Slow Play Being Allowed Too Often? EDIT: Stance adjusted.

[Kayle]

Please make a point that you can defend :/

What would you like me to say? I've admitted to there being logic and validity to both sides of the argument.

No. If I look at the clock, and I see that my opponent has taken 30 seconds to determine his/her next move. I know he/she is slow playing. That's objective.

Your post should end here, and you're absolutely right, but you're reading the wrong meaning from my posts entirely and you should probably just move along with your argument and point of view because I doubt you care to understand what I'm talking about in the first place. =/



Pokemon is a game. A game needs to be fun or else it fails. Slow play can ruin it competitively; rushed play, where one feels pressured to play at a higher pace because you're ruleslawyering (please excuse the strong term, I don't know of a milder one) them into taking your version of an "appropriate time" for their actions, can ruin it as an enjoyable experience.

If I was sitting next to my girlfriend while she played you, and you called her on slow play, I'd roll my eyes, encourage her to speed up a little, and keep playing my own game. If you continued to get upset, though, and tried to time her actions so that she followed the "objective" definition of a lively pace? She's not cheating, she's not doing anything unfair, she just needs some extra time to think, and you're destroying her experience. You'd be lucky if all I did was walk out of the tournament, because boy would I be mad, and I would be thoroughly "impressed" (sarcastic...) if a judge actually approved of such behavior. That's my point.

I admit to emotional bias on the subject. If you just want me to talk about Ross, I would say Ross was playing just fine, the judges are doing their job, and no one needs to get their hair up in a fuss because one (very well-known) player tends to play kinda slow.

 

[K2theAblaM]

How can someone admit to emotional bias and still expect to be taken seriously when debating an objective topic?

Blows my mind.

 

[Kayle]

How can someone admit to emotional bias and still expect to be taken seriously when debating an objective topic?

Blows my mind.

Well, sorry. =/

I have a point that I feel like is worthy of consideration.

I'm not trying to tell anyone they're wrong, and it feels like everyone's trying to draw that out of me. Nobody's wrong. But I feel that there's a point of view being overlooked.

 

[psychup2034]

Pokemon is a game. A game needs to be fun or else it fails. Slow play can ruin it competitively; rushed play, where one feels pressured to play at a higher pace because you're ruleslawyering (please excuse the strong term, I don't know of a milder one) them into taking your version of an "appropriate time" for their actions, can ruin it as an enjoyable experience.

Pokemon is a game. A game needs to have rules or else it fails. Slow play can ruin a game completely.

Rushing your opponent is against the rules. However, asking your opponent to play faster because your opponent is slow playing or asking a judge over to watch your opponent play is not against the rules. No-one's ruleslawyering by asking a judge to watch their opponent. I don't have my version of "appropriate time." I abide by the rules of the game when I define what is "appropriate time."

You don't abibe by the rules when you define appropriate time. That's the difference; you have your own inaccurate interpretation of the rules. You claim that "what seems 'slow' to you has a lot to do with your mental state, the pace of play you're used to, and a number of other subjective factors." That's absolutely wrong. What's slow is defined as the rules to be an objective measure of a number of seconds.

That's not saying that judges and players aren't understanding when someone takes a little longer to make a decision at a critical juncture of the game. However, when slow playing is habitual, there's a problem. Being able to make sound decisions under pressure is part of the skill associated with the game.

If I was sitting next to my girlfriend while she played you, and you called her on slow play, I'd roll my eyes, encourage her to speed up a little, and keep playing my own game. If you continued to get upset, though, and tried to time her actions so that she followed the "objective" definition of a lively pace? She's not cheating, she's not doing anything unfair, she just needs some extra time to think, and you're destroying her experience. You'd be lucky if all I did was walk out of the tournament, because boy would I be mad, and I would be thoroughly "impressed" (sarcastic...) if a judge actually approved of such behavior. That's my point.

Here's the point you're missing. I would never time her actions so that she followed the "objective" definition of a lively pace. I would call a judge over to do that. If I timed her, I would be at risk for incurring a penalty for rushing. If I call a judge over, the judge can decide whether she is playing at an appropriate pace.

The stakes also matter. I've let people slow play me at Battle Roads where the results are relatively inconsequential. At States or Regionals where there is money on the line, there's no way I'm letting anyone slow play me. It's nothing personal. It's the rules. I'd be an idiot to let someone slow play me in those circumstances.

 

[Kayle]

That's not saying that judges and players aren't understanding when someone takes a little longer to make a decision at a critical juncture of the game. However, when slow playing is habitual, there's a problem. Being able to make sound decisions under pressure is part of the skill associated with the game.

This is fair. I just don't believe someone who plays so slow that you could say they don't have the ability to make decisions under pressure actually exists in this discussion. Ross is definitely not that person, and as a lower bound, Ross has had many warnings in his past for his play, so we know that he's not being given leeway for whatever reason.

Here's the point you're missing. I would never time her actions so that she followed the "objective" definition of a lively pace. I would call a judge over to do that. If I timed her, I would be at risk for incurring a penalty for rushing. If I call a judge over, the judge can decide whether she is playing at an appropriate pace.

And that's fine, but the tone I get from this discussion (and your previous posts) is that people disagree with the way judges were handling it, in which case I ended up feeling like people were going to take it into their own hands, which is inappropriate for many reasons.

I'm not saying that people should be allowed to slow play their way to an advantage, I'm saying that slow play shouldn't be automatically suspicious or cause for alarm. You get that I think (sorry for getting so upset with you over it!), but I didn't feel like others were really paying attention to it.


I do really want to come back to this briefly...

You claim that "what seems 'slow' to you has a lot to do with your mental state, the pace of play you're used to, and a number of other subjective factors." That's absolutely wrong. What's slow is defined as the rules to be an objective measure of a number of seconds.

Reread this, understanding that I feel like people are trying to say that judges are too lenient on slow play and that they should be harsher. My point isn't that the rules-bound definition of slow should be changed or considered subjective, my point is that people complaining about slow play need to be aware that their perception of the match is likely to be skewed. The judges' perception is not.

I don't abide by timekeeping or time manipulation in Pokemon (ironic, given my stance in this topic) so I don't really pay any attention to the idea of someone actually timing their opponent's actions. That's a judge's job.

 

[Pidgeotto Trainer]

Jay, you are absolutely my friend. I didn't appreciate your first comment before my last post, but I'm not going to hold it past that, and I hope you aren't offended by my response.

I understand your point. Players are always free to call a judge to monitor. The 15 min per side argument isn't really fair though either. Should I be penalized for you playing very fast? What if your hands are straightforward and mine are not? I think people in general would agree that everyone should be given 'some amount' of time to think. How long that is very context dependent with a few guidelines to help. (but not be the letter of the law…more on this 3 paragraphs down)

I want to make this very clear: I know a player cannot take 10 minutes a turn. I know there are limits and the reasons for them. (both for opponent and for the tournament as a whole) It is a BALANCE. Players should have enough time (which is context dependent) to think and make their moves. Players should not take too much time, hurting their opponent and the tournament pace. What is the balance here? I won all my top cut games without time being a factor. I won them because I thought about my moves. Pretty good balance it sounds like to me. Given the active judging in this tournament, I think it very likely that if I were in a position in top cut to benefit from judge-deemed slow play, a time extension would be given. And it was given once, although it did not affect the outcome. (or even affect the game actually, I would've taken my 6th prize in plus 3 had time been called then)

Given that I won the tournament without time really being a factor, would it have been fair had I been rushed extensively into a mistake? I really do believe that any player would love to see the best games decided by players with enough time to think about their moves, but not so slow that their opponent's chances and the tournament at large are affected. That was the case for the top cut of this tournament. But some posts here make it sound like some people would literally ask me to hurry up 10 seconds after drawing my first card because that's what the guidelines say. To me, that's just ridiculous. And if that type of behavior would make me lose because of a mistake or a penalty, instead of me winning within the time limits as I did, that seems just as unfair as winning on time.

ryanvergel, to be brief I DO think that players give value to having the time to think. And I'll just say that I think most players (in lieu of other side effects) would like to have time to think and make correct plays. If the timescales are reasonable, I don't think taking more time to make the correct play is an unfair advantage. You say yourself that you have taken more time and been told to hurry up. But you might say I am at another level of slowness to the level of 'unreasonable' I would guess. This is probably sometimes true, but it's far from always. I don't recall getting any time warnings for my Worlds 2011 run, which is on video. Your post and others I feel like blow my pace of play speed out of proportion. Forget counting the seconds of one of my games on video. The fact that I won all my top cut games without time being a factor is evidence my pace is good enough most of the time. And when it hasn't been, judges are there to intervene. I've never received 2 warnings for slow play before this regionals. I've probably received a warning for slow play in 3 or 4 tournaments, and I've played in many top cuts with judges sitting right by me with no issues. I can only recall a few individual games where I won because of time and would otherwise lose, certainly not strings of them to win tournaments. (and several times losing by time as mentioned) And I've won lots of events. If my pace of play is not usually affecting my opponent or the tournament, but I'm making smart plays, I think I'm playing at a good pace.

I won't pretend I am not slow and some level of judge intervention was entirely appropriate in different games I was involved in. But people advocating those listed time GUIDELINES to be letter of the law are crazy. No one stays with in those guidelines all the time or even most of the time. 10 seconds to consider what to do next after drawing a new 7 off of Juniper? That's just silly. No one should follow those guidelines as the one and only arbiter of slow play. I could be much slower if I played down 8 different cards on turn 1 taking 10-20 seconds per card, doing 3 separate searches, and shuffling and offering to cut each time. Instead I play the much more logical: think for a minute, play a bunch of cards quickly, and if I know I'm searching twice, I don't waste completely unnecessary time by shuffling in between. Though I could do all those things legally apparently if those guidelines were to be adhered to strictly. Sadly, to an observer, the 10-20 seconds per card probably looks a lot better than the 1 minute to think +many cards at once, though the 10-20 second per card way is probably what one would do to try to stall. A good set of guidelines would include something about combining searches to speed up pace of play btw. That would be much more logical than the 10 second decision guideline. Also, slow play/stalling calls should be context dependent for anti-stalling reasons too. As for example a player with no playable cards, no abilities and a pokemon that can't retreat or attack actually should be held to 5 seconds with no leeway.

There is a balance between playing too slow and playing too fast to be smart. I probably walk the slow line more than other players (though I'm not alone even if I'm the one with multiple games on video to show it) IMO, this is just getting blown up out of proportion. Again, I WON the tournament WITHOUT time being a factor, and I've played many many tournaments where it wasn't and I didn't have any time issues. Given that, a whole thread about my pace of play doesn't feel deserved. I know there are some generic issues at play, but I'm certainly being portrayed by some as some kind of slow monster. I'm not happy to be the focus of this thread, when competitive side-effects of my pace of play were in reality a negligible part of my win this weekend, and my career as a player.

As an aside, what deck you are playing matters so much. If I wasn't playing Victini, this would have been less of an issue as games would finish even faster. (and yet again, I STILL won my top cut matches in time) If I don't screw up my Fires round 8, I win outright and no one is talking despite the times of my first 3 turns being exactly the same. Furthermore for example, if you are playing Vileplume you never have to check your opponent's discard for catchers. In this format, you have to do things like that all the time.

In summary, I just want people to recognize the balance between being allowed to think and thinking too long. I don't think my pace is as egregious as some posts here indicate because I've played many many tournaments without time being a factor. Judges are there to decide. The guidelines are not for strict enforcement. Though as people have said, you can always call a judge if you want. I hope they will be as reasonable as most judges are and know what are 'guidelines' as well. I would hate for people to actually crack down so much on slow play that we have the opposite problem. But I think the judges will continue to know a good balance in general.

I apologize that this post is likely more defensive than needed. There are good points being brought up. I just don't think I should be getting as much attention as I personally am from some posts. Judges were watching me the whole tournament and in top cut would have actively intervened, though they ended up not needing to. And again I hope this thread doesn't lead to unreasonable time enforcements in general.

 

[psychup2034]

But people advocating those listed time GUIDELINES to be letter of the law are crazy. No one stays with in those guidelines all the time or even most of the time. 10 seconds to consider what to do next after drawing a new 7 off of Juniper? That's just silly. No one should follow those guidelines as the one and only arbiter of slow play. I could be much slower if I played down 8 different cards on turn 1 taking 10-20 seconds per card, doing 3 separate searches, and shuffling and offering to cut each time. Instead I play the much more logical: think for a minute, play a bunch of cards quickly, and if I know I'm searching twice, I don't waste completely unnecessary time by shuffling in between. Though I could do all those things legally apparently if those guidelines were to be adhered to strictly. Sadly, to an observer, the 10-20 seconds per card probably looks a lot better than the 1 minute to think +many cards at once, though the 10-20 second per card way is probably what one would do to try to stall. A good set of guidelines would include something about combining searches to speed up pace of play btw. That would be much more logical than the 10 second decision guideline. Also, slow play/stalling calls should be context dependent for anti-stalling reasons too. As for example a player with no playable cards, no abilities and a pokemon that can't retreat or attack actually should be held to 5 seconds with no leeway.

No-one's advocating that the time guidelines always be the letter of the law, but the guidelines exist for a reason. Without guidelines, there is no benchmark that judges can fall back on to justify their determination of what is slow play. It is absolutely not crazy to expect my opponent to make most of their decisions within 10 seconds. I am a player who stays within the guidelines most of the time. If you take a look at some of my recorded matches, you will see that I rarely—if ever—take more than 10 seconds to make any decision. The decisions I do take a while to make are all at critical junctures of the game; even for those decisions, I rarely take over 10 seconds. During my opponent's turn, I'm thinking about what I need to do. When I'm shuffling my deck for a PONT or N, I think about what I might do with particular cards that I draw. It rarely takes more than 10 seconds to decide what to play after a Juniper. Being able to make correct decisions in a timely manner is a skill of the game.

I am against the "think for a minute and then play all at once." Not only is thinking for a minute clearly slow playing (and thus in the category of a punishable offense), but it's often impossible to differentiate whether someone is just a slow player, whether that player is trying to stall, or both. That's why there are timing rules in place, so that judges don't have to make the difficult call of "is this guy just a slow player or is he trying to slow play his opponent?"

As for your point of taking 10-20 seconds between each action, the rules state that "players attempting to compartmentalize their turn in order to use every second of the time allowed ... are almost certainly stalling and should be subject to the Unsporting Conduct: Severe penalties." (Judging from your post, I'm sure you recognize this as well.)

If my opponent were at a critical juncture of the game, I would give him 30-40 seconds after a Juniper (at most) to decide what to do. If my opponent takes a minute after 2 or 3 different Supporters to figure out their move, I'm most certainly calling a judge over to watch this game.

I've had horrible experiences with being slow played against early in my Pokemon career. Thus, I am a strong proponent of maintaining a lively pace of play at all times, as the rules of the game stipulate.

 

[ryanvergel]

Again, I WON the tournament WITHOUT time being a factor,

What do you mean when you say you won without time being a factor?

-how many of your games went to time?
-how many games did you win on time?
-were there games you probably would not have won if you had played faster and your opponent gotten more turns (like the video in reference?)
-the video in reference, you are turn 0, and you probably would not have won if you were turn 1 instead. do you think this is the case? if so, then how is this a win without time being a factor?

One thing I noticed that was odd was how you wore your watch- it was sideways. It was worn at an awkward angle that I never see people wearing their watches in public. This is the second regionals winner I've seen so far to wear their watches in an abnormal fashion. Was this to be able to monitor the clock without appearing like you were?

--
I think this thread gets so much attention because as a very successful player, you are going to be under more scrutiny. People are more apt to hear of your playstyle, watch your games, etc. I don't think this thread will influence much, though. I think judges will still monitor time fairly well.

 

[losjackal]

I've had horrible experiences with being slow played against early in my Pokemon career. Thus, I am a strong proponent of maintaining a lively pace of play at all times, as the rules of the game stipulate.

And there are players on the opposite end of the spectrum from you. Good thing the judges are in the middle to be in charge of making determinations about these guidelines.

During my opponent's turn, I'm thinking about what I need to do. When I'm shuffling my deck for a PONT or N, I think about what I might do with particular cards that I draw. It rarely takes more than 10 seconds to decide what to play after a Juniper. Being able to make correct decisions in a timely manner is a skill of the game.

I really think you are off the mark here, for several reasons:

1. Just because you are focused on your hand and your board position during your opponent's turn doesn't mean that others play that way. They may be watching their opponent to make sure they only attach one energy per turn, to make sure they only play one Supporter per turn, to pay attention to what they are discarding with an Ultra Ball or a Juniper, and at the very highest form of play putting themselves in their opponents shoes, imagining their decklist, and trying to surmise what strategy the opponent is going to do next.
2. There is a difference between drawing a card at the beginning of a turn and thinking about it for 10 seconds versus playing a Juniper and drawing seven fresh cards. That is a lot more new information, and it takes time to process. A good judge would understand this difference and take it into consideration if called upon.
3. Agreed that making correct decisions in a timely manner is a good skill to have, but not all players have it. If you don't have it, you shouldn't be forced to rush just because of a guideline. As you say, the guidelines are for a judge to have a benchmark to make a ruling. It's not for a player to obey every turn of the game.

I am against the "think for a minute and then play all at once." Not only is thinking for a minute clearly slow playing (and thus in the category of a punishable offense), but it's often impossible to differentiate whether someone is just a slow player, whether that player is trying to stall, or both. That's why there are timing rules in place, so that judges don't have to make the difficult call of "is this guy just a slow player or is he trying to slow play his opponent?"

And some people think differently. Thanks for clarifying your position, but please allow people to have their positions as well. [DEL]I'm also troubled that you are interchaging "slow playing" and "playing slowly". The difference to me is, "slow playing" is intentionally running time off the clock, which yes is against the rules.[/DEL] But the game allows for people to think for a minute and play all at once, as judges have already said in this thread.

Actually, judges are indeed required to make the difficult call of determining slow play vs. playing slowly...quoting also from the Penalty Guidelines: "However, the way players react to pressure can have an impact on the tempo at which they take their turns. Judges should watch for changes in tempo and make corrections if needed."

If my opponent were at a critical juncture of the game, I would give him 30-40 seconds after a Juniper (at most) to decide what to do.

I'm relieved that you can see the need for 30-40 seconds instead of just 10, but what's considered critical is subjective. You may have an opinion, the player may have an opinion, and even a judge called over may have a different opinion. For example: Professor Juniper....more "critical" early game or late game? Some might say late game, because you have to be careful about decking yourself. But if you're going for that one Catcher you know is in your deck for the win, maybe it's critical but doesn't take a lot of thought to know that's the right play. On the other hand, Juniper the first time of the game? Quite possibly that is a much more critical play without knowing what's in your deck or prizes. The player considering the Juniper knows how critical Junipering away two Catchers and two Supporters may be to refresh their hand, but you as the opponent may not have that appreciation given what you can see.

 

[ryanvergel]

I'm also troubled that you are interchaging "slow playing" and "playing slowly". The difference to me is, "slow playing" is intentionally running time off the clock, which yes is against the rules.

I would say your definition of "slow playing" is closer to 'stalling'. Slowplay/playing slowly are the same thing. When there is intentionality, it becomes stalling.

 

[LibertyFigter]

My friend Kayle has a fair bit of emotional weight guiding his opinion, and I feel is being dismissed too readily because of that. So, I shall take up what I believe to be his point and argue it in his stead (without his recommendation or request). Most of this is directed at Psychup, as he seems to be the one most in favor of the position that opposes mine.

The bottom line is that, no matter how much one wishes slow play and stalling to have a hard and fast objective distinction (I personally don't, but that's not relevant here), they do not.

In general, the following time limits for various game actions should be appropriate. The times given below are general guidelines;

As you can see from the bolded sections of the ruling cited, this is not an actual objective standard players can be held to. The ruling itself states that in most (not all) situations these will probably (not definitely) be appropriate guidelines (not rules). Objectivity means that there is an absolute, unchangeable, standard principle that can be applied to all relevant situations without fail. By the ruling's own wording, by judges' own admissions, and by your own description, some decisions take longer to make than others. Giving someone 30-40 seconds to make a decision off of a Juniper is acknowledging that you do not think the guidelines are objective. Even saying "objective guidelines" is, in itself, a misnomer.

To bring this back to the discussion of slow play, and trying to keep this based in rulings and reasoned language: The hand is private information. That private information dictates, at least in part, the difficulty level of a decision a player must make. Thus, you do not know how long is appropriate for your opponent to make a decision. You may think you can fall back on the cited section of the rulebook, however, even that section itself admits it cannot be applied in all situations. Thus, whether or not you physically time your opponent to the exact second that they have according to general guidelines to play, you can not 100% assert that they are "slow playing" you.

Now, I don't think you (Psychup) actually think that. And I think, to be completely honest, everyone, including Kayle, is in agreement. Everyone seems to be advocating the exact same course of action: if you feel as if your opponent is playing slower than what you deem a "lively" pace, you may ask them politely to speed up and/or call a judge to make that call for you. At that point, it is in the judge's hands.

Past that, to address the issue of players being both players and judges (not both at the same time, of course): When a player is a judge, he has access to the "slow" player's hand, your hand, and all relevant information to determine an appropriate pace of play. He has access to how much time is left in a round. When that player is a player, he does not have that information, thus does not have the ability to make as informed a decision. He also, as Kayle stated, will have personal bias towards the situation.

 

[losjackal]

I would say your definition of "slow playing" is closer to 'stalling'. Slowplay/playing slowly are the same thing. When there is intentionality, it becomes stalling.

I stand corrected! Stalling is subject to Unsportsmanlike Conduct: Severe penalty. Thanks.

 

[Jaeger]

I'm relieved that you can see the need for 30-40 seconds instead of just 10, but what's considered critical is subjective. You may have an opinion, the player may have an opinion, and even a judge called over may have a different opinion. For example: Professor Juniper....more "critical" early game or late game? Some might say late game, because you have to be careful about decking yourself. But if you're going for that one Catcher you know is in your deck for the win, maybe it's critical but doesn't take a lot of thought to know that's the right play. On the other hand, Juniper the first time of the game? Quite possibly that is a much more critical play without knowing what's in your deck or prizes. The player considering the Juniper knows how critical Junipering away two Catchers and two Supporters may be to refresh their hand, but you as the opponent may not have that appreciation given what you can see.

IMO Crucial plays are like 1-2 pergame. I would allow my opponent maybe one 30-40 second thought process. It is not an every turn...or a handful of times pergame.

 

[psychup2034]

I really think you are off the mark here, for several reasons:

1. Just because you are focused on your hand and your board position during your opponent's turn doesn't mean that others play that way. They may be watching their opponent to make sure they only attach one energy per turn, to make sure they only play one Supporter per turn, to pay attention to what they are discarding with an Ultra Ball or a Juniper, and at the very highest form of play putting themselves in their opponents shoes, imagining their decklist, and trying to surmise what strategy the opponent is going to do next.
2. There is a difference between drawing a card at the beginning of a turn and thinking about it for 10 seconds versus playing a Juniper and drawing seven fresh cards. That is a lot more new information, and it takes time to process. A good judge would understand this difference and take it into consideration if called upon.
3. Agreed that making correct decisions in a timely manner is a good skill to have, but not all players have it. If you don't have it, you shouldn't be forced to rush just because of a guideline. As you say, the guidelines are for a judge to have a benchmark to make a ruling. It's not for a player to obey every turn of the game.

Let me respond to your points one by one:

1. I certainly didn’t start off doing that when I was 10. Why am I focused on my hand and my board position during my opponent’s turn? I developed that skill because I wanted to not break any rules regarding slow play. In fact, I’ve never been given a warning by a judge for slow playing in the 6 seasons that I played Pokemon competitively. Keeping track of the game state (what your opponent is doing) and thinking of your own strategy are not mutually exclusive. If a player needs to break the rules by habitually slow playing (taking a minute to think about what they want to do during their turn), then that player would benefit from thinking about their next turn during their opponent’s turn. I understand that everyone takes different amounts of time to think about their moves, but when the time it takes you to think about the moves is more than you’re allotted, you need to speed up your play. Those are the rules of the game. Players must follow the rules of the game. It’s that simple.
2. Let me refer you to the rules: “Considering the game position before playing a card: 10 seconds”. Now, I’m not going to tell my opponent to speed up if he/she occasionally takes 20 seconds to decide what to do after playing a Supporter. However, if taking 20 seconds to think about a move every turn is habitual for my opponent, I would be an idiot to not call over a judge and have the judge watch the game. I’m not an idiot. I understand there are situations where one would take longer to think about their move, but if the lengthy thought process is perpetual throughout a match, then that player is slow playing. Slow playing is against the rules.
3. Great, I’m glad we agree on something. However, the fact that a player doesn’t have a particular skill (or that the skill isn’t refined) doesn’t preclude that player from following the rules. If the lack of a skill prevents a player from following the rules (playing in a timely fashion), then that player needs to work on developing the skills required to play in a timely fashion. The rule is that slow playing is a penalty. The guidelines are in place to help a judge determine whether a player is slow playing or not. If a player exceeds the guidelines in several turns, then it is pretty darn easy for a judge to determine that the particular player is slow playing. When have I ever claimed that a player most obey the guidelines every turn of the game? Never.

And some people think differently. Thanks for clarifying your position, but please allow people to have their positions as well. I'm also troubled that you are interchaging "slow playing" and "playing slowly". The difference to me is, "slow playing" is intentionally running time off the clock, which yes is against the rules.

There’s no difference between slow playing and playing slowly in the eyes of the rules. There’s a difference between slow playing and stalling that I think you’re missing…

But the game allows for people to think for a minute and play all at once, as judges have already said in this thread.

Technically, you are right. The game occassionally allows for people to think for a minute and play all at once. However, taking one minute to think about every turn and then playing all at once is defined as playing slow. Someone who perpetually takes a minute to think about their moves before making them is slow playing. Someone who does it once or twice a game is just taking a little longer to make the tough decisions.

Actually, judges are indeed required to make the difficult call of determining slow play vs. playing slowly...quoting also from the Penalty Guidelines: "However, the way players react to pressure can have an impact on the tempo at which they take their turns. Judges should watch for changes in tempo and make corrections if needed."

Hence why there are guidelines in place for players to follow in most situations. Players may react to pressure and play slower; therefore, judges need to watch for changes in tempo because a player feels pressure and correct the player’s playing speed, even when that player is playing slower because of pressure. Thanks for making my point.

I'm relieved that you can see the need for 30-40 seconds instead of just 10, but what's considered critical is subjective. You may have an opinion, the player may have an opinion, and even a judge called over may have a different opinion. For example: Professor Juniper....more "critical" early game or late game? Some might say late game, because you have to be careful about decking yourself. But if you're going for that one Catcher you know is in your deck for the win, maybe it's critical but doesn't take a lot of thought to know that's the right play. On the other hand, Juniper the first time of the game? Quite possibly that is a much more critical play without knowing what's in your deck or prizes. The player considering the Juniper knows how critical Junipering away two Catchers and two Supporters may be to refresh their hand, but you as the opponent may not have that appreciation given what you can see.

A player can easily tell whether their opponent is making a tough decision or whether his opponent is a slow player. Not every single turn in Pokemon involves a critical/difficult decision. I can tell whether my opponent is playing slowly because he/she’s trying to make a critical decision or whether my opponent is playing slowly because he/she is a slow player by how often my opponent plays slowly. If my opponent plays slowly every turn, then I can be pretty confident that he/she is a habitual slow player. In those situations, I would nicely ask my opponent to speed up. If my opponent still doesn’t speed up, then I’ll call a judge over.

You’re completely right in saying what’s critical is subjective. Ultimately, it is the judge’s subjective opinion that matters. However, the judge’s subjective opinion is based on the objective criteria specified in the penalty guidelines, and based on his own experience with the game. As an experienced player, I have learned what judges’ criteria for determining slow playing actually is, and I can reasonably predict whether a judge will determine if a player is slow playing or not.

 

[losjackal]

We are seeing eye to eye. If a player appears to be taking extra time every single turn, that is a problem, and deserves to have a judge called over.

I need to comment on one thing though, because you repeat it several times and are treating it very piously:

Let me refer you to the rules: “Considering the game position before playing a card: 10 seconds”.

(There are other instances in your post where you call it a rule, and still other references where you call it a guideline. I won't bother including them all.)

What you are quoting above is not a rule. The Pokémon Rulebook is a separate document. If you look at the beginning of the Penalty Guidelines document, it says:

Pokémon Organized Play protocols and procedures are intended to foster a spirit of friendly competition at all PLAY! Pokémon events. However, there occasionally arise situations, whether intentionally or unintentionally, in which players and spectators do not abide by the rules of the Pokémon TCG or the Spirit of the Game. In these cases, Tournament Organizers and judges need to issue penalties to the players, ranging from Cautions and Warnings that do not represent substantial corrective action to more lasting forms of penalties, including disqualification from an event.

This document is intended to provide Tournament Organizers and judges with guidelines by which they can assign and report penalties in a fair, even, and logical way.

The ordinary player is not expected to know those guideline durations for actions, and thus cannot be expected to obey them every turn. This document and those benchmarks as you called them are for judges to assess the tempo of the game. You are smart and wish to play as cleanly as you can, and so you have educated yourself on these guidelines and choose to abide by them. Others have not done that, and it isn't against the rules.

 

[Pablo]

It seems like we are throwing a hissy fit over every little single thing that happens in the Pokemon world aren't we? What's next? Ross chose to use dice instead of damage counters in Game 3 of the finals at time: 1:04:57 (made up), should this be allowed?

Seriously, I find it almost amusing how every little thing like this is made into a huge deal. Ross plays slower than most, he also has better accomplishments than most, so maybe we should take a page from his book and think a little bit more about our plays and we would all be better players in the end.

 

[psychup2034]

It seems like we are throwing a hissy fit over every little single thing that happens in the Pokemon world aren't we?

We're discussing a salient and important rulings issue. Instead of belittling the issue at hand, perhaps you wish to contribute something to the discussion?

Ross plays slower than most, he also has better accomplishments than most, so maybe we should take a page from his book and think a little bit more about our plays and we would all be better players in the end.

A response to this point:

To play devil's advocate...

Do you ever consider that you make such amazing plays because you take an improper amount of time to think/plan? If you took a proper amount of time, maybe you would make less stellar plays? Like Jay said, part of the game is making plays in a time crunch, and sometimes this leads to making less than perfect plays, but you have to live with it.

Don't you think it's weird that you are literally known in the community for taking absurdly long turns/playing slowly?
Don't you think it's problematic that you received multiple warnings for your use of time?
Do you think you can attribute some of your awesome plays to the fact that you take way longer than normal to come up with said plays? Are they really that amazing in that context?
Do you think it's okay that you take up way more of the clock than your opponent?

I would be a little embarrassed if I was known as one of the slowest players in the game. I definitely take my time to make moves, and have been told by judges a few times to "make a move" (especially in +3 where I tend to move to the mindset that I am playing untimed now), but I've never received a penalty for my slowplay.

You may want to reconsider your playstyle. You're in the vast minority for how slowly you play. You admit it's to your detriment? but still do it anyways, and clearly you violate rules and have been penalized for your actions. What are you going to do about the fact that you play so slowly, to the point of receiving penalties and being known in the community as you are?

This isn't to take away from your skill or accomplishments. You're a really nice guy, and you have accomplishments I can only dream of. But now I wonder about your fairness (taking up way more of the clock than your opponent) and your skill (now I question whether it's because you're god-level skill, or you make brilliant moves because you take an unfair amount of time to come up with these moves). Regardless if you believe it costs you more often than not to play slowly, it's at the very least unfair to your opponents, and you probably overestimate its detriment. You get to make less mistakes because you play slowly, so even if your claim of losing on time is true, you probably win a lot of games because so few turns came about, and because you mitigated your gameplay errors and maximized your good plays by taking an unfair amount of time to make your moves.

 

[r3skyline]

Having better acomplishments mean squat when you are in the light because of slow playing. Has other people question credibility. And from what i have read, slow playing rules need to be more harsh and enforced.

 

[ryanvergel]

Having better acomplishments mean squat when you are in the light because of slow playing. Has other people question credibility. And from what i have read, slow playing rules need to be more harsh and enforced.

Exactly.

But now I wonder about your fairness (taking up way more of the clock than your opponent) and your skill (now I question whether it's because you're god-level skill, or you make brilliant moves because you take an unfair amount of time to come up with these moves). Regardless if you believe it costs you more often than not to play slowly, it's at the very least unfair to your opponents, and you probably overestimate its detriment. You get to make less mistakes because you play slowly, so even if your claim of losing on time is true, you probably win a lot of games because so few turns came about, and because you mitigated your gameplay errors and maximized your good plays by taking an unfair amount of time to make your moves.

Another thing to consider, another devil's advocate moment...

you say you are getting extra scrutiny because of your past accomplishments/fame in the game. have you ever thought you may be getting extra leniency? If this were joe schmoe, you may have gotten a prize penalty instead of a 2nd warning for the same thing in a single tournament. You may have received a lot more penalties if you were a nobody, but because of your past accomplishments, and because people know you're a nice fellow you may be getting let off the hook more than you think. Just something to consider- it may be the exact opposite of what you think, Ross. You may be getting preferential treatment because of who you are. If you were a less known/liked person, you may have received harsher (fairer?) penalties.

Also, what is up with that watch being sideways!?

--
Another thing to note...

If your opponent is playing slowly, in order to try to maximize how many actions you can do in the short amount of time you have, you may end up playing faster than you otherwise would have, in an attempt to get a fair amount of action in the shortened time frame. If you are playing slowly, it's not just that your opponents may get less overall turns, but the turns they do get are played faster (probably sloppier) because you force them into a situation where they have to play faster to get a reasonable amount of game actions in. To compensate for an opponent's slowness, a player will often play faster to compensate. This is another way and reason why slowplay is not fair, and why your play may not be fair to your opponents, Ross.

Just going from the video against Joel Moskow, I see a few things-
1. Watch is sideways. This leads me to believe you are constantly monitoring the amount of time left. It is a digital watch, and I bet you know the exact time the round will end as well. Why is this important? It is important nowadays, because having the round end on your opponent's turn means you get 2 extra turns, and your opponent only 1 extra turn.
2. You are turn 1. Look at the above point. A backwards, digital watch and turn 1 indicate that you may have played in a manner to have yourself be turn 1. At the very least, it leaves doubt in my mind.
3. Here is how the minute and a half before time is called plays out:
7:40- ross draws card
7:43- plays skyarrow
*stares at hand doing nothing*
8:10- looks through discard
8:20 puts discard down
8:23- attaches energy
8:33- completes ultra ball discard, searches deck
9:03 attacks
9:23- time is called
You stared at your hand for almost half a minute, before merely deciding to look through your discard. Your attack was about a perfect 20 seconds before time was called. Enough to get a flip and a fliptini flip, and have your opponent draw a card to make them turn 0.

Is it coincidence? Probably. But that sideways watch, and the fact that it went to time just makes me wonder. Did you use that digital watch to see there was a minute and 40 seconds until the round was over, and then take a perfectly timed turn?
Maybe.

This is one of the reasons I want to do away with all kinds of watches, especially digital kinds. I've never in my life see someone wear a watch the way you are. It is literally sideways. This is not how a normal person wears a watch. A person would wear this watch if they wanted to look at their watch and make it seem like they were viewing their hand.

Just things I've observed while watching the match. I'm surprised no one else is alarmed at the sideways watch...

Seriously, though, how many times did your matches go to time? How many did you win on time? How many times was your opponent turn 0? Interesting things to ponder.

 

[TrainerEnjay]

In my opinion it is easy to distinguish between someone who is slow-playing you and someone who is taking extra time to think out the best strategy.

The most common scenario of slow-playing comes when your opponent is up in prizes and there is a huge momentum swing in your favor. Well of course they are going to try to win on having more prizes than you after +3. They want to win. Decks like Lostgar got slow-played because they don't take prizes. This was a common strategy among several of the top table players at nationals 2011 on winning that matchup. It became common knowledge and many people shared this strategy.

I think it is easy to spot someone who is taking time to think out the best strategy because I put myself in the opposing players shoes. I can look at the board and see there are 2-3 big decisions that can be made. Sometimes I see my opponent in a bind and think "what would I do if I were them in this situation?". I can determine that this person is not slow-playing me, they just have big decisions to make. I have no problem with letting my opponent think as I have been put into situations that called for careful thinking and my opponents have been okay with me taking a bit more time.

I do hope this thread doesn't influence the judges to begin heavily enforcing the ruling. I haven't had any problems with judges at any tournament. Has anyone really had any problems with the judges? I never hear complaints. Things should stay the way they are. They have found a happy medium in calling these situations imo. It's like the NFL refs. Someone cheats on pretty much every down of football, but the refs (real refs ) don't ruin the game by being too excessive with their calls.