Where's the love?

[ryanvergel]

This is backwards thinking, really. The guidelines are there for a reason, and as a head judge I need a very good justification to deviate from them.
The good justification might be the PURPOSE of the rules/guidelines? If both players are satisfied with the pace- why are you overstepping your boundaries and undermining your very purpose by intruding and assigning a penalty (this is a general you)? The guidelines are there to help explain what might constitute, and what is usually an acceptable amount of time. They should not determine, but should help determine when slow play is occurring, as I said earlier. When you begin to mold your thoughts and purposes around the law/rules, it shows a problem. The guidelines are the help- you should remember that.


I quote this as an excellent example of the above point. Without being involved I will assume that there was a good reason behind the scenes, but on the surface this looks like playing favorites. The penalty recommendations exist in large part to help temper some of the inherent subjectivity of penalties, and to help encourage more consistency across all judges at all events. That in turn helps prevent situations from looking like this.

Any time I choose to go with something other than the recommended penalty, I make my reasoning clear to the player and write that same reasoning on the penalty report I submit to Organized Play. If it's a Junior player, I try to involve the parent as well, so there is understanding with all parties. The parent can also help when a particularly harsh penalty is simply mandated by the situation.



I wholly agree there are some judges out there that have no business being in the role. These are also not the judges you are going to find at Nationals level. (Yes, as much as we want to complain about some select judges at Nationals, there is far worse out there.) But bad judges are just problems anywhere they go. Poor judging discourages growth. If a bad judge does it one way at a Battle Road, then you (as a newer tournament player) step up to the next tier (with competent judges) and find something completely different, you might just decide that this game isn't worth the hassle.

The good news is that there are initiatives being developed to improve judge training and consistency. But these take time to deploy, and even then there are (sadly) some judges that are simply not among the teachable.

My personal goal is to ensure that myself and all of my judge staff are capable of operating at the Nationals level. Even if they never do get invited to that, I want to see consistent judging from the local level all the way up to the highest tier of play. The penalties assessed may differ between a Battle Road (Tier 1) and a Regional (Tier 2), but the level and quality of the judging behind them should not.



QFT. The next round can't be paired until every result from the prior round is in. That means waiting on time extensions, sudden deaths, etc. This is also why they are reticent to give time extensions except in the most egregious of cases.

20 minutes is a pretty good turnaround on an 800+ person event. People that are complaining about it have some rather unrealistic ideas on how such a large event should operate.

That would be great if that made any sense. Drew and others said IN BETWEEN rounds. Time extensions and sudden deaths mean, inherently, that the round isn't over. He even clarified himself and said the time between the playing area being EMPTY and the time the player pairings are put up for the next round. Using any defense like waiting on time extensions is just wrong. No wonder you think you're right- you completely misrepresent everything lol.

so now it's not the '20 minutes' but a LONGER time?

Yeah, it's any amount of time. I know I've waited longer than 20 minutes in between rounds. I know I've waited more than 30 minutes.

more reasons: re-pairings? match result corrections? unsigned match slips whose results need to be verified? slips with no winner circled, or both players circled? drops/no shows/'oh, i changed my mind i don't want to drop after all' slips?

Most, if not all, of those are bad points. Slips with incorrect results? Unsigned slips? The vast majority of those problems and matches (actually, the vast majority of all matches) finish under 40 minutes. Id say more a large portion finish with at least ten minutes left. Before the round is even over the 40 minute mark most of the slips should be reported, etc. Not only should those physical slip discrepancies be dealt with AT THE TABLE (why is a runner getting a slip that isnt properly noted?) and never make their way to the computers, but the minute number that actually do make it that far should make it there well before the round is even over- before extensions and rulings, etc.

I can see a re-pairing needing 5 minutes or so to work on. I still don't see a justification for a 30 minute break in between rounds- and this is NOT counting any time AFTER the pairings are posted or before ALL games are completed for an age division.




It's not that I think any of the staff is lazy or anything. But we do have a right to wonder why it takes so long at times. There is probably great reasoning- I just don't think we've seen good arguments yet. My/our? guess is that the process is probably a bit inefficient.

 

[SD PokeMom]

the US nats events have gotten bigger and bigger each and every year...but as a whole round turn-times have NOT gotten longer, but shorter.

sure there's the always the few exception rounds to the rule, but imo this past nats was the smoothest-running one of all the ones i've staffed (since 2005).

'inefficient', really? =/

'mom

 

[NoPoke]

I'm sure the process is inefficient with 1300+ people involved that is just about guaranteed. My guess as to what goes wrong is that small errors take lots of time to discover and fix.

-----

One way to speed up between round times would be to not bother with posting match records and have players live with whatever was on the slips.

Incorrect slips could be treated as double losses rather than try to resolve the outcome.

Players accepting a small error rate on match results as entered into TOM would help. Entry errors could be corrected after the round starts but would not change the pairings.

------

Time - Cost - Quality . You can have any two without too much difficulty. All three is hard.

All of the suggestions I made trade off quality against time. The continuous printer suggestion trades cost vs time. I'm sure there are others. Note that I'm not advocating any of the quick suggestions as a solution. Trade Offs aren't really solutions.

 

[Lawman]

For the record, I was not including sit down time in my 20-30 minutes. Also, different printers is just one possible suggestion on how to cut down time. I'm sure there are more options.

We have 40 min rds. Every rd had games go to SD in MAs. Dont forget about games w/ extensions. As HJ, I had to keep my personal stopwatch going to call out time for the games with ext's. I then left the timer going until the next rd was paired and players filing in to the seats. The ave was 1 hr. to 1 hr 5 mins every rd, except one with the repair issue.

Keith

EDIT: I will add. The rd when we had the repair in one flight, we started the other flight as quick as we could. The flight with the repair started 7 mins later.

 

[ryanvergel]

the US nats events have gotten bigger and bigger each and every year...but as a whole round turn-times have NOT gotten longer, but shorter.

sure there's the always the few exception rounds to the rule, but imo this past nats was the smoothest-running one of all the ones i've staffed (since 2005).

'inefficient', really? =/

'mom

i will agree with the bolded

 

[iamapwnda]

I thought Nationals was a relatively well-judged event overall. There were definitely some exceptions but when the whole judging committee got together to decide stuff I felt it was mostly unbiased and consistent with the rulebook. Definitely though it is hard to tell which judges are good and to even get a lot of candidates to judge in the first place, look at FIFA and the terrible refs in the World Cup, they probably pay the refs tons of Euros and screen from a pool of thousands of decades-long experienced people, and they still screwed up so many important calls. I think it's unrealistic to expect judging quality to be any better than it was at the past Nationals, but maybe some better systems for censuring judges, disputing rulings, and more fair rules could help things.

 

[Lawman]

The main problem is that none of the judges have any idea how to play at a high level and therefore are completely unqualified to tell when someone is playing slow. I haven't seen the guidelines for slow play, but based upon how the penalty was called at Nationals, they are horrible and honestly need to be completely redone. The amount of time it takes to do a move changes significantly depending on what the game situation is and any set time limit guideline is utter BS as a result.

For example, a prize penalty was called on me during top 128 after I did a thirty-five second Cyrus's Conspiracy. The game was incredibly close (3-3 on prizes) and my decisions for the Cyrus's would have an incredible impact on how the game would carry out. First off, thirty-five seconds isn't even long for a Cyrus's in my opinion since a player has to make three significant choices. In my deck alone I played three different types of basic energy, five different supporters and four different TGI cards. The numbers of possible combinations is vast and combined with state of the game at that moment, I probably could have justified taking a much longer time in making the decisions. The judge however thought differently, and when I appealed to the Head Judge it didn't seem like they cared about my side of the story at all. The said something along the lines of "Well its been a prize penalty all day, so I'm not going to make any exceptions." Also for the record, my opponent had not complained once and had nothing to offer when asked about the situation. Now, I don't know if any of the judges involved in the situation have any high level play experience, but I highly doubt it considering how completely justifiable my play was considering the card and game situation.

The number of complaints against judges, particularly about how slow play is handled, would dramatically decrease if they had any idea how to actually recognize improper slow play. The player reaction, as noted by the OP, has been almost universally horrible so clearly something needs to be done by POP to rectify the situation. I would suggest better guidelines as a start and probably better judge training. The head judge in my situation had clearly already made up his mind to support his judge before he even reached the table. This should obviously not always be the case. I know this judge will probably come and share his thoughts (Lawman, I believe) but I'm just calling it like I see it.

If you had even taken the time to read the penalty guidelines, I would make a better response. Bottom line, we as judges know and acknowledge that the FIRST deck search will and should be the longest. A good player will go thru the contents of the deck and know what at least 4 of his prizes will be, A player that doesnt do this sets themselves up for a major game play error on their part bc they will play/look for X card when they should have known already it was prized. I didnt need "time walk" to know what my prizes generally were (on the times I get to play).

To say the judges dont understand the gamestate is like me saying you Drew, dont know how to play your SP deck properly. That would be ridiculous. Likewise, as an ACTIVE judge (again, the way we are told to judge per the guidelines AND TPCi OP brass), I dont need a player to signal me to watch pace of play. We watch this already. But, we do appreciate and NEED players to call us over to observe pace when they feel it isnt going as fairly as it should be.

I will "call it as I see it" Drew. You state we may need better guidelines, but you admit that you dont know them yourself! Wow....how does one debate with an unarmed man? As to your particular ruling, those circumstances were specifically discussed in staff meetings pre tourney and again, going into rds 8, 9 and topcut. Mid/late game searches when you have Cyrus'd 2 times before, used SP radar, communication, bebe's etc. How long should we let you search after 5-8 prior searches?? Sorry, YOU dont get to choose how long. That would be unfair to your oppo. Ask Kettler.,,,,I'm sure he wishes his oppo played a BIT faster as time was called on his oppo's turn and he lost. Kettler then asked for a time extension. Nope....too late. The rules are clear. Next time you want to "flame on", please come prepared with more than "the top players know how to play and judges shouldnt stick their noses in". I'll remember that when you have an event cancelled near you bc no one was around to "judge".

Keith

---------- Post added 07/04/2010 at 09:17 PM ----------

I thought Nationals was a relatively well-judged event overall. There were definitely some exceptions but when the whole judging committee got together to decide stuff I felt it was mostly unbiased and consistent with the rulebook. Definitely though it is hard to tell which judges are good and to even get a lot of candidates to judge in the first place, look at FIFA and the terrible refs in the World Cup, they probably pay the refs tons of Euros and screen from a pool of thousands of decades-long experienced people, and they still screwed up so many important calls. I think it's unrealistic to expect judging quality to be any better than it was at the past Nationals, but maybe some better systems for censuring judges, disputing rulings, and more fair rules could help things.

And maybe we need to censor "bad/sloppy" players too? Or just the slow playing ones? You know, tourneys would be alot more efficient if players stopped screwing up gamestates like using a trainer with spiritomb active, claydoling w/o claydol on the field, shuffling their hand away, drawing extra cards, etc etc.

We should really only let the "good" players come play at Nats. :nonono:/end sarcasm

Keith

 

[Box of Fail]

One of the biggest issues is judge intervention without complaint from either player. Quite frankly, if I know my opponent is cheating (just for the sake of an extreme example), and I don't call a judge, not only is it my fault, but I don't feel a judge should have the right to assign a penalty to my opponent without my consent, even if the tolerance of foul play is doing a disservice to other potential victims. If I have no objection, he could be drawing five cards a turn for no reason for all I care - should I allow him, a judge should not step in and set the game right. And I certainly don't want a warning myself for failure to maintain the game state, which under the current rules I most certainly would receive.

 

[SD PokeMom]

One of the biggest issues is judge intervention without complaint from either player. Quite frankly, if I know my opponent is cheating (just for the sake of an extreme example), and I don't call a judge, not only is it my fault, but I don't feel a judge should have the right to assign a penalty to my opponent without my consent, even if the tolerance of foul play is doing a disservice to other potential victims. If I have no objection, he could be drawing five cards a turn for no reason for all I care - should I allow him, a judge should not step in and set the game right. And I certainly don't want a warning myself for failure to maintain the game state, which under the current rules I most certainly would receive.

you have GOT to be kidding me...=/ so much for integrity of an event...

'mom

 

[Jeremy Badeaux]

I included Jeremy's quote above for contrast. Jeremy, a typical poster from the 'complaints aplenty with a heathy dash of insult' camp, has chosen to ignore the multiple attempts by judges to have players contact TPCi directly. There is no 'blue wall of silence,' our shirts were red, we are involved in vigorous debate, and we have asked you over and over again to become involved in improving a situation that, seemingly, a number of you persist in claiming is near intolerable and all pervasive..

In all fairness, I've actually been pretty nice lately. I do admit that a little too much of the old angry vet bitterness comes through at points though. lol
In this topic I've been pointing out that while I do dislike some things, the staff at major events bends over backwards to create a great experience.
I say that as somebody who has done a bit of judging (I used to judge all the time before I went to work for Uncle Sam).

The only times that I ever had a negative experience with staff at any event, I made sure to contact WotC/POP (depending who was running things at the time).

That being said, if you really want me to quote a number of posts where PTOs/judges attack people who complained about a bad judging call, I can do that (I'd rather that fact can be accepted as fact without people screaming, "prove it" every time somebody says the sky is blue though).

If you noticed, the phrase, "blue wall of silence" was actually a link to the wikipedia page for it.
It is very applicable to how some people on here act the moment that anybody questions anything that a PTO/judge may or may not have done.
Even knowing nothing of the situation, some people around these parts like to attack people who are unsure of judging calls at a given event.

Once again, not all PTOs/judges fall into that one, but you probably won't convince anybody that none of the event-staffers on this site behave in that manner.

I am very sympathetic towards the staff, but I'm still going to have concerns when a judge refuses to consult the compendium for a ruling (no judge is infallible).

With all of that being said, please remember that I was not specifically talking about the staffing at any one event.
Good judges/PTOs are some of the hardest working people I've met (and I have met more than a few of them) and for all they product they may get from running all of those events, they also don't get too much use out of that product because they are running all the events. They are the first ones at an event and the last ones out at the end of the night.
That being said, bad judges are still bad judges and yes, it will leave a bitter taste in a player's mouth when they get shafted by a bad judge, just to be attacked for daring to be a victim when they bring it up on pokegym.

EDIT:

you have GOT to be kidding me...=/ so much for integrity of an event...

'mom

After reading Box of Fail's post, all I can say is, THIS.
With passive judging, you get lots and lots of problems that could have been corrected earlier had they been caught.

Box of Fail, let's run with that one and see what happens. . .
B.O.F.: "Judge! I just noticed that my opponent has been cheating and using two Cosmic Powers with only one Claydol for most of the game"
Opponent: "No I haven't"
Judge: "Since I can't actively judge, I don't know who is lying. . . so I'll just keep on eye on the game from this point on".

Wow, that sounds like fun (for people who try to cheat their way to the top maybe).

 

[Box of Fail]

That's not what I meant at all. A judge can come in and ask a question or point out a mistake; I merely object to the assignment of penalties if I subsequently ask for the judge to be lax on my cheating opponent.

Judge: Hey, you have six benched Pokémon dude. How long has that been for?
Oppo: Only two turns.
Judge: Did you use Cosmic Power since benching that sixth Pokémon?
Oppo: Yes.
Judge: Was it deliberate?
Oppo: (for argument's sake) Yes, I thought I could get away with it. I'm sorry.
Judge: I'm sorry but that's a disqualification, which also means a game loss for this round.
Me: I'd prefer if you let it slide. My opponent's a good guy at heart. I don't want an unearned win.
Judge: Cheating is damaging to the event as a whole. By letting it slide you are disrupting the whole tournament and setting up more potential victims. I will assign the penalty regardless of your wishes, for the good of the game.

THIS is what I object to. Judges taking matters into their own hands when the so-called 'victim' of the cheating act is not offended.

 

[Top Cut Comics]

I have read EVERY single post in this thread.... It is a lot to absorb....

I will try to help bridge the gap between player and Judge....

One thing before I go any further.... Its funny how all the bandwagon players have stopped posting in this thread when the Judges were asking for solutions to their problems. It’s easy to criticize when everyone else is doing it. Not so easy to offer up good arguments or solutions. I would love to see the roles reversed.

Drew, Ryan, Chris, You guys are awesome, and bring up some very valid points. I am going to touch on some of them below.

As a player, there is a clear difference between “slow playing” and simply “playing slowly”. Player experience is what usually determines the difference. The longer a player has been playing, the better they are at controlling all the possible win conditions, including the clock. Unfortunately, the current guidelines do not separate the two classifications. It will not allow a judge to discriminate between a new player (who simply doesn’t know what he is doing and taking long turns) or an experienced player (who knows advanced strats and needs time to think them thru). This rule is good for this very reason.

Prior to the match time change, to 40 minutes, Pokemon has unintentionally allowed its players to stall as a legitimate win condition. Judges were ignorant to this as a very obtainable win condition for many decks. Then we increased round time to 40 minutes and stalling became less of a factor. It became even less of a factor when GG was sent to tier 2. Games are considerably faster than they EVER were in the past. Problem is, some judges are just now catching on that stalling WAS a problem and now it seems to be the “topic of the month” which makes them prowl for it a little more.

Judges have to be very careful though. If they do not interject when they see the game slowing, they are accused of allowing a player to “stall out” another player. But if they do interject, they are criticized much worse. Where is the right answer? I think training all players to call a judge for potential slow playing EARLY IN THE MATCH is a must. Otherwise you leave it to the judges observations. Just like in boxing, you don’t want to leave it in the judges hands.

Drew, I had the same issue as you at worlds 2008. I had a terrible judge manning the table I was sitting at and issued me a warning on my first turn for taking too long on my Roseanne’s. You and I both know that what you set t1 vs. a particular matchup can determine a winner. I was so heated. I asked for the head judge and explained that my opponent was not at all concerned about the time I was taking, why should the judge be? He clearly pointed it out. No difference between slow playing and playing slowly. I hated to hear it but he was right. To avoid further problems with the same judge I asked that another judge monitor my table to avoid any retaliation from this particular judge later in the match. The head judge agreed and had the judge moved. No more problems after that.

I personally like the guidelines as they are set up. I will explain this comment below….

Mom, Pop, Keith, you guys have done some great things for the game AND its players. I will try and show the other side below....

The problem is that we have not gone back and re-evaluated the way players are using time during a match. I would be willing to bet that a seriously small portion of the player base has lost a game on time due to blatant stalling since the time change. Only seems that some judges may still be holding players to the same level as when stalling was predominate. It seems to me that we are a little behind the game when it comes to time evaluation. I think this is something that PUI will look into and make a decision based on what is best for all involved. Players, Judges, PTO’s and overall venue time.

If there were no guidelines, where does it stop? A player could literally play a trainer and think, play an energy and think, play a supporter and think, claydol, think, think some more then think. You are really opening a HUGE can of worms for all players to completly take advantage of. I completely agree with you Chris, that the SP mirror is extremely complex. However, if it cant be played within the guidelines that are set, it should NOT be a choice for said player. Sorry man, I am not taking anything away from Drew’s ability as a player. I know he is one of the best to ever play. However, there are people who currently play SP within the guidelines that are set and who are also successful doing so. The guidelines do not need to be changed, as this will effect everyone. Possibly another deck choice would be a better play. If this were not Drew we were talking about you would have to agree. Think about it. Especially if you were on the other side of the table and a bad player had an SP deck. Then you proceed to lose because he had to “think” about every move. You would not be happy.

People, judges bust their humps at these events for all of us. Sure there are some terrible ones out there. However, without the players sending in feedback to PUI, NOTHING will be done to them. You all have the voices to ensure that poor judges are no longer judging. I simply don’t see anyone using it properly. Coming to the gym and spamming up a thread is NOT how you ensure you have excellent judges at the next event. Emailing any issues to PUI with specifics will do just that. Now that I am on the other side of the table, I can assure all of you, PUI does listen to its players.

One last thing…. Something as simple as announcing to all players that there are still “X” in sudden death could really decrease the amount of complaints from players about lag time between rounds. I would say nearly all players who have finished before time are less apt to blame the tournament staff for lag time if they are informed of “WHY” the time is lagging. A simple announcement like….. “3 matches still in sudden death” could go a long way.

Jimmy

---------- Post added 07/04/2010 at 09:16 PM ----------

That's not what I meant at all. A judge can come in and ask a question or point out a mistake; I merely object to the assignment of penalties if I subsequently ask for the judge to be lax on my cheating opponent.

Judge: Hey, you have six benched Pokémon dude. How long has that been for?
Oppo: Only two turns.
Judge: Did you use Cosmic Power since benching that sixth Pokémon?
Oppo: Yes.
Judge: Was it deliberate?
Oppo: (for argument's sake) Yes, I thought I could get away with it. I'm sorry.
Judge: I'm sorry but that's a disqualification, which also means a game loss for this round.
Me: I'd prefer if you let it slide. My opponent's a good guy at heart. I don't want an unearned win.
Judge: Cheating is damaging to the event as a whole. By letting it slide you are disrupting the whole tournament and setting up more potential victims. I will assign the penalty regardless of your wishes, for the good of the game.

THIS is what I object to. Judges taking matters into their own hands when the so-called 'victim' of the cheating act is not offended.

Sorry for the double post....

So if someone is robbing a bank and no one is offended.... Should the police NOT get involved. Most adults call it being PROACTIVE instead of REACTIVE. Most judges are trying to ensure no wrongs go without being addressed.

Think of the larger picture. If we allow this player to "get away with it" that sets a presedence for all other players to feel like they should also receive that treatment. Just because you dont have a problem with it, doesnt mean the rest of the player base will feel like you do. You obviously must feel like you could win that particular game as well. Otherwise, I highly doubt you would let that slide. If you let it slide once are you willing to let it slide every time?

Think.... LARGER PICTURE....
Jimmy

 

[SD PokeMom]

That's not what I meant at all. A judge can come in and ask a question or point out a mistake; I merely object to the assignment of penalties if I subsequently ask for the judge to be lax on my cheating opponent.

Judge: Hey, you have six benched Pokémon dude. How long has that been for?
Oppo: Only two turns.
Judge: Did you use Cosmic Power since benching that sixth Pokémon?
Oppo: Yes.
Judge: Was it deliberate?
Oppo: (for argument's sake) Yes, I thought I could get away with it. I'm sorry.
Judge: I'm sorry but that's a disqualification, which also means a game loss for this round.
Me: I'd prefer if you let it slide. My opponent's a good guy at heart. I don't want an unearned win.
Judge: Cheating is damaging to the event as a whole. By letting it slide you are disrupting the whole tournament and setting up more potential victims. I will assign the penalty regardless of your wishes, for the good of the game.

THIS is what I object to. Judges taking matters into their own hands when the so-called 'victim' of the cheating act is not offended.

it's not all about you: it's about the integrity of the event as a whole. not to mention the next victim, or the ones in the previous rounds...

if you want to play by 'anything goes' house rules, play elsewhere than in a sanctioned premier event with substantial prizes on the line.

'mom

 

[Prime]

One last thing…. Something as simple as announcing to all players that there are still “X” in sudden death could really decrease the amount of complaints from players about lag time between rounds. I would say nearly all players who have finished before time are less apt to blame the tournament staff for lag time if they are informed of “WHY” the time is lagging. A simple announcement like….. “3 matches still in sudden death” could go a long way.

Jimmy

Or they could look at the gaming area, and see 3 games still going on with judges sitting or standing around them.

How hard is that to do?

 

[Lawman]

Jimmy: I get what you are saying. The scenario you explained in 2008 on your 1st search would not happen this year. Judges HAVE adapted. We understand the 1st deck search (or at least the better judges and the ones on my staff this year @ Nats bc I told them!) is the most important one of the match bc players catalog what is missing. It is important to know if 2 of 3 claydols is prized, or 2 of your 4 RCs along with Nidoqueen. We do allow longer searches at that time. Players understand this too.

Trust me.....we take this seriously. IF I were to have given Kettler a time ext in his T128 (or was it 64?) match when he asked for it when time was called, not when the warning was given during the match, I would have been roasted here by the other player and rightfully so. Imagine if the oppo also learned/knew I was a member of HT online? Sheesh...talk about sour grapes! Look, I applied the rules as they are and do it fairly. I dont look to see if it is a friend or foe.

Keith

 

[Top Cut Comics]

Or they could look at the gaming area, and see 3 games still going on with judges sitting or standing around them.

How hard is that to do?

Prime, I am sorry but I have to side with the player here. Especially at an event like Nationals when there are SOOOO many players. Most standing around the perimiter of the tournament area.

I do it at my Yugioh events of 200+ players and it helps tremendously. It takes the focus off the tournament staff.

Jimmy

 

[PokeDad]

First, thanks for the solid post Jimmy.

If you noticed, the phrase, "blue wall of silence" was actually a link to the wikipedia page for it.
It is very applicable to how some people on here act the moment that anybody questions anything that a PTO/judge may or may not have done.
Even knowing nothing of the situation, some people around these parts like to attack people who are unsure of judging calls at a given event.

As your link was to a page describing actions as "errors," "misconducts," "crimes," "illegal," "brutality," "criminal," "corruption," and "cover-ups," you might guess why I chose to quote your post for contrast, I found it gratuitously insulting to the judges you were comparing with the police officers of L.A.'s Rampart division. Really? You went out of your way to include a link that associated the conduct of this year's Nats judges with a felonious criminal enterprise. Love hyperbole much?

WotC/POP is the past. Did you have any comments about the judging at this year's Nats?

While I acknowledge that some judges may have felt a need to defend themselves against unwarranted one sided attacks made by people who played the game in such a way as to earn a penalty in the past, and while I acknowledge that there are judges who have made a mistake in a ruling, I would hope it can be agreed that most (98-99%) of those issues happened in the past and aren't really relevant to this threads original post.

I'm still going to have concerns when a judge refuses to consult the compendium for a ruling (no judge is infallible).

Can you please cite an example of a judge in the main event of this year's US Nats who refused to consult the compendium?

I get that you are trying to modify the tone of your posts, balance the criticism with compliments. I'm sure I am not the only person who appreciates you kinder moderate tone. Thanks.

PTOs/judges attack people who complained about a bad judging call

Again, I'm not looking for ancient history. I've read a judge respond to a player who didn't get to his seat before a mandatory game loss (when 800 others found their seats}, and a judge point to the penalty guidelines when responding to a slow play penalty. I'm not asking you to prove past bad acts by anyone; I would like you to point at examples of judges attacking players who complained about a bad call in the main event of this year's US Nats though. Not tons of examples, just two please.

bad judges are still bad judges and yes, it will leave a bitter taste in a player's mouth when they get shafted by a bad judge, just to be attacked for daring to be a victim when they bring it up on pokegym.

I would empathize with you, but I am not aware of any cases stemming from the main events of this year's US Nats where a player was shafted by a bad judge, then attacked for bringing it up on the 'Gym. While the proper course of action is to report examples of "shafting by a bad judge" directly to TPCi by email, I suppose there may be some salve in turning oneself into a martyr. Having said that, I really think you owe the US Nats judges a) some examples of their bad calls, b) examples of the "shaftings" you reference, c) concrete examples of criminal wrongdoing, and d) examples of judges attacking players who complained about rulings stemming from main event play at this year's US Nats.

Virtually all of the complaints are about events long past, while the thread was started to talk about the judging of this year's US Nats. While I have seen responses to complaints, I have not seen a single example from anyone of a bad call, "shafting," refusal to consult the compendium, or attack on a complainer stemming from this year's US Nats.

There are a host of intellectually disabled persons who love to complain, and will go on about something they heard from a friend who heard something about something that may have happened and feel that this third or fourth hand one sided report is worth referencing when they post to threads. I am coming to recognize these posters names and am able to skip right over their posts now.

Again, if anyone was the victim of a bad call, got "shafted," or had a judge refuse to consult resources when requested or bring in a head judge if an appeal was requested, in the main event of this year's US Nats, then please contact TPCi directly by email, being as specific as you can, to help make the game better for everyone. If you are going to complain in this thread, how about limiting your comments to the main event of this year's US Nats? While you may still carry the scar from the game loss your best friend suffered in a City Championship due to a bad call back in the WotC days, no one else cares; let it go. Finally if you are going to complain here, please be specific; and perhaps provide a possible solution to the problem you present. Thanks all.

 

[SD PokeMom]

no one who was making the claims of "30-45 minutes" between the end of one round and the beginning of another is going to respond to lawman's post?

'mom

 

[Drew Holton]

My first tag for slow play was definitely within the first few turns of the game, so at least one judge didn't get the memo. Also I did ask Lawman to assign a different judge to the game and he flatly denied my request.

---------- Post added 07/04/2010 at 11:21 PM ----------

Double post - sorry.

Also over the course of the game, your deck's inventory changes dramatically. As such, an important search mid/late game will often take just as long as a 1st turn search because the player is reminding themselves as to what options they have left. Perhaps you could incorporate that knowledge into your judge instructions.

 

[SuperWooper]

I think that sometimes issuing penalties isn't the right solution to the problem. In a lot of situations I think a better solution to slow play would be: judge sees slow play, walks over, issues a firm caution to the offending player, and offers the opponent the option of a 2 min time extension, then keeps a little bit of a closer eye on the game.

I don't have much to say, but I wanted to throw my support behind this post. Time extensions are more reasonable than prize penalties where slow play is concerned because adding time to the match doesn't affect the board in any way. Returning to a proper pace of play may be more difficult after a prize penalty occurs, depending on which game out of three is being played and who the offending player is.