|
Author
|
Topic: Severe Procedural Error in 1-game matches
|
SteveP
Member # 14743
|
posted February 24, 2003 11:08 AM
It's well know by Pokemon Professors that the penalty for a Severe Procedural Error (that results in a game-loss) is a prize-swap. However, I ask, are there any Procedural Errors that are so severe (and cause so much disruption) that the prize-swap penalty is not adequate?
For example, the other day I was playtesting. Late in the game, I played Town Volunteers. I pulled 5 Pokemon/basic energies from my large discard pile and set them aside. I then looked at my hand to see if those were 5 cards I wanted to recycle. After laying my hand down, I then accidently shuffled my discard pile into my deck, leaving the 5 cards behind.
Now, if I had done this in a tournament, no doubt I did a Severe Procedural Error, where under normal circumstances, I receive a prize-swap penalty. But, I ask, was the error severe enough to elevate it to a true game-loss? I argue, yes.
IMO, there are some Procedural Errors that are so severe that the prize-swap penalty is not adequate.
So, what do others out there think?
--------------------
Proud member of Team PokéParents - we play Pokémon with our kids!
From: Colorado Springs, CO, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
yoshi1001
Member # 825
|
posted February 24, 2003 12:06 PM
Well, judge's discresion. I don't know. I can't say I personally can think of a scenario befitting this, but there might be one. Still, for a one-time unintentional act, match loss is pretty steep.
--------------------
Visit Pokéwatch!
Listen to PIRN, the Pokémon Internet Radio Network. We have interviews with Master Trainer Mike, Kierin Chase, and more, as well as your favorite Pokémon music! PIRN: The number 1 Pokémon Internet Radio Station!
PIRN: The Magazine
PIRN Message Boards
GCAbGEbGF
AIM: yoshi1001
From: Janesville, Wisconsin | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SteveP
Member # 14743
|
posted February 24, 2003 01:47 PM
yah, the only time I think a game-loss is warranted (instead of the normal prize-swap) is when the error is extremely disruptive and/or the error gives the guilty person an extreme and/or game-winning advantage.
Nevertheless, as the current PFR is written, a game-loss penalty would be highly arguable, despite the level of disruption.
--------------------
Proud member of Team PokéParents - we play Pokémon with our kids!
From: Colorado Springs, CO, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lugia251
Member
Member # 106625
|
posted February 24, 2003 02:09 PM
hey, i was wondering. what is a prize swap?
From: North Carolina | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
yoshi1001
Member # 825
|
posted February 24, 2003 02:32 PM
The offendor places another prize, the offendee takes a prize.
--------------------
Visit Pokéwatch!
Listen to PIRN, the Pokémon Internet Radio Network. We have interviews with Master Trainer Mike, Kierin Chase, and more, as well as your favorite Pokémon music! PIRN: The number 1 Pokémon Internet Radio Station!
PIRN: The Magazine
PIRN Message Boards
GCAbGEbGF
AIM: yoshi1001
From: Janesville, Wisconsin | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
WizPog_PokeMom
Member # 113273
|
posted February 24, 2003 02:33 PM
IMHO it would have to be game loss in this situation just because there is no way to "rewind" the game state; shuffling one's discard pile into the deck late in the game is pretty irreversable.
lugia215, a prize swap is when the player being penalized puts down an ADDITIONAL prize, and the opponent takes one of his/her prizes...therefore giving the opponent a 2 prize advantage.
--------------------
Master Professor/Tournament Organizer/Pokémon League Gym Leader,
Adventure Games and Comics, Poway, CA
Nothing endures in this world. Everything changes according to karma. But, like the ocean, underneath the restless existance of the countless waves there is one boundless stillness that embraces and gives life to all the moving waves. Namuamidabutsu...
From: San Diego, CA --location of WCSTS-2001 and West Stadium Challenge 2002 | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
DMTM
Member # 10
|
posted February 24, 2003 03:45 PM
I definetly agree, there are times when a severe procedural error disrupts the game to the point of it being unplayable. The prize swap scenario does not begin to cover the disruption in these situations and a true game loss has to be implemented. Your example of one is perfect.
The rule of thumb in these cases must concern itself with the ability of the game to be made playable. In the classic Cleffa scenario you lose your hand and a 2 card prize deficit, but the deck and discard pile are intact so the game can continue.
DMTM
--------------------
Frodo_Baggins - "Like the guy said "Get out of the box""
From: Seattle, Wa, USA | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SteveP
Member # 14743
|
posted February 24, 2003 09:37 PM
Thanks everyone for your comments.
PokeMom, the "un-rewindable" criteria is one level. Certainly, the illegal Eeeeeeek is hard or impossible to rewind. But it's only a prize swap.
Yes DMTM, I totally agree. The "unplayable" criteria is the key.
Well, I hate to give game-loss penalties, but regardless of what the PFR says (game-loss = prize-swap), there ARE rare occassions when a game-loss MUST be given.
BTW, the only time I ever gave a true game-loss in a 1-game Pokemon match was when a player spilled half a bottle of soda in the play area and on his opponent's cards.
--------------------
Proud member of Team PokéParents - we play Pokémon with our kids!
From: Colorado Springs, CO, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
NoPoke
Member # 42315
|
posted February 24, 2003 11:56 PM
When thinking of theses penalties I imagine tht it is actually match play. Spilling drink on cards makes the current game unplayable and future games too so the full match loss is appropriate.
However I'd find it very hard to justify that your shuffle error would warrant a full match loss in match play.
So what would I take into account...IN NO ORDER
1) Your attitude to the error
2) Did your opponent flag it up immediately
3) Previous history of infractions
4) Potential impact on the tournament
I don't like the Cleffa penalty but it does set a precedent...If I had to upgrade the penalty from a game loss I probably would add in that you loose your deck with the exception of the five cards that you put aside.
I'll probably come back and ammend my answer after some more thought but the thing about judging is that you often have to make a decision relatively quickly so these are my first thoughts.
--------------------
========================================
'Good News' or 'Bad News' but NOT NO NEWS
some people brag about their tournament results, me I'm gonna brag??? about what players have managed to get past me LOL
-------Hoodwinked---(things I won't get wrong again...)------
'legal stalling' : game loss at least
'only joking' on misreported match results: DQ Yep its that serious!
The prize swap penalty as it applies to shuffling.
From: Crawley England | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
WizPog_PokeMom
Member # 113273
|
posted February 25, 2003 07:18 AM
Hmmm...that's an interesting alternative, Ian...the whole deck other than the 5 retreived cards turning into the discard pile... ![[bow]](../tcg/graemlins/bow.gif)
I'd be interested in hearing DMTM's take on this...
I guess I wasn't clear enough in my reply above; I meant to say that the situation was not only "unrewindable" (as in the Cleffa/eeeek shuffle) but would also give the offending player major game advantage with the return of "used" trainers/energies etc. to the deck. There's a big difference between returning a hand to the deck and an entire discard pile, late in the game...and the difference in the two situations is what made the penalty "game/match loss" IMO.
'Mom ![[Smile]](../tcg/smile.gif)
[ February 25, 2003, 07:22 AM: Message edited by: WizPog_PokeMom ]
--------------------
Master Professor/Tournament Organizer/Pokémon League Gym Leader,
Adventure Games and Comics, Poway, CA
Nothing endures in this world. Everything changes according to karma. But, like the ocean, underneath the restless existance of the countless waves there is one boundless stillness that embraces and gives life to all the moving waves. Namuamidabutsu...
From: San Diego, CA --location of WCSTS-2001 and West Stadium Challenge 2002 | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
yoshi1001
Member # 825
|
posted February 25, 2003 07:30 AM
Reading this topic, it is clear the prize swap penalty has limits. The mstch play equivilent, game loss, means the game gets reset. Not so in the prize swap case. So then the question, to rephrase DMTM, is can the game continue, or have things become so discombobulated thst a match loss must be issued? Remember, no penalty can ever help a player. So, looking back, I cannot rewind SteveP's scenario, and the action was extremely disruptive to the game. Allowing the deck to remain in its present state would be too much of an advantage as well.
--------------------
Visit Pokéwatch!
Listen to PIRN, the Pokémon Internet Radio Network. We have interviews with Master Trainer Mike, Kierin Chase, and more, as well as your favorite Pokémon music! PIRN: The number 1 Pokémon Internet Radio Station!
PIRN: The Magazine
PIRN Message Boards
GCAbGEbGF
AIM: yoshi1001
From: Janesville, Wisconsin | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LizardOTC
Member # 124
|
posted February 25, 2003 08:05 AM
I think that the example given perfectly illustrates the need for proper judging discretion to maintain the integrity of the tournament as a whole.
I can easily imagine that the offending player could gain enough advantage from the error described to allow a win despite a prize swap penalty.
It is incumbent upon the judge in this case to upgrade the game loss (prize swap) to a full match loss.
If this were never done, then these errors could be intentionally committed by players who "have nothing left to lose". Shuffling a discard pile into a deck could possibly get the player out of what was otherwise a hopeless situation.
I think SteveP is right: a full match loss is the only option in this severe case.
I once had to issue a full match loss because a player attacked, tok his final prize and combined his deck and discard pile together, failing to realize that defending Pokémon's attached metal left it with 10 HP. It did not matter that the opponent still had 3 prizes remaining, and would probably have lost: the game was rendered unplayable, and a match loss to the offending player was the only option.
--------------------
"No! Try not. Do. Or do not. There is no try." -Yoda
"Sewage Portrayed As Meat...It's not just for breakfast anymore!" -LizardOTC
"Like a bad tooth and an unsteady foot is confidence in a faithless man in time of trouble." - Proverbs 25:19
From: The Vast Midwestern Waste | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RabidRaichu
Member # 36118
|
posted February 25, 2003 08:15 AM
I would agree that in the case SteveP describes it should be loss of match. Now I have a question to pose for you all -- If I, as the player who made such a mistake, realized it immediately and simply conceeded the match (which I would do in a non-tournament situation if I made such a gross error) would the tournament officials have to get involved at all and would they HAVE to issue a penalty (along with the required recording of such)?
[ February 25, 2003, 08:18 AM: Message edited by: RabidRaichu ]
--------------------
*******************************
I want to believe!
*******************************
From: Modesto, CA | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SteveP
Member # 14743
|
posted February 25, 2003 09:02 AM
hey RabidRaichu, you can concede without the consent of your opponent. If you make a severe error and expect that you'll get a game-loss penalty, certainly you can concede. That being the case, I'd hope your opponent would stop hailing the judge.
Regarding the Eek-without-flip penalty, I've always thought that this is a fixable error. Sometimes, you can't unwind, but you can certainly attempt to fix the error. In the early days, if someone illegally Eek-ed, I'd always have the offending player flip a coin. If heads, no harm, no foul. If tails, prize swap. If it lands on its side (like what happened at the Queen Mary), search for any 7 cards ![[Eek!]](../tcg/eek.gif) (just kidding) ![[Big Grin]](../tcg/biggrin.gif) .
--------------------
Proud member of Team PokéParents - we play Pokémon with our kids!
From: Colorado Springs, CO, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
yoshi1001
Member # 825
|
posted February 25, 2003 09:52 AM
quote:
If I, as the player who made such a mistake, realized it immediately and simply conceeded the match (which I would do in a non-tournament situation if I made such a gross error) would the tournament officials have to get involved at all and would they HAVE to issue a penalty (along with the required recording of such)?
That would depend. If we're talking about something like SteveP detailed, that would work. However, a lasting problem (such as a marked card, incorrect deck, etc.) would have to be dealt with.
--------------------
Visit Pokéwatch!
Listen to PIRN, the Pokémon Internet Radio Network. We have interviews with Master Trainer Mike, Kierin Chase, and more, as well as your favorite Pokémon music! PIRN: The number 1 Pokémon Internet Radio Station!
PIRN: The Magazine
PIRN Message Boards
GCAbGEbGF
AIM: yoshi1001
From: Janesville, Wisconsin | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
DMTM
Member # 10
|
posted February 25, 2003 12:10 PM
It is out of the player’s hands. The penalty is severe so it must be recorded. Conceding does not supercede that once a judge is contacted. If no judge is contacted and you concede then that is that as they say.No penalty.
The issue of letting a person flip to find out what happened in a Cleffa situation is a big no no. It opens the doors to what if scenarios, which is never a good idea. When judging you must deal with the facts and not go into the future to find your answers.
Nopoke while I agree that these things are important in certain situations, but I believe they have no bearing on this particular situation. With the possible exception of when the judge is flagged. It is a pretty clear-cut situation as far as I'm concerned. You cannot rewind this situation in any meaningful way. The error is way to damaging to the games continuity.
1) Your attitude to the error
2) Did your opponent flag it up immediately
3) Previous history of infractions
4) Potential impact on the tournament
Attitude about it's severity is not a concern of the judge. Explaining why it is as severe as it is would be the key here for a judge. Whether they agree or not is of no real consequence.
Flagging the judge several turns later is a different matter. If the player denies that is what happened then the judge will have to take them through the last few turns and access the veracity of their claim.
Whether there were previous infractions or not. The situation is not able to be made playable. So the penalty is not effected. IF the judge was flagged later in the game then this could become a viable resource for the judge.
Whether it is the first round or the finals the penalty would still is the same.
DMTM
[ February 25, 2003, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: DMTM ]
--------------------
Frodo_Baggins - "Like the guy said "Get out of the box""
From: Seattle, Wa, USA | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SteveP
Member # 14743
|
posted February 25, 2003 05:12 PM
Quote from DMTM:
quote:
The issue of letting a person flip to find out what happened in a Cleffa situation is a big no no. It opens the doors to what if scenarios, which is never a good idea. When judging you must deal with the facts and not go into the future to find your answers.
I can't think of any what-if scenarios in the illegal-Eek-reflip situation. Please elaborate.
--------------------
Proud member of Team PokéParents - we play Pokémon with our kids!
From: Colorado Springs, CO, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
NoPoke
Member # 42315
|
posted February 25, 2003 05:28 PM
Thanks for the clarifications DMTM, I'm still learning about ,and struggling with, the implications of some of the penalty guidelines.
The part that causes me dificulty is that if it were match play SteveP's error would presumably only recieve a game loss and not a match loss. Hence my extrapolation of the Cleffa penalty that steveP would end up with no hand and just the cards selected for Town Volunteers. I'm not particularly happy about this but it seems slightly better than the full match loss penalty even though it is tantamount to the same thing. very hard to recover from no hand and only 5 cards left in your deck.
I'm not arguing just seeking guidance ![[Wink]](../tcg/wink.gif)
quote:
Philosophy
Procedural errors vary significantly and the judge should adjust the penalty appropriately to reflect the level of tournament disruption.
Penalty
If the procedural error makes it impossible for a player to effectively complete the game or match in the allotted period of time, the judge should upgrade the penalty.
Other than the coffee example in the penalty guidlines are there any more examples from match play where a game loss is upgraded to a match loss. eg You are playing MtG. Its your first gamein match play and you______(fill in the blanks). Judge comes over and gives a match loss for the 113 infraction rather than a game loss.
[ February 26, 2003, 01:10 AM: Message edited by: NoPoke ]
--------------------
========================================
'Good News' or 'Bad News' but NOT NO NEWS
some people brag about their tournament results, me I'm gonna brag??? about what players have managed to get past me LOL
-------Hoodwinked---(things I won't get wrong again...)------
'legal stalling' : game loss at least
'only joking' on misreported match results: DQ Yep its that serious!
The prize swap penalty as it applies to shuffling.
From: Crawley England | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
DMTM
Member # 10
|
posted February 26, 2003 12:10 PM
This is a great discussion. Every Prof. should read this thread and ask questions if they have any! You all have brought up very good issues.
Steve what I'm saying is that in the example by NoPoke he said he would allow the person to flip in order to see what would happen. That is the "what if" scenario I'm talking about. You should not allow things to go forward in a game after the judge is contacted until the issue is solved/ruled upon. The Cleffa flip to see what would happen is doing that. Is that what you are asking? I'm not sure I understand the question otherwise.
It is only a game loss penalty in Match play. Those are the breaks. The mistake has cost you the Match in Single play. The game is that much more important. It is the reality of single Match play.
If you think about it from the position of IF it was Match play you doom yourself to think about a normal game you lose and then win the next two. "What If" situations are not something that one should dwell upon. There is only the reality of how this tournament is set up and the importance of that one game. Messing that game up loses the match whether you draw no Pokémon or you severely disrupt the game. There is no second chance. You go in knowing that.
The problem with allowing a person to proceed with 5 cards is that they have already made the game unplayable to any realistic degree. Their error is huge. There is no way to make it even resemble a playable game. They have effectively disrupted it to the point of it being a victory for their opponent.
It is not fair to their opponent in this instance to give them a chance to win this game. They have destroyed all semblance of a game.
The Cleffa incident does not do this it can be fixed to the point of making the game playable.
They lose their hand and 2 prizes. Since a random deck is a random deck the shuffling of said deck is not a huge issue.
As for 113 I can think of one right off the top of my head NoPoke.
If a player cannot find replacement cards it would constitute a Match loss. Works in Pokémon as well.
Remember by definition it has to be unintentional. So any unintenional action that makes the Match not able to proceed.
DMTM
[ February 26, 2003, 12:18 PM: Message edited by: DMTM ]
--------------------
Frodo_Baggins - "Like the guy said "Get out of the box""
From: Seattle, Wa, USA | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SteveP
Member # 14743
|
posted February 26, 2003 03:11 PM
Okay DMTM, I understand now about what-if. However, let me throw out an example (bad though it may be) to illustrate why I think an after-the-fact flip is not such a wrong thing to do.
If a kid wants to use the family car, he must first ask his parents. The kid forgets to ask and takes the car. Later, he realizes his mistake, and then calls home to ask for permission. This kid is a decent kid. His parent know he just forgot to ask. They would've said yes anyway if he'd asked first. So, do they punish him anyway because he didn't follow the rules exactly?
Now, if the kid's parent DIDN'T want their kid to use the car, then he's punished.
Do you see my point? Sometimes it doesn't matter whether something is done out of sequence, so long as you end up with the same results.
--------------------
Proud member of Team PokéParents - we play Pokémon with our kids!
From: Colorado Springs, CO, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
DMTM
Member # 10
|
posted February 26, 2003 04:19 PM
You are saying who is hurt by allowing them to flip? Their opponent is. The mistake has been made.
A mistake in a game is a mistake. Whether it is intentional or not it must have a consequence.
You must deal with the facts as they are. If you start allowing people to see what might happen then you have opened the door for that scenario.
You are now dealing with territory outside what has occurred in the game. It is not fair to the opponent and it sets a precedent that is not consistent.
Judge: We are going to let him flip to see if he could have done this correctly.
If he does get a heads we are going to let him play on with a caution.
If he gets a tails then the penalty will be different.
The Judge is not being consistent in their penalty with this scenario. They are allowing it to change based on what might have happened.
DMTM
[ February 26, 2003, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: DMTM ]
--------------------
Frodo_Baggins - "Like the guy said "Get out of the box""
From: Seattle, Wa, USA | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SteveP
Member # 14743
|
posted February 26, 2003 06:06 PM
DMTM, I see where you're coming from. For example, in Football, sometimes the Quarterback alters his snap-count in an attempt to fool the Defense into an offsides penalty. Likewise, a player might activate a baby against a Cleffa in an attempt to get his opponent to Eek without flipping. But, in the football example, the penalty is only 5-yards (small compared to more serious infractions). The Pokemon penalty is pretty severe.
Well, we can cite example after example, and we'll still end up with our own opinions. Thanks for the lively debate.
** UPDATE **
DMTM, your edited post, makes your point clear. I just wished we had something similiar to Football where the penalty could be accepted or declined.
[ February 26, 2003, 06:12 PM: Message edited by: SteveP ]
--------------------
Proud member of Team PokéParents - we play Pokémon with our kids!
From: Colorado Springs, CO, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
DMTM
Member # 10
|
posted February 26, 2003 06:29 PM
Yeah. I read it and thought of a better way to make it clear after editing it at least 10 times!
DMTM
--------------------
Frodo_Baggins - "Like the guy said "Get out of the box""
From: Seattle, Wa, USA | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PojosamaWannabe
Member
Member # 74186
|
posted March 03, 2003 07:32 PM
Well since the last few posts were on the Illegal Eek rule, I thought I'd give me 2 cents.
IMO, I feel the Prize Swap and Hand Loss is too severe. It should only be a Hand Loss. Whats the difference between getting the Tails for the Eek and forgetting to flip. Either way, you won't have a new hand. Yes, a penalty should be given, but not a Prize Swap. No Hand is fair because thats basically a waste of 1+ turns (Next turn you're gonna try to Eek again and again and again if you flip Tails vs a baby). A 2 Prize difference is too severe. Instead of 2 Prizes, the penalty could be, in theory, a 1+ Turn Penalty.
I donno, not many people disagree with the Eek ruling and I never had this happen to me or an opponent of mine in a game. I do know, however, after one of my friends had this penalty, there was no way for him to recover.
--------------------
Winner of Cedar Grove AQ SBZ
Winner of Rockefeller Center SK SBZ
DCI Rating: 1814+?
From: Central New Jersey | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SteveP
Member # 14743
|
posted March 03, 2003 09:34 PM
wow, someone decided to ressurect this topic (or side topic).
I think that the severity of any penalty if often very subjective. For example, if someone murders my kid, I want the death penalty. I'd be happy with nothing less.
My beef with this penalty is not necessarily how severe the penalty is, but rather, why an attempt is not made to resolve the error before the penalty is imposed.
But, I've said my peace on this matter.
--------------------
Proud member of Team PokéParents - we play Pokémon with our kids!
From: Colorado Springs, CO, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
