P causing a kerfuffle

[Vampyr]

That's precisely what I think we should say, but I don't think it's what you said! You said "the original intention is immaterial" whereas it is material to whether a small card is a major or a minor penalty card.

 

It's immaterial in a way, because why would a player subject himself to a major penalty card when they could have a minor one instead?

 

Laws which require mind reading are worse than foolish.

[gordontd]

It's immaterial in a way, because why would a player subject himself to a major penalty card when they could have a minor one instead?

 

Laws which require mind reading are worse than foolish.

This one doesn't require mind-reading, though it does rely on honesty from the player. As do many laws.

[VixTD]

That's precisely what I think we should say, but I don't think it's what you said! You said "the original intention is immaterial" whereas it is material to whether a small card is a major or a minor penalty card.

I see that I misread Weejonnie's explanation and he was ruling according to the White Book. I don't know how that happened, sorry about that.

 

If offender's intention is material in deciding whether the card not chosen is a major or minor penalty card, then the reason for giving them a choice in the first place cannot be the difficulty in establishing offender's original intention. If we're back to allowing offender to deliberately play a card and then change it for one dropped accidentally, I've gone back to being less than delighted.