More on the topic of "declumping"
- Thread starter BlisseyRocks
- Start date
- Status
Otaku
Active Member
I think that gets left out because shuffling isn't a "Starman" that makes you invincible (to reference many "Mario" games).
I unfortunately looked at this thread, then posted, so I have not left it... yet. Getting close. Then something like this pops up that I need to address.
When someone de-clumps, there is always the risk that insufficient shuffling will occur. Shuffling is not a precise science, and de-clumping can bear fruit several turns down the road... and you would never know.
I am trying to come up with a good analogy that won't offend anyone. Think about some of the rules stores have for shopping. You're allowed to carry merchandise with you throughout the store you didn't pay for, but you're supposed to either buy it or make sure it gets back to where it came from (or to an appropriate receptacle for unpaid merchandise, a common feature out of sight behind the register).
De-clumping is akin to someone who, instead of carrying the merchandise in plain sight (or relatively plain sight) in a basket or cart, stuffs it in a pocket or hides it with their jacket. Considering sometimes one has to buy something potentially embarrassing, it isn't as unusual as it sounds. For some, it is just a "habit" akin to a superstition.
The thing is, just as the player declumping needs merely to shuffle thoroughly but because they declumped now risks stacking the deck should neither player shuffle sufficiently, so to does a shopper who insists on carrying something in an odd way (or even just in hand) risk spacing off actually paying for the item. Just as it is the opposing player's responsibility to cut and/or shuffle to mitigate this risk, so to is it the responsibility of the employee's in a store to pay attention to "unintentional shoplifters".
Don't believe me? When I worked at Target, I finally had the mirrors low down on the checkout lanes pointed out to me. All the mirrors do is allow a cashier to make sure nothing was left on the bottom rack of the cart, since often the check out counter/conveyor will hide the view from up top. There is also the issue of speed as well, especially during a rush period.
So my point is that de-clumping is like insisting on shopping and shoving the merchandise into your pockets; you may just shop that way, but it looks mighty suspicious! Even using the bottom rack... well if you try to walk out of the store three or four times you shopped there and they must politely stop and remind you that you forgot what was on the bottom rack, you should probably not use the bottom rack.
No, even I do not forget about bottom rack stuff that often. :lol:
Last edited:
Kayle
Active Member
Vacuously true. There is always the risk that insufficient shuffling will occur. Some people believe that declumping makes insufficient shuffling more significant, and I don't believe that but I can totally understand their belief and don't mind them having or enforcing it.
Insufficient shuffling has a single, clear, simple solution. Shuffle their deck for them.
Why does everyone ignore this??? (To be fair Otaku, you did somewhat address this in your post.)
No, shuffling your opponent's deck isn't a "starman", but this isn't Mario. This is tournament logistics. If you wanted to make declumping illegal I would disagree on many different bases, but it would be a fair rule to make (from a purely game design-oriented perspective). The problem is that it's virtually impossible to enforce, and the thing people are ignoring is that this rule already has a perfectly acceptable and useable alternative that is very easy to allow and enforce.
You don't really need analogies or abstract concepts for this. =/
BlisseyRocks
New Member
I'm pretty sure we all get it by now. Shuffle our opponents decks! If someone tries to rob a store, but gets the items knocked out of his possesion by customers-should be free of punishment? Obviously not! He had the intent of stealing, so he should obviously be punished. OUT of game declumping is an extremely shady thing to do because by all means you CAN CONTROL IT. In game, its a TINY BIT more understandable to declump because people do have habits. I constantly shuffle my hand to think during my turn and sometimes my opponents, and i couldn't see stopping that. So while i do think in game declumping is still wrong...there isn't much we can do about it. But OUT OF GAME declumping is extremely shady and should be prohibited.
vaporeon
Moderator
Can you prove without a shadow of a doubt that each of your opponents are trying to cheat? Another question. What if they are moving their pokemon choices to the front of their deck?
At this point I'm convinced that this thread was made to troll because each thread like this started ended up the same way.
At this point I'm convinced that this thread was made to troll because each thread like this started ended up the same way.
Kayle
Active Member
Yay!
Too bad! Pokemon isn't a store and declumping isn't robbing it!
You seem to really like comparing declumping to criminal activity so here's an analogy I think is far better suited to your attitude. Declumping is a lot like hacking a Pokemon cartridge. It's absolutely prohibited, and we do not allow discussion of it on this forum because it's obviously illegal. But you can't actually stop someone from doing it. You just can't. There's just no way to do it.
The only thing you can do is prevent its impact on a competitive event, by checking the legality of each Pokemon a player uses.
Well, same thing for deck manipulation. You can't stop it from actually happening, you simply cannot do it, but you can prevent it from affecting the game by shuffling their deck.
psychup2034
New Member
As Pokepop has said before, anti-cheating rules aren't made for the 99% of players that follow the rules, but to safeguard against the 1% of players that do cheat. (I'm paraphrasing.)
---------- Post added 09/30/2012 at 07:16 PM ----------
If Pokemon were analogous to a store, stacking and then shuffling (sufficiently) afterward would be like robbing it and then giving everything back.
If you don't understand the simile I just made, then I recommend this great site where you could get some tutoring on the application of figures of speech in the English language.
Kayle
Active Member
But it's not analogous to a store. Like, in any way. It doesn't provide services or goods for a price. It's a game.
I understand similies and analogies. We don't need to descend into ad hominem out of frustration.
Otaku
Active Member
Wow, harsh.
World English Dictionary said:
You stated you didn't understand why de-clumping bothers some people so much; I explained why. I never claimed it was an especially good reason, then again neither is there an especially good reason for de-clumping. Quite the conundrum, eh?
It is unlikely that neither player would sufficiently shuffle, especially if at least is competent, but it is technically a risk. It isn't totally preposterous; think of games that go to time when a player (possibly both) may be rushing to secure a legitimate win instead of risking time being called and (one way or another) ultimately deciding it.
Pretty sure that isn't just a belief Kayle; declumping makes insufficient shuffling more significant. As you yourself brought up earlier, the rules require you sufficiently shuffle after "de-clumping", and you asked why that was getting left out when people complained? Well now you just granted the premise; so it isn't a "belief"; the requirement for the conditional statement to be true was met.
I suspect you meant to say something else; feel free to clarify. The last line in that quoted section especially is perplexing to me.
I addressed it as much as I needed to, no "somewhat" about it.
Remember, I am not arguing for a change in how de-clumping is handled. I was just trying to explain something you stated you didn't understand. :thumb:If anything, you seem to be ignoring that an easy to botch mitigator is all that keeps this from being illegal. Since you don't understand it when people say it plainly like that to you, they try to draw comparisons with similar situations.
The reference to "Mario" games was a colorful way of explaining that shuffling isn't a 100% guarantee. I also followed up with straightforward language; players aren't machines capable of performing the same repetitive action over and over again without error barring outside interference or breakdown. This means that even while intending to properly randomize, there will be times when this fails.
Now, it is both player's responsibility to shuffle sufficiently, but since it is not a precise science, it is within reason that sometimes a player will believe he or she has randomized the deck sufficiently but hasn't. Thankfully since both players are responsible for this, the odds of insufficient randomization are further reduced.
You may not have liked my example, but your "reasoning" is rather lacking, which for me comes across as a bit insulting. I confess, I hold you to a higher standard than I do some others, and that is a factor.
This part isn't addressed to me, at least I hope not. Earlier comments addressed to me have me worried it is.
You repeatedly question concepts given you to quite directly, and express your confusion. I took that as an invitation to try and explain. If my attempts failed, so be it; the nature of this thread does not encourage me to try again.
Kayle
Active Member
"Vacuously true" is a formal logic term. It means that something is true because of an empty/untested condition, a condition that doesn't matter. There is a risk of insufficient shuffling whether or not you declump, so your statement was vacuously true.
Well, it's a well-founded belief, but I accept the weakness in this argument.
"Easy to botch" except that you, the opponent, are also in control of it. If they botch it, then you do it right, however you feel is appropriate. Right?
I appreciate that, don't fear.
I'm getting very frustrated with this argument so that's probably affecting my ability to reason.I can't tell for sure what side of the debate you're on, but you're on neither and I respect that. ^ ^
It feels to me like I've defeated the points given to me. I just don't see why there's such a disagreement over the rules as they are. I understand the desire to prevent declumping but you can't reasonably do it with a rule. The rule that exists should prevent declumping from affecting gamestates. No one has convinced me yet that there is a worthwhile flaw in this system. So... I stand where I stand.
signofzeta
New Member
Declumping is such a scapegoat in this argument.
All the harm declumping is doing is giving the wrong impression that it is a shuffling technique, which it isn't, thus giving the false impression the deck is sort of shuffled, so the player who declumped lazily shuffles afterward.
Is it really the fault of the declumping, or the lazy shuffle?
If you use sleeves, and you do the mash shuffle, you don't really need to declump, because the shuffling technique is quick. Declumping is only for people who don't use sleeves and are poor at riffle shuffles, that is they do it, and the cards fly all over the place, and then they have to pick up the cards off the floor. In this case, there is a very poor ineffective time consuming shuffling technique called the hindu, or overhand technique. I do it all the time in Magic before I started using sleeves. I shuffle the overhand style, probably like 2 minutes, and the land are all grouped together EVERY TIME. That is of course starting with the deck that has all the lands grouped to one end of the deck before the shuffle. If I equally distribute the lands, and I do the same shuffling technique, the lands are sort of evenly distributed, but not really. The only way to truly randomize the deck is to do the riffle, but some people don't have sleeves, nor could they do the riffle. Also, I'm seriously looking for consistency in your arguments.
First. in a state where you start out with a deck, completely pre-sorted, so that all the energies are grouped together, then the trainers, then the Pokemon, you know, the way you sort your deck before you present it to the Judge when you enter the tournament.
Case A: The person doesn't declump, shuffles, get a bad draw, every time, and loses.
Case B: The person declumps, shuffles the same way as in Case A, gets a decent draw, and has a chance of winning.
In your argument, Case B is cheating, but not Case A. In my argument, they both are cheating, or that they both are not cheating. If one cheats, then the other is cheating. You can't say that cheating only happens to winners. Like in my Hockey example. You injure yourself with the intent to check someone without the puck into the boards, so you get a boarding penalty. No matter how much you are hurt, the refs aren't giving you sympathy. You're getting 2 minutes for boarding.
People declump, because they don't want to get a bad draw or bad hand every game. In both cases, even if they didn't declump, and they got a bad hand, it is the fault of their poor shuffling skills that gives them bad hands every game, so they declump to negate that. Declumping isn't the fault of giving them better hands. It is their poor shuffling skills. People who don't use sleeves or can't do the riffle also don't want to spend like 2 hours shuffling non-stop just to get the deck randomized. They just want to play the game, so they do a lazy shuffle. That lazy shuffle in turn gives them a bad hand every time they don't declump, or a hand that is similar to the ones they had the previous game, so they declump to negate that. They do the same lazy shuffle again, and gets a god like hand, and you blame it on the declumping. Well newsflash, it's the lazy shuffle that gave that person a god hand. That same person would have a crap hand, or a hand reminiscent of the previous game, if that person didn't declump, every time.
If you have any doubts that their deck may still not be randomized, randomize it for them. Just don't wreck their cards. There should NEVER ever be a rule to disallow declumping, since it really does NOTHING so long as you do a REAL SHUFFLE afterwards. All it really does is probably waste a few minutes. That's all.
Also it isn't really unfair to anyone if everybody is allowed to do it. You're just giving yourself a handicap for believing declumping is wrong, and thus not doing it, and making a fuss when somebody else does it.
If you want to go into the whole robbing a store analogy, it's like robbing a store in an anarchic society, with no government. You can do it, but you think it's wrong so you don't, but there is no rule stopping you from doing it.
All I'm hearing is, person A declumps, and may have a chance of getting good draws, or may have a chance of getting bad draws. If that person gets a good draw, that person is cheating for declumping. If that person gets a bad draw, that person isn't cheating. Person B does not declump, meaning that there is a higher chance that the cards may remain in the same grouping from that of the previous game, and in that case, to me, that gives the person a far higher advantage. But to you, that person isn't declumping, and therefore isn't cheating. I fail to see your logic in this.
All the harm declumping is doing is giving the wrong impression that it is a shuffling technique, which it isn't, thus giving the false impression the deck is sort of shuffled, so the player who declumped lazily shuffles afterward.
Is it really the fault of the declumping, or the lazy shuffle?
If you use sleeves, and you do the mash shuffle, you don't really need to declump, because the shuffling technique is quick. Declumping is only for people who don't use sleeves and are poor at riffle shuffles, that is they do it, and the cards fly all over the place, and then they have to pick up the cards off the floor. In this case, there is a very poor ineffective time consuming shuffling technique called the hindu, or overhand technique. I do it all the time in Magic before I started using sleeves. I shuffle the overhand style, probably like 2 minutes, and the land are all grouped together EVERY TIME. That is of course starting with the deck that has all the lands grouped to one end of the deck before the shuffle. If I equally distribute the lands, and I do the same shuffling technique, the lands are sort of evenly distributed, but not really. The only way to truly randomize the deck is to do the riffle, but some people don't have sleeves, nor could they do the riffle. Also, I'm seriously looking for consistency in your arguments.
First. in a state where you start out with a deck, completely pre-sorted, so that all the energies are grouped together, then the trainers, then the Pokemon, you know, the way you sort your deck before you present it to the Judge when you enter the tournament.
Case A: The person doesn't declump, shuffles, get a bad draw, every time, and loses.
Case B: The person declumps, shuffles the same way as in Case A, gets a decent draw, and has a chance of winning.
In your argument, Case B is cheating, but not Case A. In my argument, they both are cheating, or that they both are not cheating. If one cheats, then the other is cheating. You can't say that cheating only happens to winners. Like in my Hockey example. You injure yourself with the intent to check someone without the puck into the boards, so you get a boarding penalty. No matter how much you are hurt, the refs aren't giving you sympathy. You're getting 2 minutes for boarding.
People declump, because they don't want to get a bad draw or bad hand every game. In both cases, even if they didn't declump, and they got a bad hand, it is the fault of their poor shuffling skills that gives them bad hands every game, so they declump to negate that. Declumping isn't the fault of giving them better hands. It is their poor shuffling skills. People who don't use sleeves or can't do the riffle also don't want to spend like 2 hours shuffling non-stop just to get the deck randomized. They just want to play the game, so they do a lazy shuffle. That lazy shuffle in turn gives them a bad hand every time they don't declump, or a hand that is similar to the ones they had the previous game, so they declump to negate that. They do the same lazy shuffle again, and gets a god like hand, and you blame it on the declumping. Well newsflash, it's the lazy shuffle that gave that person a god hand. That same person would have a crap hand, or a hand reminiscent of the previous game, if that person didn't declump, every time.
If you have any doubts that their deck may still not be randomized, randomize it for them. Just don't wreck their cards. There should NEVER ever be a rule to disallow declumping, since it really does NOTHING so long as you do a REAL SHUFFLE afterwards. All it really does is probably waste a few minutes. That's all.
Also it isn't really unfair to anyone if everybody is allowed to do it. You're just giving yourself a handicap for believing declumping is wrong, and thus not doing it, and making a fuss when somebody else does it.
If you want to go into the whole robbing a store analogy, it's like robbing a store in an anarchic society, with no government. You can do it, but you think it's wrong so you don't, but there is no rule stopping you from doing it.
All I'm hearing is, person A declumps, and may have a chance of getting good draws, or may have a chance of getting bad draws. If that person gets a good draw, that person is cheating for declumping. If that person gets a bad draw, that person isn't cheating. Person B does not declump, meaning that there is a higher chance that the cards may remain in the same grouping from that of the previous game, and in that case, to me, that gives the person a far higher advantage. But to you, that person isn't declumping, and therefore isn't cheating. I fail to see your logic in this.
Last edited:
NoPoke
Active Member
really? Just think carefully about that. An insufficient shuffle preserves more of the original arrangement of the cards. It does not matter what the arrangement of cards was prior to the insufficient shuffle more of that arrangement is preserved. So what is this more significant that people are complaining so much about that they are calling it cheating? It is the insufficient shuffle that is the issue and any focus upon declumping before that insufficient shuffle is a complete smokescreen.
psychup2034
New Member
Sure. I buy this argument. However, I have been told to stop shuffling my opponent's deck (keep a lively pace argument), even though I only got 3 riffles in. This happened in Top 4 of a major event. I had intended to give my opponent's deck 5-6 riffles, because my opponent had spent some time reordering a signficant chunk of his deck (5-6 cards were moved out of a 15-20 card deck). For completely clarity, this was a game where time was not an issue, as game 1 completed in about 5 minutes.
I agree that insufficient shuffling is the crux of the problem. Judges need to consistently give players enough time to sufficiently randomize their opponent's decks if their opponent has declumped.
Completely agree. If your cards look "clumped", don't declump and shuffle poorly; leave 'em where they are and shuffle sufficiently.
Ness
Member
Your judges are derelict in their duties if they are tolerating this. You can actually be disqualified from a tournament for doing this. Just because your opponents are tolerating it doesn't mean it's right, okay, or even legal. (Many of them may not realize the advantage you are giving yourself, or they do and just roll their eyes before shuffling the heck out of your deck.) Unlike "declumping," weaving your deck before a game is not legal - at least according to every judge I have ever talked to. In your example, the only shuffling you have done is 1 (or 2) riffles. Even your pile shuffle isn't a shuffle - your deck is in a deliberately-made order when you pile shuffle. All the pile shuffle does is create another artificially-produced order.
This form of cheating has existed in Magic for years. Here's a link to a thread that discusses it in detail: http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75842/24886081/Mana_Weaving_and_Power_Shuffling
You'll read the same anti-stacking arguments here, though the Magic player base seems more educated on the subject, perhaps because cheating was more prevalent in Magic and also because the player base is older and more experienced. I write anti-stacking because "declumping" and stacking are two versions of the same thing, the only difference is that the latter is more blatant. Once you realize that, you'll understand why you shouldn't declump.
There's three forms of deck manipulation that are being discussed in this Pokegym topic:
1) Stacking your deck, where you place all your cards in a perfect order, something like Deino+Rare Candy+Hydreigon and Ultra Ball+Darkness Energy+Dark Patch next to each other are examples.
2) Weaving your deck, where a player distributes energy, Pokémon and trainers more evenly to remove frequencies of similar cards next to each other, which are typically bad hands.
3) Declumping cards, where a player separates as little as two cards that are undesirable to draw in a pair
What you have to realize is that all three of these things are actually the same; they are all manipulating the deck, just to a different degree. The first is the most blatant, declumping is the most subtle. The reason declumping has been tolerated for so long is because the advantage it gives a player is so subtle it's virtually undetectable and also because attempting to stop it creates more problems than it solves. And of course, all of these are negated by shuffling thoroughly, but as I've always said, just because your opponent can thwart your attempt to manipulate your deck does not mean it should be okay to manipulate it.
I'm happy to write that over the last year I've seen declumping decrease significantly where I've played in Florida and now where I live and play in Illinois. People are starting to "get it." There's a stigma attached to declumping, and rightfully so. However, I'll make sure I'm not misunderstood: I do not advocate a rule against it. The ability to move cards through a deck as a player searches can help him or her weigh a decision or check what cards are prized. Rather, all I do is urge people to break the habit of what at best wastes time separating undesirable cards in their deck. If someone declumps, I'm less tolerant of a real quick mid-game shuffle and shuffle my opponent's deck myself. That's the best way to deal with it, IMO.
Otaku
Active Member
I did. Insufficient shuffling is an issue. You even explain this yourself:
Now here is where I believe you we part ways:
A deck that was sufficiently shuffled by its owner then gets insufficiently shuffled when the opposing player gets her/his chance to cut/shuffle/pass. This is... pretty irrelevant. The opposing player is taking a risk, but taking it willingly (or ignorantly, if unaware her/his own shuffle is insufficient). Still, if declumping, full searching, whatever happened before the deck owner sufficiently shuffled happened, it has been undone because by definition, s/he sufficiently shuffled.
A deck where a search was carried out gets insufficiently shuffled by both players. This is bad... but if the owner didn't take a good look at the deck to memorize it (or a portion of it, or a general idea of it, etc.) it won't matter as much. If he did, then he has gained one benefit.
Now insert the owner "de-clumping". This means at least the distribution of some of the cards has been organized; even if the owner doesn't remember any card order, that player still can benefit from having de-clumped. So the problem is still insufficient shuffling, but de-clumping added another possible benefit to it for the one player.
What if the owner of the search pulled a bunch of potential targets, then puts them in a clump on top of the deck, and insufficient shuffling occurs. If those targets are useful, good for the owner. If they are bad, the owner just cheated her/himself! :lol:
Double checked your profile; Poképarent from the UK who became a League leader. I bring this up because either there is something wrong with your sentence structure and/or word choices, or my government school education is showing.
The most significant issue is the insufficient shuffling. I didn't start this thread, I just allowed myself to get sucked into it. Despite past desire to see declumping labeled as illegal but recognized as being "unenforceable without confession", I realize now that is asking too much of judges and creates too great a risk for an abuse of power.
So for now I favor sticking to treating it as it already is treated; a legal behavior to be discouraged and frowned upon, but tolerated.
De-clumping is not a smokescreen; that is an intentional, manufactured distraction. Declumping is not such a thing. It is a questionable practice that due to constraints must be tolerated. Insufficient shuffling is a widespread problem. Declumping provides yet another way for insufficient shuffling to cause problems, hence it makes it more significant.
Double checked your profile; Poképarent from the UK who became a League leader. I bring this up because either there is something wrong with your sentence structure and/or word choices, or my government school education is showing.
The sentence is grammatically correct, although I would have added another comma:
Also, this quote isn't saying declumping is a smokescreen, but rather that the focus on declumping is. In other words, someone's trying to pull focus off the insufficient shuffle by pointing to the declumping.
psychup2034
New Member
First of all, we don't all go into the first round with our decks sorted. I usually have something built, and I'm just changing around a couple cards the morning of the tournament. After every deck check, I sufficiently randomize my deck without intentially stacking it (10 riffles, 2 piles, 2 more riffles, etc.).
Second of all, why are you stacking your deck if the point is not to gain a more favorable distribution of Pokemon/Trainers/Energy? (I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're intelligent enough to not believe in the "superstition" argument.)
What you admit to doing is exactly the type of cheating that Jason was campaigning to remove from this game in his thread about cheating at Worlds. In my opinion, it is a disgrace to have a moderator on the Pokegym support stacking using the ridiculous argument that as long as it's undone, then it's not cheating. If someone weren't trying to give themselves an advantage (trying to cheat), why would they stack the deck in the first place (as opposed to just giving it 7 good riffles)? Clearly, a person who stacks their deck understands that doing so could possibly give themselves an advantage in terms of an increased probability of drawing a better distribution of cards, or else they wouldn't bother doing it.
You've indubitably crossed the line from declumping over into stacking, and as Jason said, a judge would be failing to fulfill his responsibilities as a judge if he did not stop/penalize you for what you're doing.
It's the classic "If you're not trying to cheat, why on Earth would you put yourself in the position where someone could reasonably suspect you of cheating by your actions?" argument.
- Status