judge/play/moral question/discussion

[Ertai]

Ertai and totodile: You got them both wrong. You should never whisper anything to one player. If anything ever gets said, it gets said out loud to both players!

(...)

Without knowing what the card was in the hand that A asked about in Ertai's situation, I still believe the best answer is, play it and then I can let you know if X works, etc. Answering the Q while the card is still in the hand is coaching, bc the player obv. didnt know what the effect would be.

Keith

I think you've misinterpreted what I said. I didn't just say the answer to that one player but to both for probably the same reason that you think I should.

In response to your 'coaching' theory, I'll keep that in mind if/when this sort of situation comes up again.

 

[bulbasnore]

So, you see what I mean about a debate. I'm on the liberal side on this one...

If anything ever gets said, it gets said out loud to both players!

Definitely. This is one reason I do feel free to answer some ruling questions mid game. You want to ask me about how Stance works if your opp then plays Cessation Crystal? Fine, I'll answer, but your opponent will know you're holding Lucario Lv.X. That example is pretty out there, as far as something I might do. Typically, questions on errata & card rulings come to me from cards in play, rather than a 'what does this in my hand card do?' question.

In response to your 'coaching' theory, I'll keep that in mind if/when this sort of situation comes up again.

Definitely something to watch out for... giving advice.

However, in my area (Hi Jeff), we have a lot of players who are 'not expert' and answering questions keeps things fun/not frustrating/moving in all age groups, particularly in the Juniors where 'read the card' is sometimes not possible, is often ineffective when possible and is frequently difficult/slow for the child. I find it a better player experience to just tell the children (both of them) how the card works.

I'm unashamed of my approach here at PREs, BRs & City's. States and above, its rarely a question.

 

[DreamChaser AJ]

So, you see what I mean about a debate. I'm on the liberal side on this one...



Definitely. This is one reason I do feel free to answer some ruling questions mid game. You want to ask me about how Stance works if your opp then plays Cessation Crystal? Fine, I'll answer, but your opponent will know you're holding Lucario Lv.X. That example is pretty out there, as far as something I might do. Typically, questions on errata & card rulings come to me from cards in play, rather than a 'what does this in my hand card do?' question.



Definitely something to watch out for... giving advice.

However, in my area (Hi Jeff), we have a lot of players who are 'not expert' and answering questions keeps things fun/not frustrating/moving in all age groups, particularly in the Juniors where 'read the card' is sometimes not possible, is often ineffective when possible and is frequently difficult/slow for the child. I find it a better player experience to just tell the children (both of them) how the card works.

I'm unashamed of my approach here at PREs, BRs & City's. States and above, its rarely a question.

I agree! I think as judges we need to make sure that all players understand how the rules are interpretted. I had a junior player today not know what Unown G did when it attached. I explained it to her. I also had a masters player ask the same question. I answered. The key thing is to not turn "Yes you can do that" into "Yes you SHOULD do that".

 

[ShadowCard]

Ertai: I'm one of those judges that would keep quiet with your question on Psychic Lock. The most you would get out of me is an instruction to read the card and that I will tell you after you have made your choice.

But doesn't that invite error? Not misplay, but actual error? In your example, you tell the player to read Psychic Lock. From that player's experience with where effects are placed on Pokemon, he concludes that the effect is on his active pokemon and therefore goes away upon benching or evolving, unaware that effects can be placed onto the player. The player then benches his active pokemon and does Cosmic Power, putting two cards onto the bottom before his opponent can stop him.

In this example, although easily correctable, you have created a situation where you've lead the player into making an error in the game by not answering with the ruling.

Maybe that's a poor example. The point I'm trying to get at is, by not answering the question, aren't you inviting the player to make an error? You got asked a question about the rules and you've refused to answer. Aren't judges there to answer rules and ruling questions? This makes the judge seem more like a cop, waiting to bust the player for a mistake than make sure the game is played correctly.

Some situations for an opinion, do you answer or respond that you can't say anything until an action requires the knowledge:

1) A player asks how many damage counters confusion places. His Pokemon only has 30 hp remaining and if confusion places 2 damage counters, it'll survive a failed attack.

2) A player asks if using Smash Short against a pokemon with Unown G attached will allow him to look at his players hand and discard any other Unown G cards.

3) A player calls you over, points to the level X card in his hand, and asks you if levelling up will remove the "sand attack effect" from his active pokemon.

4) A player asks if he uses Take Out against a basic pokemon with Unown G attached to it, will Take Out do the damage?

5) A player points to the Metapod, with Poke-Power Emerge, in his hand and asks if he evolves the Caterpie in play into it, can he then attempt the Poke-Power Emerge.

If you reply "I can't answer until something happens," you then get called to another table for a ruling. Except in case 5, when you come back to the game, the action in question has been attempted and the gamestate is no longer correct.

I agree! I think as judges we need to make sure that all players understand how the rules are interpretted. I had a junior player today not know what Unown G did when it attached. I explained it to her. I also had a masters player ask the same question. I answered. The key thing is to not turn "Yes you can do that" into "Yes you SHOULD do that".

I agree with this. Judges are there to make sure people understand the rules and rulings. Also, by not verifying that the action can or cannot be done before the action is done, you invite the players to make a mistake, and then make it again in another game until someone finally catches on. The judge actually creates confusion and doesn't help in preventing game play errors.

 

[Lawman]

^I would not answser #4 bc that would be coaching (plus, I covered that in opening at my CC yesterday, along with the change in Azelf's note taking---Listen to announcements!!)

I would answer 1, probably 3 too (out loud, so the oppo knows about the X too.....Likewise, I cover this issue in pre tourney announcements that leveling up removes conditions on that poke).

2 & 5...probably not an answer. I would tell them to re read the card. Too close to advice/coaching.

Keith

 

[totodile1014]

I'd answer #1

I'd answer #2 by saying 'Unown G prevents ALL effects of an attack done to the attacked pokemon, that means anything BUT damage is prevented'

I'd answer #3 with a simple yes or something along those lines.

I'd answer #4 much like #2, and in the case that the player still attacks the basic with unown G with machamp and i am asked about why it does nothing, then i would explain that the effect replaces damage and that the effect is blocked by unown G, etc.

I'd answer #5 by saying ' A pokemon can only evolve once per turn, the poke-power says it counts as evolving.'

I've decided that I will be the kind of judge that supports the further learning of players in tournaments while carefully choosing my answers to avoid coaching. I know its a lot easier to judge with the 'I can't answer that until you make the play' philosophy, but that seems like 'I can't help until its too late and you've already made the mistake' in some cases.

I know that I will most likely be faced with many difficult situations because of this but i will ask for help and opinions from other judges as much as possible so i can learn too.

 

[bulbasnore]

@totodile - The card text you point out is exactly why I'd answer the question - it's not clear, cf.
http://compendium.pokegym.net/compendium-lvx.html#205

@Lawman - If I covered it in the announcements, it would make me bold enough to repeat it to both players... but point taken about 1) value of putting concepts in the announcements players are likely to encounter (e.g. Unown G is everywhere) and 2) players often don't listen to the announcements. I'm working on something for that...

 

[Lawman]

@totodile - The card text you point out is exactly why I'd answer the question - it's not clear, cf.
http://compendium.pokegym.net/compendium-lvx.html#205

@Lawman - If I covered it in the announcements, it would make me bold enough to repeat it to both players... but point taken about 1) value of putting concepts in the announcements players are likely to encounter (e.g. Unown G is everywhere) and 2) players often don't listen to the announcements. I'm working on something for that...

Kim: That is why I try to put a couple of recent rulings/changes in the announcements so we dont have those Qs later! X's are everywhere now. G's are everywhere! There are sooo many players out there (mainly MAs, but some SRs too) that THINK they know all the rules/procedures, etc and lo and behold, they end up asking that Q in a match! I tell them all up front, listen to announcements, the less talking by them, the faster I can get through them!

Remember, I am the Judge that had everyone in the area playing raise their hand during announcements. I then told them, I now know their arms work, so if you have any Q's in a match, that is what you do! It is toooo late to "fix" anything once the game is over!

Keith

PS All these "answers" will also take into account what age division and table # they are playing at and the level of the event. If a JR matchup in rd 5 of a BR asks me this Q and they are both 1-3, answer away! It is better for them to learn now then to make the same mistakes at a States, Reg's or higher!

 

[bulbasnore]

Remember, I am the Judge that had everyone in the area playing raise their hand during announcements. I then told them, I now know their arms work, so if you have any Q's in a match, that is what you do! It is toooo late to "fix" anything once the game is over!

Excellent tip for us all to note.

 

[ShadowCard]

Lawman, so when the player attacks with Take Out and both players place 40 damage onto the Pokemon because you refused to answer, should a penalty be applied if you come back too late after walking away? By not answering the question, you invited an error to be made.

A better example is probably my situation #2 since not a lot of people play Pachi anymore. When the opponent reveals his hand and atleast 1 Unown G is discarded from Smash Short when it wasn't supposed to be done, isn't this the judges fault? You set up the players to make the error by not answering a question about a ruling. What is the point of teaching players to raise their hands if they have a question if you're not going to answer ruling questions?

I'd answer #5 by saying ' A pokemon can only evolve once per turn, the poke-power says it counts as evolving.'

But here, you are wrong because what you say is not true. You should say "A pokemon can only evolve once per turn from the hand unless it has already evolved." Don't even say that "the poke-power says it counts as evolving" because that will only confuse both players.

 

[Lawman]

Lawman, so when the player attacks with Take Out and both players place 40 damage onto the Pokemon because you refused to answer, should a penalty be applied if you come back too late after walking away? By not answering the question, you invited an error to be made.

No penalty to give, you just correct the damage (or lack of it) and explain WHY! To do otherwise in this situation takes away from B's reason for having G on the active Poke in the 1st place! Why TEACH at that moment to the DETRIMENT of the other? In a normal situation, I would not answer that Q.

A better example is probably my situation #2 since not a lot of people play Pachi anymore. When the opponent reveals his hand and atleast 1 Unown G is discarded from Smash Short when it wasn't supposed to be done, isn't this the judges fault? You set up the players to make the error by not answering a question about a ruling. What is the point of teaching players to raise their hands if they have a question if you're not going to answer ruling questions?

Again, in most circumstances, answering the Q is tantamount to "coaching". See the above answer in red


But here, you are wrong because what you say is not true. You should say "A pokemon can only evolve once per turn from the hand unless it has already evolved." Don't even say that "the poke-power says it counts as evolving" because that will only confuse both players.

By telling the player this answer, again you are COACHING, not ruling bc you just told them the way around the single evo rule per turn ie normal evo, then use the power.

Answers in Red.

Keith

 

[ShadowCard]

Lawman, so if the damage KOs the opponent's Pokemon, then has the judge created a problem? You get called away to another table so you can't hover over this game. By the time you come back, the damage to the game has been done and it was your fault because you didn't tell the players about the ruling. Nothing is said about B's reasoning to why G is on the Pokemon. That involves mindreading of player B.

How are these different from answering the question about how many damage counters confusion places? An opponent who has confused a pokemon is trying to get a KO from the confusion. How is you telling the player how much damage confusion places not coaching since that will let the player know a failed attack attempt will KO his pokemon and let the player onto the opponent's strategy?

Even if you do consider telling a player that the one-per-turn evolution rule only applying to the hand to be coaching, a judge telling a player that a pokemon can only be evolved once per turn is a judge who is lying.

EDIT: if the opponent of the player asking about Poke-Power Emerge says that it cannot be used because the pokemon has already evolved, would this incline you to answer that the Poke-Power can be used?

 

[Lawman]

^When an oppo tells the other player something incorrect while we stand there, it is correct to correct that false statement. That is a different situation all around.

On the G situation, best to tell the player to read the card. The card itself says to prevent effects of attacks.

The difference on the confusion Q is simply this, confusion damage is always 3, unless done by Grumpig, when it turns into 6. I'm not telling the player that they will be KO'd if they fail the flip, only what the amount of damage counters would be. They still have to choose to attack or retreat. Many times, a player will confuse a Poke to MAKE the oppo retreat, bringing up less of a threat (not always going for the KO via confusion).

Keith

 

[totodile1014]

Yes, my bad, I forgot the 'from your hand' thing, sorry.

 

[NoPoke]

Suppose that the game outcome depends upon a player knowing if a confusion flip is two or three damage counters. Is it safe for a judge to answer? To be honest I'd rather not answer even this most basic of questions when it may influence a players strategy or even determine the game outcome.

 

[ShadowCard]

Although I don't agree with the opinion, I agree with NoPoke. If a judge is not going to answer ruling questions, I don't see why Confusion should be any different. If someone is asking you how much damage confusion does before they make the attack attempt, it is because what they do depends on the answer. If someone asks you how much damage confusion does before choosing between two attacks, one of which confuses the defending pokemon, that is going to influence the outcome of the game.

How about this: Would you answer the confusion question if no pokemon in play are confused and you see no attacks that induce confusion?

If asked "How much damage does confusion do?" why should the gamestate influence the decision of a judge to answer? Shouldn't questions be answered because they are questions of the rulings of the game? The answers need to be known so a judge doesn't have to babysit one game waiting for an error to happen instead of walking around checking on multiple games.

Are rulings open knowledge? Could a player request to have an entry from the Compendium be read during a game that corresponds to the question they are asking? Could a player look something up in the current rulebook during a game? If a player were to write down rulings that are related to cards they have, or general rulings (like all effects and special conditions are removed when the pokemon goes to the bench), could they look at that?

Judges who will not answer questions about rulings. This is really special. We need to change that "if you have questions, raise your hand" line in the opening speech to "if you think something has gone wrong in your game, raise your hand."

 

[Lawman]

Tim: That IS how I do my announcement. If you have a problem, think an error/mistake has been made, call a judge. Not to simply ask Qs.

Keith

 

[ShadowCard]

Sorry, I didn't get that from what you said. You said "any Q's", not mistake/errors.

Remember, I am the Judge that had everyone in the area playing raise their hand during announcements. I then told them, I now know their arms work, so if you have any Q's in a match, that is what you do! It is toooo late to "fix" anything once the game is over!

 

[Lawman]

Some Qs get answered though, so that is part of the announcement too. Many Qs are not errors/mistakes, etc. For example, some players, esp. the JRs may not know who brings up 1st in a dbl KO situation and who takes the prize in which order. (I've seen this Q in the ATRT area by MAs ) So, yes, some Qs have to get answered. Some Qs should not be answered either.

Keith

 

[NoPoke]

Shadowcard: I have no problem with players providing their own copy of the compendium or a summary of interesting scenarios they may need. I wish more players would put in that effort prior to playing as the very act of looking for the current rullings will mean that they probably wont need to ask or even refer to them during a match.

Where I do have a problem is with players using my knowledge and memory to replace their own. I am supposed to be neutral yet that is impossible if one player at the table relies upon my knowledge to make decsions about how and what to play. I'm not absolutely hard line on this so if you do ask a question about confusion and there is no confused pokemon in play and no likelyhood of a confused state then I will answer but I will make a mental note that you asked a question that seemed to have no purpose other than to burn some time on the clock.

It really is safest to restrict judge answers to what has happened and not to provide answers that have any bearing upon what a player is about to do. In my opinion this is not just the safest practice but also best practice. In my opinion best practice from judges is to not answer questions about future interactions and outcomes. 'Read the card and make your own decision about what play to make' is as much as you will get from me.