ShadowCard
Active Member
I thought the "event comment" feature was removed from the MPA in the website transfer. Was it brought back?
Austino's Texas States Report: DQ'd from Top Cut!
- Thread starter Austino
- Start date
rokman
<a href="http://pokegym.net/gallery/browseimages.p
None of this would of happened if he just got his deck checked...
it's directly his fault because he opted out!
how can you say it isn't?
Austino
New Member
Apparently two people who DID deck check had errors as well. They didn't get DQ'd. My list was JUST as subject to being looked over as well. I missed the error on the list as well, who's to say it would have been caught by someone else?
The punishment should have been a blanket punishment...Not specifically targeting people who were willing to speed up the process of getting the event started. My integrity as a player is genuine and the fact that it was even questioned enough to DQ me over a typo while trying to be beneficial to the staff is ridiculous.
rokman
<a href="http://pokegym.net/gallery/browseimages.p
No one is questioning your integrity, bro. It's just that you took the deal to opt out and it was made abundantly clear if you take this deal and there is an error on your list, you are DQ'd. No ifs/ands/or butts
It sucks, I know, I've been there.
Little Lad
New Member
Nope. Already covered that on page one. You assume that deck check would have caught this. No one can say that for certain.
You are doing what so many in this thread have done before you; You're avoiding the issue, so I'll restate: In it's most distilled form, the issue is:
Did the punishment fit the crime?
You're so preoccupied with upholding rules, that you're not questioning wether or not this was the right call. Question the ruling, just for a moment! Look at the facts, look at the context... did this error rise to the level of DQ?
Would you have DQ'd him?
Ridiculous.
rokman
<a href="http://pokegym.net/gallery/browseimages.p
And guess what?
there were 2 people who had deck checks with illegal lists! THEY WEREN'T DQ'D!
If you're still not getting it, then I'm not going to go through the trouble of explaining it again
and for your last comment, if I said at the beginning "you can skip out of deck check but if your deck or deck list does not match you are DQ'd" and top cut comes around, he opted out, his decklist is different. Yes, I would of DQ'd him
Little Lad
New Member
Then just like the HJ at this event, you too would have blown the call.
Last edited:
Come, on Austin. You did not have a Texas bias idea about the DQ at all up until now, but all of a sudden your points change and you're whining about it? Your points have nothing to do with you not being able to continue playing.
Stevep:
It's not like Austin's deck was randomly chosen to not be checked, he chose that. Deck checks were being performed.
Little Lad:
Yeah... you're obviously not getting it. That's fine. You can stop trying to evoke my emotions at any point though. It won't work.
To your second point: 1. It is the basic assumption that the check would have caught this error. I don't know about you, but when my deck is being checked the judge or staff member or whatever doesn't just skim through the deck, but instead each card is looked at individually and counted and then matched to my list. The judge would have counted 4 Magikarp and would then see 3 Magikarp written down and the mistake would have been caught.
2. Even if I accept your premise that this type of error would not always be caught by the judge, then your argument still falls. If this mistake got by the first check but was then caught by the second, Austin would not have received a DQ, exactly the same as what happened to the other two people with mistakes on their list.
And, who provided the oppurtunity to opt out? And why?
And, I find it very interesting that apparently there were as many or more errors found with decks that were checked as there were found with decks that were not checked. Why? Was it the result of a set of random circumstances, or does it show that perpaps the deck checkers were stressed due to the large volume of players?
As has been pointed out before, with such a large volume of players, opting out of a deck check is a benefit both for the players who don't have to wait in line AND for the TO/HJ who don't have to expend as many resources (staff and time). But, with that benefit comes drawbacks, to BOTH the player and the TO/HJ.
Anyway, this topic has pretty much run its course for me. Nevertheless, I need to make one last comment about those who think issues should always be discussed "behind closed doors" (ie., private emails). I'm an "open debate" kind of person. We can still respectfully and openly debate issues like this in public. Debates in the "public square" are as American as apple pie.
Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:
Common Keith, if you know me, I'm the first to admit errors. Certainly I've made them. And "so what" if I enjoy debating this issue just because I feel passionate about it.
I hope you're not pinning that "skin them alive" remark on me. I might have posted numerous times, but I'm not showing disrespect to anyone.
Dang you Keith! :frown: Why can't people express ideas and make comments about issues without involving TPCi all the time?
Last edited:
Little Lad
New Member
You're right. I don't. I don't get how such an extreme, heavy handed punishment could be delivered considering the context of the rules and all of the mitigating circumstances. It's an injustice.
And I told you I would leave you alone, but you keep coming back for more. So here we go again.
Now you're so upset, you're digging into secondary comments. Fine. The deck check would have worked. But since this player didn't go through deck check, we're left to comment on the resultant DQ. So...
Did the punishment fit the crime?
You've already said that it did; so go ahead, answer it again. You'll be wrong twice.
Austino
New Member
I didn't have the Texas bias idea about the DQ until I found out I was the only one DQ'd for a list error when there were two more (not from OK) that had errors and allowed to play. My points are a separate issue that I'm thoroughly irritated about, considering I was told I would stay at a 5-2 record.
I was ok with the DQ until I heard about the other list errors. Deck check or not, their lists were problematic, just as bad if not worse than mine were.
@SteveP: I think the skinning alive came more from other parties posting several times here. 
All I know is TPCi has put this out there.."The HJ is always correct, even when they are wrong". Bottom line, the HJ's ruling is final (at the time of the event) and NO amount of bickering here in the public will change the outcome of this tourney! It is over.
Policy changes may be made due to circumstances like these. Discussions MAY be had, but those will be done in private by OP brass. For a DQ to occur, then a significant situation needs to have arisen. Did this qualify?? I dont know....I dont make the rules, I only rule with the tools OP has given me, along with my good commonsense, when a ruling allows discretion to deviate.
So, to answer the ultimate Q in the original "beef" here, I cannot. That will be handled by TPCi OP brass and the PTO that ran the event and their HJ. Other than that, it is OPINION only and everyone has an opinion. Stating that opinion here will only fan the flames in one direction or the other.
Keith
All I know is TPCi has put this out there.."The HJ is always correct, even when they are wrong". Bottom line, the HJ's ruling is final (at the time of the event) and NO amount of bickering here in the public will change the outcome of this tourney! It is over.
Policy changes may be made due to circumstances like these. Discussions MAY be had, but those will be done in private by OP brass. For a DQ to occur, then a significant situation needs to have arisen. Did this qualify?? I dont know....I dont make the rules, I only rule with the tools OP has given me, along with my good commonsense, when a ruling allows discretion to deviate.
So, to answer the ultimate Q in the original "beef" here, I cannot. That will be handled by TPCi OP brass and the PTO that ran the event and their HJ. Other than that, it is OPINION only and everyone has an opinion. Stating that opinion here will only fan the flames in one direction or the other.
Keith
ShadowCard
Active Member
We need to listen to you more :thumb:
Only Austino has the right to bicker and appeal. He was told one thing (DQ without a match loss) when something different actually happened (match loss). He was issued a penalty that went above-n-beyond the recommended guidelines.
And, I doubt that TPCi said exactly what you quoted above. It was probably more like:
"We support the rulings of our HJs, even when they're wrong."
This statement is very necessary because of this line in the Tournament Rules:
"The Head Judge is the final authority on all rulings and tournament rules interpretations for that tournament."
Nevertheless, a successful appeal to TPCi can overturn the recorded DQ on Austino's record and/or restore his lost premier points. That's the path I'd recommend, then stand back and cheer him on from the side lines. Just because I'm cheering for him doesn't mean I'm booing at the other side.
The part in red above is what I paraphrased (poorly). HJ has the final say so. Their word is the law at the tourney.
Keith
I only responded to your secondary comment because it was wrong. It has nothing to do with being upset. I'm not one to get upset over a stupid argument.
Your last statement proves you aren't listening to me. If you care so much, go back over and read what I'm saying. You're looking at this from a different perspective than I am, and honestly, it's the wrong one.
Austin,
The two people not DQ'd received deck checks. That is why they were not DQ'd.
Stevep:
The two mistakes made by the people who had their decks checked are easily made. Do you check the card number for each card of each deck? I doubt you pay that close of attention. Do you occasionally skip a line while reading? I would hope so. But do you ever misread a 3 as a 4 or a 4 as a 3? I doubt that.
Austino
New Member
One of them said his error wasn't even caught and he Opted Out as well....
The other thing is that my numbers were supposed to be 3 and 4. They were just flip flopped on accident. Just as likely a typo as writing one extra line or forgetting/not marking which spiritomb the other player was running.
The other thing is that my numbers were supposed to be 3 and 4. They were just flip flopped on accident. Just as likely a typo as writing one extra line or forgetting/not marking which spiritomb the other player was running.
Little Lad
New Member
Back for more, okay.
News Flash, this thread isn't about you. And the bites you're taking are too big; you can't properly chew them... going after every opposing opinion like a frantic child popping soap bubbles.
I maintain that we need more from our judges... that they need to be more than interpreters. Anyone can interpret a rule and go for a quick and wrong-headed DQ. We need grace from our judges to recognize a simple error for what it is.
Acknowledge this in your next post: Did the punishment fit the crime? Would you have done it? Would you not have exercised judgement in considering the error, or would you have simply gone along with the aforementioned rule and booted him?
If you don't exercise judgement, and DQ out of hand, you're failing as a judge.
You're asking the wrong person this question. I use my decklist program when filling out lists to avoid those first kinds of errors. :thumb:
And, the two kinds of errors you mentioned above fall under exactly the same infraction in the Penalty Guidelines. Unless there are extenuating circumstances, the penalties should not be different. But, that's what caused this debate. Circumstances were different (initially-checked decks versus opt-out decks). Nevertheless, apparently, more initially-checked decks had problems than opt-out decks, which just validates my argument that the circumstances don't warrant the penalty escalation.