Team Violations

Some formats of Grand Archive require the formation of a team, such as for the 3v3 Team Standard format. In these settings, the kinds of violations, how they are handled, and whether the individual or the team is penalized depend heavily on context.

While teams are often formed by individuals who know each other well, tournament staff should recognize that this may not always be the case. In these contexts, some violations may not necessarily extend to the teammates, particularly where it is clear that a violation is from an individual's actions.

Some violations may happen due to the negligence or conduct of an entire team. Teams have the responsibility to be diligent about their team members' conduct and readiness, to some degree. For example, suppose format regulations require that deck lists may not share the same cards, as is the case in the 3v3 Team Standard format. In that case, all team members share responsibility to ensure that deck lists and played decks abide by format restrictions. If a violation were to occur in this context, all team members should be held accountable, and the team can be penalized as a whole. Note that, although some penalties may require a Game Loss to be issued, this penalty should be applied to only one player, either to the most accountable player for the violation, or one chosen at random if no player can be most at-fault. This is to avoid escalation to an effective Match Loss when the severity of the error does not warrant a Match Loss. Players are also partially responsible for monitoring their teammates' conduct and helping in de-escalation or correcting a player's conduct. If players allow a team member to exhibit violating or unsporting conduct in an event, those players can be seen as complicit and be penalized. As part of a player's responsibilities lies in maintaining a safe and fair tournament environment, they are expected to keep tournament integrity first and foremost over the interests of their team.

For violations based on an individual's conduct, where the other team members can plausibly deny involvement or are not found at-fault based on interviews conducted during the call, the other team members should be protected, as much as possible, from any penalties incurred. This is not wholly possible as any penalties will affect the team as a whole, and therefore the individuals in it, by extension. For example, if a player can no longer continue in a team-based tournament, the other team members should be allowed to continue, if possible. In two-player teams, this is often not a possibility. For three-person teams where matches are typically played to achieve a score-based victory (typically to earn 2 of the 3 points possible in a match by wins), a two-player team may still be able to win matches while assuming the loss for the missing player. While not ideal, remaining individuals may still be allowed to engage in the tournament in this fashion.