Procircuitscrub's Columbus Cities Report
- Thread starter procircuitscrub
- Start date
DreamChaser AJ
New Member
Judges should NEVER be used to intimidate an opponent into a misplay! We are there to help make the environment fair, not the opposite!
Also, the player being accused of "stalling out for time" didn't. He's one of the better judges in the area and just generally plays at a slower speed. He's more likely to slow-play himself into a loss than to take a win (he's done this many times before). If he had played at the same pace the whole game, it isn't stalling. It's natural for competitive players to speed up at the end of the game, especially when behind on prizes.
I had spoken with him about this, and he said that he was trying to thin his hand to draw into some power sprays at the end, and wasn't doing pointless things to stall out.
Either way, it was great meeting you guys and we're glad you came up! Let us know if you're ever in Ohio again! And thanks for the tips on the metagame!
procircuitscrub
New Member
alrighty.....just to put the last nail in the coffin on this discussion...I don't think he did it on purpose in order to stall out the win. I think he plays a bit slow and I think he needs to improve on that. I thought he was a nice guy. I have no hard feelings about this....but the collusion thing was a little shady to me. But I just want to put an end to this bickering and I apoligize for getting this started in the first place. The collusion thing will be taken care of....but lets drop all of this. I have learned from this experiance and will better my playing because of it.
darkmaster8702000
New Member
Sorry To Say It Buddy But If U Would Have Actually Played Me Urself U Wuld See That It Isnt That Easy To Beat Me. Go Ahead And Run Ur Mouth, No One Dropped To Let Me In, Yes This Is Keith. Im Not Cocky At All Just Confident And If U Have A Problem With It Then Dnt Come To Ohio Tournaments. And Mike Is A Very Good Player Thank You So Dnt Say U Got Stalled Out At All. He Played To The Best Of His Ability And Came Out On Top. Dont Get All Bitter And Sour Just Because U Did Not Make Top Cut. Maybe If U Would Have Had A Better Opponents Win Percentage Than I Did Then U Wuld Have Got In. And Yes Ur Buddy James Is A Good Player Not Taking That Away From Him But U Guys Came To Ohio With This Attitude That U 2 Were The Best There Is. I Would Have Loved To C U Guys Face The People That Were Not Able To Make It. U Guys Are Just As Cocky So Darkmasterout On That. I Will See U At A Tournament Soon.
Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:
Sorry To Say It Buddy But If U Would Have Actually Played Me Urself U Wuld See That It Isnt That Easy To Beat Me. Go Ahead And Run Ur Mouth, No One Dropped To Let Me In, Yes This Is Keith. Im Not Cocky At All Just Confident And If U Have A Problem With It Then Dnt Come To Ohio Tournaments. And Mike Is A Very Good Player Thank You So Dnt Say U Got Stalled Out At All. He Played To The Best Of His Ability And Came Out On Top. Dont Get All Bitter And Sour Just Because U Did Not Make Top Cut. Maybe If U Would Have Had A Better Opponents Win Percentage Than I Did Then U Wuld Have Got In. And Yes Ur Buddy James Is A Good Player Not Taking That Away From Him But U Guys Came To Ohio With This Attitude That U 2 Were The Best There Is. I Would Have Loved To C U Guys Face The People That Were Not Able To Make It. U Guys Are Just As Cocky So Darkmasterout On That. I Will See U At A Tournament Soon.
Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:
But It Was Very Good Playing With Another Player That Was Really Good And I Learn From My Mistakes That I Make In Tournaments And Im Not Cocky I Just Feel Its Better For Me To Go On And On Because I Have Nothing Better To Do Knowing That I Am Gunna Lose. Why Not Talk Trash And Try To Frustrate My Opponent. Not Saying I Do It On Pirpose But I Lost Earlier Y Would I Win This Time Around, Plus I Only Kno Ryne Through Tournaments We Stay About 4 And A Half Hours Away From Each Other.
Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:
Sorry To Say It Buddy But If U Would Have Actually Played Me Urself U Wuld See That It Isnt That Easy To Beat Me. Go Ahead And Run Ur Mouth, No One Dropped To Let Me In, Yes This Is Keith. Im Not Cocky At All Just Confident And If U Have A Problem With It Then Dnt Come To Ohio Tournaments. And Mike Is A Very Good Player Thank You So Dnt Say U Got Stalled Out At All. He Played To The Best Of His Ability And Came Out On Top. Dont Get All Bitter And Sour Just Because U Did Not Make Top Cut. Maybe If U Would Have Had A Better Opponents Win Percentage Than I Did Then U Wuld Have Got In. And Yes Ur Buddy James Is A Good Player Not Taking That Away From Him But U Guys Came To Ohio With This Attitude That U 2 Were The Best There Is. I Would Have Loved To C U Guys Face The People That Were Not Able To Make It. U Guys Are Just As Cocky So Darkmasterout On That. I Will See U At A Tournament Soon.
Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:
But It Was Very Good Playing With Another Player That Was Really Good And I Learn From My Mistakes That I Make In Tournaments And Im Not Cocky I Just Feel Its Better For Me To Go On And On Because I Have Nothing Better To Do Knowing That I Am Gunna Lose. Why Not Talk Trash And Try To Frustrate My Opponent. Not Saying I Do It On Pirpose But I Lost Earlier Y Would I Win This Time Around, Plus I Only Kno Ryne Through Tournaments We Stay About 4 And A Half Hours Away From Each Other.
Last edited:
First and foremost, the player who is in "question" of slow playing I can say with near 100% certainty would NOT do that. I vouch with all my integrity that of all the players I know, he is the last person who would do such a thing.
Second, based on what is being said about the deal, that 100% is collusion. There are a ton of deals which can be made which are NOT collusion at all. Yet based on what is said, that falls 100% under it, despite the fact that I have no ill will against either of the players in question. I'm with Vince on that one.
Third, if a player is making moves in a timely manner, it doesn't matter if they are game relevant. To anyone who says that a player "stole a win" by making legal moves within a timely manner to "win on time" is trying to make up some different game that they personally want to be playing. Time is just as much a part of the game as attaching one energy per turn as long as a time limit exists. Both players are fully aware of the implications of time limits going in to a game, and play the game accordingly. When a player decides to snipe a benched Uxie with his Gengar because he is behind in prizes as time is winding down, that is playing with time in mind. 99% of the time, thats not the correct play in terms of insuring a win in the long run. No one complains about this. Yet if a player plays with time in mind also when emptying pointless cards thats criminal? Your out of your mind and borderline delusional. Both are examples of players playing with time in mind, and making plays completely differently than if the game was not run on a time limit. Stop handicapping yourself by refusing to see the difference. It just reeks of being bitter.
Second, based on what is being said about the deal, that 100% is collusion. There are a ton of deals which can be made which are NOT collusion at all. Yet based on what is said, that falls 100% under it, despite the fact that I have no ill will against either of the players in question. I'm with Vince on that one.
Third, if a player is making moves in a timely manner, it doesn't matter if they are game relevant. To anyone who says that a player "stole a win" by making legal moves within a timely manner to "win on time" is trying to make up some different game that they personally want to be playing. Time is just as much a part of the game as attaching one energy per turn as long as a time limit exists. Both players are fully aware of the implications of time limits going in to a game, and play the game accordingly. When a player decides to snipe a benched Uxie with his Gengar because he is behind in prizes as time is winding down, that is playing with time in mind. 99% of the time, thats not the correct play in terms of insuring a win in the long run. No one complains about this. Yet if a player plays with time in mind also when emptying pointless cards thats criminal? Your out of your mind and borderline delusional. Both are examples of players playing with time in mind, and making plays completely differently than if the game was not run on a time limit. Stop handicapping yourself by refusing to see the difference. It just reeks of being bitter.
DragonairMaster8
Active Member
I'd prefer if my name and apparent "attitude" was left off of this tournament report, and preferably the gym. I never, ever have put anyone down and never, ever said anything to try and make another player feel inferior to me.
I'm sorry if I somehow came off that way to you, but I just dont understand how I could. I tend to remain as silent as possible in all of my tournaments unless playing with friends and would never want to come off as "cocky".
This entire situation is rediculous on all accounts and if discussion must continue please leave me out of it (all of you).
Thanks,
James A
I will add that I myself am a part-time judge, so I know how angry players can be when a judge is called especially at big tournaments. I'm not trying to psych them out on purpose when I call a judge, if they're playing with SotG they shouldn't be worried. If they are cheating, calling a judge will tell them you're on to something, which might change how they play or they might get caught. Always better to have an extra set of eyes to look for that sort of thing, especially when it's John Spurlock or spookee's Phone-a-Judge power :wink:
Sorry if it came off as a little pessimistic. During my top 2 match at States last year my opponent received a Game Loss for illegal state of play. He then proceeded to win game 3 on time when he had 8 or 9 supporters in his hand for me to Poltergeist. Funny he wanted the seat where he could see the clock.
Sorry if it came off as a little pessimistic. During my top 2 match at States last year my opponent received a Game Loss for illegal state of play. He then proceeded to win game 3 on time when he had 8 or 9 supporters in his hand for me to Poltergeist. Funny he wanted the seat where he could see the clock.
DreamChaser AJ
New Member
Actually, your actions must be relevant to the game, and cannot be pointless game actions just to try to stall out the clock. Check the penalty guidelines.
So your telling me now that judges can require players play WELL now? Thats FAR beyond crossing the boundaries I feel judges have ANY right to cross. This is becoming a borderline joke in my eyes. Where does a judge get to decide what they feel is a pointless action and what is a relevant one? Are they mind readers who can tell what the intent of every move is? I trust max 5% of judges to make that sort of call. Because I decide to Great Ball, find and fail 3 times, and Roseanne to find and fail, is a judge going to come over and tell me I'm getting a game loss for stalling? I'm simply lowering my hand count so that my opponent can't Mimic for as many cards. Or I'm thinning my hand for Cosmic Power later in the game. Or I'm thinning my hand in case they Wager me and I want to ensure I have the best odds of drawing relevants off of it. In regards to retreating? How is a judge going to tell me I have to leave a Pokemon active? Theres tons of reasons why I'd want to not leave a Pokemon active. There is no REAL way for a judge to be able to make such a call like this. I understand the logic behind most of the "anti stalling" tactics, but this one is so far beyond reasonable that it baffles me. And AJ, whether it is in the guidelines or not, you know I'm 100% correct on this.
DreamChaser AJ
New Member
The examples you just gave are all "game relevant" based on your explanations, and I do agree with you 100% on those situations. In your previous post, you said "it doesn't matter if they are game relevant". I was just pointing out that little bit of info because you are seen as a role model to some and your statement there was a little incomplete. There are certain things you can do that are completely trying to stall out the clock and have zero influence over the game state other than "you're doing something". This is something that I'm sure you agree 100% with as well Chris.
(Such as constantly and tediously Energy Transing grass energy back and forth to the same pokemon to try and eat up time, when there is nothing else to do that turn other than attack and they are up on prizes.)
(Such as constantly and tediously Energy Transing grass energy back and forth to the same pokemon to try and eat up time, when there is nothing else to do that turn other than attack and they are up on prizes.)
Has anyone hit this player with any penalties?? One stiff game loss and they will know you mean business. (With the appropriate earlier penalties to lead up to that point).
Keith
Naki Feralkin
New Member
^ I seriously wish someone would hit him with some. I don't think he ever has been.
Ok I'm not sure what a 30 minute turn is exactly, but I THINK I know the "extremely slow" player that is being referenced.
The PROBLEM with judge intervention in his games is he plays at a completely standard pace. He never plays faster, he never plays slower. He just plays REALLY SLOW. There is no intent for him to maliciously manipulate the clock, despite what some people want to believe out of frustration, because yes, it is very frustrating. I have seen him LOSE numerous games he SHOULD have won because he plays so slow even when getting beat. It isn't an instance of him just stalling out to win games, his natural place pace is just glacial.
And AJ, ok, clearly looped powers and such cannot be used to " extend turns" just like you couldn't endlessly retreat between two Scyther back before the retreat cap. There are so few actual examples of moves that aren't "real". In fact, the only actual examples would be "as often as you'd like" Poke Powers. I literally can't think of another play that would fall under "irrelevant" because simply by PLAYING a card it can be justified as deck thinning.
The PROBLEM with judge intervention in his games is he plays at a completely standard pace. He never plays faster, he never plays slower. He just plays REALLY SLOW. There is no intent for him to maliciously manipulate the clock, despite what some people want to believe out of frustration, because yes, it is very frustrating. I have seen him LOSE numerous games he SHOULD have won because he plays so slow even when getting beat. It isn't an instance of him just stalling out to win games, his natural place pace is just glacial.
And AJ, ok, clearly looped powers and such cannot be used to " extend turns" just like you couldn't endlessly retreat between two Scyther back before the retreat cap. There are so few actual examples of moves that aren't "real". In fact, the only actual examples would be "as often as you'd like" Poke Powers. I literally can't think of another play that would fall under "irrelevant" because simply by PLAYING a card it can be justified as deck thinning.
nuttysquirrel
New Member
Chris they're not talking about me sir. I don't play that slow.
Naki Feralkin
New Member
What would you do if said player played Uxie Donk, Mr. Fulop? I think I'd seriously just take a nap in the middle of the game.
You know it was an exaggeration. lol
Nope, for one simple reason: everyone and their brother complains about this guy, but when it comes down to calling over a judge, nobody ever does.
Why would you need to wait for a Judge to be called over to address this? I've issued many a caution, warning and up when neither player called me over. It is called ACTIVE JUDGING! If everyone knows about this player, then the judges ought to also. Hit him with prompts, penalties and then escalate until he either gets the GL or gets the message and speeds up.
Keith
DreamChaser AJ
New Member
Exactly what Chris said. Though we haven't seen him around too much lately. His kids are getting older and I think they've lost interest in the game. Despite players complaining about his pace, it never really affected the tournament length and personally I thought they were good people.
I have a parent at one of my leagues who naturally just plays at a very slow pace (he can't read the cards too well and doesn't know what anything does). It's not intentional, and he plays as best he can. I think this player has some of the same issues.
ryanvergel
New Member
from what ruiner describes, is there even anything to call a judge about? i thought they were supposed to intervene when they see a CHANGE OF PACE OF PLAY, not just playing slowly. would they be allowed to intervene if they feel that one player just plays slow? is that unfair or legitimate for a judge to do? it seems like a bold step to take, one fraught with potential for misjudging, overjudging, and stepping boundaries and limitations on judges explicitly said in the rule book. it seems they are quite clear in exactly what they want judges intervening in.
ive played against a lot of pokedads and moms in my life and have lost to time and won on time a lot. its quite frustrating to lose when you are slightly behind on prizes and never have a chance to 'catch up'- but there are probably plenty of times where wins come because the slow opponent didnt play quick enough to recover in 30/40 minute rounds.
To play devils advocate as well, his turns are REALLY slow to the point where it isn't entirely fair to his opponent either. Despite what a number of people may say, I really do not get the vibe of any ill intentions from his play. He brings his kids to the tournaments, and due to his methodical play, would usually finish 3-3, or 4-2 at tournaments. I see little to no competitive drive in his game. You don't get the sense hes stopping at nothing to get a win, and I don't see a change of play pace, simply a very very slow player. Due to the well documented concerns it has at times turned into a somewhat justified, somewhat overblown witch hunt too. For every time he may be rightly accused of winning off of extremely slow play, theres another accusation stemming from prior bitterness or previous assumption.
I have had one chance to judge at a tournament he was at, and he ended up 1-4, or 2-3 at best using a Magnezone Dialga deck which was very slow. His games were the last time finish and he lost on time almost every one of his losses. He gave up too much ground, and couldn't come back in time despite the fact I was pretty confident based on game state given another 10 minutes of play, he would have won most of those games.
While the subject in question is a fairly intelligent grown man, what do you do if you have say a 12 year old kid show up to a tournament, who is very slow at playing, and doesn't know all the cards, and takes very long turns? Can this so called "active judging" ( Which I still have many an issue with because I feel most judges are either far too passive or far too "active" and both extremes are bad. The best judges take a good middle ground. ) really be justified? I'm not saying yes or no, but what can really be done? This is one of the harder "moral questions" regarding judging that I've asked myself, and I really don't know the answer, and I don't think I've really talked to anyone who has been able to give a definitive answer either.
I have had one chance to judge at a tournament he was at, and he ended up 1-4, or 2-3 at best using a Magnezone Dialga deck which was very slow. His games were the last time finish and he lost on time almost every one of his losses. He gave up too much ground, and couldn't come back in time despite the fact I was pretty confident based on game state given another 10 minutes of play, he would have won most of those games.
While the subject in question is a fairly intelligent grown man, what do you do if you have say a 12 year old kid show up to a tournament, who is very slow at playing, and doesn't know all the cards, and takes very long turns? Can this so called "active judging" ( Which I still have many an issue with because I feel most judges are either far too passive or far too "active" and both extremes are bad. The best judges take a good middle ground. ) really be justified? I'm not saying yes or no, but what can really be done? This is one of the harder "moral questions" regarding judging that I've asked myself, and I really don't know the answer, and I don't think I've really talked to anyone who has been able to give a definitive answer either.