Another reason why players should be punished for action, and not thought.
Case A: I think that by declumping, it gives me better draws every time. It actually happens all the time.
Case B: I think that by declumping, it gives me better draws every time. It happens some of the time.
Case C: I think that by declumping, it gives me better draws every time. It never happens every time.
Case D: I think that by declumping, it stops me from having bad draws all the time. It actually happens, and the occasional good draw comes in.
Case E: I think that by declumping, it stops me from having bad draws all the time. Good draws happen all the time instead.
Case F: I think that by declumping, it stops me from having bad draws all the time. It doesn't happen. Bad draws all the time.
To assess the situation, you must look at intent vs action. If you get good draws all the time, that's cheating. If you get bad draws all the time, that's also cheating, unlucky, but cheating nonetheless.
Case A, B, C is thinking of a cheating result. Both A and C are cheating. Case B isn't. Case D, E, and F are all not intending to cheat, but intending to not be unlucky all the time. Case D isn't cheating, but E and F are cheating. The difference between the 6 cases has more to do with their shuffling skills.
Either way, both "sufficiently randomized", and "no stacking" rule are redundant to one another. You can't have a stacked deck if you sufficiently randomize your deck, and your deck has to be insfficiently randomized deck for the deck to be stacked. Basically, I'm saying the same 2 things, but yet, the former is based off the no stacking rule, and the latter is based off the sufficiently randomized rule.
I think there should be a rules change, that rather than having 2 vague rules, make 1 detailed rule instead. As I said before, "no stacking" rule is made with the intent that someone will break the "sufficiently randomized" rule.
I have a challenge for you. "Stack" your deck so you draw certain cards in your opening hand every time. Then shuffle that deck. Now draw 7 cards. I bet you that it doesn't happen all the time. In order to truly gain advantage from stacking your deck, you have to omit the sufficiently shuffle step, or at least a do a poor job at shuffling.
@Vaporeon, which case (A to F) happens for you? You say that you are expecting good hands, so it is obvious Case A to C, but what actually happens in your games? Do you get the occasional bad hands, the occasional good hands, and most of your hands are meh?
@Baby Mario. You are mixing up Intent with Attempt. Those are different. Intent is planning to do it, but not really doing it, and that really is hard to prove. Somebody could be intending to cheat, or somebody could be intending to make the game more fair, and they both could be doing the same action, that is declumping. Remember that just by picking up after yourself from the last game, is and not have a stacked deck, without any reordering of the cards is impossible. Attempting to cheat is a different story. Attempting to cheat is performing the action, and not simply thinking about it. When you reordering your cards, you may be intending to cheat, but not attempting to cheat. A person who is attempting to cheat may also reorder their cards in their favor, but in that case, they would most likely guaranteed to not shuffle their decks, and these attempts may go against their favor as well. Therefore, people attempting to cheat should be DQed, but those who intend to cheat shouldn't. Another difference between intent and attempt, with intent to cheat, you don't care if the results go in your favor. With attempt to cheat, you totally would make a huge fuss if your cheating didn't go your way. It is also hard to prove one who is intending to cheat, and one who is attempting to cheat. Hence, judges shouldn't DQ anyone who is looking like they are thinking about cheating, but those who actually commit the act itself. It is a foolproof system, and you don't DQ the wrong guy, or not DQ a cheater who is out there. Fine, have it your way, DQ some innocent people by mistake then. If you owned a store, and you were the judge for the tournament in that store, whoo boy, you'd see few customers visiting your store, since you are happy to DQ someone for thinking about gaining an advantage by doing something, and that advantage never really happens, because that person thinks that advantage will happen, but it doesn't. If you were a sports referee, fans would boo you so hard for dumb calls. I've never seen someone get a penalty in football for an attempt to do an illegal hit, or an intent to do an illegal hit. The penalty only happens when the illegal hit happened. But oh well, Pokemon isn't sports, so what am I to judge. One difference is that, nobody gets DQed for an accidental breaking of the rules in Pokemon TCG, but in football, you get a 5 yard penalty for accidentally stepping over the line of scrimmage. Weird.
Declumping vs stacking
Intend vs Attempt
Stop mixing these up.
People are DQed for cheating. The -ing suffix describe the act of doing something at that exact time. Attempting or intending to cheat isn't the same as cheating, as they happen before the actual cheating. You are also treating this game like it's life or death, being paranoid that even thinking that a simple action such as declumping would net an advantage all the time, which is false, rather than catching those in the process of the cheat, rather than the leading up to the cheat. Both judges and referees in PTCG and football respectively are trained to catch those who commit the act, right here, right now. Police officers are trained to do that too, and are trained to catch people who commit crimes right there right now, and even from crimes commited in the past. They will NEVER catch someone who will commit a crime in the future, and from my 5 year old vs 25 year old example, I could say that person could be 24 years old. It doesn't matter. It takes tons and tons of proof to prove someone will do something, than someone who is doing or did something.
So someone who is going to cheat should NEVER be DQed, until they actually commit the act, unless you have loads of proof. It's like that with the law, in sports, in every game. And if you think you already found the proof for someone who is going to cheat, hey, guess what, that proof came from the act of cheating itself.
It's these small details you find, such as, OMG this guy is reordering his deck prematch, therefore he is cheating. I bet you won't suspect him of cheating until you actually lost. Reordering the cards doesn't do anything if you shuffle sufficiently. You are blaming it on the reordering of the cards for your loss rather than his luck, your unluckiness, of the fact that you made some mistakes during the match.
If someone is really cheating, the results show, and it is much easier catching someone that way, than before a game, when you don't know whether that person is really cheating or not.
Just a food for thought, only sore losers would point fingers at opponents and go "ha, cheat", all the time.
Even with my murder example, you are stalking someone with the intent to murder someone. You get caught, for what? Intent to murder? No. You are caught for stalking, which is a totally has nothing to do with being caught for murder. I bet you think that someone, who is reordering their cards is cheating, and you DQ them immediately. Instead you should observe first, look at a few games, that is the action taking place, before you act and DQ them. Here, you are GETTING PROOF. If you are DQing someone who is simply reordering their cards just because you think they are stacking their deck, then it is a biased DQ, because you probably most likely hate the guy, and is not based on fact, or any fair judgment. Most judges who suspect someone who is cheating OBSERVE before they act, and to get further proof, they watch a few games and let the cheating happen.
Some judges probably don't DQ people who are reordering their cards, who seem suspicious of cheating, because they know that what they are doing probably won't have an effect on the results of the game.
Judges who go "ha, cheat", without gaining evidence deserves no respect.
The solution has already been found to this whole suspect opponent of stacking mess. Shuffle their decks.
Here's some fiction I found.
You sufficiently shuffle your opponent's deck, thus you gain an advantage instead. FALSE. all it does is negate the opponent's GUARANTEED advantage, You don't gain any advantage, unless you physically reorder the card in your opponent's deck in your favor, and shuffle poorly.