2006-07 tournament rules docs up!
- Thread starter SD PokeMom
- Start date
- Status
So it's ok to "accidentally" forget to show your mulligan in games? You mean to tell me I could draw an awful hand, and just shuffle it back in, recieve a warning, and draw a new, better hand? Wow, I guess there is a free mulligan in pokemon, if it's just a warning you could do that every tournament.....Gotta be a game loss, I think it's NUTS if it isn't.
NoPoke
Active Member
Though I can see some logic in requesting muligans to be shown in the presence of staff, I wonder where this will end. Will we end up having judges shuffle players decks just to ensure that there is no stacking. I would expect that the frequency of stacking/weaving is at least as high as a false muligan.
Maybe I'm being nieve but I do hope that sportmanship is not thrown out in the pursuit of wins.
Game loss in swiss is a very BIG penalty. Part of me thinks that the DCI approach of a prize swap was a better alternative and part of me takes the view that you can suffer a couple of losses in most swiss and still make the cut.
Maybe I'm being nieve but I do hope that sportmanship is not thrown out in the pursuit of wins.
Game loss in swiss is a very BIG penalty. Part of me thinks that the DCI approach of a prize swap was a better alternative and part of me takes the view that you can suffer a couple of losses in most swiss and still make the cut.
Rainbowgym
Active Member
What about mulligan, draw a hand with 1 card less??? So even with basic in hand you are allowed to mulligan, but in case you forget to show no harsh penalty should be needed. Or even better you don't even have to show your hand.
Is this not a rule in Magic??
That would be a much more civilized option (yes i Know it would change also the way of deckbuilding)
Is this not a rule in Magic??
That would be a much more civilized option (yes i Know it would change also the way of deckbuilding)
ryanvergel
New Member
Scizor said:
Warnings pile up though. If they see you got a warning at a states for not showing, then again at a regionals, you could get a prize loss instead of a warning at the regional.
Repeated infractions require penalty elevation.
ryanvergel
New Member
Rainbowgym said:
Nah, that's too smart. That makes too much sense. It decreases the luck factor in the game, and increases skill factor- we can't have that.
Rainbowgym
Active Member
ryanvergel said:
LOL or even let you loose the game after mulligan for the 6th time. (the fastest way to loose)
Diaz
New Member
I just really hate how I can get a warning for my opponent not showing me thier hand. What if illegal mulligans become too common, a player could get a game loss for playing against 2 people who cheat. What if both players had warnings previously, you cant give both players the game loss, there MUST be a winner. So does the cheater get away with it? Think about it this way, what if i know my opponent got a warning earlier for illegal mulliganing, then my opponent has a mulligan. This puts me in a fun position, i can call over a judge (no matter weather or not my opponent shows thier hand to me) and get a free win at the cost of a warning. Or, i can mulligan until i get my god hand, cause if my opponent calls over a judge, they get the game loss. What a deal! Furthermore, what if someone comes with a bunch of friends who dont care at all about getting a warning and they sit down at the first round and fake a mulligan, then, they and thier opponents get warnings. All the sudden, most people in the tornament have mulligan warnings and the person who brought the friends can get a free win almost whenever he needs it (bad match up, bad start). That could be huge. Also, lets say someone brings a lot of thier friends they could give a player a warning first round, then another friend can give them a game loss round two, and potentially more losses and even a disqualification. Thats one way to knock out a better player then you from the compitition. Also, not putting out prizes gives both players a caution. This means that players can really hurt eachother's chances just by using cautions and warnings against thier opponent. It's like liability, i take some damage in order to get the win. And for "team members" who dont care about pokemon, but are willing to help out a buddy, they will be glad to knock themselves out and take a strong player with them. There are soooooo many ways to abuse the rules.
And when i refer to "I" in this post, i'm not saying that i would cheat in any of these ways, but i could if wanted to.
And when i refer to "I" in this post, i'm not saying that i would cheat in any of these ways, but i could if wanted to.
Rainbowgym
Active Member
I am sad that this whole mulligan (and other) discussion about penalty's nobody seems to remember this is supposed to be kidsgame too.
Because some "older" players like to play "on the edge", the kids will suffer from the penalty's.
Actually they already do.
I hope we are really not heading to a penalty here and there environment, while in some cases more civilized options are available.
Keep in mind kids of 8-9-10-11 make mistakes not to "play on the edge" but just because they are kids.
Making them suffer on harsh penalty's is not the way to go in my opinion.
If I would have to give a kid a gameloss for per accident not showing a hand at a mulligan, It will be the last time I have judged.
Li@
Because some "older" players like to play "on the edge", the kids will suffer from the penalty's.
Actually they already do.
I hope we are really not heading to a penalty here and there environment, while in some cases more civilized options are available.
Keep in mind kids of 8-9-10-11 make mistakes not to "play on the edge" but just because they are kids.
Making them suffer on harsh penalty's is not the way to go in my opinion.
If I would have to give a kid a gameloss for per accident not showing a hand at a mulligan, It will be the last time I have judged.
Li@
POP: My mistake for not clarifying that I was still talking in my own senario.
Lia: I'm pretty sure the Penalty guidelines say to lessen the given penalties in the Junior Division, since most of them are learning the game. So I would assume they would not have to worry about a game loss. It seems the rules docs were written with the "competitive" nature in mind, that's why it gives the harsh penalties and then says lessen them for the Juniors, rather than not so harsh penalties and heighten them for the Masters. Either way, I think Judges know to handle the Juniors with some grace depending on the level of tournament.
I want to distinguish between two discussions that seem to be getting intertwined.
First, we have the debate about what the penalty should be if a Judge CAN prove that one player did not show their hand to their opponent before shuffling his or her hand into their deck for a mulligan. For this, I have suggested that the penalty be a Game Loss. Others have given reasons why a Prize Card is too leinient (ie, trading a bad hand which would be an auto-loss for a better hand and being down one prize), and myself, along with others, have also pointed out how this type of infraction can logically fit into Game-Play Error: Severe, for which the penalty is a Game Loss.
Second, we have the debate about what to do when it CAN'T be proven whether the Mulligan was performed correctly or not. Most of the Judges seem to agree that in this case Warnings should be given to both Players. Profesa_Magma has already shown us how this can be a bad idea. Though, it might be a little extreme, I still don't think it should be overlooked, however, I don't know if there is much that we can do, other than to hope it doesn't come down to things like this.
I just want to make sure that we aren't getting confused and think people are talking about giving out Warnings in the first debate (unless you purposefully mean to, god forbid).
In case anyone could not gleem my stance from my posts, I think that if a Judge CAN prove that a hand was not shown to the opponent, then the penalty should be a Game Loss. If the Judge CAN'T prove what actually happened, I would probably agree that Warnings for both would be the most appropriate (though I would like to see something a bit better than that, it may just not be possible). Obviously, these are just my opinions and nothing I say is official.
Lia: I'm pretty sure the Penalty guidelines say to lessen the given penalties in the Junior Division, since most of them are learning the game. So I would assume they would not have to worry about a game loss. It seems the rules docs were written with the "competitive" nature in mind, that's why it gives the harsh penalties and then says lessen them for the Juniors, rather than not so harsh penalties and heighten them for the Masters. Either way, I think Judges know to handle the Juniors with some grace depending on the level of tournament.
I want to distinguish between two discussions that seem to be getting intertwined.
First, we have the debate about what the penalty should be if a Judge CAN prove that one player did not show their hand to their opponent before shuffling his or her hand into their deck for a mulligan. For this, I have suggested that the penalty be a Game Loss. Others have given reasons why a Prize Card is too leinient (ie, trading a bad hand which would be an auto-loss for a better hand and being down one prize), and myself, along with others, have also pointed out how this type of infraction can logically fit into Game-Play Error: Severe, for which the penalty is a Game Loss.
Second, we have the debate about what to do when it CAN'T be proven whether the Mulligan was performed correctly or not. Most of the Judges seem to agree that in this case Warnings should be given to both Players. Profesa_Magma has already shown us how this can be a bad idea. Though, it might be a little extreme, I still don't think it should be overlooked, however, I don't know if there is much that we can do, other than to hope it doesn't come down to things like this.
I just want to make sure that we aren't getting confused and think people are talking about giving out Warnings in the first debate (unless you purposefully mean to, god forbid).
In case anyone could not gleem my stance from my posts, I think that if a Judge CAN prove that a hand was not shown to the opponent, then the penalty should be a Game Loss. If the Judge CAN'T prove what actually happened, I would probably agree that Warnings for both would be the most appropriate (though I would like to see something a bit better than that, it may just not be possible). Obviously, these are just my opinions and nothing I say is official.
NoPoke
Active Member
Professor magma and others..
1) We cannot stop cheaters from cheating. They will always find a way. That doesn't mean we should make it easy for them though. See later.
2) We must have penalties for cheating, and specifically for standard cheats in the guidelines.
3) The penalty for the standard cheat should not open up another loophole for the cheater to exploit.
4) When a big penalty is involved, the players wont agree, and a judge cannot unravel what happened then there is no other option than a warning to both players. There is no Double Loss.
5) POP tracks repeated infractions. As judges we aren't supposed to bear grudges. [edit: see next post by 'Mom][del]We aren't supposed to alter our penalties based upon what happend at a previous tournament[/del] or worse what we think happend at a previous tournament.
6) It is unavoidable that cheaters will get away with it short term. This is true not just in this game but in all aspects of life. I would much rather play a game where the presumption is that the players aren't cheats than one where everyone is penalised because of a few rotten apples.
7) I am perfectly happy with the idea that not showing your hand on a mulligan is an unrecoverable error and under the current regime warants a game loss. However I am less happy that the only people this catches are those that commit the error by accident. Cheaters will find a way to exploit the rule or make so much noise that no judge will be able to unravel what happened. The LAW may be an *** (donkey!). There is no reason why we have to have rules that are assinine too. Remember that it is often not the individual law or rule that is at fault rather the implications for how it is implemented that make it look foolish.
8) I look forward to a point in the future where we have a workable game loss equivalent for single game matches. Then much of this discussion just dissapears into irrelevance.
-------------------
As much as possible and without significantly changing the character of the game we should endevour to have tournament procedures that reduce the probability of standard cheats working.
- Have a third party see a muligan as a defense against disagreement.
- Never just flash a mulligan.
- That you shuffle your opponents deck at the begining of a match.
- That all warnings get reported to POP
- random deck checks.
- active judging
- vigilance on slow play.
Changes to the Mulligan procedure would have to come from Japan. Elected Mulligans drawing fewer cards have been suggested in the past. I suspect that the current view is that the procedure isn't broken and thus doesn't need fixing.
1) We cannot stop cheaters from cheating. They will always find a way. That doesn't mean we should make it easy for them though. See later.
2) We must have penalties for cheating, and specifically for standard cheats in the guidelines.
3) The penalty for the standard cheat should not open up another loophole for the cheater to exploit.
4) When a big penalty is involved, the players wont agree, and a judge cannot unravel what happened then there is no other option than a warning to both players. There is no Double Loss.
5) POP tracks repeated infractions. As judges we aren't supposed to bear grudges. [edit: see next post by 'Mom][del]We aren't supposed to alter our penalties based upon what happend at a previous tournament[/del] or worse what we think happend at a previous tournament.
6) It is unavoidable that cheaters will get away with it short term. This is true not just in this game but in all aspects of life. I would much rather play a game where the presumption is that the players aren't cheats than one where everyone is penalised because of a few rotten apples.
7) I am perfectly happy with the idea that not showing your hand on a mulligan is an unrecoverable error and under the current regime warants a game loss. However I am less happy that the only people this catches are those that commit the error by accident. Cheaters will find a way to exploit the rule or make so much noise that no judge will be able to unravel what happened. The LAW may be an *** (donkey!). There is no reason why we have to have rules that are assinine too. Remember that it is often not the individual law or rule that is at fault rather the implications for how it is implemented that make it look foolish.
8) I look forward to a point in the future where we have a workable game loss equivalent for single game matches. Then much of this discussion just dissapears into irrelevance.
-------------------
As much as possible and without significantly changing the character of the game we should endevour to have tournament procedures that reduce the probability of standard cheats working.
- Have a third party see a muligan as a defense against disagreement.
- Never just flash a mulligan.
- That you shuffle your opponents deck at the begining of a match.
- That all warnings get reported to POP
- random deck checks.
- active judging
- vigilance on slow play.
Changes to the Mulligan procedure would have to come from Japan. Elected Mulligans drawing fewer cards have been suggested in the past. I suspect that the current view is that the procedure isn't broken and thus doesn't need fixing.
Last edited:
Ian, I have to disagree with this, as the new penalty guidelines state:NoPoke said:
JMHO,
'mom
Rainbowgym
Active Member
And that's exactly my whole point.
So judges who know somebody in person can grant a harder penalty, because they "know" the playingstyle" or history.
Tricky road.
Also about the penalty guidelines, I have to hear the first judge who dares to grant a "lighter" penalty as proposed.
So judges who know somebody in person can grant a harder penalty, because they "know" the playingstyle" or history.
Tricky road.
Also about the penalty guidelines, I have to hear the first judge who dares to grant a "lighter" penalty as proposed.
GymLeaderPhil
New Member
A player's history is not wiped clean at the end of the event (or at the end of the season.)
Should a player continue to receive the benefit of doubt each time he or she repeats the same infraction at your events? Not necessarily, because then you'll have a select few abusing the system just enough so that they walk away with a caution (or less) for that mass-event repeated mistake.
A player who is showing unsportsmanlike conduct at one event should be on notice for future events. If they do not change their tune then the starting penalty will be higher due to their record.
Should a player continue to receive the benefit of doubt each time he or she repeats the same infraction at your events? Not necessarily, because then you'll have a select few abusing the system just enough so that they walk away with a caution (or less) for that mass-event repeated mistake.
A player who is showing unsportsmanlike conduct at one event should be on notice for future events. If they do not change their tune then the starting penalty will be higher due to their record.
bullados
<a href="http://pokegym.net/forums/showthread.php?
Remember that warnings excalate quickly. In general, it goes Warning -> Prize Loss -> Game Loss -> Match Loss (2/3) -> DQ. If you are continuously doing the mulligan thing, you will pay for it.Scizor said:
I'm still vastly in favor of asking players to call a judge over in cases of mulligans, as that removes all doubt from the equation. If both players don't call a judge, and one has an issue with the situation, both will receive warnings for failure to pay attention. This is simply my opinion on the entire issue, and should not stand for PUI, TC, or anybody else in a position to judge on this issue.
There are two ways this gets enforced. Obviously, if you play at my events I know you and know your history. You are correct about judges not knowing if they aren't at the previous tournamrents, but that is the exception rather than the rule. Most players play in just a few locations and are known to the TO and Judges.Venusaur said:
However, if someone with a shady past travels, there is another way their record follows them. PUI tracks all penalties at the Warning level and above. They look for trends and take appropriate action. While this is not an immediate solution applied by a judge at a tournament, it still holds players accountable for repeated offenses across multiple tournaments.
BDS
NoPoke
Active Member
Mom and Phil,
I've just had my eyesight checked so hopefully I wont miss such big changes in future.
If I'm allowed to take previous infractions into consideration then I'd like to see a record of such infractions available so that there is no unfair bias against those players that I have come into contact with. Given that POPs lawyers have a stronghold on privacy information I don't see this happening anytime soon.
I do use previous experience to adjust how I handle certain players but I haven't let such information alter the penalties I give out. At least I don't think I have.
I can see how this would be sensible for local tournaments where the field doesn't include lots of travelling players. Some may view the change as Karma!. But how would this work at a big event like Nationals. I would not expect to have equal experience of every player. The only fair option is to ignore any personal history? Or should I still take the Karma route?
I've just had my eyesight checked so hopefully I wont miss such big changes in future.
If I'm allowed to take previous infractions into consideration then I'd like to see a record of such infractions available so that there is no unfair bias against those players that I have come into contact with. Given that POPs lawyers have a stronghold on privacy information I don't see this happening anytime soon.
I do use previous experience to adjust how I handle certain players but I haven't let such information alter the penalties I give out. At least I don't think I have.
I can see how this would be sensible for local tournaments where the field doesn't include lots of travelling players. Some may view the change as Karma!. But how would this work at a big event like Nationals. I would not expect to have equal experience of every player. The only fair option is to ignore any personal history? Or should I still take the Karma route?
Last edited:
Theorecially that's a good idea, but I don't think it's workable in practice.bullados said:
Let's say you have a 100 person tournament with 3 or 4 judges.
Mulligans occur in an average deck, conservatively, about 1/3 of the the time. With two players, each having a chance of Mulliganing, that means that a Mulligan is going to happen in each match about 50% of the time (including double mulligans and rounding off).
So there are going to be 25 matches with their hands raised for a judge to come and confirm everyone's mulligan. Each judge is going to have to check 6 to 8 matches.
And that's just the first go round. For the 25 matches that got a mulligan, there is a new 36% chance of there being a mulligan for the second attempt. It's lower since only one player will be getting a new hand in most of them. So that's another 9 checks, or 2-3 per judge. Again, of those 9 matches, 3 will have a mulligan for a third time. Finally, one match will mulligan 4 times!
And that's on average. Probability outliers will push those numbers significantly higher on occasion.
So, I just don't see it being feasible for the judges to be running around checking mulligans for what would amount to the first third of every swiss match.
- Status