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

[Mloclam]

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.

I consider an illegal deck as cheating.

 

[thephoenix]

Way to completely ignore all the proof against your argument and just repeat a single line.

Illegal decks are those that don't fall under regulations. His deck had the proper number of cards, was not using any illegal cards, proxies, or markings, he didn't have more than 4 of any specific card (besides energy), his deck was legal under modified regulations...where was it an "illegal deck"?

Just because he made a typo on the list, which is mainly meant to ensure deck legality, does not make the deck "illegal". Even with the typo he still was within regulations. There was no purposeful intent behind the actions. So please, explain your considerations for this being "cheating", or even moreso, how his deck was "illegal".

 

[ryanvergel]

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.



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.

why?

like i already wrote-

in this situation, the judges definitely cannot FIX the list- the deck must be played as the list says, not the other way around, regardless of intentions or how obvious they might seem.

now, there are two ways to proceed- either the problem is fixed (he gets 4 gyarados and 3 magikarp) or he is DQd.

a DQ allows him to not have played in t16 and potentially not lose points.

fixing the problem, and forcing him to use 3 karp and 4 gyarados, probably would have been a DETRIMENT to the player.

so, again, how is the DQ bad? if anything it is the nicer of the two possible solutions.

how is the decklist illegal? because the definition of an illegal decklist is one where the deck does not match the list- which is the case. it is an illegal decklist, and DQ is an appropriate penalty.


a DQ seems perfectly legitimate. not only does it not say anything about one's character or insinuate cheating occurred, it can benefit a player- and in this case it probably did.

 

[thephoenix]

There was no choice in the matter though. It was simply "this is wrong, DQ". If a choice was given, then they atleast give him the opportunity. If he goes top 16 and wants to try his luck, let him. An option to switch the deck probably would have made this much better all around. I could care less about points, if I made top 16 and they told me my deck list was wrong I'd consider switching it to be right so I can say in. You never know, sometimes you could be saved by luck of the draw.

 

[ryanvergel]

There was no choice in the matter though. It was simply "this is wrong, DQ". If a choice was given, then they atleast give him the opportunity. If he goes top 16 and wants to try his luck, let him. An option to switch the deck probably would have made this much better all around. I could care less about points, if I made top 16 and they told me my deck list was wrong I'd consider switching it to be right so I can say in. You never know, sometimes you could be saved by luck of the draw.

are you changing why the decision was bad to the fact that he wasnt given a choice for his penalty?

when is a player ever given a choice for a penalty AGAINST them? that would set a ridiculous precedent.

if he wants to try his luck? its not at the discretion of the player or anyone else, but the judge alone. an illegal decklist is grounds for a DQ- so the DQ was given, probably because it was in the best interest of the player and they gave him the benefit of the doubt.

i dont agree that it was a bad decision because the player was not given an option- the player is NEVER given an option, and this should be no different.

 

[jpulice]

Austino-

I'm really sorry to hear about your day and your collection. Being in pokemon for only about a year and a half, you and the OK crowd have been great to all of us in Tulsa. I know I don't have a hugh set of extra X's but I should be able to help replace some (I'll PM you with a list of extras). Also since I don't think I'll go to regionals, I would be happy to loan you anything you may need to compile a new deck. Just let me know.

JP

 

[thephoenix]

Fine, then at the least he should have been able to plead his case. Hey, it was a typo. I'm sorry, but you know that this is how this deck runs, I opted out to help you guys, I'm willing to change the cards if need be, etc etc.

In the end, I'm saying the penalty was extremely harsh. An immediate DQ is very final and is normally reserved for extreme offenses. At best this should have been a warning. The reason for the decision is still bad, but if they wanted to go that far, the least the could have done was gave him the opportunity to continue. Read what Steve posted. Most times they are given the ability to change the deck to match. If he decides to drop, then guess what...that means he had the option. I'm going to have to take the words of a registered professor over someone that isn't, especially when they bring official proof to the table.

 

[Forte]

How the hell would you know his list would be off >>

I'm really confused, someone put it really simple for me please

 

[Little Lad]

@SteveP, @thefirebirdthatrisesfromtheashes,

Thank you for your sane and reasonable posts.

@Austino, regarding your cards, I agree with the earlier post... to get the word out to as many gym leaders as possible and offer clemency in the form of a 'no-questions-asked' policy for their safe return.

And if that doesn't work, you'll just have to win your way to the world championship to recoup what you can.

Good luck, I'll be watching.

 

[SD PokeMom]

how is the decklist illegal? because the definition of an illegal decklist is one where the deck does not match the list- which is the case. it is an illegal decklist, and DQ is an appropriate penalty.

please read the section on 'deck problems' in the penalty guidelines, section 7.3.

there are four different types of infraction listed: illegal decklist/legal deck; legal decklist/illegal deck; illegal decklist/illegal deck; and legal decklist/legal deck.

'illegal decklist' is defined as a decklist which does not meet the format restrictions and/or deck construction rules. from what i've read upthread both the deck and decklist were legal under modified format requirements, they just did not match.

jmho
'mom

 

[Austino]

Guys, this is getting blown way out of proportion.

The decision was already made and it's not going to change, it's not even possible! I accept my DQ and have moved on from it.

Like I've said, the main issue is my cards getting stolen. There's always more events, so the DQ is just a speed bump. I just wish I had my cards, still.

: /

 

[thephoenix]

Nice. Thank you, Pokemon, for clearing that up and posting it for those that ignored Steve's post. This should clear up alot of confusion.

EDIT: I think the problem with this is that there were a few things that were really disheartening and upsetting at the event. This was one of the big ways that we saw that made people iffy about some rulings. We already had alot of things that were questionable from the start, but this one appeared to be completely unnecessary (along with game loss for dropping trash on the floor, not stating exactly how many cards you take with Lookers, so on). People were upset, and this is a pretty open situation as to how things were handled. Hence the debate.

Debating isn't a bad thing. If we got to a point where we were threatening to leave flaming bags of *** ontop of eachothers binders or whatnot, then yeah, it would have gotten out of hand.

 

[Little Lad]

a DQ seems perfectly legitimate. not only does it not say anything about one's character or insinuate cheating occurred, it can benefit a player- and in this case it probably did.

Listen, I can tell you're a smart dude, but I'm not drinking that koolaid.

You want him to believe that they were doing him a favor by DQing him? No.

It's an interesting, and even high-minded viewpoint. But no, they were punishing him for something picayune.

 

[Whicker]

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.

I hate to say this too, but you are missing the point of what I am saying. I agree with you that a DQ is a harsh penalty and rather unfitting. I do not believe that the judges should have made a DQ the penalty for having this sort of mistake on a decklist. I think he should have had to play the deck as written in the list or having basic energy replacement. HOWEVER, I was saying that because the information regarding the deck check opt out was made crystal clear before you were able to opt out, the penalty as it was enforced was correct because that is what was decided, fair or not. If this had not been made public and this same issue had come up, then I would side with a non-DQ because our previous knowledge (the penalty guidelines) tells us that the correct penalty would be a warning, per SteveP

So yes, the player should be DQ'd because he was told beforehand that he would if his list was wrong. After he received this information, he could have easily glanced over his list for one final check before he handed it to Shane. However, he did not. The DQ was the correct call given the circumstances. I disagree, it would have been completely unreasonable and shameful to not hand out the DQ because otherwise you're undermining the entire purpose of the opt out warning.


SteveP:
As was stated before and confirmed by several people, the judges did not decide on an opt out after seeing so many frustrated players or whatever. It had to have been decided at the judges meeting prior to the event or earlier because my friend's dad, a judge at the tournament, walked out and told us at the beginning of registration that we could opt out if we so chose with the possibility of a disqualification if errors were found in our lists. Take that information as you will.

 

[ryanvergel]

Listen, I can tell you're a smart dude, but I'm not drinking that koolaid.

You want him to believe that they were doing him a favor by DQing him? No.

It's an interesting, and even high-minded viewpoint. But no, they were punishing him for something picayune.

i think you're being quite assumptuous in that.

i already showed an example earlier, at a different states, where a person mis-wrote (pokeMON instead of pokeTURN) in a decklist and was forced to replace the cards with basic energy. he was NOT given a DQ- but was forced to play on and lost points because of it.

my roommate did the same thing at a CC- he messed up his decklist, was not DQd, and quickly lost in top cut when his list was butchered by changing things into basic energy.

running only 3 magikarps makes gyarados significantly worse. your damage cap is at 60 instead of 90, making OHKOs virtually impossible, and making prizing a magikarp game deciding. a DQ removes his potential loss and allows him to just go home, without the autoloss in top cut.

i dont think its being high-minded at all. i argue that he would have been severely disadvantaged had they let him go on with 4 gyarados and 3 magikarp, and the DQ benefitted him- which it clearly seems to have.

would you rather play with 3 karp and 4 gyarados in a highly competitive top cut, and take the overwhelming likelihood of a loss of points, or opt to NOT play, and simply go home.

most people, especially competitive players, would opt for the latter. the latter is the DQ.

--
i keep seeing people say that the DQ is harsh. how is it harsh? the DQ was the lighter of the penalties. a game loss, or forcing to play would have been way more detrimental.

 

[Whicker]

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?

Do you know how Gyarados plays? 3 Magikarp and 4 Gyarados (which was on the list) would be a 1-6 deck if you got lucky enough to donk someone. The change presented on the list would have created a MASSIVE change in the outcome of ALL of his games. I don't think anyone except you would argue otherwise.

EDIT: Sorry Ryan beat me to it.

 

[Little Lad]

I hate to say this too, but you are missing the point of what I am saying.

I agree with you that a DQ is a harsh penalty and rather unfitting. I do not believe that the judges should have made a DQ the penalty for having this sort of mistake on a decklist.

So yes, the player should be DQ'd because he was told beforehand that he would if his list was wrong.

Oh, I understand. I understand that in one sentence you agree with me, and then you conflict yourself and disagree. So wait... maybe I don't understand. These are your words, not taken out of context.

I mean hey! It's okay to agree with me, you don't need to grasp onto the opposite argument to save face.

i think you're being quite assumptuous in that.

Wait a sec, which part? The 'you're a smartie' compliment, or that indeed they did do him a favor?

I'll leave that first one alone and go with the second, and here's me being assumptuous...

Here's an accomplished, decorated, highly ranked player from another state getting DQ'd from a neighboring states' tournament for petty reasons previously stated.

Let me give that one a sniff test...

*sniff* *sniff*

Yep. There's something rotten there.

 

[Austino]

I can say without a doubt...

Playing with 3 karp and 4 dos would guarantee me losing top 16 unless I donked him two games with sableye. The DQ ticked me off, but I knew at the time that I'd have been screwed (points-wise) had I been forced to play with what my list said.

I've done really well this season and been extremely consistent in my events. I'm looking forward to regionals and nationals, so I'll just take what I've learned and apply it.

 

[ShadowCard]

IDK if they were stolen off a table or out of my bag. I don't even know when/where they were stolen. It really is a shame though, because I'm usually the person people have come to to borrow cards for events. Even loaned out entire decks before. Now I can't do those things.

This is SotG at its best. I don't know who you are, but it sounds like you're a very helpful person. Hopefully other people will be able to assist you in this aspect and you will be able to rebuild your "library" quickly.

It was because we had a massive number of masters and it would have been hard to get them all in a timely manner.

IMO, players should NEVER take this option.

I also find it counterproductive to ask players to help out the event by simply turning a list and skipping deck check only to threaten DQ if the list has an error.

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.

Such an announcement was a mistake to make. Such escalation, as SteveP has said, is excessive and heavy-handed.

 

[Whicker]

Oh, I understand. I understand that in one sentence you agree with me, and then you conflict yourself and disagree. So wait... maybe I don't understand. These are your words, not taken out of context.

I mean hey! It's okay to agree with me, you don't need to grasp onto the opposite argument to save face.

You still miss the point entirely. It's not okay to not read my post and then quote me. And yes, it was taken out of context, or at least misinterpreted. I said under normal conditions I would agree that it would be unreasonable to DQ someone for an incorrect deck list. However, under the conditions of this tournament, it was not unreasonable, so I agree with the judges.