Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Head Judge Banning Coins

Status
Not open for further replies.
Personally I thought PokePop's post (#51) covered the facts pretty well.

The OP made it sound like one player was not allowed to use their coin. Because there are actual valid reasons why this might come up (damaged coin etc) much conversation ensued. It turns out that the actual issue is that a judge allegedly disallowed all coins at an event which would be a no no. That one is not even worthy of any conversation.

That said, I would appreciate that if ones goal is to "make sure our judges know that they can't do this" that they also use our support portal to let us know about the issue so that we can address it with the judge in question. :thumb:
 
I would laugh in a judges face if he told me that I couldn't use any kind of randomizer other then the one he states is ok. : /

If the coin(s) were altered, damaged, worn, etc. I could understand.. But to just say newp can't use it? Yeah.. No.. Would not fly..

May I direct your attention to the following excerpt from Section 7.6.2 of the penalty guidelines?

7.6.2. Major
Players are expected to behave in a respectful manner to all attendees and staff of a Pokémon TCG event. Players who don’t behave properly need to be reminded to with the issuance of a penalty. Infractions in this category have a direct impact on event operation or cause a small degree of emotional distress to those around them.
Examples of Unsporting Conduct: Major include:
...
  • Failure to comply with the instructions of the event staff.
...
Recommended Starting Penalty:
Tier 1: Game Loss
Tier 2: Game Loss

Of course if you feel that the event staff is making an unreasonable request, you may respectfully explain your reasoning.
 
Personally I thought PokePop's post (#51) covered the facts pretty well.

The OP made it sound like one player was not allowed to use their coin. Because there are actual valid reasons why this might come up (damaged coin etc) much conversation ensued. It turns out that the actual issue is that a judge allegedly disallowed all coins at an event which would be a no no. That one is not even worthy of any conversation.

That said, I would appreciate that if ones goal is to "make sure our judges know that they can't do this" that they also use our support portal to let us know about the issue so that we can address it with the judge in question. :thumb:

I messaged the PTO directly after I got confirmation that nothing had changed. I certainly can forward information to you guys if you'd like though.

Since this forum is read by many players and judges a like, I feel like it was still a worthwhile conversation to have, especially since it seemed to clear things up for some people, and can now be searched for reference if needed in the future.

Sounds good. Thanks for the conversation :cool:

And thank you for bearing with me. :)
 
I messaged the PTO directly after I got confirmation that nothing had changed. I certainly can forward information to you guys if you'd like though.

Generally, not a good idea. Private correspondence should remain private.
 
Generally, not a good idea. Private correspondence should remain private.

I meant that I could officially put a support ticket in that detailed what happened, just like I sent to the PTO. Not any response from the PTO or detailed dialog or anything like that.
 
This thread has bugged me for so many reasons. First, lets be clear about something: NOTHING in POKEMON entails you to ANY "rights." I'm not sure where that comes from. Second, OP keeps stating "the rules, the rules, the rules, the rules, they can't interpret the rules as they are written" then keeps interjecting words that aren't in the rules, like "always" and "unless." If we are to be interpreting the rules as they are written, quit adding words to suit your cause.

A couple of things I would like to point out:

Saying "you must use this randomizer (issued dice)" is NOT the same as saying you CANNOT use this randomize r (coin). In other words, its probably a blanket statement to make everyone's life easier. If a coin were flipped, they obviously can't enforce using their randomizer as you have stuck to the rules of the game. Unless, of course, players started abusing this by flipping a coin, hitting tails, then saying "oh yeah, I'm not supposed to use this coin, I have to reflip with dice," which goes both ways (hitting heads, then the opponent pointing that out). Any....REASONABLE person will realize that it was meant as a way to make the tournament go smoother to avoid reflips and questionable randomizers and was probably not enforced. We were told the same thing at our states. I played against a well known PTO (he was playing, not judging/organizing) and flipped my own dice the whole match. I didn't even realize I was doing it, neither did he. I didn't care, neither did he....and, not one judge walked over and asked me to use the "official" randomizer. So, again, to reiterate, they weren't banned. It was a suggestion said incorrectly that most (i say again) REASONABLE people understood.

One more thing: the rules do clearly state that a judge can DISALLOW (not ban, lets use correct words here since we are rules lawyering) coins and the criteria for which is really pretty open to interpretation. I don't think I've EVER seen anyone actually hold the coin at shoulder level, keeping it in the play area is relatively hard (if it stays on the table but falls on the player next to me's prizes, its technically out of the play area and either player can request a reflip, even if it is only because the flip didn't go their way, they are still correct), and very often, it doesn't not turn three times in air. The point is, PTO's know this. My point about it being open to interpretation is simple: taking into account that those three things are very probable multiple times, disallowing them at a LARGE, TIME CONSTRAINED event seems reasonable to me as a player, especially since it wasn't strictly (or at all, as I saw it) enforced.
 
Since this forum is read by many players and judges a like, I feel like it was still a worthwhile conversation to have, especially since it seemed to clear things up for some people, and can now be searched for reference if needed in the future.

No worries, I'm not specifically saying that you should not have posted about it I just want to be clear that we like to get reports on this kind of stuff directly as well. :cool:
 
This thread has bugged me for so many reasons. First, lets be clear about something: NOTHING in POKEMON entails you to ANY "rights." I'm not sure where that comes from. Second, OP keeps stating "the rules, the rules, the rules, the rules, they can't interpret the rules as they are written" then keeps interjecting words that aren't in the rules, like "always" and "unless." If we are to be interpreting the rules as they are written, quit adding words to suit your cause.

A couple of things I would like to point out:

Saying "you must use this randomizer (issued dice)" is NOT the same as saying you CANNOT use this randomize r (coin). In other words, its probably a blanket statement to make everyone's life easier. If a coin were flipped, they obviously can't enforce using their randomizer as you have stuck to the rules of the game. Unless, of course, players started abusing this by flipping a coin, hitting tails, then saying "oh yeah, I'm not supposed to use this coin, I have to reflip with dice," which goes both ways (hitting heads, then the opponent pointing that out). Any....REASONABLE person will realize that it was meant as a way to make the tournament go smoother to avoid reflips and questionable randomizers and was probably not enforced. We were told the same thing at our states. I played against a well known PTO (he was playing, not judging/organizing) and flipped my own dice the whole match. I didn't even realize I was doing it, neither did he. I didn't care, neither did he....and, not one judge walked over and asked me to use the "official" randomizer. So, again, to reiterate, they weren't banned. It was a suggestion said incorrectly that most (i say again) REASONABLE people understood.

One more thing: the rules do clearly state that a judge can DISALLOW (not ban, lets use correct words here since we are rules lawyering) coins and the criteria for which is really pretty open to interpretation. I don't think I've EVER seen anyone actually hold the coin at shoulder level, keeping it in the play area is relatively hard (if it stays on the table but falls on the player next to me's prizes, its technically out of the play area and either player can request a reflip, even if it is only because the flip didn't go their way, they are still correct), and very often, it doesn't not turn three times in air. The point is, PTO's know this. My point about it being open to interpretation is simple: taking into account that those three things are very probable multiple times, disallowing them at a LARGE, TIME CONSTRAINED event seems reasonable to me as a player, especially since it wasn't strictly (or at all, as I saw it) enforced.

My only reply is that you don't seem to understand what's being discussed in this thread, nor how past rulings affect this thread, as many things you have said are wrong. I advise you to read through this thread from the beginning and look up related rulings so that you can get a better understanding of the issue.

No worries, I'm not specifically saying that you should not have posted about it I just want to be clear that we like to get reports on this kind of stuff directly as well. :cool:

I put in a ticket to support.pokemon.com, as I didn't see the old reporting way directly from My Pokemon tournament pages. I referenced your name as well as the tournament ID. If you need anything else, please let me know. This includes if you need a more detailed description of how the whole situation took place.

Thank you.

For anyone else wondering it was a wonderful tournament and only had this minor hiccup. The PTO and staff still deserve props for everything else they did.
 
My only reply is that you don't seem to understand what's being discussed in this thread, nor how past rulings affect this thread, as many things you have said are wrong. I advise you to read through this thread from the beginning and look up related rulings so that you can get a better understanding of the issue.


I do understand what's being discussed. I may or may not know "how past rulings affect this thread," depending on specifically what you are talking about. I have read the entire thread, before I posted. If there is a specific "related ruling" you would like me to read, tell me which one and I'll gladly read it. My post was pretty clear and based 100% on rulings posted in this thread already, ones which I was already familiar with, using words ACTUALLY in the rule book and observations based on my experiences, however..."small" they may be in your eyes. If there is something specifically you don't agree with, addressing that particular issue goes much further than vague disagreement, especially when I'm certain I've said nothing wrong as I based it on the tournament I went to (I'm assuming you went to the same as me) and the rule book. Unless, of course, you are going to try and tell me that Pokemon players ARE granted specific...rights, which can actually found in the constitution, and banning coins (which likely didn't happen) violates basic freedoms guaranteed by our government, which they will just trample any way with the "Patriot" Act.
 
and banning coins (which likely didn't happen)

This part alone shows you don't know what you're talking about. That's ok, because I'm done with this discussion. Feel free to continue it if you're still confused, but I think everything has been laid out pretty clear in a number of posts in this thread.
 
Particularly with Juniors, I find that flips are sometimes not high enough, spin too few times, land on the floor (or the players nearby), and even on other tables. When this happens once, I caution. When it happens again, I warn. Third time I make them use a dice. I've had players disrupt as many as 4 other games with bad flips and beyond the delay of all games involved, it always causes distraction and conversation at adjacent tables.

Also, I sat at a table one day and a player demonstrated to me (not in regulation play) by flipping a regulation coin (easily 25 times) and called every single one of them correctly in the air. You can learn this stuff. I made him swap coins and so he used one of mine and continued doing the same thing. He plays with dice to avoid accusations by the way. I pay special attention to coins in tournament play now.

Try as I might, I can't flip it properly and still accomplish this same feat. I guess I'll never be a magician. <grin>
 
Also, I sat at a table one day and a player demonstrated to me (not in regulation play) by flipping a regulation coin (easily 25 times) and called every single one of them correctly in the air. You can learn this stuff. I made him swap coins and so he used one of mine and continued doing the same thing.

I think that this is the main point that everyone's missing. Yea, I understand that the rules allow the flipping of coins and that Japan doesn't want to change it.

However, science has shown that coin flips are probably the easiest randomizers to manipulate because the physical motion by which the randomization happens is not as stochastic as say, a dice roll. I always use dice to prevent any accusations of cheating, but I'm able to flip a Pokemon coin as "heads" with approximately 2/3 success. (If you live in the NY area and want me to demonstrate, I'm more than happy to.) That's why I'm always super cautious when my opponent insists on flipping coins.

I think whoever the decision makers in Japan are should seriously take a look the ease at which coin flips can be manipulated.
 
...as I based it on the tournament I went to (I'm assuming you went to the same as me)...
Two questions:
1) Were you and Ditto at the same event?

2) If so, are you saying that there was no blanket ban on coins as a class and that players were ruled to use the dice provided at the event? This doesn't mean that players chose to ignore the rule by the judge and used coins or other dice anyway, but that if the judge was asked, the ruling handled down by him was that only the dice provided could be used.
 
Particularly with Juniors, I find that flips are sometimes not high enough, spin too few times, land on the floor (or the players nearby), and even on other tables. When this happens once, I caution. When it happens again, I warn. Third time I make them use a dice. I've had players disrupt as many as 4 other games with bad flips and beyond the delay of all games involved, it always causes distraction and conversation at adjacent tables.

Also, I sat at a table one day and a player demonstrated to me (not in regulation play) by flipping a regulation coin (easily 25 times) and called every single one of them correctly in the air. You can learn this stuff. I made him swap coins and so he used one of mine and continued doing the same thing. He plays with dice to avoid accusations by the way. I pay special attention to coins in tournament play now.

Try as I might, I can't flip it properly and still accomplish this same feat. I guess I'll never be a magician. <grin>

I feel like you haven't read the thread. YOU CAN'T GIVE A PLAYER A CAUTION OR WARNING FOR FLIPPING A COIN. No matter what. If you want to give them a caution or warning for something else, then state what you're giving them a caution or warning about. But you can't do it just because they accidentally flipped it off the table. The rules say that they reflip in that case, not get a caution or a warning.

I think that this is the main point that everyone's missing. Yea, I understand that the rules allow the flipping of coins and that Japan doesn't want to change it.

However, science has shown that coin flips are probably the easiest randomizers to manipulate because the physical motion by which the randomization happens is not as stochastic as say, a dice roll. I always use dice to prevent any accusations of cheating, but I'm able to flip a Pokemon coin as "heads" with approximately 2/3 success. (If you live in the NY area and want me to demonstrate, I'm more than happy to.) That's why I'm always super cautious when my opponent insists on flipping coins.

I think whoever the decision makers in Japan are should seriously take a look the ease at which coin flips can be manipulated.

Science says that if you do any action exactly the same, under exactly the same circumstances, then the result will be the same, whether you're flipping a coin, rolling a die, or blowing up a planet. The fact is that it's so ridiculously hard to do this without machinery and a completely controlled environment that I promise you that a player can't do it in a tournament setting. ANY TIME SOMEONE CALLS A COIN RIGHT MANY TIMES IN A ROW IS JUST COINCIDENCE.

I have no idea why, but for some reason people have this illogical disdain for coins. It's completely irrational and has no basis in fact at all.

REGARDLESS of that, even if it was scientifically proven that coins land heads 100% of the time, IT DOESN'T MATTER. Why? Because Japan has said that coins can be used, and that's that. It's so irritating that there's this holy war over coins vs. dice when they're exactly the same and in the end it doesn't matter anyway.

---------- Post added 03/16/2012 at 11:40 AM ----------

Two questions:
1) Were you and Ditto at the same event?

2) If so, are you saying that there was no blanket ban on coins as a class and that players were ruled to use the dice provided at the event? This doesn't mean that players chose to ignore the rule by the judge and used coins or other dice anyway, but that if the judge was asked, the ruling handled down by him was that only the dice provided could be used.

I have no idea who that person is, but let me elaborate on how the situation played out, since people seem to have this thought that it matters to this discussion (hint: it doesn't).

Fast forward to the part in the tournament that actually matters.

Round 7:
I'm playing my round 7 opponent and he flips a coin for some card effect. A judge who was passing by saw this and told my opponent that they need to use the official die from now on. I said to the judge, "It's ok, it's an official coin." The judge looked puzzled and set a provided die on the table that the judge was carrying and said, "you need to use this." I said, "but official pokemon coins are always allowed over dice." The judge said, "the head judge told us you can only use the die we provided." I asked to appeal to the head judge. The judge went and got the head judge while my opponent and I continued playing. When the judge and the head judge came back the head judge said, "the only randomizer you can use is the die we provided, no other dice or coins." I said, "so you're ruling that we can't flip a coin even though the rules say that we can?" The head judge said yes. I said OK.

So for anyone thinking that the judge didn't actually ban all coins, you're wrong. Anyone thinking that I'm just whining cause I didn't get to use my coin, you're wrong (wasn't even me using a coin that started this whole thing, was my opponent). And of course, anyone that thinks anything in this story actually matters to this conversation can see how it's irrelevant.

However, we can see how important this conversation is, since there has been multiple people who still stated that they do incorrect procedures even AFTER ShadowCard and myself came to an agreement over wording, PokePop gave an official ruling, and Biggie confirmed the ruling. This is why this thread is important, because people still don't understand how the rules work.
 
The fact is that it's so ridiculously hard to do this without machinery and a completely controlled environment that I promise you that a player can't do it in a tournament setting. ANY TIME SOMEONE CALLS A COIN RIGHT MANY TIMES IN A ROW IS JUST COINCIDENCE.

You're just flat out wrong about this.
Link: Coin toss not random: UBC researchers

Coin toss not random: UBC researchers said:
Flipping a coin isn't nearly as random as people think and the outcome can be manipulated, researchers at the University of British Columbia have found.

In their study, 13 ear, nose and throat residents were each asked to toss a coin 300 times and told that the two who achieved the highest percentages of "heads" would get free coffee vouchers.

The participants were instructed in proper coin-flipping technique, and the results were observed and recorded to prevent cheating.

All the participants were able to toss more heads than tails. On average, heads came up 57 per cent of the time. The winner was able to get a heads outcome 68 per cent of the time.

"This study shows that when participants are given simple instructions about how to manipulate the toss of a coin and only a few minutes to practise this technique, more than half can significantly manipulate the outcome," the researchers wrote.

No-one's arguing that Japan permits coins and they are legal to use in Pokemon. What I'm arguing is that coins should be banned in favor of dice because coins are ridiculously easy to manipulate, whereas the randomization process using dice is more stochastic and thus much more difficult to manipulate.

---------- Post added 03/16/2012 at 12:45 PM ----------

To make myself clear:

The fact that coins are extremely easy to manipulate is not opinion. It's fact. Ask any statistician and they'll tell you the same thing.

Coins are legal. I get that. The problem is if the decision makers in Japan should favor dice over coins if they want to minimize cheating in the TCG.
 
I've read the report. published here in full http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2789164/ (its a bit brief!)
The experiment was carried out some years ago.
It struck me as very odd that I can't find any repeats of the experiment to confirm some of the rather strongclaims made. 68% bias for example. easy to learn technique...

Being a skeptic does not mean I dismiss it as bad science. It means I seek corroboration. But I can't find any beyond anecdote.
 
You're just flat out wrong about this.
Link: Coin toss not random: UBC researchers



No-one's arguing that Japan permits coins and they are legal to use in Pokemon. What I'm arguing is that coins should be banned in favor of dice because coins are ridiculously easy to manipulate, whereas the randomization process using dice is more stochastic and thus much more difficult to manipulate.

---------- Post added 03/16/2012 at 12:45 PM ----------

To make myself clear:

The fact that coins are extremely easy to manipulate is not opinion. It's fact. Ask any statistician and they'll tell you the same thing.

Coins are legal. I get that. The problem is if the decision makers in Japan should favor dice over coins if they want to minimize cheating in the TCG.

You should probably start a new thread about whether coins should be legal or not if that's what you want to talk about.

Still, I'll bite.

A Statistician will tell you that a coin flip has exactly 50% chance of getting heads. That's stats. It's math. It doesn't have opinion, it's fact. Just because I flip 13/20 heads, does NOT meant anything about whether a coin is 50/50 or not. In practice there will always be variance, but if you were flip a coin an infinite amount of times then you'd get 50% heads and 50% tails. Fact.

The EXACT same thing applies to dice. So just because there's a study where they found in practice results of coins not getting exactly 50% heads is irrelevant. The people flipping those coins didn't do anything to change the outcome, because they didn't have the equipement to do that. They could have been trying, and THINKING that they were making a difference, but they weren't, it was just random variance.

For that matter, I'm sure I could find a study that says flipping coins causes cancer. Studies like this are useless, and irrelevant.
 
A Statistician will tell you that a coin flip has exactly 50% chance of getting heads. That's stats. It's math.

Why do you insist on diverting from the main point? The main point is that a coin is the one of the easiest randomizers to manipulate. No-one's arguing that there's a 50% chance of getting heads when flipped fairly.

Just because I flip 13/20 heads, does NOT meant anything about whether a coin is 50/50 or not. In practice there will always be variance, but if you were flip a coin an infinite amount of times then you'd get 50% heads and 50% tails. Fact.

Once again, you're wrong. If you manipulate a coin flip in such a way that it lands heads more than tails, then the probability of getting heads, assuming infinite flips, would be more than 50% heads.

The EXACT same thing applies to dice.

Nope. Dice are different because dice roll/bounce after hitting the table. Those rolls and bounces are much more stochastic than the action a coin takes after hitting the table.

They could have been trying, and THINKING that they were making a difference, but they weren't, it was just random variance.

It wasn't random variance. They ran a hypothesis test on whether the coin flips are statistically significantly different from a random flip, The answer? Yes it was. Therefore, the result wasn't from random variance, but rather from the fact that the process of coin flipping was actually manipulated.

I've linked the wikipedia articles in case you aren't familiar with statistical concepts.

For that matter, I'm sure I could find a study that says flipping coins causes cancer. Studies like this are useless, and irrelevant.

Not in a peer-reviewed journal you won't. Aside from anomalies like the Sokal affair, you'd be surprised at the amount of academic rigor it takes to get something published
 
I was glad the conversation had not yet steered in the direction of "I can flip a coin to 80-20% heads-tails." If the coin is not damaged, worn, altered, it really does not matter. Since cards that use tails as a favorable outcome are popular in format, it sounds like something that player may want to unlearn.

I have no idea who that person is, ... since people seem to have this thought that it matters to this discussion
If the player had a history of using a damaged or invalid randomizers (in this case, a coin), then I could see where the judge ruled the player had to change the randomizer. That would have been a ruling for using an invalid randomizer as directed by the rules, not a penalty for using a coin. That would have been information that should not have been made known to you by the judge. You would have only seen the side of the conversation of "your opponent's randomizer is invalid."

From what you said, it sounds like that may not have been the case since it would have been beyond the judge's power then add "only the dice we provided" and "no coins allowed."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top