Prize Penalty Issue

[NoPoke]

Most problems with the uncomfortable interaction of a prize penalty with come-from-behind cards can be overcome by altering the number of prizes required to win. For example if your opponent picks up a single prize card penalty then you only need 5 prizes to win (3 for a significant game in matchplay)

 

[Cyrus]

In before:

*Someone says, "Why are you bringing this up now?" This is actually a valid concern that's been around for years.
*Someone says, "Well it's just Durant - who cares?" The truth is that Durant could just as easily benefit from a prize penalty in its favor.

Now that we've got those out of the way, the current (correct me if I'm wrong) penalty guidelines actually allow for escalation to a game loss if necessary.

Here's the relevant text:

*If the Head Judge determines that the offending player gained significant advantage due to [the prize penalty], the starting penalty should be escalated one step. If the Head Judge determines that game state is irreparably broken, this penalty should be escalated to Game Play Error: Severe.

Nothing is really set in stone; the "examples" listed are not all-inclusive, so there are a lot of ways the game state could be severely hindered. For a prize penalty to amount to a game-long unfair advantage for the offending player (e.g., premature access to Twins/late access to twins), that is a very good argument to escalate it past MPP, and into "irreparably broken" territory - game loss.

So my alternative is to just hand out more game losses. It may not be commonplace to hand out game losses for prize card penalties, and it might not seem like the nicest thing to do, but in an instance as described by the OP, it's a lot fairer than just letting the non-guilty party not draw a prize card.Since the rules right now allow for either option, I don't feel there's a necessary change to be made.

 

[NoPoke]

...plus...the reason why we have prize card penalties is because we use single game swiss rather than matchplay. For other games that use matchplay the penalty structure is typically Caution, Warning, Game Loss, Match Loss

 

[Ice'Cold]

By taking a prize card as a penalty, you are further changing the game state, in order to try and rectify an error in the game state. Why not just have the penalty take the "prize card" penatly off the top? And by that I mean, instead of having the player actually take a prize card (further disrupting the game state), just make it so they need to take one less prize card to win the game? (i.e. they win when they take their 5th prize).

 

[dancingaway]

Ok, 2 points:

1) Really? Are we not moaning about enough right now? Can't we just enjoy the game?

2) Here's my solution:
- Usually: Prize penalty
- If a deck wishes to win by decking out: Penalty of X cards discarded from top of deck
- If a deck aims to win by lost-zoning: 1 pokemon placed in lost-zone
- If a deck aims to win on prizes but purposely falls behind (I.e. Truth): They need only take 5 prizes to win

So, we look at the deck and give a prize that is analogous to a prize penalty but fits the aim of the deck. We try and win in more ways than we used to, so we adapt the rules. So it's like giving a choice, but not actually giving a choice because the choice is determined by the aim of the deck, not the player's own choosing mid-game.

But, again, why can't we just enjoy the game?

I guarantee within a week there will be something new that we're complaining about and trying to fix

 

[Raen]

Ok, 2 points:

1) Really? Are we not moaning about enough right now? Can't we just enjoy the game?

2) Here's my solution:
- Usually: Prize penalty
- If a deck wishes to win by decking out: Penalty of X cards discarded from top of deck
- If a deck aims to win by lost-zoning: 1 pokemon placed in lost-zone
- If a deck aims to win on prizes but purposely falls behind (I.e. Truth): They need only take 5 prizes to win

So, we look at the deck and give a prize that is analogous to a prize penalty but fits the aim of the deck. We try and win in more ways than we used to, so we adapt the rules. So it's like giving a choice, but not actually giving a choice because the choice is determined by the aim of the deck, not the player's own choosing mid-game.

But, again, why can't we just enjoy the game?

I guarantee within a week there will be something new that we're complaining about and trying to fix

So, I don't really have anything to add to this topic, but I felt the need to respond to this post, because it bothers me greatly.

Why can't we just enjoy the game? Well, we do. All of us do, that's why we play. That is also why we want things to improve. Nothing is perfect, everything has room for improvement. That applies to the Pokemon TCG and Organized Play.

That means that there are areas that we as players want to see improved. People such as Ness are in a particularly favorable spot to make these kinds of observations and criticisms; He's a 2 time World Champion and has been playing basically since the beginning. He knows what he's talking about, he sees problems, and he'd like to see them improved, for the sake of the game.

That last line is important: FOR THE SAKE OF THE GAME. He loves this game, and wants it to continue to improve. If the game doesn't keep improving, it won't keep growing. If it doesn't keep growing, that's bad for all of us.

To put my point simply: Criticism is expressed almost entirely for the love of the game. We do, indeed, love this game, but want to see it get better and better. I've noticed the PTCG community has been VERY resistant to change, and it bothers me greatly. I hope people learn to accept constructive criticism with an open heart, rather than a closed mind.

 

[dancingaway]

I agree entirely!

He clearly is a very passionate player in a unique position and is absolutely the person to fight the battles that need fighting.

We also DO need to fight for change when it's needed.

You'll notice the caveats added to both those statements.

There are certain decks (Durant, Lostgar, The Truth) that do not benefit from a prize penalty. In the same way there are some decks that do worse in best of 3. I don't need to point out the obvious solution

Also, i am disappointed that, despite my thinking that this is not a worthwhile argument, i still suggested a sensible and thought-out solution to the question posed, and yet the response given was purely to my criticism of this argument, with no mention of me taking the time and effort to express what i thought was a worthwhile solution.

 

[SteveP]

Gaining an unfair advantage, unintentionally, needs to be rectified or offset somehow. If the penalty doesn't do that, then the judge probably needs to make further corrective actions. However, I'd leave that to the judge's discretion since situations are often unique.

The following quote from the penalty guidelines specifically points at the failure to place prize cards at the beginning of the game. I think it could be expanded to account for other types of "unwindable" errors, resulting in a game loss instead of prize penalty.

*[FONT=Calibri,Calibri][FONT=Calibri,Calibri]If the Head Judge determines that the offending player gained significant advantage due to this error, the starting penalty should be escalated one step. If the Head Judge determines that game state is irreparably broken, this penalty should be escalated to Game Play Error: Severe.[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[Ness]

By taking a prize card as a penalty, you are further changing the game state, in order to try and rectify an error in the game state. Why not just have the penalty take the "prize card" penatly off the top? And by that I mean, instead of having the player actually take a prize card (further disrupting the game state), just make it so they need to take one less prize card to win the game? (i.e. they win when they take their 5th prize).

This still does not solve the problem of the penalty being useless to the player playing Durant or Gengar.

 

[NoPoke]

This still does not solve the problem of the penalty being useless to the player playing Durant or Gengar.

Penalties aren't supposed to be a reward to either player.

Though some aspect of reward (redress) is unavoidable it is the unintended reward aspect of a penalty that can drive some players to deliberately engineer a mistake to gain advantage from the anticipated penalty. Shifting the point at which a player wins avoids any risk that come-from-behind cards may be acitvated for the benefit of the player commiting the infraction.

I hope that players remember that taking the cards associated with prize penalties is optional. You are not forced to enable an opponents Twins.

 

[djjoe227]

I've always been under the belief that if a rule is broken, a penalty for the tournament should take place, not the game. Penalties that involve prizes change the game. It's a different game when things like that happen. If a player does something wrong, they should be reprimanded by the tournament- a Game loss, loss of time in a round, auto-loss in Sudden Death- something that isn't changeable within the bounds of the game itself.

When you do something like a Prize Penalty, I feel it's followed up by, subconsciously, a series of questions all beginning with "What if?"

 

[vaporeon]

They need to re-look the Prize Penalty. Giving someone a prize because of some fixable error changes the game. Giving someone a 'free' prize makes the game unfixable.

A game loss should be issued if a player was caught cheating, not because they forget to set down prize cards after drawing a card. If I were a judge, I'd force both players to restart the game. Player A should have remember to put them down but I know we are all human and make mistakes under pressure and player B should have reminded Player A to put them down and not call a judge after he drew a card or played a search card trying to get a cheap win. If anything, I would give Player B the game loss for trying to rule shark.

A Penalty is just that, a Penalty. It's not suppose to award the opponent in an unfair way. If they make a game play mistake, you as a judge should want to try to fix the game and make it fair again. Listen to both sides, assess the had sizes, cards in discard pile/lost zone, pokemon in play and make a ruling both players can agree on. If you can't do that, then allow the opponent of the offending player to draw 1 or 2 cards according to how bad the offense was but a game lost or prize card gain is just too unbalanced.

it's like letting your opponent take a prize card because you did not have a basic Pokemon in your starting hand to setup with. Also, what about the judges? They make incorrect rulings all the time and they are STILL allowed to judge. My brother got ruled against a Pluspower Bolt Strike from his opponents Zekrom saying the 2 Plupowers won't KO the Zekrom because the attack does 40 and not 60. That was his last prize he needed to take. A judge ruined and that and make it unfixable because they did not know the new ruling. That judge cost my brother a win and yet we are worried about players forgetting to set down prize cards?

Last thing, what is up with you and unfair advantages anyway? Why can't you just play the game and not try and find faults in everyone you play. You strike me as a person I don't want to play if you're going to try to punish me because of my play style. like, you really need to fix that.

 

[psychup2034]

Penalties aren't supposed to be a reward to either player.

Penalties, by definition, are supposed to reward the opponent of the offending player. I'm not exactly sure where you get the idea that a penalty isn't support to reward either player...

penalty [ˈpɛnəltɪ]
n pl -ties
1. (Law) a legal or official punishment, such as a term of imprisonment
2. some other form of punishment, such as a fine or forfeit for not fulfilling a contract
3. loss, suffering, or other unfortunate result of one's own action, error, etc.
4. (General Sporting Terms) Sport Games a handicap awarded against a player or team for illegal play, such as a free shot at goal by the opposing team, loss of points, etc.

 

[mudkipmaster]

Also, what about the judges? They make incorrect rulings all the time and they are STILL allowed to judge. My brother got ruled against a Pluspower Bolt Strike from his opponents Zekrom saying the 2 Plupowers won't KO the Zekrom because the attack does 40 and not 60. That was his last prize he needed to take. A judge ruined and that and make it unfixable because they did not know the new ruling. That judge cost my brother a win and yet we are worried about players forgetting to set down prize cards?

The Judges are only human, and people make mistakes. Nobody is perfect.

 

[vaporeon]

The Judges are only human, and people make mistakes. Nobody is perfect.

But when judges make the mistake, they don't lose their right to judge. When a player makes a mistake, they get a game loss. There is something wrong there.

 

[TheRolesWePlay]

They need to re-look the Prize Penalty. Giving someone a prize because of some fixable error changes the game. Giving someone a 'free' prize makes the game unfixable.

What Planet are you living on? Because here on Planet Earth Prize Penlties are issued when an unfair advantage is produced to compensate a player for the problems.

A game loss should be issued if a player was caught cheating, not because they forget to set down prize cards after drawing a card. If I were a judge, I'd force both players to restart the game. Player A should have remember to put them down but I know we are all human and make mistakes under pressure and player B should have reminded Player A to put them down and not call a judge after he drew a card or played a search card trying to get a cheap win. If anything, I would give Player B the game loss for trying to rule shark.

A game lose is generally issued when a game is virtually unfixable, and little to nothing can be done to restore the game state. If a player is caught purposefully cheating they may be issued a game loss (as the game state is broken) or be issued a DQ. Game losses and DQs don't happen at the drop of a hat, and meant to be used for worst case scenarios. Also restarting a game can eat up large amounts of time and can cause other problems. Finally issuing a game loss for trying to seek proper mediation for a problem is not 'rule sharking.'

A Penalty is just that, a Penalty. It's not suppose to award the opponent in an unfair way. If they make a game play mistake, you as a judge should want to try to fix the game and make it fair again. Listen to both sides, assess the had sizes, cards in discard pile/lost zone, pokemon in play and make a ruling both players can agree on. If you can't do that, then allow the opponent of the offending player to draw 1 or 2 cards according to how bad the offense was but a game lost or prize card gain is just too unbalanced.

While your right on whether or not you find the prize penalty is too severe or not that's what those in charge of the rules think is the best tool to fixing the majority of problems (that and time extensions). I'm not going to try explain why, as I may be off on my reasoning, but drawing cards is probably viewed as more of a destructive thing than a helpful tool in their eyes.

it's like letting your opponent take a prize card because you did not have a basic Pokemon in your starting hand to setup with. Also, what about the judges? They make incorrect rulings all the time and they are STILL allowed to judge. My brother got ruled against a Pluspower Bolt Strike from his opponents Zekrom saying the 2 Plupowers won't KO the Zekrom because the attack does 40 and not 60. That was his last prize he needed to take. A judge ruined and that and make it unfixable because they did not know the new ruling. That judge cost my brother a win and yet we are worried about players forgetting to set down prize cards?

As described above judges do make mistakes in their judging at times, but you are free to appeal to the Head Judge if you are uncomfortable with the judges ruling. Judges have a lot on their plate at times, and can be wrong in their evaluation of a situation, because of a number of reasons. But in the end judges are left with responsibility to judge due to the trust made between PTOs and Pokemon as they have separated themselves from the herd, and should hold no bias on a match. A player on the other hand is influenced by their games, and lack the connection of trust to the PTO, and Pokemon.

 

[vaporeon]

What Planet are you living on? Because here on Planet Earth Prize Penlties are issued when an unfair advantage is produced to compensate a player for the problems.



A game lose is generally issued when a game is virtually unfixable, and little to nothing can be done to restore the game state. If a player is caught purposefully cheating they may be issued a game loss (as the game state is broken) or be issued a DQ. Game losses and DQs don't happen at the drop of a hat, and meant to be used for worst case scenarios. Also restarting a game can eat up large amounts of time and can cause other problems. Finally issuing a game loss for trying to seek proper mediation for a problem is not 'rule sharking.'

Yeah, that's called rule sharking. A game can be fixed if the time is put into it. Forgetting to set prizes should not be a game loss. Ether let them set their prizes from there or restart the game.

While your right on weather or not you find the prize penalty is too severe or not that's what those in charge of the rules think is the best tool to fixing the majority of problems (that and time extensions). I'm not going to try explain why, as I may be off on my reasoning, but drawing cards is probably viewed as more of a destructive thing than a helpful tool in their eyes.

It depends. I would rather draw a card or 2 then take a prize card or win a game because of a game loss.

As described above judges do make mistakes in their judging at times, but you are free to appeal to the Head Judge if you are uncomfortable with the judges ruling. Judges have a lot on their plate at times, and can be wrong in their evaluation of a situation, because of a number of reasons. But in the end judges are left with responsibility to judge due to the trust made between PTOs and Pokemon as they have separated themselves from the heard, and should hold no bias on a match. A player on the other hand is influenced by their games, and lack the connection of trust to the PTO, and Pokemon.

My brother does not play the game as much as I do so he does not know about the little things. I was playing a game while he was playing and had I heard that, I would have said something. When I'm playing a game, I expect judges to know all rulings. It amazed me how many judges did not know about the new plus power rule. Even I knew about that.

 

[Viva piñata]

But when judges make the mistake, they don't lose their right to judge. When a player makes a mistake, they get a game loss. There is something wrong there.

Game loss is completly different from a judge being told he/she cannot judge anymore because of one ruling. Its human to be wrong sometimes.

 

[vaporeon]

Game loss is completly different from a judge being told he/she cannot judge anymore because of one ruling. Its human to be wrong sometimes.

it should not matter if its a player or a judge. If you're going to punish someone, then do it equity. The same judge gave the wrong pluspower ruling twice that same day. That incorrect ruling not only damaged the game but changed the course of the whole tournament.

 

[ShadowGuard]

What about offering two options to hand down the prize loss? The opponent of the offending player gets to choose if he wants to draw a prize himself, or if he wants to put the top card of his opponent's deck to his prizes. It wouldn't solve the Twins/N problem but give decks like Durant or Lostgar the option to take benefit of the prize loss. In addition, most of the slower decks like The Truth or Chandelure rather want to give their opponent an additional prize they have to take and therefor get more time.

it should not matter if its a player or a judge. If you're going to punish someone, then do it equity. The same judge gave the wrong pluspower ruling twice that same day. That incorrect ruling not only damaged the game but changed the course of the whole tournament.

Ask for the head judge. If he's head judge himself, ask him to refer the compendium (as long as you're absolutely sure he's incorrect). Most stores or tournament locations have internet access, or someone may have a smartphone. If he refuses to check back that ruling and it turns out to be wrong, he's a bad judge and you can report him to P!P. If there's no option to get a verification, it's a mistake and you can't do anything about it.