Tricky vs. Deceptive Behavior (updated 2/12)

[Squidwina]

So, now I can't be happy if I draw a REALLY bad card? This is just getting stupid.

You seem to be being deliberately obtuse. Or you're attempting to use a straw man argument.

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

You too.

Straw men represent a classic logical fallacy. (Wikipedia has a decent description if you're not familiar with the term.) But in short, you're using a straw man when you misrepresent the opposing viewpoint and then argue against that misrepresentation.

When you use a straw man, you may feel as if you're scoring a point, but it will weaken your overall position. After all, how can we take your other arguments seriously when you start asking about whether you can sigh or not? This sort of thing suggests that you fall into one of several categories:
--People so clueless that they can't even comprehend the actual discussion.
--People who's goal is to continue the argument itself because they enjoy getting a rise out of people.
--People who have some sort of personal investment in one outcome.
--People who realize that they have lost the argument and can't stand to back down or concede.
Or to put it another way, using such an obvious straw man makes you seem like a dummy, a troll, an opportunist, or a person who puts pride before common sense, and thus, your opinion must be worthless.
(Please note that playing the devil's advocate is not the same as using a straw man.)

I think the pro-bluffing camp does make some valid points, but most of those people in this thread have destroyed their own credibility. Particularly since actual judges have rendered their opinions and provided guidance on how to avoid the issue altogether. While it's perfectly reasonable for people to continue discussing how this question might be resolved in particular circumstances, it's pretty silly to keep harping on the generalities. The answer has been made abundantly clear.

And I'll reiterate the following:

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 becuase we won't allow intimidation, bullying, and deception. The moment that you do that you are no longer reasoning, all arguement or the possibility of changing your minds has gone.

 

[Ra2xse]

I can't understand all of that law text, because my English is bad. Is it illegal to ask for timeto thing during opponent's turn if you have a card that you can use in your opponent's turn (like Alakazam's power or Power Spray). Of course asking for tim whitout power spray in the hand is wrong, but could 5 seconds of time be so bad? If you really need to think a little because there have been critical changes in the game. And if my opponent trys to play so fast that i can't spray him, can i just say like after 2-3 seconds the power have been used that i wan't to spray it.

Nex thing is that if i'm going to use Unown G's power and announce that i'm ging to use it. When my opponent ask where it's going and i answer, shouldn't my opponent lose his chanche to spray it, because he started alredy use the power?

 

[Rogue Archetype]

Thank you Ian. I guess I am not the only "crazy judge guy" here.

Sorry Nick, I am not going into this with you anymore. You have shown your intentions here. You dont see anything wrong with DP's actions. If that is the case, maybe you ought not judge anymore. I made my point. No need to argue with someone that is wrong. I notice you haven't called out PokePop (or anyone else that agrees with me)....he said DP's actions were wrong too. Funny how that happens

Keith

Easy now. Just keep it at the friendly debate level. I , actually, TRAVEL up to MD to all of the tourneys there now because they do such a super job (Nick is usually the head judge up there). Those tournaments in MD are FLAWLESS.

Nick is a super judge. For real. He's just debating a topic here and I think the concept of INTENT is where a misunderstanding has developed.

I think you two are on the same page as far as ethics are concerned (I've seen Nick judge and I've read your posts... they're consistent).

I just think the wires are crossed on interpreting THE POINT. I think he's arguing one thing and you're arguing another; you're not on the same "point."

I THINK .. Nick is saying "how can you penalize body language?"

and YOU are saying something like "you can penalize body language if it's BLATENTLY INTENDED to influence the opponents play."

The INTENTION piece of this is where the wires are crossed.. i think.

But, in real life, both of you guys would make a great judging team. So, don't let this thread give you the wrong impression of each other. :wink:

I LOVE Tim's statement here...
This goes a long way to clear up the muddiness of the thread...

While both players may not have a problem with it, it is wrong of a judge to not penalize intimidation. You also do an injustice to event integrity because you didn't bring the unsporting conduct to the staff's attention, so that player can now move on and do it again and the staff won't have prior knowledge of it happening before.

There is no rule against fooling the opponent as long as it isn't done through lying. There is a rule against tricking the opponent into making an illegal action.

In DarthPika's first post with his example, he isn't saying anything. The opponent also has not been tricked into making an illegal play. However, for me, the problem with DarthPika's example is that he seperates a card from the rest of his hand. This comes off to me as intimidation. If DarthPika would instead smile as his opponent selects an Uxie... well, are you going to tell me you don't smile while playing this game?

In a way, you can't prove that because, in the context of the moment, it could have been "the best card ever" but then something can happen during the course of a turn to change that. But on the other hand, this definitely sounds like intimidation. From what I have gathered, it is best to say nothing in this case. Draw the card, chuckle, and move on.

That was awesome Tim.
(ironically, on the same judging team as Nick during VA states ... lol)

 

[Godzfirefly]

I can't understand all of that law text, because my English is bad. Is it illegal to ask for timeto thing during opponent's turn if you have a card that you can use in your opponent's turn (like Alakazam's power or Power Spray). Of course asking for tim whitout power spray in the hand is wrong, but could 5 seconds of time be so bad? If you really need to think a little because there have been critical changes in the game. And if my opponent trys to play so fast that i can't spray him, can i just say like after 2-3 seconds the power have been used that i wan't to spray it.

Nex thing is that if i'm going to use Unown G's power and announce that i'm ging to use it. When my opponent ask where it's going and i answer, shouldn't my opponent lose his chanche to spray it, because he started alredy use the power?

Asking for time to think about a Power Spray could be considered stalling if you do so on a regular basis. But, as a one-time situation, it might be reasonable to ask the opponent to allow you a few seconds to think. Generally, though, this should not be necessary. Unless your opponent is rushing, you should be given a couple of seconds to think about playing the Powers Spray in most cases, just by the acts leading up to the Power being used. (If they just played Uxie, you can expect they are about to use Set-Up; If they just used Cosmic Power, they should be taking a bit of time to place cards to the bottom of the deck.)

As for the question of Unown G's Guard, the opponent is expected to decide whether or not to Power Spray before you make the decision about where Unown G will be attached. If you say, "I am using Unown G's Guard Poke-Power," pause for a second, and the opponent asks you where it is being attached; I would take that question as meaning they do not intend to Power Spray.

If, however, you say, "I am using Unown G's Guard Poke-Power to attach Unown G to my Claydol," That does not automatically mean they missed the window for usage of Power Spray, because you announced the target before they could be reasonably expected to announce Power Spray."

 

[Rogue Archetype]

I love the way the point is made/worded here...

... you're either an opportunist, or a person who puts pride before common sense, and thus, your opinion must be worthless.

I'm going file-away that cool quotable into memory for future reference/use.

Thanks for participating in the discussion Squidwina

 

[Lawman]

@RA: Nick has done this before and he almost always attacks my posts that disagree w/ his take, passing over others that happen to agree w/ me, just to "needle" me. As for being a good judge, I haven't seen him in action. I have heard of some events he has judged at in the past. I'll keep those opinions to myself, since they were relayed to me only. Would be considered hearsay in a court of law.

Bottom line: For those of you asking for a bright line rule to see how far you can go to push that envelope w/o getting a penalty....you will not get one here or anywhere. I think 'Pop may have stated this also somewhere (maybe not in this thread).

Body language can certainly garner a penalty. Anyone argue with the fact that giving your oppo the "your #1" salute with the middle finger isn't an unsporting ACT? That is the epitome of "body language" LOL!

Keith

 

[ShadowCard]

nice, something I said is raised to "golden nugget" status. Thanks RA

Nick has done this before and he almost always attacks my posts that disagree w/ his take, passing over others that happen to agree w/ me, just to "needle" me.

Maybe he likes you? Since it appears (to you, I haven't followed yours and ninetales' exchanges) that he is always approaching you, perhaps there is something about your opinion that he values. So, when you say something he thinks may or may not be good, his natural response, because he values your opinion, is to test it in order to see how your thoughts work and where he can apply them.
Or maybe there is something about the way you word your posts that rights lights him up. I don't know. I think the former sounds like a better reason than the latter though :thumb:.

Bottom line: For those of you asking for a bright line rule to see how far you can go to push that envelope w/o getting a penalty....you will not get one here or anywhere. I think 'Pop may have stated this also somewhere (maybe not in this thread).

PokePop said the closest thing to a bright line is "don't lie" in a different thread. His opinion may have changed since saying that. If he said something different in this thread, I missed it (my bad).

 

[Shen]

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.

Thing is, judges can't tell the intentions of a player. Because of a dishonest player's actions, whenever an honest player made an actual mistake, he/she received harsher consequences on account of the others' dishonesty. I was sort of trying to simultaneously illustrate a similar point to power spray. No matter how hard judges may try, they can't rule between honest players and dishonest players. Say someone is playing another with a card out of place who had no intention whatsoever of deceiving him/her, but because of players like DarthPika that individual doesn't have much of a chance speaking on of behalf his/her own (un)intentions.

See, you can't enforce rulings like this. I think it'ss better left alone IMHO.

 

[The Captain]

You seem to be being deliberately obtuse. Or you're attempting to use a straw man argument.
You too.

Straw men represent a classic logical fallacy. (Wikipedia has a decent description if you're not familiar with the term.) But in short, you're using a straw man when you misrepresent the opposing viewpoint and then argue against that misrepresentation.

When you use a straw man, you may feel as if you're scoring a point, but it will weaken your overall position. After all, how can we take your other arguments seriously when you start asking about whether you can sigh or not? This sort of thing suggests that you fall into one of several categories:
--People so clueless that they can't even comprehend the actual discussion.
--People who's goal is to continue the argument itself because they enjoy getting a rise out of people.
--People who have some sort of personal investment in one outcome.
--People who realize that they have lost the argument and can't stand to back down or concede.
Or to put it another way, using such an obvious straw man makes you seem like a dummy, a troll, an opportunist, or a person who puts pride before common sense, and thus, your opinion must be worthless.
(Please note that playing the devil's advocate is not the same as using a straw man.)

I think the pro-bluffing camp does make some valid points, but most of those people in this thread have destroyed their own credibility. Particularly since actual judges have rendered their opinions and provided guidance on how to avoid the issue altogether. While it's perfectly reasonable for people to continue discussing how this question might be resolved in particular circumstances, it's pretty silly to keep harping on the generalities. The answer has been made abundantly clear.

And I'll reiterate the following:

You miss my point. Bluffing, or non verbal actions, say something to the opponent a smile implies a good card and frown a bad one. Now me being overly happy when i draw could intimidate my opponent. Now my opponent might think i drew an out and (mis)play around that. Now you can also smile to an ironic draw, like something you needed a turn ago. Or you might smile intentionally to make your opponent misplay. You have no idea how many times i've smiled my way into a TGW last format. So my point here is that even though smiling is a normally acceptable action. it CAN be uses to misrepresent one's hand. So how do you distinguish an honest smile from a dishonest one? I don't believe you can.

Because i feel thats its impossible to enforce a rule uniformly, and fairly. (Like not having a judge tell my opponent my hand). I feel that said rule will be useless and easy for both sides to abuse.

 

[NoPoke]

The Captain: you are correct, there can be no rule on smiling. But that does not mean there can be no rule on intimidation or misrepresentation or even lying. Judges can read body language too. I know that I look to see that all players are happy and enjoying the game. That any signs of stress are due to the position the gamestate has them in and not down to the extra activities of their opponent.

It may not seem very fair but even if I misread your body language it is still my call to make and my judgement that matters. That said I do not expect judges to be heavy handed in their approach as the desired outcome is to calm the situation down so that both players enjoy the event.

 

[Squidwina]

The Captain--I got your point loud and clear. It's just not the point that you thought you were making.

 

[The Captain]

The Captain: you are correct, there can be no rule on smiling. But that does not mean there can be no rule on intimidation or misrepresentation or even lying. Judges can read body language too. I know that I look to see that all players are happy and enjoying the game. That any signs of stress are due to the position the gamestate has them in and not down to the extra activities of their opponent.

It may not seem very fair but even if I misread your body language it is still my call to make and my judgement that matters. That said I do not expect judges to be heavy handed in their approach as the desired outcome is to calm the situation down so that both players enjoy the event.

Thats where my problem is. If something can be misinterpreted so easily, and can very easily lead to bad rulings. Which we should try to minimize. Why not get rid of the rule. Because honestly a slight gesture, cant cause much stress on anyone. Lying is completly different than a small gesture.

 

[ninetales1234]

Thanks, RA. I’m sure you’d make a great moderator.

I’m glad there are so many people posting here. Good to get an amalgam of opinions together and consider one’s position on the issue. You know what they say: the more people you have solving a math problem, the more likely you are to get the right answer. I think other things work this way too.

Bottom line: For those of you asking for a bright line rule to see how far you can go to push that envelope w/o getting a penalty....you will not get one here or anywhere. I think 'Pop may have stated this also somewhere (maybe not in this thread).

Here it is http://pokegym.net/forums/showpost.php?p=1347949&postcount=150

To quote myself: there was a thread in another forum in which a League Leader asked for something she could point to, in regard about what kind of behavior for players is acceptable or unacceptable, and I said, “This is one of those subjective areas you just gotta use your gut. There don't seem to be any rigid standards, only guidelines. Obviously, there are so many vagaries and subtle variations in human behavior that you couldn't just throw a bunch of actions in one pile and choose a bunch of other behaviors and classify them as good or bad.”

Body language can certainly garner a penalty. Anyone argue with the fact that giving your oppo the "your #1" salute with the middle finger isn't an unsporting ACT? That is the epitome of "body language" LOL!

:lol:

If you honestly cannot understand the reasoning behind the opinion that intimidation is wrong in general and the example DarthPika is wrong in specific, then please explain what part you have difficulty with. Ask questions. Help advance the discussion. I know that I, for one, would be glad to have an open, honest discussion about this topic.

Let me make it clear that I’m certainly not in favor of intimidation. I am not pro-deception either.
I guess what I’m having a problem with is the difference between actions that should be penalized and actions that shouldn’t.

Obviously, in interactions between humans, there are so many things out there that are subjective. So many vagaries and subtleties. When does fun end and intimidation begin?
When dealing with rude behavior of players (something that I occasionally do at league), I can’t help but feel a little under pressure- “When am I to intervene. When am I not to intervene? Is what that guy over there did/said OK? Was there any malicious intent?”

“That guy over there raised one card in his hand higher than the others? Is that bad? When does it become bad? Is it okay right now? Is it at the point that he starts waving that card, it becomes bad? How is he waving it? Is the way he waving it malicious? Is he trying to intimidate the opponent or just influence his actions? Is this just part of the player’s habit? How is he waving it? Is it a good wave or a bad wave? If the opponent isn’t offended, is that okay? Is the opponent offended and just not showing it? Certainly someone can feel something (like being intimidated/offended by an opponent) and not show it or say anything about it.” These are the thoughts that come to me.

While the “waving the card that might be Power Spray” scenario doesn’t sound so bad, I have never witnessed such scenarios myself. I guess I’d have to see it to decide whether or not it was intimidation. What exactly this looks and sounds like is obviously difficult to communicate on an internet forum.

I don't think anyone's going to try enforcing intimidation or dubious action rules on such small actions [smile, or frown, or sigh]. Even if they are intended to be malicious, it'd be impossible to prove (without something more obvious.)

That’s my problem. Intimidation being difficult to prove. It would be so subjective to say something is intimidation and something else isn’t. One judge with a good conscience may honestly say it is and another could say it isn’t.

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.

Yeah, it’s given us a lot to talk about.

Deceptive behaviour/intimidation sounds like one of the more difficult situations to deal with or talk about, IMO. I guess, I as a judge, would have to wait and see, see it for myself in real life and decide what to do from there. Remember that US federal judge that said, “I don't know what obscenity is, but I’ll know obscenity when I see it.”?

@DarthPika: I would love for you, next time we meet, to act out your waving of the Power Spray so I can see what it looks like. I extend this to those who have witnessed him do it as well.

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:

You made my day, Tim.

Since it appears (to you, I haven't followed yours and ninetales' exchanges) that he is always approaching you, perhaps there is something about your opinion that he values. So, when you say something he thinks may or may not be good, his natural response, because he values your opinion, is to test it in order to see how your thoughts work and where he can apply them.

Thanks.

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?

Great example. Those words come out of player's mouths a lot.

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.

Good point. What if the person has different mannerisms and thought processes and waving the card is just what does when he prepares to use it? If the card really is power spray, he may change his mind and decide to save it for later.

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

Bullying? I remember having to deal with bullies at school when I was in elementary/middle school. My gosh, if waving a card in front of me was the worst thing they did, that would have been great.:smile:

Ninetales: your subsequent post looked like you have taken on the role of a Troll. There was little arguement from yourself

Really? I think you should read my original post. I think I said a lot of substantive stuff in there.

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.

I guess I can't speak for everyone, but I'm pretty sure that I am not using any strawmans (I hate it when people put words in my mouth, so I'd like to avoid doing that too). What I, along with some other people on this thread, was doing, was posting extreme examples to test the boundaries of someone else's opinion on the issue. I want to see how firm their position is. Can it stand the test?

Sometimes when I state an opinion on something, people will come up with one-in-a-million "lifeboat situations" to test my logic. Naturally, I've learned to provide people extreme examples to test their opinions.

 

[mozartrules]

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 always have that right. The judge may not like it and decide to penalize me for unsportsmanlike conduct, particularly if I do this repeatedly.

My example was related to anybody thinking in the absence of a power spray. We need a potential for catching such an offense even though the risk may be so small that some people could still be tempted.

You are only subject to stalling rules if you actually have a power spray, but that is not what we are debating here.

 

[DarthPika]

Ok, heres another example. Lets say I am using Palkia lv.x or even a deck. I play a premier ball (obviously looking for a lv.x) and don't take anything, and look at my prizes. I then roseanne (from my opponents point of view, looking for my Azelf), say "not that to!", look at my prizes and take the basic/energy of my choice. The whole time I have the lv.x in my hand. The same could be said about playing down a duskull for your dusknoir tech, playing a bebe (you have the dusknoir in your hand), then the same as for the palkia example.

Now, going by game rules this is perfectly legal. I didn't specify WHAT was prized, and I very well could be unhappy with what is in there. To me, I really don't see how a judge can call you out on this. Even if you say NOTHING at all, you can still pull the bluff off. If it gets to the point where I can't fail a search with out being questioned, I think I may just quit this game. >_>

 

[Dr. Mason]

I think the whole situation stinks. It's not a card I wished to be printed. I'm not going to pause and give my opponent an indication to use his power spray. It's the opponent's job to pay attention. That said, I call my powers reasonably slowly. I say what I will use and make to do that action. It is not the player's job to make sure the oppoent does what he needs to do. He needs to watch for it and think.

That's all I have to say on that.

 

[Aurogauth]

It's a sticky situation, but I personally feel that trickery and deception are key in winning tough matches.

The Kingdra bit in the OP was brilliant, and I don't find it to be in bad taste. He clearly outplayed the Machamp player. I don't see why having a mental edge over your opponent is against the sotg. I don't see why playing in an unorthodox fashion would penalize me for thinking outside the box. I refuse to lose solely because I'm playing a counter to my deck or a mirror. I will use everything within game rules to beat my opponent.

If my opponent doesn't understand how archetype decks work, or even cards in the format, that isn't my problem.

 

[Chairman Kaga]

The Kingdra bit in the OP was brilliant, and I don't find it to be in bad taste. He clearly outplayed the Machamp player.

Pardon? Kingdra's retreat cost was zero with the Unown Q attached. Unown Q isn't optional. The Kingdra player was not allowed to discard that energy. That energy is likely the only reason he had enough for the KO on his Aqua Stream later on.

That's not outplaying someone. That's a straight-up cheat.

 

[Godzfirefly]

It's a sticky situation, but I personally feel that trickery and deception are key in winning tough matches.

The Kingdra bit in the OP was brilliant, and I don't find it to be in bad taste. He clearly outplayed the Machamp player. I don't see why having a mental edge over your opponent is against the sotg. I don't see why playing in an unorthodox fashion would penalize me for thinking outside the box. I refuse to lose solely because I'm playing a counter to my deck or a mirror. I will use everything within game rules to beat my opponent.

If my opponent doesn't understand how archetype decks work, or even cards in the format, that isn't my problem.

You cannot honestly be suggesting that you like the idea of a player cheating to win a game. It's not just bad taste or poor sportsmanship, it is straight-up cheating. Breaking the rules should never be encouraged or allowed to occur without penalty.

 

[mozartrules]

I then roseanne (from my opponents point of view, looking for my Azelf), say "not that too!" ... Now, going by game rules this is perfectly legal

Anything you say that is both incorrect and clearly intended to mislead is not even close to being legal. How can that even be debatable? The situation would be different if the LvX and Azelf really were prized - most people would accept a comment about your bad luck - but the key is that that wouldn't be misleading.

The look at your prizes - which I assume would mean glancing at them with an annoying look - is probably OK and too hard to catch unless you are very demonstrative.