For those who were at Nats. (Stall Deck Question)
- Thread starter Cardzmaster2004
- Start date
Flaming_Spinach
Feature Editor
One answer and body language?
Sounds like it was insulting to me.
Sounds like it was insulting to me.
SuperWooper
New Member
M_Liesik said:
The fact of the matter is, the only reason he had to be asked a question, and the only reason you were close enough to observe his body language, was because of the aforementioned problem with the Deoxys holos and the sleeves. You don't have to justify yourself, especially not by employing sarcasm, in regard to David's DQ. What's done is done.
ninetales1234
<a href="http://pokegym.net/gallery/browseimages.p
Come on, don't leave us with that!:biggrin: Posting a vague response about what happened just makes people want to know more. What's the point in such a post?M_Liesik said:
SuperWooper said:
It was brought to my attention because of those two facts, certainly. There's a fine line between playing with warped cards, and taking advantage of the fact that you are playing with warped cards. The evidence that was provided to me made it appear as though the latter was the case, which is why the HJ had a conversation with David. The HJ was not satisfied with the answers given, so he got me. I explained what the appearance was, what our concern was, and then asked him my question.
It is important, however, to understand that we were fully prepared to proxy the warped cards, and allow David to continue the tournament. My mind was not made up as to whether a DQ was necessary or not until after my conversation with him.
I don't feel that I'm justifying myself so much as clarifying the issue. The sarcasm is more out of frustration/amusement. People who are not involved in a suspension assume that they have all of the details. They make statements and assumptions based on incomplete information. In some cases, the suspended parties are not entirely forthcoming regarding the events surrounding their suspension, confusing matters further. I'm not saying that David has lied about his suspension, just that I've seen it happen in the past.
I don't like playing the bad guy. No one at POP does. However, sometimes it's necessary, and we're the ones that have to do it. If anyone saw me deal with any of the major issues that weekend, it should be pretty obvious that I don't enjoy this aspect of my job. However, again, sometimes it's necessary.
ninetales1234 said:
I can't reveal all of POP's secrets, can I? :wink:
I once gave a game-loss to a player using warped foil energies in his deck. Like Mike, I didn't like the response from the player regarding "Why he used foil versions of cards rather than non-foil versions."
Sometimes you have to play "Judge Judy" in order to determine if someone is telling you the truth or not.
The Shedinja-fossil-stall deck is a "loophole" deck, and certainly needs to be considered as a "gamesmanship" deck. Now, add the "warped" cards to the mix, and you've got a serious problem.
Sometimes you have to play "Judge Judy" in order to determine if someone is telling you the truth or not.
The Shedinja-fossil-stall deck is a "loophole" deck, and certainly needs to be considered as a "gamesmanship" deck. Now, add the "warped" cards to the mix, and you've got a serious problem.
ryanvergel
New Member
Smeagol said:
Once top cuts are announced, any time a player is DQd or drops from a tournament, their opponent gets a win/bye.
No one gets moved up.
ShadowCard
Active Member
Mike, have you ever thought about writing up opinions (majority, dissenting, concurring) about the reason you ruled the way you did, like the courts do, in order to clear up any of that before it gets widespread?M_Liesik said:
Thanks for clearing that up though.
SuperWooper
New Member
M_Liesik said:
Fair enough.
SteveP said:
Just because a player uses a certain deck doesn't mean you should immediately pay more attention to his or her style of play than that of any other player, no matter what your personal views as a judge are. It should be the player's actions and his or her actions only that determine whether or not you need to consider gamesmanship as a factor when watching said player's pace of play, which is what I assume you're talking about in your first sentence (and it's also not what this topic is about in the first place). M_Liesik is right; you shouldn't confuse the issue.
They specifically made a rule that prevents a player from using an all-fossil deck. It's pretty apparent to me that a Shedinja-fossil stall deck ain't too much different than an all-fossil deck. But then again, I think that player had Ninjask in his deck, so it really wasn't Shedinja-fossil-only.
Mike, I'm not going to debate why the player was DQ'd -- I wasn't present. But, I DID see the deck, and it WAS designed to take advantage of the tournament rules, plain and simple.
I agree that you can't really DQ a player for playing a certain style of deck, if it's a legal deck. But, I DO believe that a certain style of deck DOES warrant extensive scrutiny from the judges if it's primary method of winning is to stall out the clock. If you play such a deck at any tournament I judge, I'll be watching you more closely than other players with decks that win normally.
If you're driving a Corvette, expect troopers to watch you more closely than someone who drives a Buick.
Mike, I'm not going to debate why the player was DQ'd -- I wasn't present. But, I DID see the deck, and it WAS designed to take advantage of the tournament rules, plain and simple.
I agree that you can't really DQ a player for playing a certain style of deck, if it's a legal deck. But, I DO believe that a certain style of deck DOES warrant extensive scrutiny from the judges if it's primary method of winning is to stall out the clock. If you play such a deck at any tournament I judge, I'll be watching you more closely than other players with decks that win normally.
If you're driving a Corvette, expect troopers to watch you more closely than someone who drives a Buick.
NoPoke
Active Member
I agree with SteveP : playing a stall deck immediately invites scrutiny that your plays are timely. There need not be any bias in that scrutiny. But there is a liklihood that yoiu will be accused of slow play by someone.
I've asked a similar question regarding the use of clear sleeves. Are we at the point where is just isn't safe to use clear sleeves at events like Worlds and Nationals? Playing with clear, translucent or even no sleeves just seems to attract attention.
I've asked a similar question regarding the use of clear sleeves. Are we at the point where is just isn't safe to use clear sleeves at events like Worlds and Nationals? Playing with clear, translucent or even no sleeves just seems to attract attention.
Cards and sleeves seemed to be a bigger issue at the Nats this year. I know my daughter had brand new Pokemon apporved sleeves just out of the package and because the person checking her deck thought he saw a scratch on one of the sleeves, she had to buy new sleeves and resleve them at the last minute. I had a card in my deck that was autogrpahed and I was told I could not play with it which sent me running around looking for a replacement, The officials need to realized that it is almost impossible to do these things at the last minute.
MsMimer said:
Was the autograph in the lower portion of the card, generally where the text can be found? If so, that might have been the problem. I had plenty of autographed cards, but all of them were signed in the upper half of the card. And yes, I agree with what you said; it's hard to find replacements on the spot.
FlipsAreCool
New Member
DQs
I think everyone is overlooking a big issue here. Two people got free wins in the Top cut of Nationals. It seems only reasonable to me to have a few alternates so that if someone is DQd or doesn't show up we can replace them with 33rd or 34th place. Worst case senario just go down the standings until you can find someone there and put them in.
I think everyone is overlooking a big issue here. Two people got free wins in the Top cut of Nationals. It seems only reasonable to me to have a few alternates so that if someone is DQd or doesn't show up we can replace them with 33rd or 34th place. Worst case senario just go down the standings until you can find someone there and put them in.
meganium45
Active Member
FAC. Bigger issue.
It is a 2 day event. The players in 33rd and 34th may not even be there.
Deckchecks are done.
Moving a player up is a logistical nightmare.
Easier to keep the present rule in place.
Vince
It is a 2 day event. The players in 33rd and 34th may not even be there.
Deckchecks are done.
Moving a player up is a logistical nightmare.
Easier to keep the present rule in place.
Vince
Really Vince? I disagree.meganium45 said:
Decipher never has a problem with moving up players that are DQ'd because of deck checks. At Decipher's premier events, deck checks are done for the top cut plus the next two players below the cut. Decipher ALWAYS tells the next two players below the cut to show up the next day just in case there are DQ's or players fail to show up on time.
No problem whatsoever, so long as you plan for it.
MattG would've been "one happy camper" if "bump-ups" were done (he was 33rd).