Where's the love?

[Drew Holton]

I agree with most of what Pokepop's most recent post suggested.

Additionally I would like to suggest one possible change to the guidelines. As the guidelines currently exist, there is no distinction from a card that searches for one thing (Bebe) and a card that searches for multiple things (Cyrus). There is just a blanket 15 seconds to search and shuffle. I would be very interested in seeing some sort of distinction made for multiple cards taken. Perhaps keep the 15 seconds for a single card and then add 5 seconds for each additional card that can be taken. In this case Cyrus would be allowed 25 seconds which would acknowledge that it often times does take more time than just a single search card.

At this point one could argue that a card like Pokemon Collector only searches for one type of card (Basics) which requires less time but under my suggested change it would be allowed 25 seconds since it searches for three cards. So I will offer up another alternative that is only slightly more complicated. The distinction could be made between different types of cards taken instead of number of cards overall. In this case Cyrus would still get 25 seconds since it searches for three types (energy, trainer, supporter) while Pokemon Collector would have a reasonable 15 seconds again.

Thoughts?

 

[PokePop]

Well, to keep it manageable, I think you're either doing x amount of time per card searched for, or x amount of time per search effect (card played). And what three basics to search for can be three decisions, especially with some of the tool box decks I've been seeing.

 

[MrMeches]

Drew, that is great suggestion. It could be worded in a manner of Multiple Item search cards and Single Item Search Cards.

Just want to point out, that most experienced Judges do not jump into Slow Play calls without monitoring over the pace of several plays and then confirming with another member of the Judge Team. Do all Judges do this, possibly not, but they should work towards using this method.

So based on your suggestion, if the Time Guideline was extended for Multiple Item Deck Searches, this would definitely be a step in the right direction for Players? It is a great idea and one that should be passed along using the Customer Service email.

Fish

 

[Jaeger]

I really respect it when Judges expecially top Judges come and listen to players opinions. As players I think we have a much better understanding of how the "game plays" at high levels and are able to make suggestions to help improve aspects of it, as judges you have a much better understand of what ideas are realistic and how to implement them. I think with colobaration we can continue to improve the game we all love.

 

[SteveP]

....

OK, so beyond that, the most common suggestion that I'm seeing from players is that if both players are happy with the pace of play, judges should stay out of it. Would that be fair to say?

The issue with that can be with lower age groups, especially JRs, and non-top tier players, who could be taken advantage of by more experienced players.
Now, I'm not saying this makes it a deal breaker, but I am saying that it is something that has to taken into account.
Comments on these points?

That's an interesting question. What if both players are playing slowly? Slow-playing and stalling are there to stop players from monopolizing the game-time, so what can a judge legally do if BOTH players are playing slow? Or, should they even do anything? IMO, it falls into the "offsetting penalty" category. Make the call, give both players the caution/warning so that they've been put "on notice" for possible future penalties, but don't apply any game-altering penalty.

 

[Lawman]

I dont mind the addition of single search cards vs multi search cards for the guidelines. Again, as Fish pointed out, if you get a warning for slow play, it usually isnt bc of just one infraction. It is noted over several moves. You may not even realize a judge has put you on a silent clock. Judges work in teams (or should, when the staff size allows) to weed out slow play/stalling.

Keith

 

[SteveP]

There are two aspects at play when determining slow-play: 1) taking time to complete actions, and 2) taking time to complete your turn. Per the rules, pace must be "lively," but players must also be careful about monopolizing the clock (by taking long turns with lots of actions just because they can).

Naturally, searching for three cards will take longer than searching for one. Maybe 15 seconds for the first search and 10 seconds for each additional search.

 

[NoPoke]

With more examples specifying this time or that time in the guidelines then it becomes MORE likely not less that judges will follow the indicated time. Unless those times are rediculously large you will get more penalties for slow play when you shift the emphasis in the guidelines from the philosophy of acceptable game tempo and the opponent not being significantly disadvantaged to a table of examples. Be very careful what you ask for because you may just get it

Do most games complete within the round time?
What should determine who is judged the winner in a close game?

Consider a mirror of a pair of complex decks and two good players. This is the type of game that is most likely to go to time. So who should win? How about the player that makes the fewest errors? I prefer that to altering the penalty guidelines so that it becomes the player who had most of the clock. If the penalty guidelines are altered in that direction then I expect there will be a rise in accusations of STALLING. Worse I expect that the actual incidence of stalling would increase so the accusations would be justified. It can be argued that a draw is a fair assessment of an inconclusive outcome at time. I'd like draws back not just for this reason but the reintroduction of draws opens the possibility of match play in the swiss.

To add more fuel to the fire I disagree that a Bebe's Search is inherently a simpler card to play than any of the multi card search supporters. More decisions does not make them into harder decisions. One good decision at a key point in the game often swings it.

The player perspective is that at critical points the player needs more thinking time to avoid a bad play mistake.
The OP perspective is that such extra thinking time has to come from somewhere: either the opponent or the event schedule.

 

[Jaeger]

If one key search and choosing the right card can swing a game, how is one key search choosing 3 cards important cards not harder?

 

[SteveP]

There are guidelines to how long a typical action should take. There are NONE to how long a typical turn should take. Good or bad, that's just where judges must focus (length of actions) when determining slow play. Currently, if players are monopolizing the clock by taking long turns, the only way judges can penalize slow-play or stalling is to check for these kinds of actions:

- Actions with no effect on the game
- Lots of unnecessary actions, "just because I can"
- Continually taking the full extent of the action time-limits

---------- Post added 07/06/2010 at 03:06 PM ----------

If one key search and choosing the right card can swing a game, how is one key search choosing 3 cards important cards not harder?

I agree, but Nopoke makes a good point. Some actions are more complex than others, but to what extent do we make new guidelines? We can have a general guideline like the "golden rule" (do unto others...), or we can have detailed guidelines like the "Mosaic law" (you can only walk 500 paces outside your doorstep on the sabbath). With a general rule, judges are more free to "interpret" slow-play. With so many specific rules, the "spirit of the law" is lost in a volume of words.

 

[NoPoke]

@jaeger: With Bebe's you can only get one card. Get it wrong and there is no alternative. With Collector if you make a sub optimal pick of one of the three you still have the other two. Further if you have both Bebe and Collector in hand the difficult decision is much more likely to be between which of the two supporters to play. This amounts to having to plan out the search before you execute it and not as you go through the deck. Apart from the very first search or after a memory failure I would expect the the best players will all insist that they plan out their plays in advance and for the elite that they plan out more than one turn in advance. Good players already know what they are searching for when they go into their deck. It isn't a decision that is made during the search.

I am not an elite player and way off my best, yet even I know what I'm going for when I go into my deck. Memory failure and miscounting means it sometimes isn't there - but those are mistakes that I have to live with.

If the guidelines are adjusted for "hard" supporters then what of the even harder decision of choosing between them. This is a slippery slope that very quickly requires judges to know what is in players hands and to engage in far too much mind reading.

@SteveP: there is no guideline turn time yet I bet that we all have an idea of what it is. Draw, attach, evolve, Powers, retreat, attack: the totality of that lot does constrain maximum turn times that are consistent with a moderate to lively pace. [ I can't bring myself to use the brisk word ]

 

[SteveP]

The argument that "I know it when I see it" about excessive turn-time is baseless if you can't point to specific actions or series of actions, under the current guidelines. For example, a judge can't legally say, "You're taking too long to complete your turn, so I'm giving you a slow-play penalty." Specific actions must meet any of the criteria in the three bullets from my previous post (no effect, unnecessary, full extent).

---------- Post added 07/06/2010 at 07:13 PM ----------

@jaeger: With Bebe's you can only get one card. Get it wrong and there is no alternative. With Collector if you make a sub optimal pick of one of the three you still have the other two. Further if you have both Bebe and Collector in hand the difficult decision is much more likely to be between which of the two supporters to play. This amounts to having to plan out the search before you execute it and not as you go through the deck. Apart from the very first search or after a memory failure I would expect the the best players will all insist that they plan out their plays in advance and for the elite that they plan out more than one turn in advance. Good players already know what they are searching for when they go into their deck. It isn't a decision that is made during the search.

Well, the retrieval process alone (minus the decision process) requires more time when you get multiple cards verses just one card. That alone should mean more time is needed to complete the action, even if it's small. :wink:

 

[jeffrey123]

Was my quote not of quality? SOMETIMES the judging may SEEM unfair. Not "boo hoo the judges suck theyre bad etc"

The love is when a bunch of players are able to gather at states/regionals/nationals, and have a good time thatnks to these judges who take time out of their lives to ensure that pokemon players will have a great time at whatever event they may go to. Personally, I have been (imo) unfairly ruled, but it's not like I hold grudges forever and ever. Big deal, it happens, and the judges are still great. It's not like they get paid...

 

[PokePop]

For example, a judge can't legally say, "You're taking too long to complete your turn, so I'm giving you a slow-play penalty." Specific actions must meet any of the criteria in the three bullets from my previous post (no effect, unnecessary, full extent).

Guidelines work both ways Steve.
A judge can "legally" do what they think is right if they think they need to.
Now, if a judge goes "off the reservation", they'd better have a darn good reason to do so, one that they feel comfortable possibly explaining to POP management.

I have done so, defended it, and my ruling stood and was supported.
But that should be the exception.

 

[SteveP]

Guidelines work both ways Steve.
A judge can "legally" do what they think is right if they think they need to.
Now, if a judge goes "off the reservation", they'd better have a darn good reason to do so, one that they feel comfortable possibly explaining to POP management.

I have done so, defended it, and my ruling stood and was supported.
But that should be the exception.

I beg to differ. Judges are bound to the rules, just like the players are bound to those rules. There might be flexibility in how you apply penalties, based on circumstances, but judges can't go outside the rules just because they "think" it's not right. A couple years ago while judging at a Regionals, I was blasted for even considering a penalty against someone who was using an all-Japanese deck (causing a disruption). Even though the rule has changed since then, at the time, there's was very little that I could do.

Now, I will accept the argument that PTOs have the ability to "go off the reservation." They are the direct extension of TPCi. And, although TPCi (and PTOs) supports the rulings of their judges, that doesn't make all rulings right (see the caveat in their support statement saying "...even when they're wrong").

Judges need to point to the rules to support their rulings; otherwise, what's the use for having the rules? If they go outside the rules, they need to call TPCi (or talk to the PTO) beforehand and get approval. Getting approval "after the fact" seems just plain wrong to me -- it's not even an exception. Ex post facto, anyone?

 

[Lawman]

@SteveP: What is there to Q w/ PokePop? He said the GUIDELINES are there to be used. He said he did this ONCE and was backed later by TPCi. He isnt saying go wild and ignore the guidelines. He just said IF you do, you better have a good reason. We all agree the "rules" are there to be followed as guidelines. The "rules" also allow for deviations in them, depending on tier level and age/experience.

Dont tell me you have never softened a recommended penalty when dealing with a new JR????

Keith

 

[SteveP]

@SteveP: What is there to Q w/ PokePop? He said the GUIDELINES are there to be used. He said he did this ONCE and was backed later by TPCi. He isnt saying go wild and ignore the guidelines. He just said IF you do, you better have a good reason. We all agree the "rules" are there to be followed as guidelines. The "rules" also allow for deviations in them, depending on tier level and age/experience.

Dont tell me you have never softened a recommended penalty when dealing with a new JR????

Keith

I'm not going "all hard" on PokePop. He made his comment in response to my initial statement that judges can't "legally" tell a player that their turn is too long (without pointing to specific actions) and give them a penalty. There are no turn limits -- only action limits.

And yes, the application of the penalty is completely within the power of the judge. That's not what I'm refering to. I'm talking about applying a penalty to a situation that is either 1) not listed as a penalty, or 2) directly or indirectly allowed within the rules. As an example, see what I said about the use of Japanese cards. Two years ago, there was no limit to how many you could use, so I would be absolutely wrong to penalize someone for using an all-Japanese deck. I would've needed to argue "long and hard" about how such a situation caused disruption (which I did at the time in a topic here on PokeGym).

That's my point. Judges have leeway within the rules, but they can't step outside the rules, not without TPCi or PTO permission -- permission that I think should be granted before-hand, not after the fact.

 

[NoPoke]

actually there are only action examples in the guidlines. Examples that are incomplete. The guidelines are silent on if a turn limit can be justified or not.

Two years ago you were able to penalise an all JP deck - but it would not be an easy call for ANY judge to make.. Players are not allowed to disrupt a tournament or engage in gamesmanship. I'm sure that the changes were in response to growing complaints from all sides about the use of Japanese cards. Complaints that would have highlighted that judges were not confident in applying a penalty for disruption/gamesmanship so it was made explicit.

If the penalty guidelines are being used then almost by definition a rule has been broken.

 

[Lawman]

I didnt allow an all japanese deck a few years ago at either a State or Regional where I was HJ. Saw it in deck check line and went...oh no, we arent going there. He had 19 or so translation cards. Even ones where it was 1 japanese and 1 english. I made him use the english card for the 1 card selections in his deck. Caught zero flack over it then. IMO, an all japanese deck in a tourney of States or above will be disruptive and we had tools to use in the guidelines then too.

Keith

 

[meganium45]

Very nice to see so few complaints about people being stalled out at the event.

The problem, as I see it, is that the judges are beginning to make it to the learning curve.

I know in my section of Nationals, no prize penalty was given on any slow play incident unless it was earned. We had quite a few of them earned. I think I qualify as a better player, and not only a judge, who can understand when there is a tough match and choice to be made, and when someone is just feeding me a line.

I know in speaking with Kim and Keith, for prize penalties to be handed out, they had to be earned.

Prize penalties were never handed out at the first instance, and we gave a LOT of the benefit of the doubt, but at some point, you call the dog the dog.

I don't think anyone can screech that they were tagged on their first offense, or any such nonsense. This was the one area where I think the judges from the Masters, of all experience levels, were on the same page. Sure, I am sure there were a few warnings given where that were "borderline" and a few situations that were let go that were "borderline" which is expected in any subjective call.

Oh, and for the comment about the Detroit pitcher, and how he "handled" his bad call. He was sent down to the minors to get his head on straight. Distaster on the mound since that game. Judge calls really do matter, and effect players in all games. We know that, and the vast majority of us take our positions extremely seriously.

Vince