More on the topic of "declumping"

[psychup2034]

From that, my takeway is that all of the actions together indication the intention, not just the weaving alone.

The infraction itself is stacking. It doesn't matter why you're stacking, as long as you've committed the infraction (stacking) intentionally, the game defines it as cheating. The difference here is that you have your own definition of what's "cheating," but the game has a different definition of what's considered "cheating." I'm not saying that it's unreasonable for you to have a different definition of what's "cheating" than the game; in fact, I find your definition to be pretty reasonable. However, I will try to explain to you why the game defines "cheating" when it comes to stacking in a different way than you do.

The no stacking rule is preventative. I'm not claiming that everyone who stacks their deck intends to use their stacked deck to gain an advantage. What I am saying is that there is no legitimate or game-play-related reason why someone would need to stack their deck. (By saying "legitimate," I'm discounting all the superstition/habit nonsense) There is nothing accomplished by stacking and shuffling well that cannot be accomplished by just shuffling well in the first place. Therefore, as a way to prevent cheating from occurring, it is more prudent to ban all stacking than to allow it and have the judge make the difficult call of "did he intend to gain an advantage from stacking or not?"

It is much more prudent to just have a preventative blanket rule that says "stacking is cheating if done intentionally" than to have separate rules for different instances of stacking. This makes it easier on the judges, and "no stacking" is more enforceable than "stacking is OK under situations 1, 2, and 3, but not OK under situations 4, 5, and 6."

I understand that not everyone who stacks their deck intends to use that stacked deck to their advantage. However, as Pokepop has said before, some of these rules aren't made for the 99% of players who don't cheat, but rather for the 1% of players who do.

 

[losjackal]

Okay, you make a persuasive argument. I'm on board that in between matches, players should just not do that action. Maybe that's why they sneak into the bathroom. To bring up the Target example, don't put the merchandise you intend to buy in your pocket. Just don't do it. Fortunately, those are the rules as they stand. No new rules are needed. Hooray!

Now, rewinding back to the plea from the original post and people who supported it: "something must be done about it".

If the judges stick to the penalty guidelines, it's a disqualification, after they can determine intent. psychup, do you think players should be immediately DQ'd like this if the player is "caught" in the process of weaving their deck? Or if they if a deck that looks like it was shuffled twice after weaving?

 

[psychup2034]

Okay, you make a persuasive argument. I'm on board that in between matches, players should just not do that action. Maybe that's why they sneak into the bathroom. To bring up the Target example, don't put the merchandise you intend to buy in your pocket. Just don't do it. Fortunately, those are the rules as they stand. No new rules are needed. Hooray!

Now, rewinding back to the plea from the original post and people who supported it: "something must be done about it".

If the judges stick to the penalty guidelines, it's a disqualification, after they can determine intent. psychup, do you think players should be immediately DQ'd like this if the player is "caught" in the process of weaving their deck? Or if they if a deck that looks like it was shuffled twice after weaving?

That’s a very interesting question. I want to preface what I say by pointing out that I’ve never judged a sanctioned Pokemon tournament in my life, so obviously I have no experience judging. However, as a player on-and-off for the entire lifespan of the game (6-year break in the middle), I have some experience in understanding what judges tend to do in different situations.

Obviously, the penalty guidelines give a clear stipulation as to what the penalty is for an infraction described in “§7.6.4: Cheating.” Tier 1 and Tier 2 penalties are both disqualification. If a judge read assigned the penalties as-is from the penalty guidelines, then disqualification is it.

However, I don’t think that the enforcement of this rule is as black and white, and there should be some discretion on the judge’s part. In the same document, §1.1 describes where it’s OK to deviate from the suggested penalties:

1.1. Deviating from Recommended Penalties
The penalties for infractions are simply recommendations and may be increased or decreased in severity
based on circumstances. As a general rule, judges should take an especially easy approach with the
Junior age division. Younger players are often prone to mistakes due to lack of experience or the
intimidation of playing in a competitive environment.

The circumstance is absolutely and critically important in assessing penalties. I’m going to analyze the two situations you have presented, and give my opinion.

• Do you think players should be immediately DQ'd like this if the player is "caught" in the process of weaving their deck? This depends on a variety of factors. First and foremost is age. Juniors should obviously be not judged by the same strict standard as Masters (unless it’s at a Nationals or Worlds level). Second, is this player a new player who is likely oblivious to what he’s doing, or is it a 3-year veteran who has been playing the game and should know better than to stack his deck? Third, does this player often get called out for other infractions, is this player a repeat offender, and is he/she generally a “clean” player? There are obviously more considerations that can be listed here, but I think I’ve covered the basics. Either way, I think that a judge who sees this happening has a responsibility to call out this particular player and inform this player that stacking the deck is illegal, regardless of what shuffling he does afterward. I think this is where the problem lies: often times, a player’s “stacking” gets noticed but some judges are not vigilant in calling out those players and assigning an appropriate penalty.
• Or if they have a deck that looks like it was shuffled twice after weaving? This is different than the first scenario. I believe in this case, no penalty can be assigned because it wasn’t “in the act.” After two riffles, a human eye cannot detect (with statistical significance) whether a deck was stacked or not. (A computer would be able to provide an estimated % chance of whether the deck was stacked or not before the two riffle shuffles given a known/hypothetical initial distribution.) A verbal caution could be given in this case, and I think the judges should watch that player closely between rounds. Does that player need to use the bathroom after every game? Is he stacking in public?

Obviously, I understand that judges have a ton of responsibility during a tournament, and I appreciate the time that judges take out of their day to help Pokemon events run. However, I think that in general, there needs to be a little more vigilance in terms of what players are doing between rounds. I know of one player in my area who goes away to a corner, takes out his deck, thumbs through it, and declumps for 1-2 minutes between games. Judges who notice that type of behavior could be a little more proactive in trying to figure out what that player just did, and determine if what he/she did was legal or not.

In my year and a half of returning to Pokemon, I have never even heard of a rumor of someone who got penalized/disqualified for stacking their deck, let alone see someone actually get penalized/disqualified for it. The problem is real (I’ve seen multiple players do suspicious things between rounds), and I’m sure it’s more widespread than what I see with my eyes. I don’t think this will be an easy problem to solve, but I think “doing nothing” isn’t the right answer either.

 

[KaMewie]

Cliffs please

1717

 

[The Gorn]

Always shuffle your opponents' decks. ALWAYS.

 

[Pooka]

I just wanted to get everyone's opinion on something that has bothered me a little bit. If you take a look at this video from Worlds, Steven Mao begins to rearrange his deck before the game at around 3:30 and 31:30 as well. He does a few shuffles afterwards, and then they start playing. Is this legal? I don't think many people can look at this and say that it doesn't feel wrong.

 

[Kayle]

I just wanted to get everyone's opinion on something that has bothered me a little bit. If you take a look at this video from Worlds, Steven Mao begins to rearrange his deck before the game at around 3:30 and 31:30 as well. He does a few shuffles afterwards, and then they start playing. Is this legal? I don't think many people can look at this and say that it doesn't feel wrong.

If I were Pram I'd probably just riffle his deck a couple more times and call it good (and he does just that, though he chooses to mash rather than riffle).

It just seems to me like Steven is making himself feel a little better about the ordering of the deck, rather than actually trying to take advantage of a different ordering, but that's just me. That feeling has a lot to do with the strong-seeming riffles Steven puts in immediately after his declumping/rearranging, and also with the seemingly random placement of the cards when he moves them, rather than actually trying to put them next to anything else.

 

[dubzcheckem]

There is nothing accomplished by stacking and shuffling well that cannot be accomplished by just shuffling well in the first place.

Everyone is allowed to sufficiently randomize their opponent's deck. As you stated above, this action nullifies the affects of someone stacking their deck. It is in essence, a countermeasure to cheating.

This rule was established for the very reason of preventing cheating.

As result, I believe this rule places responsibility on both players to make sure that the game is played fairly.

I am expressing the belief that there are no true "victims" of stacking situations. The game provides everyone with a countermeasure to prevent cheating from affecting the outcome of a match. Refusing to exercise your full rights as a player doesn't let you off the hook. You have responsibilities as well.

That being said, that doesn't make the person who intended to cheat any less guilty.

Would I be within my rights as a judge to issue the cheater's opponent a warning? If he failed to exercise his countermeasure, he must assume responsibility for the outcome as well. That's how I look at it.

 

[Glumanda]

[...]
As result, I believe this rule places responsibility on both players to make sure that the game is played fairly.
[...]
Would I be within my rights as a judge to issue the cheater's opponent a warning? If he failed to exercise his countermeasure, he must assume responsibility for the outcome as well. That's how I look at it.

Roflcopter alert!
You are not serious about this, are you?

 

[psychup2034]

I just wanted to get everyone's opinion on something that has bothered me a little bit. If you take a look at this video from Worlds, Steven Mao begins to rearrange his deck before the game at around 3:30 and 31:30 as well. He does a few shuffles afterwards, and then they start playing. Is this legal? I don't think many people can look at this and say that it doesn't feel wrong.

After watching the video a couple times, there's not a doubt in my mind that Steven stacked his deck intentionally. It's not the declumping part by itself that would constitute "stacking," but the declumping and insufficient shuffling afterward. However, I think that Pram did the sportsmanlike thing by just shuffling his opponent's deck a couple more times.

What I find outrageous is that the two judges sitting there did not request Steven to shuffle his deck a little more. This situation is exactly the type of situation I was referring to when I wrote this:

Obviously, I understand that judges have a ton of responsibility during a tournament, and I appreciate the time that judges take out of their day to help Pokemon events run. However, I think that in general, there needs to be a little more vigilance in terms of what players are doing between rounds.

All that being said, I don't think Steven was aware that he was doing something that was giving himself an unfair advantage, and I believe that he did not want to break and rules or cheat as he was doing this. After all, if the two Worlds-level judges sitting right there aren't going to be wary of illegal deck manipulation, how could we expect the local German judges (where Steven is from) to let Steven how he can/cannot manipulate his deck?

I understand that the judges may just be "waiting to see" if Pram shuffles the deck afterwards, but the rules state that players should have a deck that is "fully randomized" as they are shuffling, before the deck is "offered to the player's opponent to be cut once." The judges should have asked Steven to shuffle more before Pram even had a chance to cut/shuffle.

 

[dubzcheckem]

Roflcopter alert!
You are not serious about this, are you?

It's an honest question.

If someone neglects their responsibility to prevent cheating, should that not be punished?


If you are driving your car down a road in the middle of the night and you see headlights coming towards you about a 1/8 mile ahead of you and it appears that the oncoming car is strangely in your lane, then you have an option to do something about it. You don't HAVE to crash into that car just because they're in your lane. You have 1/8 of a mile to try and get out of the way. If you end up crashing into each other, a lawyer will argue that you had plenty of time to avoid a collision and therefore you must accept some responsibility for the accident. I only say this because I'm not using some sort of "backwards thinking". These types of arguments are made all the time. People are not simply beings with no control of situations. We are not victims of every circumstance. If the rules let you do something about cheating, then do it.

Believe it or not, if someone stacks their deck and it causes them to win, you are partially responsible since you ignored your ability to prevent it. That is why it's an honest question. Do they share enough responsibility to warrant a minor punishment from their inaction?

 

[Kayle]

If you end up crashing into each other, a lawyer will argue that you had plenty of time to avoid a collision and therefore you must accept some responsibility for the accident.

I think bringing lawyers into a Pokemon rulings question is an error of scope.

In any case, a lawyer could argue pretty much anything they wanted. That doesn't make them right and that doesn't mean the laws are as they say. The law says that you shouldn't be in the oncoming lane (excepting specific circumstances). Whether the person you slammed into full-on had time to react or not, you were clearly doing something illegal.

 

[dubzcheckem]

I think bringing lawyers into a Pokemon rulings question is an error of scope.

In any case, a lawyer could argue pretty much anything they wanted. That doesn't make them right and that doesn't mean the laws are as they say. The law says that you shouldn't be in the oncoming lane (excepting specific circumstances). Whether the person you slammed into full-on had time to react or not, you were clearly doing something illegal.

And when exactly was I arguing about how responsible the person driving illegally was? Oh yeah, I never did.
I was exclusively talking about the supposed "victim" of the accident. You are taking my analogy and going further with it to the point of clouding the whole example.

My point was very obvious - If it's within the rules to prevent something, then it's your responsibility to actually do it.

Apparently people don't want to answer simple questions on these forums. They'd rather talk about every little detail besides the actual question. Otherwise, how on Earth would you read my whole post and respond the way you did?

 

[psychup2034]

If someone neglects their responsibility to prevent cheating, should that not be punished?

Nope.

The rules only state that "It is each player’s responsibility to ensure that he or she and his or her opponent are playing by both the game and tournament rules." (Source: §4) The rules absolutely do not say that someone should be punished if he/she neglects on his/her responsibility to prevent cheating.

---------- Post added 10/09/2012 at 06:58 PM ----------

My point was very obvious - If it's within the rules to prevent something, then it's your responsibility to actually do it.

Your misstatement of your own point proves that your point wasn't so obvious. Your original point was that someone who neglects on their responsibility to prevent cheating should be punished for it. (You asked a rhetorical question in this post.)

However, your changed your point to "If it's within the rules to prevent something, then it's your responsibility to actually do it." Notice how you left out the point about "punishment."

• To your first point, you're incorrect that neglect to prevent cheating should be punished (per the rules).
• To your second point, you're correct that it is a player's responsibility to prevent his/her opponent from cheating.

It's a subtle difference, but the subtle difference makes all the difference.

 

[baby mario]

No judge is ever going to penalise a player for not exercising their option to shuffle the opponent's deck.

Doesn't matter how clever you think your argument in favour of that is . . . it's not going to happen.

 

[psychup2034]

That being said, can someone receive a penalty for not preventing cheating? Sure. It all depends on the situation. I've seen it happen twice in my entire Pokemon career that goes back to 1999.

(Note: This isn't a response to baby_mario's post, but a continuation of my own. baby_mario just ninjaed me.)

 

[dubzcheckem]

Nope.

The rules only state that "It is each player’s responsibility to ensure that he or she and his or her opponent are playing by both the game and tournament rules." (Source: §4) The rules absolutely do not say that someone should be punished if he/she neglects on his/her responsibility to prevent cheating.

---------- Post added 10/09/2012 at 06:58 PM ----------



Your misstatement of your own point proves that your point wasn't so obvious. Your original point was that someone who neglects on their responsibility to prevent cheating should be punished for it. (You asked a rhetorical question in this post.)

However, your changed your point to "If it's within the rules to prevent something, then it's your responsibility to actually do it." Notice how you left out the point about "punishment."

• To your first point, you're incorrect that neglect to prevent cheating should be punished (per the rules).
• To your second point, you're correct that it is a player's responsibility to prevent his/her opponent from cheating.

It's a subtle difference, but the subtle difference makes all the difference.

So the rules say that it is A) a responsibility that B) goes unpunished when neglected?

I've never heard of such logic in my whole life.

Responsibility and punishment go hand-in-hand in order to keep accountability intact. What's the point of allocating responsibility if it remains unchecked?

Or am I simply misunderstanding your statements?

 

[psychup2034]

So the rules say that it is A) a responsibility that B) goes unpunished when neglected?

I've never heard of such logic in my whole life.

You should gain more life experiences if you haven't heard of such logic in your whole life. I'll give you a couple examples to get you started:

• In many neighborhoods, you are responsible for taking out your own trash to the curb. If you neglect your responsibility to take your trash to the curb, no-one's going to punish you for it. (The city will only fine you if you create a public health hazard, which takes lot of accumulated trash.) In fact, you can keep a bag of trash in your house for as long as you want (be negligent of your responsibility to take out your own trash) as long as its odor doesn't permiate outside your property lines. (This doesn't apply when there are children living in the household, in which case that trash could potentially be endangering the welfare of a child.)
• When you ride the New York City subway, you have a responsibility to keep track of your personal belongings. In fact, there is an annoying announcement every so often that reminds all riders that they are responsible for their own personal belongings. However, if a subway rider is somehow negligent in keeping track of their belongings (i.e., they lose their purse), that is something that does not get punished. In fact, it makes no sense to punish the person who lost their purse (neglected their responsibility to take care of their own belongings) and impart further consequences on the individual that already suffered the loss of his/her purse because of his/her negligence.

That's how the world works. People are responsible for a variety of things (by law, by contract, by tacit acknowledgement, etc.), but there isn't always a punishment when a responsibility is not fulfilled. Generally speaking, the legal system does not punish negligence if the only "victim" is the negligent party himself/herself. Generally speaking, Pokemon rules don't punish this type of negligence either.

Responsibility and punishment go hand-in-hand in order to keep accountability intact. What's the point of allocating responsibility if it remains unchecked?

Or am I simply misunderstanding your statements?

Punishment is often associated with the negligence of responsibility as a mechanism to instill accountability. That does not preclude responsibility from being assigned (to remind people, to get everyone on the same page, etc.) without a punishment attached.

In the case of deck stacking in Pokemon, the party the deck is being stacked against is already receiving a disadvantage for being negligent of his/her responsibility to ensure that his opponent's deck is fully randomized. In my opinion, it was a wise decision for the rules team to not require the levying of any further consequences on the party being cheated against.

You're not misunderstanding my statements. However, it appears that there is a slight misunderstanding about the relationship between responsibility and punishment in the real world.

 

[Glumanda]

While shuffling against a stacking opponent might prevent him from cheating against ME, it will NOT prevent him from cheating against OTHERS. There are enough recreational players who will just cut the opponent´s deck because they do not think about things like competetive players do.

In addition: It is by no means my responsibility that the deck of my opponent is randomized, it is the responsibility of my opponent. Sure, it is both player´s responsibility to take care that the game is played according to the rules and while this is absolutely possible to do if e.g. my opponent tries to move Darkness Energy around without a Hydreigon in play, I will mostly not see that my opponent is stacking the deck. There are enough players out there who do not want to suspect everyone of cheating and therefore shuffling their deck everytime.

 

[solo59486]

While shuffling against a stacking opponent might prevent him from cheating against ME, it will NOT prevent him from cheating against OTHERS. There are enough recreational players who will just cut the opponent´s deck because they do not think about things like competetive players do.

Also I think its unfair to the people who want to do well in tournaments but don't know how to shuffle properly. They could be afraid of damaging an opponents sleeves when they shuffle. Thats why some people don't shuffle other people's deck but just cut multiple times.