Tricky vs. Deceptive Behavior (updated 2/12)

[The Captain]

Pokemon USA designs this game and the tournaments to support the players in such a way as to maximize their business profit by selling more cards (their shareholders would be very upset if they didn't). This includes making sure that it is inclusive to a large number of players.

They arrange the tournaments the way they see fit and that includes heavy emphasis on avoiding gamesmanship and any form of intimidation. The judges are expected to enforce that. You are free to arrange non-sanctioned tournaments if you want tournaments run differently.

So any deliberate action taken with the purpose if influencing your opponent's actions is off limit unless it is part of your natural game actions. You can technically tell the opponent what you just drew, but you can not misrepresent facts so you have to be honest (so you are unlikely to do so (*)). This even goes as far as you cannot sit down and think when you have nothing to think about (trying to convince the opponent that you have options), at least not without making an excuse so the opponent doesn't get misled.

This is really a very simple principle and you should not let the fact that it can be difficult to catch some of these transgressions make you believe that they are allowed.

(*)
If you told me what you drew I would call a judge to get your hand checked. Trouble would likely ensure if your hand didn't include that card.

Pokemon has a pretty small player base compared to franchise populatity compared to magic and yugioh. I can't say im an expert and niether can you unless you work for them, but having a more competitive environment may be good for the game.

I think its legit to think that Darthpikas actions are extreme. But the statement i bolded is also very extreme. you play a power lets say i do have the spray, i think and decide not to use it. Then do you have the right to call a judge and have him look at my hand? Maybe it would be easier if we just played with our hands face up. It would be very hard to bluff playing like that. What your suggesting opens the floodgates for your opponent to call you on anything, they feel is misleading.
Like looking ****** when you have a good hand, or happy when you have a bad one. "Judge my opponent is really happy please tell if his hand is good." and honestly if you call a judge over your opponent telling you card in their hand i would say thats rule sharking all the way.


Another point lets say the feeling of intimidation from your opponent bluffing on a scale from 1 to 10 is a 2, because honestly you're NOT going to loose sleep over a bluff. Then lets take the feeling you get from loosing a game, lets say loosing in T8 at nationals. The second seems much worse, so i say that Loosing has no place in Pokemon i personally feel it goes against SotG, it can make you feel really bad. So everytime you opponent gets a prize you take one too and since every game will be a tie we'll just split prizes evenly between everyone and everyone will be happy, except for the players who were among the best and should rightfully recieve more.

 

[Godzfirefly]

But the statement i bolded is also very extreme. you play a power lets say i do have the spray, i think and decide not to use it. Then do you have the right to call a judge and have him look at my hand?

I think that, at this point, I would be asking why the person using the power is aware of your 'thinking' enough to feel you are trying to intimidate them. If you're making a production of 'thinking' or asking them to delay their actions ever time they use a power to give you time to think, they may have a valid reason to call over a judge. The first can easily be seen as intimidation or distraction, the second can be slow-play. Under normal circumstances, your thinking about Power Sray usage should be quick and quiet.

Maybe it would be easier if we just played with our hands face up. It would be very hard to bluff playing like that. What your suggesting opens the floodgates for your opponent to call you on anything, they feel is misleading.

I agree that, in almost every situation, it is inappropriate to ask a judge to check your opponent's hand for something. Unless you suspect them of cheating by slipping cards in/out of their hand, it isn't necessary.

As far as intimidation goes, I'd go as far as saying the contents of the hand are immaterial. It should be about the non-game actions of the player.

 

[ShadowCard]

I'm glad you brought up smiling. Smiling makes me wonder: what's the cutoff point for this intimidation/deceptive behaviour/bluffing stuff? Where does it begin and end?

I like this definition for a bluff: "It is displaying (not articulating) a false sense of confidence or a false sense of weakness."

I called you out because of your post that I found very condescending: ...

now, now, ninetales, I think you're being unreasonable. This is PokeGym: you should have expected to get condescended when you made the post :wink: :frown:

As a side-note: The example that DarthPika provided (with the Power Spray) is a very good case-study, showing a borderline example where we can discuss intent vs action. Kudos to DarthPika for being willing and thoughtful enough to provide the example.

You mean "for being willing to volunteer for the guillotine"?

I think its legit to think that Darthpikas actions are extreme. But the statement i bolded is also very extreme. you play a power lets say i do have the spray, i think and decide not to use it. Then do you have the right to call a judge and have him look at my hand?

If I'm not mistaken, that is exactly what would happen. The judge has the ability to determine if a player is lying.

As far as intimidation goes, I'd go as far as saying the contents of the hand are immaterial. It should be about the non-game actions of the player.

Not true. It's intimidation if you have the card; it could be deemed lying if you don't have it. The latter carries a heavier penalty if I'm not mistaken.

 

[The Captain]

As a side-note: The example that DarthPika provided (with the Power Spray) is a very good case-study, showing a borderline example where we can discuss intent vs action. Kudos to DarthPika for being willing and thoughtful enough to provide the example.

i think he was bragging

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

I like this definition for a bluff: "It is displaying (not articulating) a false sense of confidence or a false sense of weakness."


now, now, ninetales, I think you're being unreasonable. This is PokeGym: you should have expected to get condescended when you made the post :wink: :frown:


If I'm not mistaken, that is exactly what would happen. The judge has the ability to determine if a player is lying.

ninetails is right your are overly condesending. Do you not see why a judge shouldn't be able to be called to tell the opponent my hand. How about this, before every power my opponent completes he has to give me 20 seconds to think about it. Every Power. If you have 30 seconds between your plays, since i can make a play on your turn so should i.

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

I agree that, in almost every situation, it is inappropriate to ask a judge to check your opponent's hand for something. Unless you suspect them of cheating by slipping cards in/out of their hand, it isn't necessary.

As far as intimidation goes, I'd go as far as saying the contents of the hand are immaterial. It should be about the non-game actions of the player.

i agree with that

 

[Lawman]

Here's a couple of reasons Nick: 1) It is rude to wave cards under people's noses 2) it is unsporting (want to look that possible penalty up??) 3) it is intimidating 4) it can be deceiving and worst.....5) it is a DUBIOUS action. Go look that penalty up! DP would not like the result if that was the decision of the HJ.

EDIT: If this happened to you and it was not reported to the Judge, then this person just keeps on keeping on.....breaking the rules all the way to possibly the top tables. How many times have you uttered "I cannot do anything about XYZ AFTER the match" ????

Keith

 

[The Captain]

Here's a couple of reasons Nick: 1) It is rude to wave cards under people's noses 2) it is unsporting (want to look that possible penalty up??) 3) it is intimidating 4) it can be deceiving and worst.....5) it is a DUBIOUS action. Go look that penalty up! DP would not like the result if that was the decision of the HJ.

EDIT: If this happened to you and it was not reported to the Judge, then this person just keeps on keeping on.....breaking the rules all the way to possibly the top tables. How many times have you uttered "I cannot do anything about XYZ AFTER the match" ????

Keith

thats fine, but waht about a smile, or frown, or sigh.

 

[Godzfirefly]

Not true. It's intimidation if you have the card; it is lying if you don't have it. The latter carries a heavier penalty if I'm not mistaken.

Unless you're actively, vocally trying to convince the opponent that you have a good/bad hand, it isn't actually lieing.... For that matter, unless there is a specific action that someone interprets as intimidation, a judge has no reason to get involved (even if the player is trying to break rules by intimidating the opponent, but failing.)

Using DarthPika's example, since it's already available....

Whether the card that is held up is a Power Spray or not, the hypothetical Sith Pokemon is trying to intimidate the opponent into making a particular play that would benefit only the Sith Pokemon. If there is no Power Spray, and the intimidation works, then the power is effectively Sprayed without even needing to have the card in-hand. If there is a Spray there, and the intimidation works, then you effectively Sprayed the power and you still have the Power Spray to use later on.

As you can see, it is intimidation either way, with the intent to harm the opposing player's chances of winning by performing actions outside gameplay.

i think he was bragging

If that is the case, he still provided a very useful example in a way that got people talking about it. But, I think he knew when he posted the example that there would be a certain level of descenting opinion. And, I believe that he wanted to gauge the degree of that opinion before potentially trying such a tactic in a tourney (or before someone tried it on him.)

 

[ShadowCard]

I see *thinks*.

ninetails is right your are overly condesending.

Me? :lol:
You don't have any idea what you're talking about.

 

[Lawman]

thats fine, but waht about a smile, or frown, or sigh.

The game is supposed to be FUN. If you could no longer smile, I would quit this game :smile: Emotions are a part of people. Reactions are natural. Sometimes we cannot even hide a facial expression. Some consider this to be a "tell" in poker.

Keith

 

[Godzfirefly]

thats fine, but waht about a smile, or frown, or sigh.

I don't think anyone's going to try enforcing intimidation or dubious action rules on such small actions. Even if they are intended to be malicious, it'd be impossible to prove (without something more obvious.) For that matter, many players may not even notice their opponents doing such things, causing the effect to be lost (unless the dubious player is going to try over-acting his part, to get attention, which might get him caught.) Of course, at Nationals and Worlds, with dozens of people watching the Top-Cuts, there is certainly a lot greater chances of getting caught at such a thing, if they make a pattern of deceptive behavior.

But, while such intentionally misleading actions are essentially un-enforcable, they are still morally deplorable. It's like a lesser version of grifting...

Remember, if an action is legal (or cannot be prosecuted/punished,) that doesn't automatically make it right.

 

[Lucario EX]

(Warning. In this post, I may or may not be playing devil's advocate. Feel free to draw your own conclusions)

Okay, I think that partly RA is misusing the word 'deceptive'. A lot of things can be deceptive. If I play Machop as my starter, to get my opponent to think that I'm playing a Machamp deck, when I don't play a single Machamp, that is definitely deceptive. However, is it against the rules, or wrong? The first post seems to indicate tricky = good, deceptive = bad.

Second, is indicating that you have a card always wrong? If I use body language, facial expressions, etc, to indicate that I have a card, is it always 'deceptive' as opposed to 'tricky'? For example, playing Crobat G, announcing Flash Bite, then holding onto the card, lifting it up slightly, and staring at a certain card in my hand?


Also, what about less specific indications? In my previous example, the player would obviously be acting as if they had a PokeTurn. What about saying "darn, it's prized" during a deck search?

If I did that with the intention of indicating that a certain card likely to be played in the deck that I was using, to improve the matchup against a deck I was playing against at that time, was prized, would that be 'deceptive'?
What if that was my intention, but the card I meant to search for actually was prized?
How about if there was no specific card that would be indicated?
Or a situation where the card I was looking for was prized, but my opponent would obviously interpret it as being a different card?

While I don't want people to care where the line is, I for one would still like to know where it is.

 

[Godzfirefly]

(Warning. In this post, I may or may not be playing devil's advocate. Feel free to draw your own conclusions)

Okay, I think that partly RA is misusing the word 'deceptive'. A lot of things can be deceptive. If I play Machop as my starter, to get my opponent to think that I'm playing a Machamp deck, when I don't play a single Machamp, that is definitely deceptive. However, is it against the rules, or wrong? The first post seems to indicate tricky = good, deceptive = bad.

Well, I think that Rogue Archetype was trying to use 'tricky' to indicate game actions that can be used to cause the opponent to misinterpret your next likely action while he used 'deceptive' to indicate actions outside of the game that are intentionally used to cause the opponent to play based on information that would normally not be available to them. In your example of Machop, this is naturally legal, as it is an in-game action. However, I don't think RA (or I) would categorize using a Machop starter as 'deceptive.' Instead, that would fall under 'tricky.'

Second, is indicating that you have a card always wrong? If I use body language, facial expressions, etc, to indicate that I have a card, is it always 'deceptive' as opposed to 'tricky'? For example, playing Crobat G, announcing Flash Bite, then holding onto the card, lifting it up slightly, and staring at a certain card in my hand?

Also, what about less specific indications? In my previous example, the player would obviously be acting as if they had a PokeTurn.

This is a clear example of an intentional attempt to use non-game actions to mislead your opponent. This would definately be something that a passing judge should/would take note of (and either watch you like a hawk from then-on, or issue a penalty then-and-there.) In this case, it shouldn't matter whether there is a Poke Turn there or not. Either way, you are still trying to intimidate the opponent into performing an action they may not otherwise have performed through non-game actions.

What about saying "darn, it's prized" during a deck search?

If I did that with the intention of indicating that a certain card likely to be played in the deck that I was using, to improve the matchup against a deck I was playing against at that time, was prized, would that be 'deceptive'?
What if that was my intention, but the card I meant to search for actually was prized?
How about if there was no specific card that would be indicated?
Or a situation where the card I was looking for was prized, but my opponent would obviously interpret it as being a different card?

If you were intentionally stating, 'darn, it's prized,' in an attempt to sway the play of your opponent with that statement, this is certainly another example of intimidation/deception through non-game actions. (See above comment)

While I don't want people to care where the line is, I for one would still like to know where it is.

Quite understandable.

 

[Lucario EX]

In this case, it shouldn't matter whether there is a Poke Turn there or not.

But it's an obvious indication of PokeTurn and only PokeTurn. The only assumption the opponent would make is of intent to play PokeTurn. In a situation such as saying that an unknown card is prized, the opponent chooses to interpret it as being a certain card. If they have no reason to assume that I'm referring to a certain card, is it the same thing?

And, of course using a Machop starter for that reason is deceptive, using the proper definition. I know how RA used the words, I'm saying that perhaps a different choice of words would be a good idea.

 

[ShadowCard]

For that matter, many players may not even notice their opponents doing such things, causing the effect to be lost

I would say that a really good player is looking for such reactions, or "tells" as Lawman described them. If the opponent isn't aware he/she is doing them, then the player looking for them learns a lot that the opponent is actually non-verbally confessing.

Okay, I think that partly RA is misusing the word 'deceptive'.

I think that's why the penalty guidelines says "dubious" instead of "deceptive." :wink:

Second, is indicating that you have a card always wrong? If I use body language, facial expressions, etc, to indicate that I have a card, is it always 'deceptive' as opposed to 'tricky'?

Last time I checked, a number of people were fine with bluffing, but you run into an individual judge's opinion at each tournament you go to. The best "line in the sand" you're going to get with this is "you cannot lie."

In my previous example, the player would obviously be acting as if they had a PokeTurn. What about saying "darn, it's prized" during a deck search?

If I did that with the intention of indicating that a certain card likely to be played in the deck that I was using, to improve the matchup against a deck I was playing against at that time, was prized, would that be 'deceptive'?

If you make the card known, it is not deceptive but instead the exact definition of intimidation. You cannot say "It's a good thing I've teched Crystal Shard!" upon seeing your opponent is playing a colorless weak deck (after resolving the illegal deck issue, that is ). If the card remains unknown, then it doesn't matter.

What if that was my intention, but the card I meant to search for actually was prized?

Can't do it even if it is the truth. Best to say "fail search" and move on.
Better question would be: if the opponent then asks me "is the Crystal Shard prized?" but you didn't indicate it was the intended target of the search (but it was a logical assumption), is saying "yeah" and it being the truth considered intimidation?

How about if there was no specific card that would be indicated?

That is fine.

Or a situation where the card I was looking for was prized, but my opponent would obviously interpret it as being a different card?

The opponent can interpret it however he/she wants. As long as you don't confirm or deny anything, you should generally be fine.

 

[Godzfirefly]

The best "line in the sand" you're going to get with this is "you cannot lie."

I think a better 'line in the sand' would be "stick to in-game actions" (if you absolutely must have a line.)

Generally, if you don't intentionally use out-of-game actions as part of your strategy, you'll never be charged with intimidation. After all, un-intentional quirks and reactions are unlikely to cause a noticable pattern. And, if they do, you'll probably have it brought to your attention by a judge before the truly sever penalties are issued.:thumb:

 

[afstandopleren]

Here is an idea: Instead of watching at your opponent's every move, you could keep your eyes on the playing field. Your opponent isn't in the game and only part of the game and should not be payed that much attention to unless you really don't trust the person. This, in theory, should make you less vulnerable for any stupid actions your opponent may take in trying to bluff, con or whatever.

 

[ShadowCard]

But it's an obvious indication of PokeTurn and only PokeTurn. The only assumption the opponent would make is of intent to play PokeTurn. In a situation such as saying that an unknown card is prized, the opponent chooses to interpret it as being a certain card. If they have no reason to assume that I'm referring to a certain card, is it the same thing?

Super Scoop Up?
If you say "oh, it is prized", it should generally be fine. The opponent can interpret it however he/she wants, it does not matter.
If you say "oh, PokeTurn is prized", then you have technically crossed the line into intimidation but the way this is phrased and interpretted will weigh into it. Best to decide if your opponent is having fun vs messing with you before calling over the judge
If you say "oh, PokeTurn is prized" and it is in your hand, then you are lying.

 

[Shen]

At what point does something become a "Tricky play" or a "Deceptive play," which would include behavior that is frowned upon? For example, say there's a game between T-Tar and Magnezone. Magnezone player has the Lv. X out and acts in such a way that it appears he/she is making misplays with their energy minipulation. Magnezone player decides to Electric Trans to trick the T-Tar player into Darkness Driving a few times, then suddenly lays down a Magnemite, candy, Magneton SF. Magnezone player then moves all energy to the Magneton and uses Magnetic Release ftw.

Would one consider this "deceiving" an opponent to make a misplay? Other examples include dropping a Warp Point with a Moonlight Stadium out in hopes that the opponent brings up a (normally) high retreat psychic/dark Pokemon, then drops a new stadium to lock the foe in. The list can go on. Tricks like these rely heavily on your attitude, if you're playing with a confident attitude more than likely the opponent won't fall for it. If you appear to be correcting misplays, perhaps they will. Either way, they only last so long, it's not an actual mechanic of the game.

I personally don't think judges can enforce any type of behavior over the other, because there really isn't a fine line. One can argue so many different motives behind waving a card, I just don't think it's an issue that can really be enforced. It can be no more than a reminder as well. What if that card really IS a power spray? Is that still frowned upon? There's just so many different variations in the issue, I can't see it being regulated.

One other thing I'd like to contribute to the discussion... a couple years ago when Rayquaza EX δ made its debut at states, many players tried breaking the rules (Drawing an extra card, etc) to get a prize penalty and set themselves behind. It's arguably a legit play I suppose. The BIGGEST thing that ALWAYS bothered me about Pokemon TCG is that judges are so inconsistent. You may get a game loss for one play, or a prize penalty for another. It was so unfair that some of the Ray EX players were able to get away with a prize penalty, but then after the judges caught on it was far more strict. Players using Scramble Energy soon tried the method as well. I can imagine this coming back with the release of Upper Energy.

What upsets me isn't restricted to plays like these, anything that's a bit cloudy in the rules and doesn't have a specific boundary is handled differently IMO. Sportsmanship is just the hardest concept to enforce. An example of this I experienced was watching a game with a player using Jirachi EX against player playing Flariados. Jirachi EX player announces Shield Beam (Which shuts off powers). Then the Flariados player takes his turn, BUT plays everything normally. Drops a Flareon EX, uses its power, etc etc... I'm unaware if the player forgot about the power lock or if he was trying to see if his opponent would notice. Anyways, he attacks and everything, Jirachi EX gets knocked out, the player draws his card... he's totally forgetful about what he did until now. So he's like, "Wait you couldn't do that, you couldn't use powers!" So a judge is called over, and the judge just says there's nothing he can do... it was just sloppy play. The game resumes without any changes.

So many other judges may have handled that differently, but there's so many situations in this game that the rules can't possibly cover them all, so it's left up to individual judges. Things along these lines I understand to be very destructive to the game, and it's unfortunate that some people intentionally resort to these methods. I'd personally like to see things like these become a lot more strict... but like I said, it's very difficult to do so.



EDIT: A couple other stupid things I just thought of is along the lines of a player announcing a play. Player plays flips a coin, if heads, drops Super Scoop Up and uses it to effect, if tails, THEN drops Super Scoop Up and deals with it from there. Player uses an attack that involves flipping, says the attack's initial damage (Or places 3 damage counters on the foe), then flips. If tails, one could say, "I never said the attack name," and flip again. The second example is the one that really bugs me. It's not just limited to coin flips too, maybe placing damage counters without announcing the actual attack to wait to examine the opponent's reaction. Also not restricted to just attacks, there's powers too. It's so dumb to ask someone "So you're using XXXX attack then, right?" just to avoid these situations ~_~

 

[NoPoke]

Why?
Like I said to Lawman, before. If there is something here that's so obvious, that I'm missing, I'd like to know what it is. Why shouldn't it be allowed? If you folks think I'm too stupid to understand it, try it anyway. Dumb it down for me.:biggrin: Come on. Humor me.

In the specific post you excerpted http://pokegym.net/forums/showpost.php?p=1348678&postcount=154

I called you out for condoning bullying. Is that dumbed down enough?

---------

Ninetales: your subsequent post looked like you have taken on the role of a Troll. There was little arguement from yourself instead just demands for more justification from the other side. So are you a Troll in this thread or do you have something to contribute? That sounds much more harsh than I intend it to be sorry.

Anyone who is in the pro-deception camp who is now trying to suggest that the rest of us are somehow against smiling and enjoying the play has already lost the arguement. Why? Becuase that has to be the weakest arguement possible. The pro-deception camp can't just throw a hissy fit and accuse us of being kill-joys because we won't allow intimidation, bullying, and deception. The moment that you do that you are no longer reasoning, all arguement and the possibility of changing your minds has gone.

If you want a game with bullying, intimidation, and deception as part of the fun then I'd suggest you wont find it in Pokemon Organised Play and you should look elsewhere. Look elsewhere before the POP door gets closed in your face.

 

[Godzfirefly]

At what point does something become a "Tricky play" or a "Deceptive play," which would include behavior that is frowned upon? For example, say there's a game between T-Tar and Magnezone. Magnezone player has the Lv. X out and acts in such a way that it appears he/she is making misplays with their energy minipulation. Magnezone player decides to Electric Trans to trick the T-Tar player into Darkness Driving a few times, then suddenly lays down a Magnemite, candy, Magneton SF. Magnezone player then moves all energy to the Magneton and uses Magnetic Release ftw.

Would one consider this "deceiving" an opponent to make a misplay? Other examples include dropping a Warp Point with a Moonlight Stadium out in hopes that the opponent brings up a (normally) high retreat psychic/dark Pokemon, then drops a new stadium to lock the foe in. The list can go on. Tricks like these rely heavily on your attitude, if you're playing with a confident attitude more than likely the opponent won't fall for it. If you appear to be correcting misplays, perhaps they will. Either way, they only last so long, it's not an actual mechanic of the game.

I don't see how any of those examples fall even close to 'dubious' deception there. All of those are clearly 'tricky' by RA's definitions, in my mind. This, of course, assumes you're not reminding the opponent they can use Darkness Driving, which would probably ruin the play, anyway.

I personally don't think judges can enforce any type of behavior over the other, because there really isn't a fine line. One can argue so many different motives behind waving a card, I just don't think it's an issue that can really be enforced. It can be no more than a reminder as well. What if that card really IS a power spray? Is that still frowned upon? There's just so many different variations in the issue, I can't see it being regulated.

One other thing I'd like to contribute to the discussion... a couple years ago when Rayquaza EX δ made its debut at states, many players tried breaking the rules (Drawing an extra card, etc) to get a prize penalty and set themselves behind. It's arguably a legit play I suppose. The BIGGEST thing that ALWAYS bothered me about Pokemon TCG is that judges are so inconsistent. You may get a game loss for one play, or a prize penalty for another. It was so unfair that some of the Ray EX players were able to get away with a prize penalty, but then after the judges caught on it was far more strict. Players using Scramble Energy soon tried the method as well. I can imagine this coming back with the release of Upper Energy.

What upsets me isn't restricted to plays like these, anything that's a bit cloudy in the rules and doesn't have a specific boundary is handled differently IMO. Sportsmanship is just the hardest concept to enforce. An example of this I experienced was watching a game with a player using Jirachi EX against player playing Flariados. Jirachi EX player announces Shield Beam (Which shuts off powers). Then the Flariados player takes his turn, BUT plays everything normally. Drops a Flareon EX, uses its power, etc etc... I'm unaware if the player forgot about the power lock or if he was trying to see if his opponent would notice. Anyways, he attacks and everything, Jirachi EX gets knocked out, the player draws his card... he's totally forgetful about what he did until now. So he's like, "Wait you couldn't do that, you couldn't use powers!" So a judge is called over, and the judge just says there's nothing he can do... it was just sloppy play. The game resumes without any changes.

So many other judges may have handled that differently, but there's so many situations in this game that the rules can't possibly cover them all, so it's left up to individual judges. Things along these lines I understand to be very destructive to the game, and it's unfortunate that some people intentionally resort to these methods. I'd personally like to see things like these become a lot more strict... but like I said, it's very difficult to do so.



EDIT: A couple other stupid things I just thought of is along the lines of a player announcing a play. Player plays flips a coin, if heads, drops Super Scoop Up and uses it to effect, if tails, THEN drops Super Scoop Up and deals with it from there. Player uses an attack that involves flipping, says the attack's initial damage (Or places 3 damage counters on the foe), then flips. If tails, one could say, "I never said the attack name," and flip again. The second example is the one that really bugs me. It's not just limited to coin flips too, maybe placing damage counters without announcing the actual attack to wait to examine the opponent's reaction. Also not restricted to just attacks, there's powers too. It's so dumb to ask someone "So you're using XXXX attack then, right?" just to avoid these situations ~_~

Situations where the player is intentionally breaking the rules of the game to use the penalty system are obviously violations of Gamesmanship rules as well. As such, the Rayquaza EX δ player (or whoever else is gaming the system) should expect to receive multiple penalties at once, if/when they are caught at it.

And players who try to argue that they never did something just because they never said the name of the played card are likely to get argument from their opponents and judges. Trying to flip for an effect without using the effect in any way yet is also clearly not a legal play, and coin flipped for no apparent reason should be called out. Especially if they try applying a heads flip to an action afterwards. Damage Counters placed for no reason should be simply removed, and a judge should be called if the opponent continues it.

And if any player got away with blatant disregard for the rules of the game, like that, I'd talk to the Head Judge about the judge that allowed it. After all, it's always the player's right to appeal such a decision to the Head Judge. And those examples are pretty clear situations where a penalty should be applied.