No electronic devices-- How about no timekeeping devices

[bullados]

Also, you just destroyed every set up deck in the history of the game.

You also ostracized every player that needs to think during their games.

One player is not allowed to monopolize the clock.

But both players are not entitled to an exactly equal share of the clock.

 

[EddieFreak]

I don't see why. Chess is a thinking and a setup type game. Each player could get 20 or 30 minutes and when time runs out the game is over. I use a chess clock with my son. We each get 20 minutes. I think I ran out of time once and that's because my daughter kept bothering me.

 

[bullados]

I don't see why. Chess is a thinking and a setup type game. Each player could get 20 or 30 minutes and when time runs out the game is over. I use a chess clock with my son. We each get 20 minutes. I think I ran out of time once and that's because my daughter kept bothering me.

Chess has one move per turn, no matter how much setup or thinking goes into that move. Also, once a chess timer goes off, each player can still move. It's not auto-loss when the timer goes off. You have one minute per move after the clock hits (at least, in 60-minute Chess, I think it might be different depending on which type of chess you're playing).

I've had Pokemon turns where I made 20 or more moves in a single turn.

I've also had Pokemon turns where I was "draw-pass" or "draw-attack".

Certain decks simply take more time and more moves to get working. An Eelektrik deck takes many, many more moves (not turns) to get working correctly than a Darkrai/Hammers deck. Imposing a chess clock would put the Eelektrik deck at an unnecessary disadvantage against a Darkrai/Hammers deck, simply because it must use more moves per turn to get working than the Darkrai/Hammers deck.

 

[LOLZ]

I am going to quote Cyrus here, but the first part of my post is going to be directed at those who share the same sentiment.

I'd say watches should always be allowed for the opposite reason: because you NEED to keep track of your opponent's slow play!

That is understandable, however it really isn't a player's job to keep track of their opponent's slow play. Sure if you think your opponent is playing too slow you could ask them to speed up, but that doesn't always solve the problem, besides your opponent may not even be slow playing/stalling, you may just think they are. Whether a watch is or is not worn/used by players, players do not have the authority to state "my opponent is slow playing/stalling", the only ones who have the authority to state this is a JUDGE. The only thing players could state is "I think my opponent is slow playing/stalling", the next logical step for the player is to call a judge to watch pace of play. The fact that you were wearing a watch does not help the judge make the determination of slow playing (or in some cases possible stalling). A judge will have to watch the match for a turn or two to make the determination.

There does exist an alternative for the watch to help players formulate an opinion about their opponent's pace of play. A quote from the slow play section of the Judges Manual Judge Manual- "Unobtrusively time the player's actions (don't hold up a stopwatch; instead count silently or observe a room clock or wristwatch on folded arms)".

If a player is citing the use of a watch to help them keep track of their opponents' pace of play, there is NO Reason what so ever they can not silently count in there mind "1 1000, 2 1000, 3 1000, etc...". Judges are encouraged to use count silently in their mind why can't players do it as well. Even if you choose not to count silently you some times get that feeling... "man my opponent" is taking too long. Whether it be just a feeling, a silent count, or a watch timing your opponent, the result is the same; a player thinks/feels their opponent is slow playing- all three will cause the player to: speed up their own play so they won't be put at a disadvantage, ask their opponent to speed up or call a judge to watch pace of play.

Even if the purpose of wearing a watch is to track an opponent's slow play, there is nothing preventing the wearer from slow playing/stalling themselves.

The difference between using a watch is counting silently in your mind is players that are using the watch know when exactly time is is going to end and +3 turns begin. I think that is the big issue here, STALLING! If a player with a watch can time it precisely (taking a fast turn here or a slow turn here) so their opponent is Turn 0 and they are Turn 3, they can put them self in a better position get ahead on prizes for turn 3. This is STALLING, that was made possible by use of a watch. To preserve the integrity of the game I think watches should be disallowed so players are unable to use them to stall.

1. One cannot uses electronic devices during a match.
2. An electronic/digital watch should not be used during a match, if the above is true.
3. If an electronic/digital watch should not be used during a match, neither should a regular one.


Further,

Watches should not be allowed because they are too easy to allow for time abuse. One can easily look at the minute when the match begins, and easily tell how many minutes are left at any given time. This is even easier with digital watches.

People may complain that they are not allowed to use these fashion accessories- I say you are already forbidden to use sunglasses during a match , so let's take this a step further and even the playing field once again and get rid of all timekeeping devices, electronic or not.


I've wanted to make this post for a while, but have neglected to do so. Bottom line, I know people have abused time by using their watches, so I am proposing we get rid of all timekeeping devices at the table. Keep your phone and your watch in your pocket and off the table.

Slow play and Stalling will exist whether or not Watches are allowed to exist of not. The argument can be made that there does exist legitimate uses for wearing a watch during game play, however anyone who is citing these legitimate reasons can not deny that stalling can arise from using a watch. I do realize that most players will not try to stall by using a watch because that is the type of community we are, however the potential for abuse exists.

For those that have been playing for years recall that Foreign Language cards and autographed cards/cards with writing on them use to be allowed, there was room for abuse, and the Tournament rules were updated to disallow these.

Look at our current rules regarding sleeves and randomizers under older copies of the Tournament Rules. the rules on these were not always this strict and spelled out, there was room for abuse, and the rules were updated to prevent abuse.

Watches are no different, allowing them leaves the door open for abuse. If this type of issue arises and a player gets caught/accused of using a watch to stall, a judge is put in a position where they may have to issue a penalty as high as a DQ. I think everyone here (players and judges alike) can agree that any given tournament game needs to be decided on the table and not influenced/decided by a penalty. As a judge myself I know I would not want to be put in a situation where I need to make a tough call about a player abusing a watch when the call could of been avoided by disallowing watches in the first place. Judging 101- Fix Problems before they occur.

tl;dr- Agreed with Ryan 100%, I am all for disallowing watches.

 

[psychup2034]

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.

Pretty much every single watch in the world is electronic. A battery powered watch is electronic, because a battery generates the electricity for the watch to run. There might be watches powered by nuclear fission that I'm not aware about, but I wouldn't bring those to a Pokemon tournament anyway.

If I'm understanding the practical enforcement of the current rules correctly, the way the rule is enforced is that watches that players wear cannot have a stopwatch/timer capability.

 

[Otaku]

Actually, they still sell mechanical watches that don't use batteries; they aren't as cheap or accurate as those that do but are popular nonetheless and a mature technology.

 

[ExoByte]

Actually, they still sell mechanical watches that don't use batteries; they aren't as cheap or accurate as those that do but are popular nonetheless and a mature technology.

I wouldn't malign the accuracy of a quartz watch, personally.

 

[ryanvergel]

I am going to quote Cyrus here, but the first part of my post is going to be directed at those who share the same sentiment.



That is understandable, however it really isn't a player's job to keep track of their opponent's slow play. Sure if you think your opponent is playing too slow you could ask them to speed up, but that doesn't always solve the problem, besides your opponent may not even be slow playing/stalling, you may just think they are. Whether a watch is or is not worn/used by players, players do not have the authority to state "my opponent is slow playing/stalling", the only ones who have the authority to state this is a JUDGE. The only thing players could state is "I think my opponent is slow playing/stalling", the next logical step for the player is to call a judge to watch pace of play. The fact that you were wearing a watch does not help the judge make the determination of slow playing (or in some cases possible stalling). A judge will have to watch the match for a turn or two to make the determination.

There does exist an alternative for the watch to help players formulate an opinion about their opponent's pace of play. A quote from the slow play section of the Judges Manual Judge Manual- "Unobtrusively time the player's actions (don't hold up a stopwatch; instead count silently or observe a room clock or wristwatch on folded arms)".

If a player is citing the use of a watch to help them keep track of their opponents' pace of play, there is NO Reason what so ever they can not silently count in there mind "1 1000, 2 1000, 3 1000, etc...". Judges are encouraged to use count silently in their mind why can't players do it as well. Even if you choose not to count silently you some times get that feeling... "man my opponent" is taking too long. Whether it be just a feeling, a silent count, or a watch timing your opponent, the result is the same; a player thinks/feels their opponent is slow playing- all three will cause the player to: speed up their own play so they won't be put at a disadvantage, ask their opponent to speed up or call a judge to watch pace of play.

Even if the purpose of wearing a watch is to track an opponent's slow play, there is nothing preventing the wearer from slow playing/stalling themselves.

The difference between using a watch is counting silently in your mind is players that are using the watch know when exactly time is is going to end and +3 turns begin. I think that is the big issue here, STALLING! If a player with a watch can time it precisely (taking a fast turn here or a slow turn here) so their opponent is Turn 0 and they are Turn 3, they can put them self in a better position get ahead on prizes for turn 3. This is STALLING, that was made possible by use of a watch. To preserve the integrity of the game I think watches should be disallowed so players are unable to use them to stall.



Slow play and Stalling will exist whether or not Watches are allowed to exist of not. The argument can be made that there does exist legitimate uses for wearing a watch during game play, however anyone who is citing these legitimate reasons can not deny that stalling can arise from using a watch. I do realize that most players will not try to stall by using a watch because that is the type of community we are, however the potential for abuse exists.

For those that have been playing for years recall that Foreign Language cards and autographed cards/cards with writing on them use to be allowed, there was room for abuse, and the Tournament rules were updated to disallow these.

Look at our current rules regarding sleeves and randomizers under older copies of the Tournament Rules. the rules on these were not always this strict and spelled out, there was room for abuse, and the rules were updated to prevent abuse.

Watches are no different, allowing them leaves the door open for abuse. If this type of issue arises and a player gets caught/accused of using a watch to stall, a judge is put in a position where they may have to issue a penalty as high as a DQ. I think everyone here (players and judges alike) can agree that any given tournament game needs to be decided on the table and not influenced/decided by a penalty. As a judge myself I know I would not want to be put in a situation where I need to make a tough call about a player abusing a watch when the call could of been avoided by disallowing watches in the first place. Judging 101- Fix Problems before they occur.

tl;dr- Agreed with Ryan 100%, I am all for disallowing watches.

Excellent post!

1. There is nothing preventing us from updating our rules. There is precedent for not allowing clothing accessories such as garments covering the face, or reflective sunglasses. I know I've read this before, but can't seem to find it right now.
2. You can simply ask that all players remove watches while playing. How hard is that?
3. No, we won't ever be able to remove a hanging clock on the wall- but that is different because any player can see that- it isn't an advantage gained by only the person wearing a watch. Furthermore, a few exceptions at a small pizza place or card shop shouldn't prevent us from trying to achieve the maximum fairness and elimination of potential for abuse as possible, especially at larger events like nationals and worlds.
4. The potential for abuse is obvious. You can try to gauge your actions to have your opponent end up on turn 0, like Anthony has said. That in itself is the easiest thing to do, and almost impossible to detect, but easier to pull off. Aside from that, you have the normal issues of slowplay and stalling.
5. There is inconsistency in the rules and practices. Judges hide their stopwatches from being seen. They don't tell players how much time remains. There isn't a clock displayed at large events like Worlds or Nationals. You aren't supposed to have a timekeeping device on the play surface. But somehow the electronic devices of watches are allowed- WHY?

So, allowing watches makes things inconsistent. It allows for more abuse.

Why is this even having to be argued? Why are we not moving towards removing of watches, just like we can't have our cell phones our during a match?

Who is against a more level playing field, less potential for abuse, and more consistency in rules/practice?

I guess I should ask why so many of you are FOR a less even playing field, FOR more potential for abuse, FOR less consistency in rules/practice? Why are some of you against removing watches?

 

[LOLZ]

3. No, we won't ever be able to remove a hanging clock on the wall- but that is different because any player can see that- it isn't an advantage gained by only the person wearing a watch. Furthermore, a few exceptions at a small pizza place or card shop shouldn't prevent us from trying to achieve the maximum fairness and elimination of potential for abuse as possible, especially at larger events like nationals and worlds.

If it gets to the point where watches are disallowed, standing on a chair and covering up a clock with tape/computer paper is the first thing I do right after putting the top tables numbers near a corner to prevent spectating/metagaming. The fact that the time left in a match is known by both players, leaves the door open, there is still the potential for stalling. I'll say it again Judging 101- Fix Problems before they occur... disallowing watches would only cause players to charge like a heard of Tauros to get to the pairings sheet so they can get to the better seat to see the clock. You may not be able to remove a clock but you can cover it! Teachers do this to cover certain posters in the classroom when their students are taking a test, covering clocks can work in at Pokemon events also!

 

[Otaku]

I wouldn't malign the accuracy of a quartz watch, personally.

Except quartz watches still create an electronic circuit, so that was not of which I was speaking.

 

[ryanvergel]

To summarize what LOLZ said earlier...
You don't need a watch to monitor your opponent for a few reasons.

1. Only a judge is going to be able to determine if your opponent is slowplaying, so your watch does nothing for your argument or position.
2. You trying to clock your opponent is disruptive and borderline intimidation.
3. You should be using other methods to monitor the pace of play. Mainly, intuition, but also counting in your head.

I have yet to see a good argument for allowing watches. Allowing watches just makes opportunity for abuse of time, creates an unlevel playing field, especially in the case of juniors and seniors (the argument that everyone can obtain a watch is not fully developed- most masters are able to, but little johnny who is 11 may not be able to get one, or use one effectively when playing against the almost 15 year old opponent), and is inconsistent with current rules and practices. Why should I have to bring anything other than required items (damage counters, deck, dice/randomizer, etc) to a game in order to have the same opportunities or advantages my opponent is afforded?

Should I start a petition? Write TPCi?

I feel like this may fall on ears where people have already made up their minds to not listen to reason, either because they LIKE the advantage they have gained through watches, or because they (falsely) believe there is no way to remedy or prevent the abuse from happening. Just because we can't make the game perfectly fair doesn't mean we should stop striving to make it more fair than it is.


--
An excellent point was made to me regarding the issue of +3 turns.

Player A wears a watch and is timing the match.
Player B does not wear a watch, and is not timing the match.

Player A knows there is 2 minutes left in the round. He knows that there is not enough time for either player to win by taking 6 prizes. He now knows to switch gears, and begin playing to have more prize cards taken (by the end of +3 at least). He also times his move to end with about 15-30 seconds left in the round, so his opponent is turn 0. Not only does Player A get 2>1 turns, but he also had the knowledge to switch gears and take a new route to "win" the match, that his opponent was not able to do.

 

[Ness]

There's actually nothing inherently wrong with knowing how much time is left in a match. The problem is the insufficient time limits that make wearing a watch become a significant advantage. To use a medical analogy, focusing on watches is only seeing the symptom instead of the disease. The "disease" is the insufficient time limits. The advantage a watch creates is a "symptom" of this disease. When you increase time limits (and "cure the disease"), the advantage you would gain from wearing a watch is diminished.

Not all uses of a watch are bad, though! If a player notices on a clock or a watch that he's using up a lot of time in a losing game, and this allows him to concede with enough time to finish a three-game series, that's a good thing - him and his opponent will actually get to play more games. The only problem with the watch is when a player with a lead notices there is little time left, and he then begins to slow his play down to try to win on time. Like I've already pointed out: the watch isn't the problem, insufficient time limits are.

Another great benefit of 75-minute top cuts is that it significantly diminishes the advantage a watch can give a player. Fix the time limits, and we won't need to start banning certain types of jewelry at events.

 

[Cyrus]

Watches are not really a "symptom" of a problem, though; rather, they help people cope with the symptoms. Not every player is going to be able to keep perfect track of time at an event just in his or her head, which is why having a watch effectively arms every player with a way to counter time.

Watches in Pokemon are like Dayquil for the sickness that is insufficient time. While Dayquil doesn't cure the sickness, nor is it safe when used improperly, it is nonetheless FDA-approved for its usefulness to the consumer.

P.S. Please don't try to eat your watch.

 

[ryanvergel]

There's actually nothing inherently wrong with knowing how much time is left in a match. The problem is the insufficient time limits that make wearing a watch become a significant advantage. To use a medical analogy, focusing on watches is only seeing the symptom instead of the disease. The "disease" is the insufficient time limits. The advantage a watch creates is a "symptom" of this disease. When you increase time limits (and "cure the disease"), the advantage you would gain from wearing a watch is diminished.

Not all uses of a watch are bad, though! If a player notices on a clock or a watch that he's using up a lot of time in a losing game, and this allows him to concede with enough time to finish a three-game series, that's a good thing - him and his opponent will actually get to play more games. The only problem with the watch is when a player with a lead notices there is little time left, and he then begins to slow his play down to try to win on time. Like I've already pointed out: the watch isn't the problem, insufficient time limits are.

Another great benefit of 75-minute top cuts is that it significantly diminishes the advantage a watch can give a player. Fix the time limits, and we won't need to start banning certain types of jewelry at events.

I think you're not seeing many of the points I presented earlier.

1. I am not saying that this is the most comprehensive solution to the problem of lack of time. This is a quick and easy fix. It is incredibly difficult to increase time for swiss rounds, or top cut rounds. This doesn't compete against those goals.

When you're sick, don't you take something to help the symptoms while you are fighting off the disease? If I take the antibiotic amoxicillin, it is also prescribed with drugs like acetaminophen for body aches, or dextromethorphan for cough. It's silly to make that analogy if you don't follow through with it all the way. While you treat the illness, you also treat the symptoms simultaneously, especially if the illness/disease is so daunting and maybe impossible to treat. If you apply your analogy, at least apply it all the way through. If the disease is too short of time limits, and the symptoms produced are watch wearing to gain unfair advantages, then we treat the symptom by disallowing watches while we seek and strategize a way to elongate or fix the time limits in the most fair way possible.

2. I am saying that the rules are inconsistent. This is not just a "symptom"- this is a problem in and of itself. The rules say you cannot have electronic devices out. Yeah, it's a fashion accessory. I can't have my cell phone out. I can't have a bandana over my face. I can't have my aviators on, so why can't we ask people to take off their watches? This would make things more consistent with existing rules and practices, and there is plenty of precedent for such a thing.

3. You fail to account for +3 as a major factor for the watches are so potentially harmful. Even if we had 75 or 90 minute top cuts, the fact that a +3 remains gives people reason to abuse time.

4. No one has said that looking at a watch is "against the rules". I won't use the word "wrong" because it brings in a judgment value that I am not trying to do. Is it against the rules? No. Should it be? Yes.
Why?
Because it would make the rules more consistent with themselves (no electronic devices), make it more consistent with tournament practice (not having clocks or judges give out time), limits the amount of foul play through using a watch to slowplay/stall, and also evens the playing field.

So, for 4 different, compelling reasons, watches should be done away with. I don't think this is a matter of treating a symptom over a problem. If we didn't have +3, this may be a much weaker issue. If we didn't have short time limits, it may be a weaker issue. If the rules were phrased to allow timekeeping devices on the table, or electronic devices out, this would be a weaker issue.

None of that is the case, though.

This isn't competing against 'fixing the time limits', like I said. I don't think your argument holds up, logically. You stop midway with your analogy usage, you fail to account for +3 as a problem, you are only considering top cut and not swiss, and you (wrongly) think that this somehow competes or undermines or diminishes the argument or value of bettering time limits.

There is no reason we can't do both. Even if every top cut event had 75 minute limits, that still only averages to 25 minutes a game, less than swiss. That still doesn't address the +3 and the advantage a watch can give you by timing WHO has the last turn. It would slightly reduce the use of a watch to slowplay, but it wouldn't eliminate the problems of wearing a watch.

 

[Bigbowlr1037]

the World of Warcraft TCG has an end of match procedure that, i believe, fixes the problem of player abusing the clock. The player who goes 2nd ALWAYS gets the last turn during EOM procedure. If time gets called on the turn of the player who went 1st that player finishes their turn and 3 additional turns are played. If time is called on the turn of the player who went 2nd that player finishes their turn and 4 additional turns are played. It assures that both players have the same number of turns and also prevents people from playing the clock because its already determined who gets the last turn.

 

[ryanvergel]

the World of Warcraft TCG has an end of match procedure that, i believe, fixes the problem of player abusing the clock. The player who goes 2nd ALWAYS gets the last turn during EOM procedure. If time gets called on the turn of the player who went 1st that player finishes their turn and 3 additional turns are played. If time is called on the turn of the player who went 2nd that player finishes their turn and 4 additional turns are played. It assures that both players have the same number of turns and also prevents people from playing the clock because its already determined who gets the last turn.

That's quite interesting, actually.