Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Austino's Texas States Report: DQ'd from Top Cut!

Yeah, I was one of the first people to opt out while the line was still massive. He made the announcement less than 5 minutes after registration began. It's completely irrelevant to the report, but some like every fact available.
 
Yeah, again, I heard about it near the end from a runner, and was given the same thing...it was because of the extremely long masters line. If it was stated earlier as well, it must have only been to the line and not those outside. I was sitting right outside the registration area and we didn't hear anything about it until we got in near the end.
 
SteveP said:
No, Cheating in Pokemon results in a DQ (or ban). Bad decks and/or decklists result in something less.

In Pokemon, the penalty needs to fit the crime.
Click to expand...

i have yet to see cheating result in a dq/ban so until then i am just gonna go off of past experience and stick with the slap on the wrist penalty for cheating.

The penalties for pokemon are a joke.
 
SteveP said:
This kind of penalty falls under the Legal Decklist, Legal Deck penalty. At either tier, this is a Warning penalty, with the option for the judge to elevate it to a Game Loss.

So, either the judge felt you gained somekind of extreme advantage by this violation, or something similiar.

Did the judge specifically tell you what the penalty was? For it to be a DQ, something needs to be serious. Most deck/decklist issues that I'm aware aren't so serious that they warrant a DQ. And, that's not my opinion -- that's straight from Section 7.3 of the Penalty Guidelines.

So, yeah, you made a boo-boo. But, either the penalty was something different, or the judge elevated the penalty beyond the normal guidelines (ie., previous penalties, serious circumstances).
Click to expand...

They gave every Master in line the option to just hand in their deck list and skip the deck check. They als issued everyone a verbal caution that if they decided to go that route and they top cut with something wrong on their list, that they would receive an automatic DQ. It was out there very plainly and why I waited in the painstakingly long line to have my deck checked.

I was there at nine and other than 'Hi, Wayne' the opt out option was the first thing Fish said to me, including the penalties. Then he boomed it out for everyone to hear and did so at regular intervals. Everyone that opted out was again told of the possible consequences by the judge you handed your deck list too if you paid attention. It stinks that it went down that way for some, but you did know of the possibilities before you took the easy way out.
 
Last edited:
Whicker said:
Stevep:
Whether or not DQ is the "correct" penalty for a "simple mistake" in the list, it doesn't change the fact that the DQ penalty was made very clear BEFORE you handed in your list. At that point you know what the penalty is, and if you fall under the said infraction you must face that penalty.
Click to expand...
I take-issue if the primary motive for offering the opt-out was to save registration time.

Perhaps the TO saw frustrated players standing in long lines. To help ease some of those frustrated players, maybe he/she allowed the opt-outs with the DQ caveat.

Who knows. I would've done it differently, but I'm not a TO.
 
waynegg said:
They gave every Master in line the option to just hand in their deck list and skip the deck check. They als issued everyone a verbal caution that if they decided to go that route and they top cut with something wrong on their list, that they would receive an automatic DQ. It was out there very plainly and why I waited in the painstakingly long line to have my deck checked.

I was there at nine and other than 'Hi, Wayne' the opt out option was the first thing Fish said to me, including the penalties. Then he boomed it out for everyone to hear and did so at regular intervals. Everyone that opted out was again told of the possible consequences by the judge you handed your deck list too if you paid attention. It stinks that it went down that way for some, but you did know of the possibilities before you took the easy way out.
Click to expand...

Well, either it was too noisy or we just didn't hear it right outside. Either way, I wouldn't call it the easy way out. If everyone deck checked it would have taken probably another hour for deck checks to finish, and we were already running late (this was before the 2 hour delay). If anything, it was an asking for help and some of the trainers decided to help. It's like when a plane overbooks and asks for volunteers to give up their seats so they can have room. Not the best metaphor, I know. As far as it goes, a benefit of the doubt could have came into play here. If the decklist was way off or showed far different, then I could see it and would be behind it fully...something so simple probably could have been easily fixed, especially considering that trainers like him that opting out helped get things done faster.
 
Anyway, for me, it comes down to the true motive for offering the opt-out. Was it merely a convenience for the players, or was it a way for the TO to save registration time? If any part of the latter were the case, I'd take-issue with any penalty escalation.

Personally, if I were a TO, I wouldn't escalate. The reason is because it would have the appearance of the TO "having his cake and eating it too." If I'm going to escalate the penalty if I don't check your deck, then shouldn't I reduce the penalty if I do check?

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

When I used to play another TCG (Lord of the Rings), I once witnessed a DQ for a misspelled card name on the decklist. But, for that TCG, their penalty guidelines specified a DQ for that situation.

I've seen harsh penalties for deck/decklist errors. I'm not a fan of those kind of excessive penalties.

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

thephoenix said:
...It's like when a plane overbooks and asks for volunteers to give up their seats so they can have room. Not the best metaphor, I know....
Click to expand...
Actually, I like that analogy. If more players show up than the TO can deck-check in a "reasonable" amount of time, then allowing opt-outs is a real benefit for the TO.
 
Last edited:
Mloclam said:
What most of you cannot seem to grasp is that the LIST IS WRONG. He played all day with an illegal deck, how you all can say it has no weight on the outcome is beyond me.
Click to expand...

Another absurd comment. Well which is it then? Is it an illegal deck, or an illegal list... you can't have it both ways. You're conflicted. Figure it out.

It is not the judges call to say what is obvious or not in regards to deckbuilding.
Click to expand...

OH! But it is! You see, Judges make these things called... JUDGEMENTS. And judgements are a product of a person's knowledge, experience, and summation of knowledge, not made in a vacuum. And the circumstances created by the TX state judging cabal failed this player.

Whicker said:
Whether or not DQ is the "correct" penalty for a "simple mistake" in the list, it doesn't change the fact that the DQ penalty was made very clear BEFORE you handed in your list. At that point you know what the penalty is, and if you fall under the said infraction you must face that penalty.
Click to expand...

I hate saying this in a debate, but you're missing the point. You are blindly following in step with a ruling without questioning the ruling itself. Answer one question: Does the punishment fit the crime? That's what we have judges for!

This is not 65 cards in a deck. This is not 7 Machamps in a deck. This is transposition of two numbers of legal quantity that bore no competitive advantage for the player. Forget what was declared at the outset. Should the player be DQ'd?

It is completely unreasonable and shameful to DQ somebody under this circumstance.
 
Last edited:
The garbage thing was actually kind of funny. My opponent that round knew I had him beat and he said instead of scooping he was just going to throw some trash on the ground instead. We laughed so hard at it that we kept threatening to call the judge on eachother for stalling because we couldn't focus. He just went "EFF THIS GAME!", crumpled up the regionals sheet, and tossed it down. Luckily he nabbed it in time but it definitely helped ease the stress a bit.

By the way, first time you did it was game loss. Second was DQ.
 
Little Lad said:
Another absurd comment. Well which is it then? Is it an illegal deck, or an illegal list... you can't have it both ways. You're conflicted. Figure it out.



OH! But it is! You see, Judges make these things called... JUDGEMENTS. And judgements are a product of a person's knowledge, experience, and summation of knowledge, not made in a vacuum. And the circumstances created by the TX state judging cabal failed this player.

Game loss for leaving garbage on the floor? What is going on there?
Click to expand...

You can not be serious. If the list is wrong then the deck is illegal. How can you not understand such simple thing.

I see nothing wrong with issuing a dq for an incorrect decklist since, ya know, it is wrong and the person played the whole tournament with an incorrect decklist and essentially cheating every player he played against.

There really is not much room to even argue.
 
Austino said:
IMO: I don't think DQing me followed SOTG at all. I think it was something merely to flex authority and teach a hard lesson. Spirit of the game would be realizing that it was an error on my part, notifying me, and having me correct the issue. I completely understand the list issue was my fault, but was a simple error that shouldn't have resulted the way it did.

HOWEVER, there's nothing I can do about the decision made. I personally know that I did well and nothing about my character or lack of playing ability caused me to lose this Championship, merely a typo. It won't happen again.
Click to expand...

i meant the stealing of the cards ;)
 
I am pretty sure they are just suppose to make him play with it as is or something? I.E he should of got to play with 3 karp 4 gyarados but good luck winning like that
 
Here's a question...could you prove that the difference between the proper decklist and the decklist with the mistake on it would have changed the outcome of the games he played, much less his tournament standing? If so, please, present your case. This isn't a massive change, it was a simple typo. He wasn't playing with illegal cards (one of the biggest reasons for a decklist, unless I'm wrong), he didn't play with more cards than he was allowed, his deck was modified legal and followed every regulation. Where was the deck illegal? The list was wrong, but a quick flip of numbers could have fixed it. Taking things to an extreme much?

Plus, again, read the PDF that Steve posted. It should have stayed at a warning.

Cheating every player. Good god. Get over yourself. Seriously, I'm surprised you think anyone would look at a statement and agree with it. I'm surprised you even posted a statement like that. You had the audacity to claim soneone else was being absurd too...hah...
 
Mloclam said:
You can not be serious. If the list is wrong then the deck is illegal. How can you not understand such simple thing.

I see nothing wrong with issuing a dq for an incorrect decklist since, ya know, it is wrong and the person played the whole tournament with an incorrect decklist and essentially cheating every player he played against.

There really is not much room to even argue.
Click to expand...
The name of the penalty in the guidelines is Legal Deck, Legal Decklist -- no "illegals" whatsoever. The problem at issue was the difference between the deck and the list. The guidelines recommend a Warning penalty, or Game Loss if the judge feels there was a significant advantage gained.

The DQ was given because the TO announced upfront that anyone choosing to forego the deck check assumed the risk of getting DQ'd if there was a deck/decklist problem found later.

I'm not a proponent of TO's making penalties not listed in the guidelines. There is no "official" penalty (or escalation of penalty-level) for players who opt-out of the deck check but later have deck/decklist issues. Technically, you could say this "fits" the gray area called "extenuating circumstances." When TO's allow things to happen such as opt outs that are NOT addressed anywhere in the rules, they are certainly open for debate, ESPECIALLY when they attach the DQ penalty caveat.
 
Mloclam said:
You can not be serious. If the list is wrong then the deck is illegal. How can you not understand such simple thing.

I see nothing wrong with issuing a dq for an incorrect decklist since, ya know, it is wrong and the person played the whole tournament with an incorrect decklist and essentially cheating every player he played against.

There really is not much room to even argue.
Click to expand...

You're having a problem with this, so I'll help you make your own argument.

This list is right. The deck is wrong. Got it? That's the basis of his DQ. The tourney judges looked at his list, found the discrepancy in his deck, and DQ'd him. Not the other way around, and not both at the same time.

Cheating? You would have a typo amount to cheating? You're too extreme. If you're going to render an opinion, you have to consider the minutia of the circumstances. If you're going to build 'typo' into 'illegal deck' and then roll it into 'cheating', you're skipping too many steps in this case.

You have to, you MUST consider the details. If you're going to place yourself in the judges shoes, then you simply must, and painting this situation with a broad brush isn't a judgement, it's a failure.
 
thephoenix said:
Here's a question...could you prove that the difference between the proper decklist and the decklist with the mistake on it would have changed the outcome of the games he played, much less his tournament standing? If so, please, present your case. This isn't a massive change, it was a simple typo. He wasn't playing with illegal cards (one of the biggest reasons for a decklist, unless I'm wrong), he didn't play with more cards than he was allowed, his deck was modified legal and followed every regulation. Where was the deck illegal? The list was wrong, but a quick flip of numbers could have fixed it. Taking things to an extreme much?...
Click to expand...
Actually, the correct remedy (after applying the Warning or GL) would be to make the deck match the decklist, using basic energies as needed if cards are not available.

The "advantage gained" determination is too subjective to prove -- it's one of those "discretionary" subjective things left to the judges.
 
Well, either way, all these options would have been acceptable. Especially considering his deck was still technically legal the entire way through. In the end, it comes down to the DQ being completely unnecessary, especially after he did it to help the tournament start faster.
 
thephoenix said:
Well, either way, all these options would have been acceptable. Especially considering his deck was still technically legal the entire way through. In the end, it comes down to the DQ being completely unnecessary, especially after he did it to help the tournament start faster.
Click to expand...
Ditto, kinda. I think the "unnecessary" part was attaching the DQ caveat in the first place -- just apply the normal penalty guidelines and not add something new.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top