@murgatroid99 care to discuss the face-down question really quickly? I'm quite interested

I'm wanting to accept those points, yet I still feel the rule about hidden information supercedes your interpretation; that's why if asked specifically about a card's name, which is hidden information, you could treat it as such. there is nothing like "derived hidden information" in any part of the rules that I'm aware of. of course, when asked about "is this the card/thecard named Deathmist Raptor that was moved there from the graveyard", you'd have to answer truthfully for the reasons you gave

I feel the distinction is relevant; for example, consider a case where a card is put on top of a library - by the reasoning of "derived hidden information", a player would be required to give the correct information about the identity of a card they just put on top of their library and can't even look at themselves. maybe they themselves don't remember whether it's still the top card. I assume things like that are the reason why hidden information is hidden information, period

I edited my answer respectively for the time being, but I also welcome you (or anyone) to provide additional insight, because as you said, it would be a bit of a cop-out for the morph player...

As far as I can tell from the tournament rules, "hidden information" is a concept orthogonal to free or derived information

There are no communication rules about hidden information

yeah, "Any information that is not free or derived is automatically private information."

Right, private. "Hidden information" is a separate thing defined in a different section

I don't really see why the fact that you're not currently allowed to look at something has any bearing on whether you are entitled to information about its previous existence

you're right, I did mix up private and hidden information. I don't think it affects anything beyond my paragraph about what you're allowed to do with that information (which I removed)

by the rule I quoted, hidden information does not at past events or the like, but simply cares about whether some information is visible to a player. the name of a face-down card is therefore always hidden information, the way I see it. so when asked "is this card's name 'Deathmist Raptor'?" (simplifying the question for clarity's sake), you wouldn't be required to answer that truthfully or at all, independent of the game state or how it got there

I just don't see the justification for meaningfully distinguishing between "Is this face-down permanent represented by the card Deathmist Raptor?" and "Is this face-down permanent the one that was previously a Deathmist Raptor?"

this is rules as written, of course, but nevertheless the way I'd feel I'd have to interpret it if the opponent actually asked "Is this card a Deathmist Raptor?", and in no way also asks about the origins or game state history of the card

yeah, the difference would be the presence of the question about the game state

The player communication rules aren't about making sure the opponent knows the right phrasing to get the truth out of you instead of a lie.

yet they do mention: "A player should have an advantage due to (...), greater awareness of the interactions in the current game state, (...)." I do feel that your interpretation is more fair, but as I said, I feel the rules don't reflect that sentiment

and I should add, I get that the rules don't say "a player with better phrasing skill should have an advantage"

Awareness of game interactions is a completely unrelated thing from awareness of phrasing trickery

That's about the fact that a player can get an advantage from e.g. understanding how damage assignment works with deathtouch+trample

I get that, that's why I added the last line

but the player in question may not at all be a player engaging into trickery, but simply someone honestly playing by the rules, recognizing that the opponent asked about the card name, recognizing that they don't have to answer that due to that being hidden information

And it's not even about phrasing skill here, it's about interpreting a question in a very specific way to justify lying

and my concern with your suggestion is that it might result in that player getting punished because they in turn didn't interpret the question in a way that was about the game state at all. maybe they weren't even aware of that being the reason the opponent was asking about the card name, because they're stressed, not thinking things through, or whatever. punishing someone for that seems highly unfair to me as well, and chances are that a judge won't be able to tell either way

I didn't say anything about punishment

well, the implications for those players in case a judge is called is the only reason to discuss this really

Not all judge calls result in "punishments", even if it is determined that someone broke a rule

They might say "roll back to declare attackers/blockers, give them the correct information, and don't do that again"

no, but between our interpretations, we're also talking a possible infraction for unsporting conduct. so that would be something I'd be interested in, both as a player and a judge

Failing to correct a mistake would also probably be treated less harshly than lying because there are any number of valid reasons that could happen

Plus, in real life in some cases these situations would just clarify themselves: "Is that a Deathmist Raptor?" "I don't have to tell you that" "I mean, is it the Deathmist Raptor you put onto the battlefield from the graveyard two turns ago?"

I'm not sure I'm getting my point across here.. lemme try to draw a situation: say a player shares my interpretation of hidden information being the only relevant determining factor here. they bluff and say "yeah, that's the Raptor!", which results in a situation detrimental to the opponent, after which the player says "got you, you picked the wrong card!", so clearly indicating that the player did misrepresent the information intentionally.

I don't really see a way under your interpretation of the rules NOT do punish them in that situation, in case the opponent called a judge

(whichever punishment that might be is a different question)

the example you gave is probably going to be true in most cases though, agreed

Either I'm wrong, in which case that player is OK, or I'm right, in which case they're breaking the rules and their ignorance is irrelevant

I'm going AFK, I'll be back in a bit

well, yeah, but that's why I'd like to know whether you're correct or not :) and I feel as far as the rules are concerned, as long as the game state isn't mentioned, there is no free or derived information involved

alright, not sure if I'll be here. either way, I feel like I understand your point now, but I feel it'd be impossible to rule that way in an example like the one I gave, based on the rules. but it's okay to agree to disagree :) thanks for taking the time to talk it through

I have to point out that a really simple solution here is to not lie except in clear-cut cases, like about cards in the library that weren't just put there

If you say "I don't have to tell you that" really the worst case scenario is that your opponent calls the judge and the judge says "no, you do have to tell them that"

yeah, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to advocate any kind of trickery, misrepresenting information or cheating. at the same time, I never came across the opinion that bluffing is frowned upon in the game, so I don't see anything wrong with that. of course the safe path is always not to bluff, but I'd see that more as rogue judging than applying the rules, to be honest. while it does feel a bit like splitting hairs, I do believe the phrasing matters here, for better or worse

my concern doesn't lie with situations that resolve themselves, but with situations where a player thinks they're within their rights to bluff, and would later find out that a judge disagrees

as well as me not being entirely in line with "helping" the player by saying "they meant to ask about something else for sure". in the same way, if a player asked me "can I do [thisandthat]?", I wouldn't reply with "you probably meant to ask about [thatandthat interaction]" at anything above Regular REL. phrasing unfortunately matters sometimes

I think the main part about your answer that strikes me as wrong is this: "Putting the Deathmist Raptor onto the battlefield face down was a past game action that still affects the game state. The details of that action include the name of the card that was moved from the graveyard (which was free information at the time) (...)" - nothing in the rules I'm aware of say that the name of a card that is now hidden information should be available to the opponent

@TheThirdMan Nothing in the rules says that information that was previously free becomes not free

You're focusing a lot on hidden information, but the rules about hidden information are pretty short and the rules about communicating hidden information are minimal at best.

It seems pretty clear to me that the rules about hidden information are about who is allowed to physically look at what, and that that is completely orthogonal from what information players are entitled to under the communication rules

you're right, and I can agree with that, but nevertheless, saying that free information cannot become unfree information is pure speculation, and the opposite not being stated by the rules does not make it so. if that were the case, the characteristics of a card put from the battlefield to the top of the library would be free information, which I'm pretty sure we'll agree it is not. hell, it would even remain free information after the library was shuffled by that logic