I just wanted to thank Mike for chiming in and at least mentioning that things are being read. I know I'm burning bridges, and surely offending at least a few people here ( nothing new ) but as long as my opinion is at least being read ( not necessarily adopted, but read ) than I feel like its worth it. I'm doing this in order to try and improve the game in my eyes, so even if you do not agree with me, at least realize my intents. Do I think one of my threads is going to cause major changes in the way things are run? No. I'd like them to, but I'm realistic. I do like to think that maybe they can at least get some things relooked at and reconsidered in terms of if they are being handled ideally or not.
Anyways, going back to the discussion, first regarding Lawman: Flashback to ECSC 04. I won on time. I made a terrible blunder mid game ( the game I should have won, not drawn had I played competently ) and knew at that point I had no opportunity to actually win the game. Over the next few turns, I played more methodically. I "stalled" by playing unnecessary cards and taking longer, but still appropriate amounts of time to decide my actions. Was it slower than my previous turns? Certainly. Was it any slower than a GOOD NUMBER of players "standard pace of play"? NO. I play fast. I play faster than I should. I misplay at times because I play so fast. In tough game situations, I'll slow down quite a bit.
Every good player has good time management. The term is FAR more appropriate than "gaming the clock". Those who do NOT take time into account in games pay for it because everyone else at a high level is doing so. Even if such a blanket statement isn't 100% accurate, Read many of my tournament reports, my newest Worlds one being a good example: Round 3, my opponent was down to 2 prizes and I had 6 at roughly the 15 minute mark. I had a good game state, but I had already come to the realization I was going to lose on time. I SHOULD have lost on time. There was no realistic reason that he should have lost that game, and against 90% of players, I would have lost. And yes, before you ask, I would be "ok with it". Clearly I don't like LOSING, but I'd rather lose to a player who is playing their best game possible than one who gets lucky.
Example: My opponent was using Machamp, Dusknoir, Lumineon. I would have much rather preferred he wins on time, with me at 2 prizes to his 1, than for me to tie it up because he "lets" me back in the game, only to have him flip 4 heads with Machamp to win ( where say, 3 doesn't KO me ). I'd much rather lose knowing my opponent played CORRECTLY. I'd be disappointed I lost, but would I complain about my opponent "stalling me"? NO. Listen to a number of the good players talk between rounds. People relentlessly ask " how'd you do? " to their friends between rounds. " I lost on time" is often the answer. Do you know why? They lost on time. They didn't "get stalled". They lost to a mechanic that is intrinsically a part of any TCG. Now, this isn't saying that you cannot be STALLED. I've seen examples of stalling. I've been victim to it too, but very rarely because I know that, gasp, you are able to call a judge over if it becomes an issue. 99% of stalling happens due to player fault.
Also, to those who are reading the conversation: Lawmans an amazing guy, and I have the utmost respect for him. I have nothing against him calling me out on the "personal" example, as I've told him that had I not won on time, I lost that game. I don't hold it against him, and I hope he doesn't hold anything against me.
Also, as to my choice to single out Steve. He is posting in the discussion and was acting rather hypocritical in the process. I feel that gives me plenty of right to bring him up within the context of the thread.
Regardless of his "mandate" to judge accordingly, I find it hard to believe it was mandated to judge rudely. There wasblatant hostility in the way he judged.
I think ChaosJim pointed out exactly what my concern with "active" judging in his Vince vs Inchy analogy.
It 100% is NOT right to assume that a player is making plays because of malicious intent opposed to because they simply do not know better. If a player is making plays, regardless of how bad or worthless they are, they are still legal moves. If a player has a hand full of trainers on the last turn of the game, and just so happens to be able to legitimately take a five minute turn ( chains of PokeDrawers, Great Balls, Super Scoop Up, a Luxury Ball, PokeTurns, PokeDex, etc...think the crazy Uxie Crobat deck that Rob Downs used a lot of this season ) how is it the judges right to intervene and say " im sorry, it doesn't matter...don't play those, ship the turn to your opponent please".
Based on that same logic, are you telling me, using the Rob Downs deck example, that say the Uxie deck got up a bunch of prizes, but ran out of Crobats and such. His opponent is close to tying the game on prizes. Rob's deck has 15 cards in hand, as his opponent had a weak start, and he didn't have to overextend with a lot of his trainers. Theres 4 minutes left in the game. Rob's deck simply draws through his deck for those 4 minutes, ending the game. It goes over what should be a traditionally normal length turn, but he is PLAYING cards legitimately. You cannot assume every player plays to the same level of ability and skill as another player, and that is why it is difficult, if not straight out incorrect, to judge as such.
Now, let me bring up something about there being "no such thing as gaming the clock". There are two things. There is STALLING, and there is proper play. There is no "gaming the clock" in between. Stalling is sitting there, with no legal plays, wasting excessive amounts of time. Retreating, checking a discard pile, asking hand size, playing a supporter, playing a stadium, playing a Night Maintenance, using a Great Ball, using Claydol, Playing an Uxie, using Crobat G, PokeTurning it twice and than benching another basic to eat up 2-3 minutes worth of time to prevent an opponent from getting an extra turn is NOT stalling. It is NOT "gaming the clock". It is " Not throwing away a game" and it is 100% legitimate. That is NOT being "stalled out". That is "losing on time", a sad side effect that WILL HAPPEN as a result of time limits. When you enforce time limits ( which clearly are necessary ) you will have to deal with playing towards those time constraints.
I'll use Magic as an example. They have strict guide lines for how to handle time. Players have an option to use X amount of time to Sideboard, and X amount of time to resolve mulligans. ( Players can optionally mulligan up to 7 times...one less card in hand per mulligan ) If a player wins game 1, spends 2 minutes sideboarding ( max allowed ), and Mulligans, takes the full amount of time to shuffle in between, mulligans to 5 again, takes full time, mulligans to 4, etc etc etc all the way down to 0 to eat up the full allowed time, preventing his opponent from starting the 2nd game? Do you know what the judge does? He asks the players to fill out the match slip and moves on.
Players KNOW the guidelines, and know the perimeters of the game. The judges do not, and should not, intervene because those guidelines appear "cruel" during any given game state. To proactively judge in such a way really oversteps the boundaries of "judging" and simply playing for the players themselves. As long as plays are within the appropriate time PER PLAY, there shouldn't be any question beyond this. The idea of a "set time limit PER TURN" is strictly terrible. Play should be judged per play, not per turn, because the number of players per turn dictate the length of a turn. Turns are not static. Plays are far closer to static than a turn is. ( Even this isn't close to realistic, as an opening turn Cyrus takes far more time than evolving a Pokemon...but it is more realistic than the overarching turn misnomer )
Players need to be given a little more respect while doing what they do, which is play. Judges should be an outside presence, not a third party within the game which have to be taken into consideration while playing. I know a number of players who claim they get nervous when judges walk past them at events such as Nationals. This shouldn't be the case. I am far more in favor of conservative judging opposed to liberal judging at events.
I haven't been on in the past few weeks as I've been rather busy, and I'm not sure how often I will be able to stop back in to comment on this thread, but I've noticed a number of other great posters offering their feedback so feel free to keep the discussion alive. I'm going to go through all the trouble of getting oked into the Professor forums here, and hopefully we can have some more discussions within there. I'm not here simply to drive a wedge between players and judges, as I really do want to above all else see improvements in the game. Sometimes the most heated arguments lead to the most results, and hopefully we can see the game we all love become better as a result.
Anyways, going back to the discussion, first regarding Lawman: Flashback to ECSC 04. I won on time. I made a terrible blunder mid game ( the game I should have won, not drawn had I played competently ) and knew at that point I had no opportunity to actually win the game. Over the next few turns, I played more methodically. I "stalled" by playing unnecessary cards and taking longer, but still appropriate amounts of time to decide my actions. Was it slower than my previous turns? Certainly. Was it any slower than a GOOD NUMBER of players "standard pace of play"? NO. I play fast. I play faster than I should. I misplay at times because I play so fast. In tough game situations, I'll slow down quite a bit.
Every good player has good time management. The term is FAR more appropriate than "gaming the clock". Those who do NOT take time into account in games pay for it because everyone else at a high level is doing so. Even if such a blanket statement isn't 100% accurate, Read many of my tournament reports, my newest Worlds one being a good example: Round 3, my opponent was down to 2 prizes and I had 6 at roughly the 15 minute mark. I had a good game state, but I had already come to the realization I was going to lose on time. I SHOULD have lost on time. There was no realistic reason that he should have lost that game, and against 90% of players, I would have lost. And yes, before you ask, I would be "ok with it". Clearly I don't like LOSING, but I'd rather lose to a player who is playing their best game possible than one who gets lucky.
Example: My opponent was using Machamp, Dusknoir, Lumineon. I would have much rather preferred he wins on time, with me at 2 prizes to his 1, than for me to tie it up because he "lets" me back in the game, only to have him flip 4 heads with Machamp to win ( where say, 3 doesn't KO me ). I'd much rather lose knowing my opponent played CORRECTLY. I'd be disappointed I lost, but would I complain about my opponent "stalling me"? NO. Listen to a number of the good players talk between rounds. People relentlessly ask " how'd you do? " to their friends between rounds. " I lost on time" is often the answer. Do you know why? They lost on time. They didn't "get stalled". They lost to a mechanic that is intrinsically a part of any TCG. Now, this isn't saying that you cannot be STALLED. I've seen examples of stalling. I've been victim to it too, but very rarely because I know that, gasp, you are able to call a judge over if it becomes an issue. 99% of stalling happens due to player fault.
Also, to those who are reading the conversation: Lawmans an amazing guy, and I have the utmost respect for him. I have nothing against him calling me out on the "personal" example, as I've told him that had I not won on time, I lost that game. I don't hold it against him, and I hope he doesn't hold anything against me.
Also, as to my choice to single out Steve. He is posting in the discussion and was acting rather hypocritical in the process. I feel that gives me plenty of right to bring him up within the context of the thread.
Regardless of his "mandate" to judge accordingly, I find it hard to believe it was mandated to judge rudely. There wasblatant hostility in the way he judged.
I think ChaosJim pointed out exactly what my concern with "active" judging in his Vince vs Inchy analogy.
It 100% is NOT right to assume that a player is making plays because of malicious intent opposed to because they simply do not know better. If a player is making plays, regardless of how bad or worthless they are, they are still legal moves. If a player has a hand full of trainers on the last turn of the game, and just so happens to be able to legitimately take a five minute turn ( chains of PokeDrawers, Great Balls, Super Scoop Up, a Luxury Ball, PokeTurns, PokeDex, etc...think the crazy Uxie Crobat deck that Rob Downs used a lot of this season ) how is it the judges right to intervene and say " im sorry, it doesn't matter...don't play those, ship the turn to your opponent please".
Based on that same logic, are you telling me, using the Rob Downs deck example, that say the Uxie deck got up a bunch of prizes, but ran out of Crobats and such. His opponent is close to tying the game on prizes. Rob's deck has 15 cards in hand, as his opponent had a weak start, and he didn't have to overextend with a lot of his trainers. Theres 4 minutes left in the game. Rob's deck simply draws through his deck for those 4 minutes, ending the game. It goes over what should be a traditionally normal length turn, but he is PLAYING cards legitimately. You cannot assume every player plays to the same level of ability and skill as another player, and that is why it is difficult, if not straight out incorrect, to judge as such.
Now, let me bring up something about there being "no such thing as gaming the clock". There are two things. There is STALLING, and there is proper play. There is no "gaming the clock" in between. Stalling is sitting there, with no legal plays, wasting excessive amounts of time. Retreating, checking a discard pile, asking hand size, playing a supporter, playing a stadium, playing a Night Maintenance, using a Great Ball, using Claydol, Playing an Uxie, using Crobat G, PokeTurning it twice and than benching another basic to eat up 2-3 minutes worth of time to prevent an opponent from getting an extra turn is NOT stalling. It is NOT "gaming the clock". It is " Not throwing away a game" and it is 100% legitimate. That is NOT being "stalled out". That is "losing on time", a sad side effect that WILL HAPPEN as a result of time limits. When you enforce time limits ( which clearly are necessary ) you will have to deal with playing towards those time constraints.
I'll use Magic as an example. They have strict guide lines for how to handle time. Players have an option to use X amount of time to Sideboard, and X amount of time to resolve mulligans. ( Players can optionally mulligan up to 7 times...one less card in hand per mulligan ) If a player wins game 1, spends 2 minutes sideboarding ( max allowed ), and Mulligans, takes the full amount of time to shuffle in between, mulligans to 5 again, takes full time, mulligans to 4, etc etc etc all the way down to 0 to eat up the full allowed time, preventing his opponent from starting the 2nd game? Do you know what the judge does? He asks the players to fill out the match slip and moves on.
Players KNOW the guidelines, and know the perimeters of the game. The judges do not, and should not, intervene because those guidelines appear "cruel" during any given game state. To proactively judge in such a way really oversteps the boundaries of "judging" and simply playing for the players themselves. As long as plays are within the appropriate time PER PLAY, there shouldn't be any question beyond this. The idea of a "set time limit PER TURN" is strictly terrible. Play should be judged per play, not per turn, because the number of players per turn dictate the length of a turn. Turns are not static. Plays are far closer to static than a turn is. ( Even this isn't close to realistic, as an opening turn Cyrus takes far more time than evolving a Pokemon...but it is more realistic than the overarching turn misnomer )
Players need to be given a little more respect while doing what they do, which is play. Judges should be an outside presence, not a third party within the game which have to be taken into consideration while playing. I know a number of players who claim they get nervous when judges walk past them at events such as Nationals. This shouldn't be the case. I am far more in favor of conservative judging opposed to liberal judging at events.
I haven't been on in the past few weeks as I've been rather busy, and I'm not sure how often I will be able to stop back in to comment on this thread, but I've noticed a number of other great posters offering their feedback so feel free to keep the discussion alive. I'm going to go through all the trouble of getting oked into the Professor forums here, and hopefully we can have some more discussions within there. I'm not here simply to drive a wedge between players and judges, as I really do want to above all else see improvements in the game. Sometimes the most heated arguments lead to the most results, and hopefully we can see the game we all love become better as a result.