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

[gallade]

80 with belts not bad :lol:.

 

[Absoltrainer]

If I can just say why I beleive people opted out of deck checks?

I was the second person in line when they called out the Announcment for people to Opt out. Obviously there was no point for me to Opt out since i was next in line, but there was AT LEAST 45 people behind me. It was also 20 min. till 10:00 AM which is when Registration was supposed to close. It's quite possible some people, esspecialy the ones in back decided it was be easiar for them to have more time to shuffle and prepare for Round 1, then to wait in line and rush to get ready.

IDK if that's why Austin did it, just a thought.

 

[waynegg]

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.

This is actually a case of Legal Decklist, Legal Deck and is covered under 7.3.4 in the penalty guidelines. It is unfortunate, but as EVERYONE was pre-warned about it, the penalty can be escalated to Game Loss. As this was match play and not swiss, a game loss IS a DQ.

 

[Little Lad]

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.

C'mon Whicker, really? Do you really believe that he should have been DQ'd? Did this 'offense' really rise to the level of DQ? Despite the circumstances and the warnings, despite what everyone has posted, in the summation of your experience, in your heart of hearts, was it the right thing?

Should it ever happen again?

*sigh* okay... I'll stop bugging you about it.

 

[SteveP]

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.

For clarification, here's what the tournament rules say about deck checks:

19. Deck Checks
At all Premier Events, deck checks must be performed. For all tournaments, including Premier Events, POP recommends that deck checks be performed to at least 10 percent of decks over the course of the tournament.

Note the words I've highlighted, "must be performed." There's no provision for opting out. TO's who allow the players to opt out of deck checks at Premier Events are side-stepping this requirement.

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

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.

Interesting points. But, players don't determine the level (or harshness) of the penalty -- the judges do.

And, players are never forced to continue playing. They can always drop. The timing of when they drop migh result in a match loss. In this situation, after the final standings were posted (which determine the top-cut initial pairings), a DQ meant a match loss.

Regarding game losses in match play, in my experience, the GL is always applied to only one game of the match. There is no penalty called "match loss."

 

[ryanvergel]

Note the words I've highlighted, "must be performed." There's no provision for opting out. TO's who allow the players to opt out of deck checks at Premier Events are side-stepping this requirement.

You also didn't highlight a significant portion:

For all tournaments, including Premier Events, POP recommends that deck checks be performed to at least 10 percent of decks over the course of the tournament.

deck checks were conducted. they don't have to be all the decks, nor do they need to be before the tournament, etc etc. those are provisions provided by the staff. TOs who allow players to opt out of PRE-REGISTRATION deck check MAY be side-stepping a requirement IF and ONLY IF they are also not deck checking elsewhere, or other decks.

basically, what you said doesn't really make any sense at all. whicker stands.

But, players don't determine the level (or harshness) of the penalty -- the judges do.

i didn't say they did. in fact, you should try reading my posts.


a player was DQd, to his benefit, for improperly filling out his or her decklist in a way that gave him a significant advantage from what was written down, and people are still raging about how this is bad?

austino already said that the DQ benefitted him. how is it harsh, heavy-handed, etc. when IT IS ADMITTED TO BE THE BENEFICIAL (and thus LIGHTER) of the possible penalties?

 

[SteveP]

You also didn't highlight a significant portion:

.....

deck checks were conducted. they don't have to be all the decks, nor do they need to be before the tournament, etc etc. those are provisions provided by the staff. TOs who allow players to opt out of PRE-REGISTRATION deck check MAY be side-stepping a requirement IF and ONLY IF they are also not deck checking elsewhere, or other decks.

You're mis-interpreting the 10% recommendation. That applies to random deck checks that are done while the tournament is going on.

i didn't say they did. in fact, you should try reading my posts.

I'm referring to this statement that you made:

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

a player was DQd, to his benefit, for improperly filling out his or her decklist in a way that gave him a significant advantage from what was written down, and people are still raging about how this is bad?

austino already said that the DQ benefitted him. how is it harsh, heavy-handed, etc. when IT IS ADMITTED TO BE THE BENEFICIAL (and thus LIGHTER) of the possible penalties?

Did you miss the fact that Austino was also given a match loss (first round of the playoffs)?

 

[ryanvergel]

i know, i am saying that they would choose to have a DQ were they given the option, which they arent given and shouldnt be given.

Did you miss the fact that Austino was also given a match loss (first round of the playoffs)?

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 read the above and thought otherwise?

You're mis-interpreting the 10% recommendation. That applies to random deck checks that are done while the tournament is going on.

it doesn't say that at all. it says that deck checks must be done. it doesn't say how or when, but recommends that at least 10% be checked over the course of the tournament. a deck check wasn't done at nationals last year- but they did random deck checks throughout. are you saying they sidestepped their own rules, or are you realizing that you are mis-interpreting the statement.

 

[SteveP]

When a TO/HJ allows players to opt out, both sides are assuming risks.

1. The player assumes a risk of having deck problems, which can result in penalties.

2. The TO/HJ assumes a risk of having more players using decks with problems, which can impact the integrity of the tournament.

Just like HJ's can't be held responsible for penalties caused by unchecked decks, players can't be held responsible for integrity degradation caused by unchecked decks.

That's my point here. When a TO/HJ allows players to opt out of deck checks with the DQ caveat, they're improperly reassigning their own assumed risks back upon the players.

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

it doesn't say that at all. it says that deck checks must be done. it doesn't say how or when, but recommends that at least 10% be checked over the course of the tournament. a deck check wasn't done at nationals last year- but they did random deck checks throughout. are you saying they sidestepped their own rules, or are you realizing that you are mis-interpreting the statement.

I've learned from experience never to apply the same rules to TPCi. They run the big events, where circumstances are often different. But, because they do things differently sometimes, that often gives precedence for some PTOs to follow suit. That's why we sometimes see deviations like this "deck check opt out" at PTO-run events.

Perhaps some might interpret this rule differently. To me, the two sentences are quite disjoint. In the first sentence, it states they you MUST do something. In the second sentence, it RECOMMENDS at least 10%. If you join the two sentences, you "could" say that the top-cut deck check is sufficient since that usually is 10% or more.

BTW, IMO, I think deck checks should be required for top-cut. Must PTOs that I'm aware of do that anyway, even though it's not specifically required per the rulings.

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

The following sentence from the Deck Check rule supports my argument that the 10% applies to the random checks done "over the course of the tournament" rather than the intial deck check:

Whether checking a deck at the beginning of the tournament or between rounds, players should be required to put the cards in their decks in the same order as the cards on their deck lists to expedite the process.

Deck checks "must be performed." Period. Are deck checks required at the beginning of the tournament? If so, must all decks be checked at that time? Per the rule, I suppose you could easily answer "NO" to both questions, though precedence might suggest otherwise.

 

[Austino]

Apparently I was lied to by Mr. Fish. He told me the DQ would leave my points in tact and my opponent would just get a bye....

I just found out I lost 20 points from top 16 loss that I never got to play in. I played 7 rounds of swiss, got DQ'd, and it's showing round 8 on pokemon.com with a loss.

This REALLY ****** me off. I was told my record stood where it was. That means I went 5-2 and LOST 10 points for the day.

How do i go about fixing this situation?

The DQ means I got a loss for a game I never was eligible to even play, which means he just left me in the bracket and gave my opponent the win. It put me at 5-3, meaning I won 50 (10/win) points and lost 60 (20/loss).

 

[thephoenix]

Ouch. Fuel to the flames. Guess the idea of the DQ saving your points goes right out the window...

 

[arMILO]

i contacted Danny ASAP once when this happened, he talked to MP Birch and it was fixed the next day. try that.

 

[ryanvergel]

Ouch. Fuel to the flames. Guess the idea of the DQ saving your points goes right out the window...

sure does. it matters when the DQ was given and apparently it was given at a time that wouldnt allow for not playing the game.

+sour grapes

 

[mfgoodsale]

I am the person who received a bye because my opponent was DQ's. I also opted out of deck checks. When I got homke, I noticed I had not noted the card number and set for Spiritomb (I left it blank becasue I was using proxies and I wasn;t able to get the Spirtombs until late on Saterday Morning and then forgot to write it down). My decklist just said 4 spiritombs. I could have used either the new or old spirtomb, as I didn't indicate Set or card number. Do you think I should have been disqualified for this.

 

[thephoenix]

Jesus christ, this just gets better and better...

Honestly, I'd say they probably gave you the benefit of the doubt but then again, they didn't with Austino, so who knows.

 

[Team Cook]

I am the person who received a bye because my opponent was DQ's. I also opted out of deck checks. When I got homke, I noticed I had not noted the card number and set for Spiritomb (I left it blank becasue I was using proxies and I wasn;t able to get the Spirtombs until late on Saterday Morning and then forgot to write it down). My decklist just said 4 spiritombs. I could have used either the new or old spirtomb, as I didn't indicate Set or card number. Do you think I should have been disqualified for this.

Wow! Imagine a double DQ in the top cut... Yikes!

 

[mfgoodsale]

ANd, there was another guy in top cut who had written down 61 cards on his decklist. I was there when they spoke to him about it. He looked at his list and said he forgot to scratch off the warp point, his deck didnl;t have a warp point. They then walked him away from my prying ears. But, he wasn;t disqualified, and I assume it was becasue he had his deck checked.

 

[Team Cook]

ANd, there was another guy in top cut who had written down 61 cards on his decklist. I was there when they spoke to him about it. He looked at his list and said he forgot to scratch off the warp point, his deck didnl;t have a warp point. They then walked him away from my prying ears. But, he wasn;t disqualified, and I assume it was becasue he had his deck checked.

 

[mfgoodsale]

What are you confused about team cook. I was standing right there when they counted out his cards and there were only sixty, but his list had 61, and he pointed to the supporter section of his list and said he forgot to cross off warp point(I think he said warp point but it may have been another trainer-supporter )

 

[thephoenix]

So atleast 3 people in top cut that had faulty deck lists, where 2 were allowed to play, 1 was allowed to correct his list, and 1 was not only given a DQ but then was told he wouldn't lose points when he, in fact, did.

This is pretty bad...

EDIT: I think he's confused because the guy with the faulty list that was allowed to modify it had almost the same situation as Austino, but with completely opposite outcomes. One was allowed to fix his, the other was instantly DQed.