Where's the love?

[Drew Holton]

Some moves take longer than others and it would be correct for a player to slow their pace in order to figure out the proper course of action. You are simply incorrect in stating that slow play is always wrong. This fundamental error in the system as it exists is something that really needs to be corrected in the future.

Pressure should have nothing to do with a person's pace, and if that was why you were playing slow, then that would be improper slow play. Complexity has everything to do with proper slow play. The more options available, the more time that is needed to make a decision.

Even if I had seen the guidelines, I'm sure its just a set of "proper" time limits for actions, which is what I'm arguing against in the first place. There is no need for me to know the exact time limits to make my argument.

 

[Bolt]

Improper slow play? Slow play can never be anything other than improper. Your whole argument is based upon some sort of idea that there is such a thing as proper slow play. SLOW PLAY is always wrong. Which is why you wont find me at the top tables, but that absence doesn't mean I'm not aware of slow play. I'm acutely aware that under pressure I am unable to maintain adequate pace. That I need time to analyse a complex situation. Time that I am not allowed if I am to maintain adequate pace.


nothing wrong with calling it like you see it, but when you put in that you "haven't seen the guidelines" that really weakens your case.

That almost makes it seem like there is no distinction between thinking for 20 seconds and stalling for 20 seconds, which I know isn't the case. The point of this issue, at least on my end, is that there SHOULD be some kind of leniency given in terms of time if a player is making a legitimate gameplay decision AND if the opponent has NO objection to the length of time needed to make that decision.

I'm feeling a vibe of players vs judges here, which I'm hoping isn't the case. We as players DO appreciate all the hard work that judges/staff/organizers put into these events...but since we're unhappy with the way this specific issue is being handled, we feel the need to speak up.

 

[DarthPika]

Drew, I support your view 100%, but I don't think a lot of people quite comprehend this. I can't even begin to tell you how many machamp/kinga/other fast deck players kept wanting me to rush through my turns faster when I was using SP, while they wanted to take the exact same amount of time to perform the simplest of moves. Technically, they couldn't be called for "slow play", because their pace of play was with in the guide lines. However, when you have such a limited amount of options, it's ridiculous to take a turn worthy of a SP deck when all you're doing is playing a supporter and attaching an energy.

I think our guide lines are broken, and badly need to be fixed.

 

[SD PokeMom]

other than installing chess clocks (which will likely never happen) and having a judge sitting at every single match watching for 'thinking' vs. 'stalling'...just how do people suggest this be 'fixed' within the limitations of the tournament (number of judges, need for match time limits)?

i'm hearing a lot of 'this sucks'...but not how to fix it (assuming this is something that really needs 'fixing'). how about some solutions?

'mom

 

[NoPoke]

Drew and Bolt and others...what you are missing is that judges cannot be mind readers. Judges are not allowed to decide if a particular point in play is complex or not.

Bolt how is a judge supposed to tell the difference between the silence of thinking for 20 seconds and the silence of stalling for 20 seconds? How do you know if the opponent is happy with all the time that youi take away from them with your thinking? The opponent may have read the penalty guidelines and be expecting the judges to apply them evenly and fairly to all players.


=========
It may be harsh but if you play a complex deck and you can't make the decisions in time then play a simpler deck until you can keep up an acceptable pace. Like I said I wont get to the top tables because I can't work a complex deck in the thinking time that is available to me and every other player. Does that Suck? Well it sucks for me, but that is my problem to deal with and should not cause my opponents to have insufficient time to play their own deck.

It is a timed game and my choice of a complex deck should not take time away from the opponent to play their deck.

 

[TheGeneral]

To the OP -- I don't see what the deal is about what I said. I stand by my comment in your post. I didn't say every judge is like that; In fact, I've met some awesome judges. But more often than not I've run into incompetent judges who are rude and think they are superior because they are "judges."

 

[NoPoke]

@The general this is why

more often than not.....

see ? you just damned the majority. You just damned more than half the judge staff at nationals. remove a few of the big names like BDS that everyone knows and who is left to form that "rude" majority?

 

[ARMondak]

Drew and Bolt and others...what you are missing is that judges cannot be mind readers. Judges are not allowed to decide if a particular point in play is complex or not.

Bolt how is a judge supposed to tell the difference between the silence of thinking for 20 seconds and the silence of stalling for 20 seconds? How do you know if the opponent is happy with all the time that youi take away from them with your thinking? The opponent may have read the penalty guidelines and be expecting the judges to apply them evenly and fairly to all players.

It shouldn't take much to determine a crucial moment in the game. As much as a high level judge is around the game, they should be able to observe when a tight game is occurring and thus allow things to play out within reason. I have a problem with judges liberally handing out harsh penalties at high level events for 'slow play'. Slow play is obviously not a good thing, but at a tournament like Nationals extra care should be taken in determining moves due to what is on the line. If someone is excessively playing slow over a period of time that is an issue, but I don't think judges should be so quick to jump the gun on these types of issues.

 

[NoPoke]

I am firmly against asking judges to make a subjective judgement based upon if they have spotted the play or not.

You are correct that slow play should be assessed over a period of time and not on a single brief delay.

 

[ryanvergel]

I think a crucial aspect that people are missing is that taking long=slow playing. We all know that slow play doesn't always equal stalling, but we have to remember that taking long turns is not always playing slowly. It is often required to take a long amount of time to make a correct decision (see Drew's example with Cyrus)- and this is not slow playing. It's playing correctly, and it's stupid that because it doesn't follow an arbitrary "guideline" it MUST be punished.

The guidelines are named such for a reason. If players don't have any voice to explain the situation, or if both players are left unhappy with a judge ruling, clearly there was a mistake or poor ruling made. If Drew's opponent didn't feel Drew was taking advantage of the clock- why would the judge? I would think the opponent, a competitive player would have more incentive and ability to spot slow playing.

=========
It may be harsh but if you play a complex deck and you can't make the decisions in time then play a simpler deck until you can keep up an acceptable pace

I'm not Drew, but I definitely felt that was pretty insulting. Drew is one of the best players in the _world_, and he used a deck he used all season. Clearly, if ANYONE should be playing SP it is Drew. Yet you are saying he should use a simpler deck because there was a complex situation that required additional time to think through? The entire section of that post you made you look really bad in my eyes. Drew Holton is one of the US's best players, especially for SP, and here you are virtually insulting him for playing a deck you are insinuating is too complex for him (due to his not playing at an "acceptable pace" for ONE action).

Acceptable pace? To whom? Clearly it was acceptable to both opponents. It only wasn't acceptable to some arbitrary guidelines and a vehement judge. Maybe you, or the rules, should be re-evaluated?

 

[Jaeger]

I think a crucial aspect that people are missing is that taking long=slow playing. We all know that slow play doesn't always equal stalling, but we have to remember that taking long turns is not always playing slowly. It is often required to take a long amount of time to make a correct decision (see Drew's example with Cyrus)- and this is not slow playing. It's playing correctly, and it's stupid that because it doesn't follow an arbitrary "guideline" it MUST be punished.

The guidelines are named such for a reason. If players don't have any voice to explain the situation, or if both players are left unhappy with a judge ruling, clearly there was a mistake or poor ruling made. If Drew's opponent didn't feel Drew was taking advantage of the clock- why would the judge? I would think the opponent, a competitive player would have more incentive and ability to spot slow playing.


I'm not Drew, but I definitely felt that was pretty insulting. Drew is one of the best players in the _world_, and he used a deck he used all season. Clearly, if ANYONE should be playing SP it is Drew. Yet you are saying he should use a simpler deck because there was a complex situation that required additional time to think through? The entire section of that post you made you look really bad in my eyes. Drew Holton is one of the US's best players, especially for SP, and here you are virtually insulting him for playing a deck you are insinuating is too complex for him (due to his not playing at an "acceptable pace" for ONE action).

Acceptable pace? To whom? Clearly it was acceptable to both opponents. It only wasn't acceptable to some arbitrary guidelines and a vehement judge. Maybe you, or the rules, should be re-evaluated?

Well said, pretty much saved me from typing a few paragraph.

 

[NoPoke]

Ryan. Lots of players take the view that they are allowed to play slowly because. XYZ... The XYZ are typically lots of reasons that are fair to them but not to their opponent.

Lots of players ABSOLUTELY believe that a complex deck means they deserve more of the clock each round. From Drews post it appears that he believes that a complex situation allows extra time. It doesn't. There was no insult intended so why make it into one? If a player and I specifically included myself in the section you took offence too cannot operate a complex deck without falling foul of the slow play guidelines then other than picking up penalties the only option is to play a simpler deck.

Judges don't decide what is acceptable pace. Players don't decide what is acceptable pace. POP does. Every time it comes up I argue against the presence of "brisk" in the guidelines yet the "brisk" requirement remains. Every time maximum turn times get suggested I argue against them. So far I've failed to get rid of brisk but at least the unseen efforts of many have prevented the introduction of fixed turn times.

I have never penalised any player for going over a time limit on a single incident. Pace of play can't be assessed in a few seconds on one card play.

There is nothing in the guidelines on allowing players extra time because a judge thinks it is a complex situation or a player claims the situation is complex. Not should there be. I will do everything in my very limited power to prevent the growth of a belief from players or judges that such a change would be beneficial.

 

[Bolt]

Bolt how is a judge supposed to tell the difference between the silence of thinking for 20 seconds and the silence of stalling for 20 seconds? How do you know if the opponent is happy with all the time that youi take away from them with your thinking? The opponent may have read the penalty guidelines and be expecting the judges to apply them evenly and fairly to all players.

A judge probably can't tell the difference, but if there is no complaint from the opponent, shouldn't that make the call easier? The lack of a complaint is my issue here, not just time in general.

 

[MrMeches]

Hmmm, me thinks that at times, Players do not notice their opponent's nod in approval when penalties are being handed out or the little gesture when they want their opponent timed. Not that I gave Drew his, but almost every Warning for Slow Play I noticed given by Staff was acknowledge by the opponent in acceptance. Were they verbal, no, but when I am playing (btw, have won several BRs and Cities and Top Cut in others so does that qualify to your high level of play standards?) and a Penalty is handed out, I do not give the Judge a verbal 'Thanks' as I do not want my opponent thinking I am going to continually call a Judge or trying to get advantage by using the Rules to my advantage.

I agree that Slow Play is difficult to spot and that is why at Many Tier 2 events, Judging Teams monitor this. Trust in knowing that PL are not just handed out. The player is evaluated over a course of several turns by different Judges, then times compared and Finally a decision made on the outcome of the Penalty.

I have had my fair share of flames on the 'Gym as a Judge, and I accept them all as we do play a competitive game and it comes with the territory. Hence the ongoing joke of having "Grilled Fish" for dinner. However, I will stand by any of the Team I work with on the calls made, Good or Bad, as even players make mistakes in the eyes of other players.

Here is the thing, all Judges get reviewed at each event. If you noticed, the Judges at this years Nats had some New and some Repeat. If you as a Player have a specific concern(s) about a particular Judge, feel free to contact [email protected] and let them know. When using the link, be specific to the situation YOU encountered and how it was dealt with.

Enjoy OUR game and Happy 4th!

Fish

 

[evil psyduck]

I hear a lot of complaining and how only top players should be judges.

How about those of you doing the complaining come up with a solution that will work and those of you who think you are top players stop playing and do some judging?

I can hear it now if that happens. I don't want to judge anymore they don't give enough compensation for it.

Some people just aren't happy unless they are complaining.

 

[Diaz]

I think that sometimes issuing penalties isn't the right solution to the problem. In a lot of situations I think a better solution to slow play would be: judge sees slow play, walks over, issues a firm caution to the offending player, and offers the opponent the option of a 2 min time extension, then keeps a little bit of a closer eye on the game.

I know of multiple situations in which a player received either a caution, warning, or penalty, where the opponent actually mentioned to the judge that everything was ok and that there was no need for interferences.

On the general topic, I had an above average experience with judges at nationals this year. I'm often one to take issue with what I feel are dubious calls made by judges, and really lean into the top tear judges for their mistakes. This year, however, I didn't really have any major problems with rulings made, and it made my nationals experience much better.

 

[Sir Bidoof]

I know some great judges (that's to you Mr. Arena) but I've also heard of some stupid rulings. Here are two ruling examples during major tournaments that were obviously wrong.

At a States in 2007 I think it was, Thomas evolved a Umbreon Ex and did not use the power. However, his opponent complained and it was ruled that he had to make him switch. This cost him the finals match.

At Worlds that same year, Thomas played down Vaporeon Ex and did not announce the power. However, his opponent shuffled his hand into his deck assuming it was used because he played the pokemon down. However, this error did not result in a game loss, when game losses have been the punishment for these errors in tournaments as small as Battle Roads.

I do not remember the judges, as these were a few years ago, and I was only there for the one at States, but are these dispoutable as showing that there are judges at major tournaments thatshould not be judging.

I am not saying that most judges are bad; most are good. However at tournaments of these levels, the judges should be able to get rulings these obvious, or they shoul not be judging these tournaments.

 

[ryanvergel]

Ryan. Lots of players take the view that they are allowed to play slowly because. XYZ... The XYZ are typically lots of reasons that are fair to them but not to their opponent.

Lots of players ABSOLUTELY believe that a complex deck means they deserve more of the clock each round. From Drews post it appears that he believes that a complex situation allows extra time. It doesn't. There was no insult intended so why make it into one? If a player and I specifically included myself in the section you took offence too cannot operate a complex deck without falling foul of the slow play guidelines then other than picking up penalties the only option is to play a simpler deck.

Judges don't decide what is acceptable pace. Players don't decide what is acceptable pace. POP does. Every time it comes up I argue against the presence of "brisk" in the guidelines yet the "brisk" requirement remains. Every time maximum turn times get suggested I argue against them. So far I've failed to get rid of brisk but at least the unseen efforts of many have prevented the introduction of fixed turn times.

I have never penalised any player for going over a time limit on a single incident. Pace of play can't be assessed in a few seconds on one card play.

There is nothing in the guidelines on allowing players extra time because a judge thinks it is a complex situation or a player claims the situation is complex. Not should there be. I will do everything in my very limited power to prevent the growth of a belief from players or judges that such a change would be beneficial.

extra time? any time frame is arbitrary- there should be no EXTRA time. its either adequate time or not- the action is either too slow or not. if a person takes 30 seconds to complete a 3 part action with thousands of combinations, that seems okay. its not about getting MORE time because it is complex. more time on an arbitrary amount of time is nonsense, and it's not surprising you pick that point to press on.

the action a player makes is either slow playing or it isnt. falling within an arbitrary set of numbers does nothing to justify a penalty to me. a competent assessment of the situation is what will suffice. the guidelines are precisely that- they are guidelines because there is a clear SPIRIT of the law. some people want to try to hold everything merely to the LETTER of the law instead. an action is between 10-15 seconds? if its over its instantly slow? bulllllll.

i understand its necessary to have ideas of numbers- but they are ideas. they are to assist those in determining slowplay, but they should not themselves determine slow play- and i see this happen often.

moreso, isnt the judge there to make the play more fair? if an opponent has no problem with it- it seems like we are taking the preference and desires of the judges over the players. their very purpose is being undermined here.

--
I don't think this is any reflection of a lack of love towards judges and (P)TOs. The OP asked why there were so many cherrypicked negative comments? Well, because they were each in reference to an observed "poor ruling".

As far as loving the staff/TOs and stuff, i think we all do!

One of my cards/sleeves went missing, and POP _GAVE_ me a new set of PR sleeves! My really friendly opponent even helped me sleeve and re-sleeve and we got an 8 minute extension. That was an awesome ruling, and I definitely appreciated the sleeves and the whole process. In fact, all in all, I had great experience with the judging staff this year.

There was one guy who was a bit rude and dismissive, but there will always be instances of that.

 

[SD PokeMom]

I know some great judges (that's to you Mr. Arena) but I've also heard of some stupid rulings. Here are two ruling examples during major tournaments that were obviously wrong.

At a States in 2007 I think it was, Thomas evolved a Umbreon Ex and did not use the power. However, his opponent complained and it was ruled that he had to make him switch. This cost him the finals match.

At Worlds that same year, Thomas played down Vaporeon Ex and did not announce the power. However, his opponent shuffled his hand into his deck assuming it was used because he played the pokemon down. However, this error did not result in a game loss, when game losses have been the punishment for these errors in tournaments as small as Battle Roads.

I do not remember the judges, as these were a few years ago, and I was only there for the one at States, but are these dispoutable as showing that there are judges at major tournaments thatshould not be judging.

I am not saying that most judges are bad; most are good. However at tournaments of these levels, the judges should be able to get rulings these obvious, or they shoul not be judging these tournaments.

'i heard'...'i think'...'i don't remember'.

first: are these judges still judging?

second: are you (general you) the same player you were three years ago, skill and experience-wise?

...no?

so why are those judges (who you can't remember) considered to be the same, skill and experience-wise as they were then?

and more food for thought: the judge pool can be stretched thin when it comes to a large event like regionals where the events are all held on the same day. what if they gave an event and everyone wanted to PLAY?

we judges/staff/TOs/PTOs all do the best we can do; we're human. nice to feel the love...=/

jmho
'mom

 

[NoPoke]

Ryan, Drew and others argued that it couldn't be SLOW PLAY because the situation was complex. The guidelines specifically instruct that complexity is not a defence.

In the case of slow play the judge is there to ensure that the opponent is not disadvantaged.

I 100% agree that a single overrun should not trigger a SLOW PLAY penalty.

I disagree that it is safe to conclude that the opponent is happy with the situation if they stay silent.

===
Personally I prefer the DCIs philsophy statement on SLOW PLAY

All players have the responsibility to play quickly enough so that their opponents are not at a significant
disadvantage because of the time limit. A player may be playing slowly without realizing it.

But then that isn't a surprise as it lacks the "brisk" term that I try to get removed from our guidelines. If you remove the brisk bit from our guidelines.

Players should take care to play in a manner that keeps the game pace[del] brisk[/del], regardless of the complexity of the situation. A player who takes too long to make decisions about game play runs the risk of putting his or her opponent at a disadvantage due to the round’s time limit.

but other than that brisk statement there is nothing to choose between them.