No electronic devices-- How about no timekeeping devices

[Otaku]

To those reading this thread:

You'll recall some of my arguments were challenged by ChaosJim, who stated that he didn't even read the full post he was responding to. I sent him (with a screen name including "Jim" I am assuming a male; forgive me if it was used solely for the pun) a PM in the interest of me not blowing my stack and making a fool of myself. :lol: The reason I found this so vexing was his responses not surprisingly missed some points I actually made. Since I don't know ChaosJim at all, I don't know if English is even his first language (and if it is... well my posts are quite long, I know).

So I will address some concerns:

1) The "fairness" of stalling in a legal manner

Pokemon is a timed game by necessity, and no logical reason was given for why it is somehow "bad" to use completely legal moves to run out the clock. In response to this, ChaosJim cited some actual cheating amongst legal moves, albeit cheating that is impossible to prove such as intentionally flipping a coin off the table so that time is lost having to retrieve it and re-flip. If an opponent does that, one should seek a time extension.

Legally stalling, by taking game actions you are permitted to take, is not inherently unfair unless the time limit itself is; sometimes the person who wins by "rushing" is arguably less entitled to the win. The player can dump a bunch of resources for a last minute KO, knowing his or her opponent would win if the game wasn't called for time, but that due to the time limit said player will be ahead in Prizes and declared the winner.

If time limits are "fair" at all, then winning because of time is, whether it is because you did simply "avoid losing" before the clock ran out or because you managed to get ahead in Prizes in a manner that would have cost you the game if time had not been called. The time limit is a part of Organized Play, and winning within the time limit or accepting an outcome determined by the current game state is thus a condition of winning. I'd like to see it at least suggested in the rule books for casual play so that it didn't seem so alien to some players.

At best one can argue that it isn't "fair" but is "legal", and thus the rules need to be changed... not unlike complaints over how even in organized play, single game matches determine who goes first via a coin flip, and many formats have had rules and card pools that blatantly favored the player going first.

2) Rules about dress

I sought a situation similar to that of wearing a watch. I used a real occurrence, at least for some of us. I'm not a "fashion" kind of guy, and I've even got some health problems related to my gastrointestinal tract. For years I didn't realize wearing a belt instead of suspenders meant the longer the the event, the worse shape I'd be in by the end. For "normal" people, simply not realizing your clothing didn't fit as well as you realized, in a manner only apparent after you've been wearing it for an hour or two, is still a real risk

Everyone has the option to wear an outfit consisting of "legal" clothing. Using an article of clothing which has been declared "illegal" to wear (and apparently then only in certain ways) does not void this point. So I restate it; if either player may choose to buy and wear a watch, why should that not be allowed? Even if knowing the time is an advantage, that is a separate issue and it needs to be discussed as such.

3) Won't somebody please think of the children!

In American English, at least, this line is a cliche; even The Simpsons used it as a bit of a running gag over a decade ago. It is an emotional appeal, and while Pokemon is concerned with player's enjoying themselves, that is not the only concern we have.

Yes, younger and/or newer players may be more vulnerable to opponent's who illegally (an important distinction here) stall, or who can skirt the rules (I'd think this would violate Spirit of the Game) and trick them into rushing, according to what would be advantageous to a player who knows the time. We run into a few problems using this as the foundation of an argument. There are many such ways to take advantage of other players, especially newer ones. Pokemon Tournaments are not about babysitting, though.

Spirit Of The Game addresses this; we are to play not only legally, but warn others of the dangers of cheating (amongst other aspects of Spirit Of The Game). So the player's parents, friends, and even opponents should all be warning them of the often simple ways a person can cheat, and preparing them for it. Judges can't always be there, and it is a responsibility of the players (both advising and being advised) as a part of Spirit Of The Game.

If this is not a separate issue, it is a secondary issue; first determine things like "Is it within the rules of the game for a player to win via time?", "Is a player allowed to play in a manner so as to intentionally win via time?", "What actions may a player take in order to intentionally win via time?", and possibly a few more.

4) Etiquette And Reason
ChaosJim took offense because I called him on having firmly made his mind up on the matter before the discussion began. He began one of his points with the statement

3) I refuse to believe that the answer is, "Prepare your child better." That is unacceptable.

and later posted

As to how you react after quoting my 3), I think it is offensive that you attempt to juxtapose my having a belief with my being unwilling to be open to any alternative reasoning. I'm proposing a solution, and I have beliefs. I'm open to alternative solutions, I'm not interested in being insulted for arguing for my version of what appears fair. (I guess I should've avoided the internet)

It isn't a juxtaposition, but the truth. Are the end conclusions of ChaosJim wrong? I think so, but I certainly wouldn't bet my life on it, or even Jim's. :wink: I certainly have no issues with making a faith statement, but you must qualify it. There is no appeal to reason, no appeal to authority other than ChaosJim appealing to himself. I am to take it on blind faith that ChaosJim is correct. I am a person of faith, though admittedly no where near as much as I should have. It is not blind faith, however, but one borne of accepting the evidence I can see as leading to a specific conclusion, and then using resources and reason to build upon that conclusion.

So I apologize for another extremely long post, but I had to address this. I believe I have followed the rules of the board but of course the Mods will be kind enough to, say, delete this post and [DEL]yell[/DEL] appropriately inform me if I didn't.

 

[espeon200]

To those reading this thread:
1) The "fairness" of stalling in a legal manner

Pokemon is a timed game by necessity, and no logical reason was given for why it is somehow "bad" to use completely legal moves to run out the clock. In response to this, ChaosJim cited some actual cheating amongst legal moves, albeit cheating that is impossible to prove such as intentionally flipping a coin off the table so that time is lost having to retrieve it and re-flip. If an opponent does that, one should seek a time extension.

Legally stalling, by taking game actions you are permitted to take, is not inherently unfair unless the time limit itself is; sometimes the person who wins by "rushing" is arguably less entitled to the win. The player can dump a bunch of resources for a last minute KO, knowing his or her opponent would win if the game wasn't called for time, but that due to the time limit said player will be ahead in Prizes and declared the winner.

If time limits are "fair" at all, then winning because of time is, whether it is because you did simply "avoid losing" before the clock ran out or because you managed to get ahead in Prizes in a manner that would have cost you the game if time had not been called. The time limit is a part of Organized Play, and winning within the time limit or accepting an outcome determined by the current game state is thus a condition of winning. I'd like to see it at least suggested in the rule books for casual play so that it didn't seem so alien to some players.

At best one can argue that it isn't "fair" but is "legal", and thus the rules need to be changed... not unlike complaints over how even in organized play, single game matches determine who goes first via a coin flip, and many formats have had rules and card pools that blatantly favored the player going first.

Wait what?

To those reading this thread:
1) The "fairness" of stalling in a legal manner

Otaku, I generally respect your posts even when I don't agree with them, but this feels so flawed it makes it difficult to see past the heading to your actual point.

Stalling in Pokemon is never legal.

Don't believe me? Look at the pokemon OP tournament rules.

21.2. Mid-game Time Limit
Any mid-game effects, such as deck search effects and shuffling, are to take place in a reasonable amount of time. If a judge feels that a player’s searching or shuffling time is unwarranted, that player will be subject to the Game Tempo section of the POP Penalty Guidelines. A judge may issue a time extension on a match where a player is playing slowly. The extra time allotted must be clearly communicated to both players and recorded immediately by the judge.

Now before you say, "That's too vague, it needs to be more concrete!" let's take a look at the other official rules document it says to consult, the POP Penalty Guidelines. (bold added for emphasis)

7.4. Game Tempo
The pace of a Pokémon TGC game should be lively without being excessively fast, and each player should receive approximately half of the allotted time for the game. However, the way players react to pressure can have an impact on the tempo at which they take their turns. Judges should watch for changes in tempo and make corrections if needed

In general, the following time limits for various game actions should be appropriate. The times given below are general guidelines; players attempting to compartmentalize their turn in order to use every second of the time allowed for the items below are almost certainly stalling and should be subject to the Unsporting Conduct: Severe penalties.

 Performing the actions of a card or attack: 15 seconds
 Shuffling and setup, game start: 2 minutes
 Shuffling and deck search, mid-game: 15 seconds
 Starting the turn after opponent’s “end of turn” announcement: 5 seconds
 Considering the game position before playing a card: 10 seconds

Notes during a game should be taken using the same time limits listed above. For example, a player making a note about their mid game deck search must do so in the same 15 seconds allowed for the action.

Seems pretty straightforward. Players who are using all the "legal" methods of stalling are by definition of the Penalty guidelines participating in "Unsporting Conduct."

I'm sorry for calling you out over this, but I didn't want you to operate under the false premise that stalling is a legally available option to the TCG player. It's not.

 

[Otaku]

Otaku, I generally respect your posts even when I don't agree with them, but this feels so flawed it makes it difficult to see past the heading to your actual point.

Well, thanks for trying?

When I mess up, I need to be called on it. That being said, let us examine what you bring up. Some of this is about playing with the definitions of "stalling" and slow play.

The creators of this game design cards that stall; they block an opponent from taking an action that would allow the opponent to win more quickly. That is the basics of "stalling". Even if you later win on Prizes, if you avoid losing because you managed to keep Paralyzing the Defending Pokemon so it couldn't KO your only Pokemon... the win at least in part is due to stalling.

It is necessary for there to be a time limit for a tournament, imposed by more than a player's deck running out of cards. As such, I don't see why a player taking otherwise legal actions is suddenly made a cheater because the unpalatable but unavoidable "win by time" has occurred. This claim undermines control and depletion decks; few win fast enough to avoid going to time. Yes, we can list several examples that do, but those are the exceptions (and often the best), not the norm.

I don't see why it would be or should be illegal for me to choose to play out as many cards as I can, even for less than optimal effects, so long as I do so in a timely manner, and win because time is then called and I happen to be ahead in Prizes... and yet if my opponent chooses to make plays that would have cost him or her the game if time was not being called, they are "rewarded" for "gaming the system" by taking that last Prize on the last turn of the game that just barely puts them ahead.

Wait what?

Stalling in Pokemon is never legal.

Don't believe me? Look at the pokemon OP tournament rules.

21.2. Mid-game Time Limit
Any mid-game effects, such as deck search effects and shuffling, are to take place in a reasonable amount of time. If a judge feels that a player’s searching or shuffling time is unwarranted, that player will be subject to the Game Tempo section of the POP Penalty Guidelines. A judge may issue a time extension on a match where a player is playing slowly. The extra time allotted must be clearly communicated to both players and recorded immediately by the judge.

Those rules refer to taking too much time to perform legal actions, which turns them into illegal actions.

Now before you say, "That's too vague, it needs to be more concrete!" let's take a look at the other official rules document it says to consult, the POP Penalty Guidelines. (bold added for emphasis)

7.4. Game Tempo
The pace of a Pokémon TGC game should be lively without being excessively fast, and each player should receive approximately half of the allotted time for the game. However, the way players react to pressure can have an impact on the tempo at which they take their turns. Judges should watch for changes in tempo and make corrections if needed

In general, the following time limits for various game actions should be appropriate. The times given below are general guidelines; players attempting to compartmentalize their turn in order to use every second of the time allowed for the items below are almost certainly stalling and should be subject to the Unsporting Conduct: Severe penalties.

 Performing the actions of a card or attack: 15 seconds
 Shuffling and setup, game start: 2 minutes
 Shuffling and deck search, mid-game: 15 seconds
 Starting the turn after opponent’s “end of turn” announcement: 5 seconds
 Considering the game position before playing a card: 10 seconds

Notes during a game should be taken using the same time limits listed above. For example, a player making a note about their mid game deck search must do so in the same 15 seconds allowed for the action.

So let me get this straight; the same rules systems and judges that allow de-clumping (a minor stacking of the deck) because they can't prove a player's intent should said player fail to sufficiently shuffle and thus "stack" their deck, are able to read a person's mind so that when time is in a hurry and I legitimately forget that "Oh yeah, that last Mewtwo EX is Prized" and use Ultra Ball to find it but then take nothing because it was Prized... now they know I am just trying to win via time?

You see no problems with that?

I will also draw your attention to the phrase "every second of time"; sounds to me like someone has to be staring at their watch (or other clock) while doing this, or be amazingly gifted. Not quite the same as say a person choosing to use two copies of Pokemon Catcher in a timely manner.

Seems pretty straightforward. Players who are using all the "legal" methods of stalling are by definition of the Penalty guidelines participating in "Unsporting Conduct."

I'm sorry for calling you out over this, but I didn't want you to operate under the false premise that stalling is a legally available option to the TCG player. It's not.

I am glad you did. Remember how I pointed out two things earlier?

1) Rules flat out banning "electronics" are a problem.

The letter of the law conflicts with the spirit of the law. The desire to ban communication devices (like a cell phone) doesn't automatically mean a digital watch should also be banned, and as many more devices become electronic in nature, it isn't even just the obviously needed exception for medical devices that is lacking.

2) In a game with attacks meant to stall, "stalling" while performing legal actions is illegal.

This game already has certain rulings that are designed around the tournament format. As an example, general search cards can fail because the contents of the deck are not considered public information, even if a prior card effect means both players know that the search does indeed have at least one legal target. This is why I believe the rules need to clearly acknowledge such things; instead of recognizing that the point is to facilitate tournament play by not requiring every failed search be followed by one's opponent carefully looking through the deck, players try to build on a "right to deck privacy" which ends up complicating related rulings.

I do not understand why the "line" is drawn where it is... at least if the rules are interpreted as espeon200 (who is of course not alone) has interpreted them... indeed as even the rules themselves are clarified. "De-clumping" is tolerated because judges are not mind readers, so they do not know if a person who is "de-clumping" is hoping that they can appear to sufficiently shuffle while not actually doing so, or why the person his or herself does not simply sufficiently shuffle, which should attain the same end result as de-clumping but sufficiently shuffling with similar time results but no questionable rulings precedent.

It really appears someone just made an arbitrary value call: even though the time limit is a necessity, using otherwise legal actions now becomes illegal because winning through intelligence after being forced into a situation of "luck" one way is bad, while winning another way (rushing) is "good" even though both have similar skill requirements.

Further confounding me is I know how slow many skilled players I've met play; even if they aren't stalling, they are often using most of their allotted time because they don't want to lose due to a simple mistake.

Again though, I thank espeon200 for bringing this to my attention. Note that it still doesn't justify banning watches.

 

[Diaz]

Using cards with markings on them doesn't necessarily mean you're cheating, but you could be using them to cheat. Using a watch doesn't necessarily mean you're cheating, but you could be using it to cheat.

 

[Otaku]

Did we see where a watch is expressly illegal to use?

By the reasoning given by Diaz, can anything be legal? I mean, there are a lot of ways to cheat. Got a friend at the tournament? You can't play, because you could use that friend to "cheat". Diaz almost certainly didn't mean for it to go that far... but without some clarification I don't know where the line is supposed to be drawn.

Electronic devices are forbidden, and the original point of the thread was that non-electronic watches also be banned because some are stating (but not proving) that having access to a time piece is against the rules.

Then we got off on the stalling side point, which is related to the main point but not limited to it.

 

[bullados]

Please use the term "slow play" or "playing slowly". That's a completely different set of penalties, and much much easier to prove...

 

[Diaz]

Did we see where a watch is expressly illegal to use?

By the reasoning given by Diaz, can anything be legal? I mean, there are a lot of ways to cheat. Got a friend at the tournament? You can't play, because you could use that friend to "cheat". Diaz almost certainly didn't mean for it to go that far... but without some clarification I don't know where the line is supposed to be drawn.
Are you suggesting that there shouldn't be any rules in place to try to prevent cheating? Otaku almost certainly didn't mean for it to go that far... but without some clarification, I don't know where the line is supposed to be drawn.
^ See what I did there? We cam both take each others arguments to a ridiculous extreme. I don't think you're fooling anyone when you feign a lack of common sense.

Electronic devices are forbidden, and the original point of the thread was that non-electronic watches also be banned because some are stating (but not proving) that having access to a time piece is against the rules.
I think most people are arguing that watches should be illegal, not that they actually are.
Then we got off on the stalling side point, which is related to the main point but not limited to it.

Putting rules in place to help prevent cheating by using timekeeping devices is a step towards reducing cheating.

 

[tutti]

Cancelling all future tournaments will eliminate cheating.

That's the extreme end of it, obviously. The point is that at some point, the measures you can take to prevent cheating will harm the game more than the cheating it prevents would. And unless you really do want to go to the above extreme, you will have to accept the fact that there will be some cheating in a game of this magnitude.

 

[Otaku]

Are you suggesting that there shouldn't be any rules in place to try to prevent cheating? Otaku almost certainly didn't mean for it to go that far... but without some clarification, I don't know where the line is supposed to be drawn.
^ See what I did there? We cam both take each others arguments to a ridiculous extreme. I don't think you're fooling anyone when you feign a lack of common sense.

Yes, I see what you did there. You ignored all the previous discussion in this thread while trying to turn my point around. Doesn't really work too well? You made a very general statement and didn't qualify it. If you were just wanting to say something to say something, okay. If you were wanting to engage in discussion, it was lacking. I chose to draw attention that you needed to explain a little more.

This post was much better in that you explained yourself a bit more, for the record.

I think most people are arguing that watches should be illegal, not that they actually are.

There is a blanket rule against electronics. First it was put forth that this does apply, or at least should apply to electronic watches. Then it was suggested that it be expanded to all kinds of watches. If I am not clear enough this time, or am legitimately mistaken, go ahead and let me know.

Putting rules in place to help prevent cheating by using timekeeping devices is a step towards reducing cheating.

As I have been pointing out, I don't believe it is fair to label all use of knowledge of time as "cheating". I began by pointing out that the time really should be made known to all players; announced if the time is not clearly visible to all.

I also don't understand why it would be fair, for example, for a player who needs to take one more Prize to get a win due to time to rush for a win, while another isn't allowed to carry out legal game actions and plays that would take up the rest of the time, without those actions consisting of activating the same effect over, and over again with no serious impact on the game state.

I added that last part to clarify; it is one thing to use Pokemon Catcher even when you don't care what is Active. I also don't see a problem playing a second Pokemon Catcher to restore the former Active, even when it is just for the express purpose of playing those two Pokemon Catcher. In both cases, however, you must still be playing them in an otherwise legal manner, which would not include staring at your watch to make sure you took the exact time allotted each move.

You could not, however, move a damage counter back and forth using an Ability like Damage Swap. If it is triggering something, that is different. Otherwise, simply move them all at once and be done with it; your total time to decide has already been set in the rules.

If we police using your otherwise legal allotment of time, shouldn't we police the speeding through your turn to also "game the system"? You allowed to "rush" for a win by using every permissible "short cut" to make sure you finish your turn as fast as possible, in the hope that your opponent will be able to finish his or her turn in time for you to get the last turn you need to win. With the rules as those on this thread are explaining them to me, if the other player risks being penalized for not taking his or her turn in a somewhat quick manner, do not the rules favor the person rushing for that quick Prize?

Note there is also a difference between what should be in the rules, and what should be understood as common etiquette. And yes I can be persuaded I am wrong. Show me that this is the purpose for this rule; that we are not to know the time. Show me that indeed players are to always maintain an even pace, neither playing quickly nor slowly, and that a player attempting to rush through his turn to secure another will also have a judge warning him "slow down and make your plays crystal clear, don't forget to thoroughly shuffle your deck before presenting it to your opponent."

Actually, explaining why either is necessary or fair would be good. I'll say it again; time limits are part of tournaments. There is no simple or fair way to rule or judge precisely in these matters. Gross violations are one thing, such as the above Damage Swap example. The actual rules leave far too much to discretion in way of how little it can take to be guilty of slow play.

---------- Post added 07/16/2012 at 07:14 PM ----------

You know what, I think I really need to emphasized that I have a major case of Confusion about this whole affair, and to be honest I am not sure I care enough to take the time to get it sorted out. I enjoy Pokemon, but I don't get to participate in a lot of organized play. With these rules, I think I'd be scared to, in case I got into a sudden death match and my normal tendency to choke under pressure was mistaken for slow play.

So I am going to make an attempt to, you know be silent. I won't make it a promise, because sometimes I cave and every now and then, it is for a good reason.:lol:

 

[ryanvergel]

I feel like this thread warrants a bump.

Like Diaz said,

Putting rules in place to help prevent cheating by using timekeeping devices is a step towards reducing cheating.

Why are people so against taking steps to reduce the prevalence of people abusing the system and trying to cheat?

Like Cyrus said, you already can't have timekeeping watches on the table. But somehow the wrist is okay. It's not unprecedented to ban fashion accessories that can be disruptive to the game (face-covering garments, sunglasses, etc). We already ban electronic devices. All this should be plenty of grounds to just do away with watches.

At the very least, get rid of digital watches!

 

[cpeterik]

Why not just introduce a variable 15-45 second buffer on either end of the time limit?
This way it would be impossible to accurately predict when time is going to be called.

 

[Jaeger]

Colin: I think that consistency is the most important factor.

 

[ryanvergel]

At best that is a partial, possible fix to the situation



Can I hear some points as to why we SHOULD allow watches, especially digital, to be worn?

Why is there so much debate on this- I don't get it.
Is it a huge deal to take off your watch for the sake of posterity and ensuring a fairER game?

Seriously?

 

[Ness]

I like Colin's suggestion and I've thought about it before. Have a round end somewhere between 30-32 minutes in, without the players knowing when, and it prevents a player timing a match from knowing whose turn the game will end on. One issue with this is it can be abused by judges, who could then call time on their friend's opponent's turn, assuring their friend the final turn (Turn 3).

The problem we have now with players timing matches is, IMO, a minor one, so I can't help but worry that this kind of variable time limit would produce more problems than it solves.

 

[P_A]

I gotta be honest with you guys. At most mom and pop events at Out of the Way games in Nowhereville Ohio, the TO's aren't watching the clock so closely. If the time expired in the TOM program and a judge is busy at the time, it may even be a couple minutes over the scheduled end time of a match before it is noticed. Of course the event staff tries to be punctual, but let's face it, these things DO happen. People who expect things to be perfectly timed every time are sadly mistaken, and should give up predicting when the end of a match is going to be called by watching a watch in the first place. It's a highly fluid situation at best.

 

[bullados]

PA, most TOs that I know don't use TOM as their timekeeping device. They're using their phones, or their iTouch, or something else that they keep on them at virtually all times. Most of these have countdown timers, which generally beep or buzz or do something to attract attention when time's up. Even if you're not hovering TOM, you still generally know when time's up.

 

[TheDarkTwins]

I didn't read this discussion, but I've been told that you are NOT allowed to have timekeeping devices. I don't remember who told me this, but it's been multiple PTOs and I'm pretty sure someone from P!P. So if you think that you are able to, you're sorely mistaken based on the info I've been told.

Drew

 

[Cyrus]

Drew, you're mistaken about everyone being mistaken lol. Timepieces are allowed as long as they are:

A) Not electronic; and
B) Not on the table.

 

[EddieFreak]

Why don't we use chess clocks? That way stalling only hurts the staller(sic)

 

[Mekkah]

There's no money for chess clocks for everyone, and it's hard to solve disputes involving the clock.