what game we're talking about here is a bit ambiguous.  "The Game" (You just lost, btw) in question is not you and your opponent sitting down and shuffling up decks, but rather you and anywhere from 7 to 1700 other people showing up at an event to win fame and fabulous prizes.  You're playing this game when you decide what 60 to show up with, when you wear your super-intimidating muscle shirt, and when you agree to intentionally draw because you know you'll still make the elimination rounds. There are three examples given in the IPG for assigning this penalty: Players roll a die to see who wins, players flip a coin to see who wins, and players arm wrestle to see who wins. [zenegra 100mg pills $72.00]  Yes, the first two examples here are randomly determining the winner.  However, a 300 pound football player offering to arm wrestle your average road warrior most likely does not see anything random about the outcome. Is a foot race to determine the winner illegal? Yup.  A drinking contest? Yup.  Discussing who has better match-ups in the top eight? Maybe not; after all, that's metagaming taken to the extreme.  Offering a fiver? That's not just a DQ, that's a caning (Bad road warrior!) In this instance, the player asked a higher power for advice as to whether or not he should concede.  Higher powers are not a part of the metagame.  Although the player might not be guilty of randomly determining a winner, he is definitely guilty of improperly determining a winner. The same thing would be true if a player prayed to YHVH and received some sort of vision telling him to concede, or if Lucifer offered the player wealth untold if he scooped up his cards. To further complicate the situation, the player in questions claims that he argued against his opponent also receiving a disqualification, as his opponent neither proposed nor knowingly accepted using a random method to determine the outcome of the match.  The IPG says "In most cases this penalty will be issued to both players, unless the other player calls over a judge as soon as the suggestion to randomly determine the winner is made. " As there was a judge sitting present and watching the game, immediately in this case would have had to have been the instant that player B was told to roll a die.  If player B honestly had no idea that player A might be conceding based upon the results of this roll, then there should only have been a single disqualification.  The fact that player B did not immediately turn to the table judge and ask for guidance could be an argument for this interpretation. However, there is an assumption that player B must have had at least an inkling of what was up.  At this point, I'd like you to list all of the reasons why your opponent might hand you a die and ask you to roll it, during extra turns in a match for who makes day 2.  I'll give you some time. . . . . . Figuring out who concedes sits pretty at the top of that list, right?  And if you came up with any other reasons, I'll wager that it was after a fair bit of mental aerobics. It's a fair working assumption on the part of the watching judge, if not every judge, that player B had a better than even understanding of what it meant to roll a die with no effect asking for it.  There is a common misunderstanding that Magic judges function like the US court system; that a player is innocent of any wrongdoing unless it can be proved without a doubt.  That is simply incorrect.  A judge can have nothing more than a suspicion that something shady is going on and still choose to boot you the hell out of an event. Judges don't often act on suspiciousness, as we like to be certain and we don't like players to feel persecuted.  The simple truth is, though, that the judges in question can disqualify player B if they feel that he had any impression that rolling a die might affect the outcome of the game in question. (There is also another potential reason for disqualifying Player B - irregularities in zenegra 100mg pills $72.00 his statements during the investigation.  Judges can be scary.  It's possible the player B got a bit rattled when facing down a circle of men in black and started trying to talk his way out of a punishment he honestly didn't deserve.  However, lying to a judge is a disqualification post haste. Zenegra 100mg pills $72.00 not being there, i don't know, but this is another possibility. That would be a drag for player B, but will hopefully teach him to act differently in the future. ) Do the rules allow just one player to be booted for this penalty, even if his opponent doesn't call a judge?  Sure they do! The penalty structure for the game assumes that most mistakes are made without malicious knowledge or intent.  If you try to Doom Blade a White Knight, forgetting about the protection, you've made an error and the penalty is a warning.  If you try to Doom Blade a White Knight and hope your opponent forgets about the protection, you've cheated and you're getting booted.  Intent can be a hard thing to gauge, but judges are judges not because they're great with rules (most high-level players are great with rules), but because they're great at a long list of other things as well, including getting the real story out of people.  If one player deciding to base whether or not he conceded upon some arbitrary outside-the-game data, and then followed through upon that decision without informing or asking his opponent, the right thing for a judge to do is to disqualify only that player.  The judge staff at the GP determined that this was not the case here, and I'm inclined to trust their analysis. So, to sum up, Religion of any sort is not a valid way to determine a game - Player A received a deserving DQ. Rolling a die, especially in certain circumstances, is accepted to mean that you're rolling off for the win - Player B received a deserving DQ. Lessons to take away from all this? Honestly, just play the damn game, and accept it if you happen to draw. Judges are neither dumb nor unperceptive. And if an opponent hands you a die and tells you to "just roll it, " instead "just" call a judge.

?? 2008-2016 Legit Express Chemist.