dld4a said:
I may have argued my point too long (the whole incident was less than 2 minutes though), but as soon as I realized I was making a distraction I apologized and quit the discussion. I also apologized later and tried to more quietly restate my point at which point the judge would have nothing to do with or say to me (a bit rude actualy, but I guessed I knew why) .
Yes he did apologize later. He also did right after he realized it was causing problems. One thing he did forget though is:
A player may appeal any ruling made by a judge to the head judge of that tournament. The head judge is the final authority on card rulings and interpretation of floor rules for that event.
After the match and tournament was over he came back up and wanted to continue to argue. I didn't feel like listening to it and shrugged him off.
dld4a said:
I still believe that my argument was the correct one. I'm sorry (not) if someone's feelings were hurt when they were informed they were wronge, even if they didn't admit it. The sad thing is that it was otherwise a well run tourny and would be happy to return if they would have me. I also made it a point to spend extra money at the store because I thought it was a well run event. .
The thing that bothered me about his arguement was it wasn't even his game. It was his son's. The whole arguement was about shuffling. His son shuffled his deck then presented it to the other player to cut/shuffle. When he got his deck back he shuffled it again. So the other player wanted to reshuffle the deck. His son argued that how was he suppose to know that the opponent wasn't setting the deck. Question is, how do we know your son isn't setting it? See below for the old rules on this, which is what I go bye since PUI hasn't posted any. Since they copied almost everything else Wizards did, this will also probably hold true.
dld4a said:
I have been playing Pokemon since Jungle and enjoy it very much. I do not by far know all there is to know about it but I do have a pretty good working knowledge of the game. I won't get into the actual arguement here, but I will say that the rules that the judge showed me are incomplete (doesn't mean that the judge can't use common sense though) and I will be attempting to have this corrected.
Then you should know the rule Wizards has on this, which states:
21. Shuffling
Shuffling must be done so that the faces of the cards cannot be seen. Regardless of the method used to shuffle, players’ decks must be sufficiently randomized. Each time players shuffle their decks, they must present their decks to their opponents for additional shuffling and/or cutting. At a judge’s discretion, players may request to have a judge shuffle their cards rather than pass that duty to their opponents. By presenting their decks to their opponents, players state that their decks are sufficiently randomized.
After decks are presented and accepted, any player who does not feel his or her opponent has made a reasonable effort to sufficiently randomize his or her deck must notify a judge. The head judge has final authority to determine whether a deck has been sufficiently randomized. The head judge also has the authority to determine if a player has used reasonable effort to randomize the deck. If the head judge feels that either the deck has not been sufficiently randomized or that a player has not made a reasonable effort to randomize the deck, the player will be subject to the appropriate provisions of the DCI Penalty Guidelines.
To aid in randomization, at REL 3 and higher events, players must always shuffle their opponents’ decks at the beginning of games. If a deck-manipulation effect takes place, players may shuffle and must cut their opponents’ decks after the effect has resolved and any shuffling is completed. Once players have had the opportunity to shuffle and/or cut their opponents’ decks, the cards are returned to their original owners. If the opponent has shuffled the player’s deck, that player may make one final cut.
meganium45 said:
Any players who have the audacity to yell at me during one of my events are gone. I do not mind discussing disagreements in a civil manner, but I will not be abused when I am giving my time to this.
I agree, next time that is what will happen.
evil psyduck said:
At the South Bend city championships a group of people from chicago caused nothing but problems the whole time they were there.
This is not true. There was only one person that caused trouble. It was taken care of. As far as the drunk part. I was told about it. I told the person telling me this to say something to the store owner. I was running and judging the event, I didn't have time to look into it. The person wasn't causing any problems, so I really couldn't do much at the time.
