MetaKnight
Member
Everyday I'm shuffling.
"Declumping" a Deck
- Thread starter Ness
- Start date
- Status
"If I'm searching my deck, I'm going to move cards around. If I see 3 Voltorb, Collocters, etc, I'm going to move them around to deck to get better randomness."
You aren't getting better randomness. You are making it less random. The term you are looking for is "making the cards more evenly distributed", but you are not allowed to decide the evenness of the distribution in your deck.
For those saying "if you don't like what I/they are doing, shuffle my/their deck", yes, that's what Ness is encouraging you to do. However, it'd be nicer if that wasn't necessary.
"I see your point, but is it fair to punish the 99% of players who declump innocently not thinking about all the ramifications just to stop the 1% who are actually trying to cheat in this manor?"
I don't think he wants to see them punished, he just wants them to stop doing it. Not just because it's pointless, but also because he wants to spend his time playing the game rather than properly randomizing his opponent's deck (which should really be their task). People are bringing up things like good luck charms, as if Ness is against certain things merely because they are pointless. He's not. He's against something that is usually pointless, and that is potentially and/or technically cheating.
You aren't getting better randomness. You are making it less random. The term you are looking for is "making the cards more evenly distributed", but you are not allowed to decide the evenness of the distribution in your deck.
For those saying "if you don't like what I/they are doing, shuffle my/their deck", yes, that's what Ness is encouraging you to do. However, it'd be nicer if that wasn't necessary.
"I see your point, but is it fair to punish the 99% of players who declump innocently not thinking about all the ramifications just to stop the 1% who are actually trying to cheat in this manor?"
I don't think he wants to see them punished, he just wants them to stop doing it. Not just because it's pointless, but also because he wants to spend his time playing the game rather than properly randomizing his opponent's deck (which should really be their task). People are bringing up things like good luck charms, as if Ness is against certain things merely because they are pointless. He's not. He's against something that is usually pointless, and that is potentially and/or technically cheating.
TheRolesWePlay
New Member
The good luck charms was supposed to be a metaphor. I was merely pointing out that people do so (declumping that is) is because they feel that it is better luck, like a good luck charm. Plus if you want to educate people there are far better ways. You could make an article with calculations explaining why declumping is bad, and trying to expel the misconceptions have about it, and plus it's just a good habit to shuffle and/or cut a player's deck, so the complaint just seems trivial
Metaphors only work if they help. In this case, you're trying to bring a conversation about Apples into the thread about Oranges. Your argument of Good Luck Charms is irrelevant here; Good luck charms are inanimate objects the are a presence; shuffling/declumping a deck is an entire action.
If you want to compare the two- would you appreciate your opponent saying "Hold on a second, my stuffed Charizard is sitting in the wrong pose."?
Ness
Member
TheRolesWePlay
New Member
The metaphor was meant to show how ridiculous the argument is. Of course that's what people grab onto though, a simple metaphor that wasn't even meant to be that important. -_-
headsrcool
New Member
I agree that it does de-randomize the deck, but I disagree that it's cheating. The majority of pokemon players cannot perfectly riffle shuffle a deck, and some don't even know how to riffle. By de-randomizing the deck, then doing a non-sufficient shuffle/amount of shuffling, I see it equaling to fair shuffle.
vaporeon
Moderator
Better distribution can be the same as better randomness for the shuffle. I don't see it as a time waster. The best players around aren't good because they make quick decisions, but because they take the time to think what the best play is. If I'm allowed 10 seconds to search and i happen to 'notice' 3 Pokemon Catchers are together, I will separate them and continue with my search, still within my 10 second limit for the search. If I take more time, the so be it, if I take less time, then fine.
Like it was said, we are not robots. Some things need more time then others. other plays are harder them some. I'd hate for a person to call a judge on me because I'm taking too long for them with my search on Twins. I declump cards because I feel better about it, yet you're calling me a cheater for it? If that's the case, I can call everyone a cheater who uses a netdeck because I don't use them. You do see how that's wrong right? just because you see it as pointless, does not make it wrongs.
Same thing can be said about good luck charms. They are pointless but all it does is make the player feel better and helps them out. It might not help with the game but help them get in the right mindset. Same with religion. I think it's pointless because I'm not a religious person but I'm not going to tell them their belief is false because I don't believe in it. They take the time out of their life to make sure they are doing the right thing. As long as they think they are doing the right thing, then it does not matter what I think. They do it to make them feel better. I declump because it makes me feel better, even if it helps or not.
Like it was said, we are not robots. Some things need more time then others. other plays are harder them some. I'd hate for a person to call a judge on me because I'm taking too long for them with my search on Twins. I declump cards because I feel better about it, yet you're calling me a cheater for it? If that's the case, I can call everyone a cheater who uses a netdeck because I don't use them. You do see how that's wrong right? just because you see it as pointless, does not make it wrongs.
Same thing can be said about good luck charms. They are pointless but all it does is make the player feel better and helps them out. It might not help with the game but help them get in the right mindset. Same with religion. I think it's pointless because I'm not a religious person but I'm not going to tell them their belief is false because I don't believe in it. They take the time out of their life to make sure they are doing the right thing. As long as they think they are doing the right thing, then it does not matter what I think. They do it to make them feel better. I declump because it makes me feel better, even if it helps or not.
Then maybe you shouldn't put them in your posts. People make a point, and you back away from it and claim it to be not as important as made out to be. The more and more you break away from the actual discussion to make pointless posts like these is what drags your points to directions you don't want it too. Stick to a point and make it, and stop making clearly pointless statements.
You have a lot to say about what's being "said", it seems. First about the phrase "Cheater" and now about how people are interpreting your posts (although you are aknowledging we're interpreting it correctly, just at the wrong time). I disagree highly with your claim of the phrase "Cheater", as anyone who tries to manipulate a game in their favor in any degree is cheating. Whether or not they are aware of the cheating is not the issue; they cheated therefore they are cheaters. Anything that anyone can say to defend the opposite is just making excuses, and nothing more.
Otaku
Active Member
Actually at least one person has tried and failed. Either you managed to miss it, failed to comprehend this, or are willfully making a misleading statement to unethically support your stance. The DarkTwins has in fact been debating this with Ness (and a few others).
No, it is not. A strategy can involve making an opponent think you're wasting time, or someone can merely mistake what you are doing for wasting time, but either it was wasting time or it wasn't. Perspective only affects your ability to recognize it, not what it is. If I see a dog in the distance, but my perspective makes it appear smaller than it is and I perceive it as a cat, it is not a cat.
1) You must be able to declump on "autopilot" in order to not waste any time. If you fully dedicate your mind to thinking, declumping will take place at a snail's pace. If you don't dedicate your mind to thinking about your search, then you're increasing the time you need in order to make a good decision for the search and wasting time.
2) Even if you can contemplate your search with all your faculties while declumping on "autopilot" time will be lost in two places: while you sufficiently randomize your deck after de-clumping and while your opponent also shuffles long enough to sufficiently randomize your deck, since if they don't they risk you having cheated!
I will take this moment to re-iterate my point: perception does not equal fact, so either you are wasting time or you are not, and if you are declumping while thinking that would realistically make the time required to think take longer.
Unless we have some method of verifying that you are actually shortchanging your own thinking time by dedicating time and consideration to declumping.
While almost certainly true, you cannot actually prove this. Even if this is true, it does not making wasting time a "good" thing. There are many behaviors every person capable of performing are guilty of, and the natural counter to this is pointing out that if murder is no longer wrong because everyone does it, then all someone has to do is murder everyone who has never murdered to no longer be guilty.
Again, by this logic any stalling is legal until most matches fail to finish before time is called. The behavior is wrong or it is not wrong. By this action, I can cheat in any manner I like so long as it does not by itself determine who wins. How many "short stalls" can we come up with? I am betting we can come up with enough that a player could stack the "short stalls" together to truly stall.
It has been a while since I last went over the rules, but if I blatantly repeat the same three actions over and over again, where each action only costs a few seconds, am I not still stalling? Anyway, Ness doesn't need this sole point to be right, you need it to have any argument.
It sets a precedent. It is okay to arrange your deck so long as you then make an effort to re-randomize it. If you specially arrange your deck then make a sincere, successful attempt at randomizing it, congrats you've only wasted time. If you fail to successfully randomize it after arranging it, you are cheating, whether you intended to or not. Your opponent is presented an opportunity to foil your cheating, but it does not erase that you did attempt to cheat, even if no one caught you. Like I said, it doesn't matter what is perceived, what matters is what actually "is".
If declumping is permissible as long as it is followed by sufficient randomization, how does one determine "sufficient randomization"? You're telling me your opponent now has to watch his or her opponent searching his or her deck like a hawk and have a judge (who is allowed to see the actual contents of the deck) also watching, so that between the two (judge and opposing player) it is known for certain the one player is declumping.
The opposing player must know this so that said player can sufficiently randomize your deck. Anything less creates an easy way to cheat. If this is not the procedure, a player can stack his or her deck to his or her heart's content and claim to merely be declumping if said player's opponent notices something happening, and said opponent must risk being called for stalling in order to properly protect against another player's possible cheating!
I know some may counter "Doing that would take too much time..." but I have learned this is never a defense: as long as we aren't breaking the laws of physics or setting a new record for human performance, you can't discount it. It doesn't matter if a player can only successfully cheat this way once during a season, when they notice there are only a handful of cards that need their order adjusted and a less than thorough opponent for the stacking to work.
This then sets up for a cruel trade off: you know the best way to stall? Forcing your opponent to do it for you! With declumping being allowed, you can spend two seconds declumping to force your opponent to burn their maximum allowed time shuffling your deck in order to ensure you didn't actually stack anything. If time is almost up, that's a horrible choice to have to make: prevent stacking or run out of time!
On top of all of that, how does this not translate to deck weaving being legal? By the logic that declumping is not a bad practice, neither is weaving. If I can weave my deck (stack the order Pokemon-Energy-Trainer-repeat) in a timely manner then shuffle sufficiently to randomize, I an doing exactly what the declumper is doing.
Ignatius brought up (ironically in support of you but actually proving why this is wrong) why can't I arrange a "power hand" within my deck. If all we care about is not taking so long as to earn a 'stalling penalty', I just have to be able to create one or two "quality clumps". They don't have to be clumps of identical cards, but of desirable cards. If you don't shuffle thoroughly, I have now manipulated the odds so that it is more likely than before that I can draw into a good combo.
Declumping=/=stacking, but Declumpling=Stacking/x, where x>1. Declumping is just a minor level of stacking.
Actually, I question the legality of "good luck charms". If they work, it is cheating. If they don't work, they are just a waste of time. Maybe they make the player doing them 'feel better', but what about the opposing player who is also a "believer", and whom feels worse for the ritual. I'd think their use would be against Spirit of the Game.
I'd say this is a faulty analysis on your part. Declumping=stacking/x. The benefit will be less than actual stacking, but it would be easier to accomplish. It is the same reason why a person would steal only a few cards out of an opponent's deck in the hope of getting said opponent disqualified versus stealing the whole deck: the former is less effective as the victim will need to replace less cards, but the latter is much harder to get away with!
The more you talk the more it is apparent the hate is warranted. Ness laid this out in his first statement: if this improves your results its cheating, if it doesn't it is wasting time since first you use time to "cheat" then you and your opponent have to spend time to undo the cheat!
This is further substantiated by PokePop's post. I really think this should be made illegal due to the precedent it sets. I assumed with Spirit of the Game that it was recognized some rules simply cannot be enforced without confession by the perpetrator. If not, it needs to be. Some things are wrong but cannot be policed and must be left to the honor system. They are still wrong and are stated so because not doing so means they are in essence "right" and can be used to support other undesirable behaviors.
Not every cheat can be proven, but all cheats should still be clearly labeled as illegal in the rules.
Ness
Member
This is also illegal per the tournament guidelines.
You can be removed from the tournament for not passing the "smell test". :thumb:
vaporeon
Moderator
I meant to say more randomness for the shuffle.
You may mean what you say, but you do not say what you mean.
Ness
Member
Rearranging cards in your deck does not make it any more random. Gosh, if your posts weren't bad enough I have to look at that avatar, too? That thing tilts me to no end.
DiamondLopes
New Member
"Declumping" has never caused any problems because there's nothing ilegal about it (just like gathering options for collector while searching).
If people are using it as an excuse for wasting time then yes, I agree with you. Otherwise I don't think there's any problem with it. You have a few seconds to search your deck. You can check for stuff that's prized, gather all options available and also "declomp" as long as you don't exceed that time. Just like everything else.
I have nothing but respect for you Jason but this coming from someone who's "not that fast" when playing is rather ironic.
'Cause a player who spends 2/3 seconds "declumping"his deck wastes more time than someone who takes a whole minute to declare an attack.
If people are using it as an excuse for wasting time then yes, I agree with you. Otherwise I don't think there's any problem with it. You have a few seconds to search your deck. You can check for stuff that's prized, gather all options available and also "declomp" as long as you don't exceed that time. Just like everything else.
I have nothing but respect for you Jason but this coming from someone who's "not that fast" when playing is rather ironic.
'Cause a player who spends 2/3 seconds "declumping"his deck wastes more time than someone who takes a whole minute to declare an attack.
Slowkingrocks
New Member
Doing this to "declump" is pretty much cheating/wasting time, but I do this for another reason.
When I play a search card like Collector, I'll put the basics I'm thinking about getting on top of my deck. Then, after I have thought it over completely I'll show them, put then in my hand, and shuffle.
My reasoning is that there are some scumbag players who will consider it a "done action" if you pick a Pokemon out, then decide that you want a different one. Playing them face down could work, but it clutters the field and I'd rather not get a game loss for picking up the wrong face down card (prizes).
Regardless, if you think they're wasting time, call a judge. If you think they're trying to improve their odds at drawing favorably, shuffle their deck thoroughly.
When I play a search card like Collector, I'll put the basics I'm thinking about getting on top of my deck. Then, after I have thought it over completely I'll show them, put then in my hand, and shuffle.
My reasoning is that there are some scumbag players who will consider it a "done action" if you pick a Pokemon out, then decide that you want a different one. Playing them face down could work, but it clutters the field and I'd rather not get a game loss for picking up the wrong face down card (prizes).
Regardless, if you think they're wasting time, call a judge. If you think they're trying to improve their odds at drawing favorably, shuffle their deck thoroughly.
Ness
Member
I mentioned this earlier. You are not attempting to stack your deck. What you're doing is perfectly acceptable.
There was an argument at the Georgia Marathon about it. I am sure it is not the first time such an argument occurred. Too many of you are making the GIGANTIC assumption that the primary problem with declumping is that it wastes time.
The truth is, the real problem with it is people are stacking their decks. The people who are doing this are rarely shuffling sufficiently after they do it. (Research online shows it takes between 5-7 riffles, with good technique too to sufficiently randomize a deck. Anytime someone manipulates their deck and shuffles less than 5-7 times they are gaining an unfair advantage.)
So what happens is, you basically have to shuffle your opponent's deck every single time your opponent is stacking it. Which again brings us to the other issue: we're wasting time, too.
Last edited:
DiamondLopes
New Member
About stacking:
You must shuffle afterwards and your opponent may shuffle or simply cut your deck after you're done. That takes care of any kind of stacking.
What if I bring my deck stacked to the match? Is it legal? Of course! You must get there and begin by shuffling anyway.
This is no different.
You must shuffle afterwards and your opponent may shuffle or simply cut your deck after you're done. That takes care of any kind of stacking.
What if I bring my deck stacked to the match? Is it legal? Of course! You must get there and begin by shuffling anyway.
This is no different.
- Status