Yet another post about stalling...

[DukeFireBird]

IMHO for the time calling thing, Ive adopted a worlds clock mindset, AT 5 MINUTES, thats the last warning, then I will say less than 5 minutes.

Ive been stalled out by slow play before, did I whine, no, I took the medicine and went on. LOSING VIA TIME IS A POSSIBILITY. Let me see, to date Ive lost maybe 20 games on Time, and Ive won 12 games.

At the LA GC in 06, in my T8 match against Hot Carl, I won game 1 after maybe like 39 or 40 minutes. He then asked me not to stall out. Hot Carl is a personal friend so it was kinda a joke, but I said sure I wont. Game 2 We play for 15 minutes and I scoop cause He had the setup. WOAH, THAT GOES AGAINST THE NORM. I could of stalled out 5 minutes easily. But I didnt. Game 3 comes and he wins via time, not by stalling or slow play, Just the first 2 games took 55 minutes. Did I pout and whine, NO.

TO all of you guys, If you feel your getting stalled, CALL A JUDGE. Thats why we are there, to enforce the rules and to make it fair as possible for BOTH players. IF THE JUDGE DOESNT MAKE IT TO YOUR TABLE BEFORE TIME IS CALLED, make sure your not playing and when the judge arrives, tell the judge that you were waiting for X minutes. If the other player confirms this, then guess what... TIME EXTENSION in my book.

Personally players who cry stallers cost me the game should do us a favor and look at the circumstances and if they called a judge, If the pace of the game was constant, then NO. If you called a judge then NO. However if you call a judge with 2 minutes remaining, then its basically TOOBAD. But if a judge was watching a match for 5 minutes, they could see a staller.

I personally advocate active judging, but in HUGE events, I know it isnt possible, until there are only a handful of games left, or the Top Cut.

Sorry about my rant, but this is a subject that should be laid to rest.

~Duke

 

[Krucifier]

Stalling, I completely agree that there has to be some way to stop it.

But with me, sometimes I will get accused of stalling, when I will just "blackout", I won't be thinking...just sitting there...It isn't a fault of my own, sometimes it never happens, sometimes it does, I will just sit there and look blankly...There are other people like me, and it's just something that we can't help. It isn't intentional stalling.

Saying people should be punished for stalling whether it is intentional or not is complete blasphemy. It is easy to determine an intentional staller from an unintentional staller.

If someone is stalling on purpose, ask them nicely NOT to do it again, and lay out to them that if they do it again, some serious penalties could take place. If they do it again after that, Give them a Round Loss/Game Loss, and tell them if they are caught doing it again, DQ. Before T8/T32 or whatever the top cut is, ALWAYS lay out to all the players in the top cut that if anyone is stalling in the top cut intentionally they will get DQ'd.

Then, people like me, who don't do it intentionally, who "blackout", give us SOME leaniancy. We don't do it on purpose, so if you see us do it, just, snap us out of it. DQ'ing us because of a medical condition is complete bull.

 

[NoPoke]

I'll repeat myself 'cos its getting missed. A constant pace is not a defence against being guilty of a slow play infraction. Slow and steady will still get you a slow play penalty.

 

[Flaming_Spinach]

Anyone that says calling a judge will prevent stalling doesn't know what they are talking about.

The below is c/p from another thread, because I feel no one actually followed the link I posted above.



There are 2 great problems with the system as it is now:

A. It still requires the stallee to call a judge with enough time remaining that the judge can make an acurate determination of the stallers actions.

B. It is still the Judges call. If they feel the staller is not actualy stalling, then no penalty is assessed, and the staller has effectively cheated their opponent out of a win.



Now here are 6 perfectly good examples of how a staller can get away with what they do (and I've seen all of them):

1. The staller does not actually slow down until the very end (say, 2-3 minutes) of the game. It takes about 1 minute to get a judge to your table and express want you want them to watch for. By that time, your opponent barely needs to stall at all to get the win. And wether or not judges will call for a time extension is extremely random.

2. The stallee is unwilling to call a judge, because they don't want to insult their opponent or make un-backed claims. The staller invariably wins. (Any top-level player has grown out of this long ago).

3. The stallee doesn't know the floor rules, and doesn't call a judge out of ignorance. I saw this at a CC; the person had the game won in 1 turn, their opponent had 0 energy in play and a 2-card hand. What does the person in the lost position do? He plays a Farmer, discarding the only other card in his hand, then does not actually finish the actions of the Farmer for a full 3 minutes, when time is called. Up by 1, he has won the game in an absolutelly lost position. When I talked to the stallee a few minutes later, I asked him why he didn't call a judge. His response (verbatim) was, "You mean I can DO that?"

4. There are not enough judges at the tournament to allow one to stand at a single game for ~3 minutes. Many of the CCs I went to (but clearly not all) had a staff of only 2 people. A TO and a HJ. If the HJ is asked to watch a match for stalling, the TO will have to collect match slips and make the rulings that the HJ would otherwise be doing.

5. The judge is unwilling or unable to sit at a game for the final few minutes (often happens with the one above, or if all judges are currently busy with other tasks). At one CC I was at, I called a judge because my opponent was stalling, and the judges immediate response was, "Okay, I'll be right back," as he went to go attend to a ruling at another table. That didn't settle well with me. Luckily, I was able to ko 2 EXs in 2 turns to win the game.

6. The judge decides (for whatever reason) that no stalling is occuring, and no time extension is granted. This happens all the time, and it always turns into a he said/she said situation with everyone angry at eachother.

 

[DarthPika]

^ Calling the judge "stupid" on a public forum will score you tons of points!
Keith

Sorry about that, deleated it, got kinda caried away there.

If the pace of play is consistent from the start, how is that stalling?

He played very slowly in the begining and then during the last five minuts played even slower. He was playing a Banette ex deck so it was hard to tell if he was trying to stall at first, but once he saw I was about to make a comeback and win in a few turns, he played as many cards from his hand as he could. He even played things that he didn't need to play, there was also no reason to keep using unnessary supporters since his attack was maxed out.

you need to ask a judge to watch a few turns.

There where over 60 people in my dev. and well over 100 in the tourny. The judge couldn't stay around for a few turns.He kept haveing to go to other tables. And I did politly ask him if he could play faster, but he didn't realy. He was playing by, if you have 10sec. or whatever it is to play a supporter you take 10sec. just stareing at the thing. You have however many sec. to search you're deck, you use the full time. He was deffinatly stalling when he saw I was going to win.

Rushing a player is just as bad as slow playing/stalling and can be penalized also. I suggest you reread the rules.

I never rush another player, and I consider it a realy cheap way to make some one forrget to do somthing. The only time I will ask some one to play faster is if I think they are stalling or they are takeing to long to make a move, for example takeing 20sec. to decide an attack. That way I don't have to inturupt the game or embarrase the other player, who might not even mean to stall.

 

[SLOW DECK]

I have learned long ago, (see my screen name for the pun), don't play a deck that comes from behind. You will be frustrated by not having enough time to complete a comeback. Stalling or just legit time issue.

6. The judge decides (for whatever reason) that no stalling is occuring, and no time extension is granted. This happens all the time, and it always turns into a he said/she said situation with everyone angry at eachother.[/I]

This is really the reason I push for 30 minutes and one more turn.

Change the rules, and 90% of the stalling complaints go away. If people get that last turn, the whining goes away. Most of the motivation to try to despirately stall out is reduced.

If you are losing, and you DO get one more turn, and can't tie it up, you ussually will reach accross the table shake hands and say GG.:smile:

Very hard to do that if someone intentionally and blantantly stalled you out.

 

[Bolt]

Calling a judge over CAN work, but you have to be kind of aggro about it. Don't wait a couple turns to decide. If you see one or two slow moves on one turn, ask the judge to watch the rest of the match. If they don't, cause trouble until they do.

 

[NoPoke]

cause trouble? No I wouldn't recommend that strategy.

 

[[R]Visitor]

prepare for trouble! (make it double!)

To protect the world from... well.... stalling decks.

I absolutely agree so far with the 30&1 idea, it's sounding like stalling is a bigger problem than I once thought.

 

[NoPoke]

30+1 addresses FS's example 3 above. But it does little to nothing for his other five examples.

Getting judges to actually hand out time extensions addresses many more of his examples.

POP have given us the tools to address slow play. POP have changed the penalty guidelines to highlight pace of play. 30+1 should help though it does have negative impacts on tournament time. But even though 30+1 will help it is nowhere nearly as effective as using the tools that POP have given us. The infraction is SLOW PLAY, the penalty is a Warning, the correction is a time extension. NOT considering handing out a time extension to close games that go to time should be the exception and not the rule. I've not had a single complaint from either player where I've extended the match.

 

[SLOW DECK]

If someone is worried about tournament time, 28+1 could be the tourament match length. Ian, most situations list in 1-6 are corrected, because net effect of stalling is ussually one or two turns to the opponent in the 30 minute match. One hour top cut, there is a different dynamics going on.

NOT considering handing out a time extension to close games that go to time should be the exception and not the rule.

Just think about that statement. :clap: So you basically support 30 and one.:clap:

If a game is close, and you are not sure if Slow play or stalling is taking place, then granting an extra turn is what should be done. The only difference is that a JUDGE doesn't have to be around to grant the one extra turn.

I am so convinced that 30+1 is such a Healthier dynamic for SOTG, because it fixes many things, without judges needing to make a ruling, and THAT IS GOOD. (Unless judges think of themselves as Pro Baskeball referee's that must control the game.)

I haven't heard a downside to it yet. And, I still say that active judging for Slow Play and Stalling still goes on.

 

[NoPoke]

Rob,

when I add time, even a couple of minutes, I'm anticipating that I'm adding more than one turn. I don't expect the pace to drop.

When I've played and observed magic matches that go to time+5. Those last 5 turns can be painfully slow. Both players' tempo drops because both know that the game is no longer timed and both know that they can't afford to make a mistake. Magic has an hour for each round so the impact of +5 isn't as bad as it would be if it were introduced in Pokemon. +5 certainly is enough to make stalling pointless. Whereas +1 seems less effective that a simple time extension for slow play.

The weak point in my argument is actually getting judges to penalise slow play with time extensions. Excuses like its a complicated deck, I have lots to do, I'm thinking. Cut no ice with me.

 

[DarthPika]

I have learned long ago, (see my screen name for the pun), don't play a deck that comes from behind.

Actulay my deck is usaly very fast, I just got a bad start against him. I agree that they should just add a few extra turns instead of a time extension. That way no mater how your'e opponent plays it dosn't affect you. Realy they would only have to add 3 or 2 extra turns, because every time I lost because the time ran out, I lost by 1 turn. In the battle at the regionals that I lost because of stalling 1 turn would have made the difference.

 

[Flaming_Spinach]

The weak point in my argument is actually getting judges to penalise slow play with time extensions.

That's EXACTLY the problem with the current system. In my post above, I gave 6 different reasons why time extensions are NOT granted.

I'm sure if time extensions were actually granted in every case of stalling, it would die away very quickly. BUT THAT DOES NOT (and will never) HAPPEN.



At least 30+1 would be standardized. The stallee would not lose time by calling for a judge, the stallee would not have to worry about NOT recieving a time extension, and, in many cases, the staller would simply resign when they see they are going to lose the next turn.

 

[NoPoke]

FS. If you agree that the reason why the present system isn't working well everywhere is because judges don't hand out time extensions. Then surely the fix is to educate the judges to hand out the extensions?

30+1 may be standardised but its not a big enough change from 30+0 to have me convinced that it will actually have a significant positive impact. You'd need +3 at least.

I don't doubt that there aren't examples where +1 would have fixed the slow play. But every case that is fixed by +1 is also fixed by a brief time extension.

 

[Flaming_Spinach]

If you agree that the reason why the present system isn't working well everywhere is because judges don't hand out time extensions.

Yes. Agree.

surely the fix is to educate the judges to hand out the extensions?

No. This will only put an end to one (#6) of my above points.

How can a judge grant a time extension if they are never called (#2, 3)? Or if they are only at the table for 1-2 minutes (#1)? Or if they are unable to sit and watch a match for a few minutes (#4, 5)?

What then? What training can you give judges to help them make the right call in these situations?

 

[NoPoke]

FS I must be a very bad judge as I hand out extensions without being called over.

I'm an active judge. I watch games from afar. You most certainly don't have to spend minutes at the table to see if there are problems with tempo. If every time you glance at the game its always the same players turn then that is a clue to pay a bit more attention to that game.

I haven't even mentioned that I have a mental list of players that I know have 'difficulty' with tempo. I also have a mental list of judges that I have to encourage to hand out slow play extensions.

I freely admit that I don't catch every instance of slow play. Staff to player ratios in the UK are very low. However I am convinced that slow play is actually one of the easier things for an active judge to spot. I need less information about the game to determine tempo than for any other infraction. It takes less concentration to watch for tempo than it does to watch for play errors. You just have to shift your focus from a microscopic view to a macroscopic one.

Are they taking turns?
Does it look like they are both playing? (Actually PERFORMING game actions)
Does one of the players look frustrated?

 

[vanderbilt_grad]

FS I must be a very bad judge as I hand out extensions without being called over.

I freely admit that I don't catch every instance of slow play. Staff to player ratios in the UK are very low. However I am convinced that slow play is actually one of the easier things for an active judge to spot.

I’m glad to hear examples like yours. Sounds like you are the kind of judge that I would like to have in any event I play in. That said, even the best judges can’t be counted on to really catch most instance of slow play as FS showed in his posts. Even in a well staffed event calling stalling is a judgment call for any given judge. For every judge who errs on extending time in potential stalling cases there is one who is going to err in the other direction or simply not see stalling the same way you do. This lack of constancy alone gives the staller an advantage. Even in the worst case he might have a fairly good shot of winning. In the end it really doesn’t matter how fair you are or how good at calling stalling you are if every judge doesn’t do it exactly the same way at every single event and if all events aren’t well staffed. Stalling will still be there and folks will still be loosing to this form of cheating notwithstanding your individual best efforts.

I think that the mere fact that stalling is so widely reported and so hated here simply shows that the current implementation is not enough. Bravo to you for doing your best and kudos to the other folks who judge and try to ensure fairness to the best of their ability ... but clearly, just based on the comments here, things as a whole could be improved.

I think that 25+5 or 3-+1 is a great place to start. I don’t think that this implies that current judges or rules aren’t good, it’s just that they aren’t enough as is. Making the endgame more consistent like this would be good for both judges and players IMHO.

 

[Flaming_Spinach]

FS I must be a very bad judge as I hand out extensions without being called over.

I'm an active judge. I watch games from afar. You most certainly don't have to spend minutes at the table to see if there are problems with tempo. If every time you glance at the game its always the same players turn then that is a clue to pay a bit more attention to that game.

I haven't even mentioned that I have a mental list of players that I know have 'difficulty' with tempo. I also have a mental list of judges that I have to encourage to hand out slow play extensions.

I freely admit that I don't catch every instance of slow play. Staff to player ratios in the UK are very low. However I am convinced that slow play is actually one of the easier things for an active judge to spot. I need less information about the game to determine tempo than for any other infraction. It takes less concentration to watch for tempo than it does to watch for play errors. You just have to shift your focus from a microscopic view to a macroscopic one.

Are they taking turns?
Does it look like they are both playing? (Actually PERFORMING game actions)
Does one of the players look frustrated?

I'm going to bet there are less than 5 judges in the whole world who can do as much as you do every round.

Even if POP told judges to do all this stuff every single round, my bet is that only a few dozen would ACTUALLY do it over the whole earth.



What you are suggesting does almost nothing to the 2 greatest problems with the system right now.

 

[NoPoke]

FS: Thanks for the praise. I need to own up though, as what I'm suggesting is much like the impossible mechanical magic tricks carried out by stage magicians. Until you actually try what I suggest you wont know how easy it actually is.

The first step that a judge has to take to reduce stalling is to stop concentrating so hard on looking for stalling. If judges are concentrating on uncovering stalling then it doesn't surprise me that so little stalling is actually discovered and penalized.

Its hard to concentrate for a whole day. And if a judge is concentrating on play all day then not only will they be exhausted at the end of the day but they will miss most of the tempo issues. So take a break judges. Make judging easier on yourself by spending some of your judge time not focused on the details.

Players should take care to play in a manner that keeps the game pace brisk, regardless of the complexity of the situation.

The instruction is to both judges and players.

• Play should be brisk.
• Judges can ignore complexity.
• Players can't use complexity as an excuse.

You actually don't need to know anything about how Pokémon tcg is played to decide if play is brisk. It can't get much easier than that?