Slow Play Being Allowed Too Often? EDIT: Stance adjusted.

[LOLZ]

@ LOLZ "if players think their opponent is slow playing or stalling... they should call a judge."

This is what I really meant by a lengthy turn being determined by a player.^ While engaged in a game, the opposing player is the one who determines that a player is playing slowly and asks them to make a move and calls over a judge.

No, Players can have the opinion "I think my opponent is slow playing/stalling", they do not have the authority to state "My opponent IS slow playing/stalling" or the power to do anything (penalty and/or time extension) about it. Only a judge can say "Player B, you need to increase your pace of play" followed by issuing a Warning and Time extension if necessary.

Thank you for explaining that a warning is a penalty. I don't know how many players know that or not, I may be the only one who has been playing for a while that doesnt know that haha. I've only had one occasion where I witnessed a warning being given out and it didn't seem like anything was reported/done about it (though im sure something was done afterwards now that I know).

I think you are the only one who didn't know that, lol.

And yes, something does happen when a warning is issued, it is reported to P!P and next time the player who got the warning does the same thing the penalty can be increased to prize loss.

You basically get 2 non-penalized warnings before anything is done about it. One from the player and I guess a "caution" from the judge that you mentioned.

Explain that one to me....

 

[TrainerEnjay]

No, Players can have the opinion "I think my opponent is slow playing/stalling", they do not have the authority to state "My opponent IS slow playing/stalling" or the power to do anything (penalty and/or time extension) about it. Only a judge can say "Player B, you need to increase your pace of play" followed by issuing a Warning and Time extension if necessary.

If a player thinks that his opponent is taking too long they act upon it by saying "make a move" or they call a judge. That player determined that his opponent was taking too long during their turn...yes, the judge is the only one who can do something about it. I never said the player had any power on anything other than acting upon an opponent playing slowly. Players determine for themselves that a player is doing this and that's why they call a judge in the first place. Some judges may watch a match and determine themselves that a player is doing this, but that's usually not the case as they have to monitor everyone, answer questions, etc. I think that you are getting too technical with terms. You can come to the conclusion, determine, decide, etc. that a player is slowplaying and act. You just can't enforce the ruling on it.

I think you are the only one who didn't know that, lol.

yeah, it's never been a problem for me.

Explain that one to me....

2 non-penalized warnings. A "warning" stated by a judge is a penalty. Your opponent saying "you need to make a move soon or i'll call a judge over" is your first warning that you need to increase pace of play. This is non-penalized warning 1. Your opponent calls over a judge, the judge can't give out a penalty until they have watched you play slowly so they "caution" you that you need to increase pace of play or else you will get a penalty. This caution is non-penalized warning number 2. anything after that and you are going to get a penalty.

 

[LOLZ]

2 non-penalized warnings. A "warning" stated by a judge is a penalty. Your opponent saying "you need to make a move soon or i'll call a judge over" is your first warning that you need to increase pace of play. This is non-penalized warning 1. Your opponent calls over a judge, the judge can't give out a penalty until they have watched you play slowly so they "caution" you that you need to increase pace of play or else you will get a penalty. This caution is non-penalized warning number 2. anything after that and you are going to get a penalty.

Yeah... that makes no sense what so ever... the following are random facts that might help you rewrite or reword this... I think these have something to do with your post...

1- There are no such thing has "non-penalized warnings".

2- Cautions, Warnings, Prize Card, Multi-Prize Card, Game Loss and DQ are all considered penalties.

3- Cautions, Warnings, Prize Card, Multi-Prize Card, Game Loss and DQ are the only types of penalties a judge can issue.

4- Players can't give other Players Penalties

Just want to repeat this for clarity...

5- Cautions are Penalties

6- Warnings are Penalties

 

[baby mario]

Slowplaying to try and run the clock down for a win on time IS STALLING. There is not personality type issue here. Slowing pace of play to achieve a win on time does involve intent, players who do this are CHEATING and are subject to penalty. [/B]

I agree. I was just saying that there are two different issues with slowplaying.

1. People who go into slow play mode just to run down the clock (yes, this is cheating)

2. People who are naturally very slow players and do this throughout every turn in every game no matter what the situation (no intention to cheat, but it can be unfair on the opponent so something does need to be done about it)

 

[psychup2034]

While I do agree that Slow Play in general is an issue, it's worth noting that the specific evidence given in the OP is a bit flawed. While Ross was playing extremely slow, it was clearly not unnoticed by the judges if you were watching it in person, but those on the stream would be unable to see this, correct?

I think what people are saying is that it appeared from the stream that the judges didn't do enough to liven the pace of play. If the judges did notice it, they didn't take action expediently. They might think they did, but it's obvious from objective third-party observers watching the stream that they didn't. When people watch the stream, they see the game state. They get to objectively look at whether the pace of play is lively enough.

 

[LOLZ]

I agree. I was just saying that there are two different issues with slowplaying.

1. People who go into [DEL]slow play mode[/DEL] stall just to run down the clock (yes, this is cheating)

2. People who are naturally very slow players and do this throughout every turn in every game no matter what the situation (no intention to cheat, but it can be unfair on the opponent so something does need to be done about it)

fixed

There is only one type of slow playing and that is #2 in your post. The "first" example you have given is Stalling.

The word stalling is commonly associated with intent/cheating.

Slow Playing is associated with just playing slow- no intent.

 

[losjackal]

I watched half the match so far to form my opinion.

Ross' first turn was a bit painful to watch, exacerbated by the commentary, and the fact we were looking at it literally counting the seconds. On the other hand, if you were Joel the opponent, you may not have noticed anything out of the ordinary. (He reads these forums, maybe he'll stumble across this and comment.)

On the most micro level, he did seems to take a lot of time thinking about what to discard with that first Ultra Ball. I want to say that he should have been thinking about his potential move during Joel's turn, but that's not fair because great players watch and consider every move their opponent is making too. What vindicated the time taken for me was the swiftness he pulled out Tynamo, attached energy, promoted it, and played the N. That means in my mind, it's all a wash in the end.

Furthermore, I can't imagine any competent player would intentionally slow play from the very first turn. There is just no way of knowing which opponent will need more time at the end.

 

[TrainerEnjay]

LOLZ there are such things as warnings outside of the pokemon world/rulebook. You have to live outside of it a little bit when u read my posts. If I told my opponent not to catcher one of my pokemon bcuz i will just ko them with another that's a warning. I could tell my opponent not to put a card down on a sticky spot as a warning. Neither of these warnings are penalties.

 

[Jaeger]

I like Ross...Ross is a good guy...I would not let Ross take a "Ross" turn against me without saying something.

 

[LOLZ]

I watched half the match so far to form my opinion.

Ross' first turn was a bit painful to watch, exacerbated by the commentary, and the fact we were looking at it literally counting the seconds. On the other hand, if you were Joel the opponent, you may not have noticed anything out of the ordinary. (He reads these forums, maybe he'll stumble across this and comment.)

On the most micro level, he did seems to take a lot of time thinking about what to discard with that first Ultra Ball. I want to say that he should have been thinking about his potential move during Joel's turn, but that's not fair because great players watch and consider every move their opponent is making too. What vindicated the time taken for me was the swiftness he pulled out Tynamo, attached energy, promoted it, and played the N. That means in my mind, it's all a wash in the end.

Furthermore, I can't imagine any competent player would intentionally slow play from the very first turn. There is just no way of knowing which opponent will need more time at the end.

I couldn't of said it better, the last turns were also painful to watch as well. In order to formulate an informed opinion about the match I would really would like to know who was Turn 0, based on the video it could of been possible that either player was turn 0 as during the final turn of the game prizes were tied.

 

[Swordfish1989]

I watched half the match so far to form my opinion.

Ross' first turn was a bit painful to watch, exacerbated by the commentary, and the fact we were looking at it literally counting the seconds. On the other hand, if you were Joel the opponent, you may not have noticed anything out of the ordinary. (He reads these forums, maybe he'll stumble across this and comment.)

On the most micro level, he did seems to take a lot of time thinking about what to discard with that first Ultra Ball. I want to say that he should have been thinking about his potential move during Joel's turn, but that's not fair because great players watch and consider every move their opponent is making too. What vindicated the time taken for me was the swiftness he pulled out Tynamo, attached energy, promoted it, and played the N. That means in my mind, it's all a wash in the end.

Furthermore, I can't imagine any competent player would intentionally slow play from the very first turn. There is just no way of knowing which opponent will need more time at the end.

Because of that exact reason (the slow play on turn 1) is why I don't think it was deliberate either. Someone who stalls for the purpose of cheating the clock would slow down only when it benefits them (towards the end) and at no other time. They'd also (hopefully) be smart enough about it to not do it often, and from the other comments here it appears that many people know he tends to take his time and the like.

I can understand wanting to take time to make sure that you're making the right move, but everything has a limit. It's like standardized tests (which I'm studying for now), I could certainly solve all the problems in the math section if given four hours, but I have to be able to do it in less than half that. The way I'll be able to do that is by practice, practice, practice, and I feel that players who spend too much time making decisions would benefit from more practice because they tend to know what to do when and where, and what the goals are to accomplish that. When I first picked up an SP deck (LuxRay) I was incredibly slow with it; taking my time to make decisions on whether to use Cyrus or Collector, then deciding what to get with Cyrus, what to get w/SP Radar, etc. The more I played the deck and the more different decks I played, the quicker and better I became at it.

 

[AnUnown]

Wow.. finally watched the video.. his FIRST turn starts at 12:00 in, and he finally attacks at 16:40... ouch. Joel was done his turn and Ross's next turn began less than 2 minutes later.

 

[Pidgeotto Trainer]

I, the Ross in the video for those who don't know, have several things to say.

I appreciate that many people have pointed out that I was not 'stalling'. I had no intention of trying to win this game on time or to take up time to hurt my opponent's chances. I looked at the video and timed each player's turns and my first 3 turns were very long, but the remaining 7 turns were all very reasonable and comparable to Joel's. In fact, after my first 3 turns, the longest turn on either side by fair margin is Joel's 2nd to last turn, which was turn 1 of plus 3. I received a warning early in the game, which I didn't argue with. Joel after the game told me he had no problem with my pace.

While people are trying to be nice by stating I'm a good guy or whatever, I am still disappointed and a little surprised that a few posts here (such as the original post) paint my 'slow play' as if it's hurting my opponent.

In this game, yes my slow play and time being called did allow me to win. This is rare (and again far from my intended strategy). I have DEFINITELY lost more games due to time than I have won. Big games, nationals and worlds games. I played a card called 'Vileplume' for a long time. If I could be a breakneck pace player, maybe I would have won worlds 2011. In more clear circumstances, I lost 2 games at nationals 2012, eliminating me at 6-3 by literally 1 turn. My pace of play has been a handicap more often than a benefit.

The game everyone is getting worked up about was a game between 2 7-0s that only determined seeding. Now of course it could have happened in a more important game, but trust me, I've been on the wrong side of time more than the right side.

This was the only game that I won due to time. And my opponent misplayed by playing his last Catcher on turn 1 (of the 3 turns) while he was paralyzed, preventing him from taking a prize after I ko the first Sableye to win. So time wasn't even the only factor.

I won top 32 game 3 at 2-4 with a commanding position at the end of +3. I won the rest of my top cut matches and swiss matches without coming down to time. I won this tournament with strategy, not slow play.

As an aside for specifics, people shouldn't be basing their arguments on the timing of my first turn. I always check certain things being in the prizes in the first search, and I tell this to my opponent and 90% of players don't complain. One who complained in top cut was told by a judge that there can be some leniency for the first turn search. I never take long for a search after the first search. Even the round 8 game, if you look at my last 5-6 turns, they aren't slow.

For people concerned that judges are asleep at the wheel or something, I got a warning in the round 8 game shown and I didn't argue. It was a slow first few turns even by my standards. I received another warning in top 32 (that night) in plus 3 turns which I disagreed with, both because of context (plus 3 turns) and I thought my pace was reasonable in that game.

I went to bed that night (with top 16 in the morning) worried that I was going to soon get an unfair prize penalty or something and be eliminated because of the 2nd warning I didn't feel I deserved. Wouldn't that have been an unfair way to lose? I was really worried about this. Playing so many rounds, come that far and lose by something other than the board position? That last sentence is I believe what outraged the original poster, though he only saw it from one side.

But it goes both ways! Players losing on time isn't fair, but we're stuck with the system. Players losing because they weren't allowed to think or they were penalized for doing so is also not fair. So it's very interesting to me that the theme of the original post and a couple others is we can't allow this slow play, it's unfairly winning games! Rushing or penalizing for thinking can also unfairly decide games!

Now that was just my worry. The judges I felt handled my 'pace of play' very appropriately, with the head judge talking to me himself at times. I felt like day 2 I played at a good pace and I only got a few verbal cues to speed up at times, which my opponents did as well. My top 8 match (which is online now I see) I felt like both players played at a slow but very reasonable thought out pace. We each got a couple verbal cues to hurry up a turn here or there (not that much in 75 minute rounds). When time was called the head judge said we had a time extension, which I was happy to hear. I would love to have 'time extensions' rather than 'time penalties' if there's no intent. The time extension hurt my chances by the way, though I won fairly on the board as I sought to. At the end of the game the head judge talked with me and just reminded me that I needed to play at a good pace. I told him I am trying to and I felt both my opponent and I were taking time but at a good pace. I didn't feel 'threatened' by this meeting, but believe me all day I could feel judging attention on my pace.

The point of the last 3 paragraphs is this 'slow play' discussion has two sides. I spent the last night and day of this tournament worried I was going to get penalized into elimination because someone doesn't think I'm playing fast enough. The original poster expressed his outrage because I won one meaningless game because of this slow play. It goes both ways. Some posters here clearly needed to hear the other side. The judges had the right balance, as in the end the tournament was not decided by someone losing on time or being penalized for thinking. I think everyone should be happy for that.

The game shown here would probably have been given a time extension had it been top cut, as my round 8 match was a better pace I think and got one and I am very fine with time extensions. The top cut was very actively judged, this game between two people in swiss already in top cut wasn't so much, though the judges still were present enough to give me a warning.

I want to also add that the original poster felt like there was some issue of inconsistency at play, like I was getting away with something. I would have to sit in a judge's seat with a stopwatch, but I certainly feel like I get noticed MORE for pace of play because of my name, and because of this slow play reputation that will unfortunately grow with this thread. Some of the verbal cues I got to hurry up were after a logical amount of time in a logical spot to be told to hurry up, and some verbal cues were not at the most fair moment. (plus 3, or very soon after I started my turn, but a judge happened to be watching then) The judges are human and they make a lot of right calls, but not all of them either. (They for the most part made the right ones though) But it's silly of the original poster to think I'm getting a break. I hope this post lets him 'take a walk in my shoes' so to speak.

Btw, thetopcut has my top 8 win and should soon have my finals win online. Without time being a factor, I make some nice, well thought-out, game-winning plays to win big games. How about we label those 'Ross turns' instead?

 

[Raen]

Thank you for the well thought out and reasonable reply, Ross. I admit, I had no idea that the judges had in fact noticed and done something about it, so I really appreciate you bringing that up.

I feel like my post came off harsher than intended. I just noticed something I didn't like (and didn't fully understand it seems), and wanted to start some discussion. So sorry for that! I appreciate your honesty and am content with your explanation.

I also appreciate people's points about player's needing to, to some degree, police themselves and be willing to speak out if an opponent is playing slower than they are comfortable with. I appreciate that insight and will keep it in mind going forward.

 

[homeofmew]

Honestly if people have an issue with slow play people need to raise their hand.
However it can be difficult with small amounts of staff depending on the event size.

 

[Jaeger]

Alright Ross I got a couple jabs from your last post which is fine, but let me more clear.

Regardless if your pace of play hurts or benefits me (the opponent) if we have 30 minutes to play a game am I wrong to feel I'm entitled to 15 minutes or half of the time? The bottomline in my opinion is if your first turn is 5+ minutes the odds are I'm going to be getting less than 15 minutes of the clock.

Also it has been stated multible times that this game is not meant to be played untimed where nobody would ever make a mistake. Having a limited amount of time to make a major decesion is a factor thats built into the games stratigey.

Lastly the comment "Ross Turn" was granted poorly worded, but you know what I meant. You know I have the up most respect for you as a player and as a deck builder.

Ross were friends or at least I'd hope you would say were friends. Its nothing personal but if we play against each other I have to look out for own best interest (as I understand you would as well) and in this case it would just be me trying to get my fair share of the clock.

 

[TAndrewT]

I am also a slow player--certainly not as skilled, but probably just as slow if not slower. A few of my games this past weekend went to time, and I believe that my game was the last one in progress in at least 1 round.

Playing slowly impacts not only the game you are involved in, but also the pace of the tournament as a whole. I hate to imagine that my play made our tournament last longer than it needed to, but it probably did. I feel bad about that. I believe that judges often have this in mind when they make comments (to me) on pace of play during +3, and I think those comments are wholly appropriate.

 

[ryanvergel]

Without time being a factor, I make some nice, well thought-out, game-winning plays to win big games.

To play devil's advocate...

Do you ever consider that you make such amazing plays because you take an improper amount of time to think/plan? If you took a proper amount of time, maybe you would make less stellar plays? Like Jay said, part of the game is making plays in a time crunch, and sometimes this leads to making less than perfect plays, but you have to live with it.

Don't you think it's weird that you are literally known in the community for taking absurdly long turns/playing slowly?
Don't you think it's problematic that you received multiple warnings for your use of time?
Do you think you can attribute some of your awesome plays to the fact that you take way longer than normal to come up with said plays? Are they really that amazing in that context?
Do you think it's okay that you take up way more of the clock than your opponent?

I would be a little embarrassed if I was known as one of the slowest players in the game. I definitely take my time to make moves, and have been told by judges a few times to "make a move" (especially in +3 where I tend to move to the mindset that I am playing untimed now), but I've never received a penalty for my slowplay.

You may want to reconsider your playstyle. You're in the vast minority for how slowly you play. You admit it's to your detriment? but still do it anyways, and clearly you violate rules and have been penalized for your actions. What are you going to do about the fact that you play so slowly, to the point of receiving penalties and being known in the community as you are?

This isn't to take away from your skill or accomplishments. You're a really nice guy, and you have accomplishments I can only dream of. But now I wonder about your fairness (taking up way more of the clock than your opponent) and your skill (now I question whether it's because you're god-level skill, or you make brilliant moves because you take an unfair amount of time to come up with these moves). Regardless if you believe it costs you more often than not to play slowly, it's at the very least unfair to your opponents, and you probably overestimate its detriment. You get to make less mistakes because you play slowly, so even if your claim of losing on time is true, you probably win a lot of games because so few turns came about, and because you mitigated your gameplay errors and maximized your good plays by taking an unfair amount of time to make your moves.

 

[Trican]

One thing about the context (+3 turns) being unfair is this: You are in technically an untimed portion of the game. HOWEVER the entirety of the division is now waiting on you. Now I know you can argue anyone in that division would want the same time allotment, but I'd tell any of them the same. Your turn time frames are still the same in +3 as in the 30. Now if they were nitpicking your +3 turns my misunderstanding and my bad.

On the flip of the coin yes the best you can do is try to let a judge know that something is amiss with pace of play and let them notice it themselves. As a judge I know the time left in a round and if it were me I would consider are you in the 16-30 minute range of the game or the 1-15 minute range of the game. In the early portion of the game stalling is a lot harder to tell as has been pointed out. I'm the same way search one I check for whats prized and I've come up with a rather simple, and I would hope legal way to tell what is and isn't prized when taking specifics into account.

What I do as if it is illegal please share, but:

One deck I use has three Catchers. One Catcher is Gold, One is RH and One is normal, Going through the deck I see Golden and RH I know the third is prized without thinking too hard. Same with Switch- Base Set, Storm Front, HGSS and BW. I mean it's not possible for everything, but it's something easy I've tried in a few decks and it does shave a few seconds of the deck search to go through and go "Golden, RH and no regular got it. Base, SF, HGSS and BW all are there good to know." I'm sure it's nothing new, but just something I'd pass along.

 

[ryanvergel]

One thing about the context (+3 turns) being unfair is this: You are in technically an untimed portion of the game. HOWEVER the entirety of the division is now waiting on you. Now I know you can argue anyone in that division would want the same time allotment, but I'd tell any of them the same. Your turn time frames are still the same in +3 as in the 30. Now if they were nitpicking your +3 turns my misunderstanding and my bad.

On the flip of the coin yes the best you can do is try to let a judge know that something is amiss with pace of play and let them notice it themselves. As a judge I know the time left in a round and if it were me I would consider are you in the 16-30 minute range of the game or the 1-15 minute range of the game. In the early portion of the game stalling is a lot harder to tell as has been pointed out. I'm the same way search one I check for whats prized and I've come up with a rather simple, and I would hope legal way to tell what is and isn't prized when taking specifics into account.

What I do as if it is illegal please share, but:

One deck I use has three Catchers. One Catcher is Gold, One is RH and One is normal, Going through the deck I see Golden and RH I know the third is prized without thinking too hard. Same with Switch- Base Set, Storm Front, HGSS and BW. I mean it's not possible for everything, but it's something easy I've tried in a few decks and it does shave a few seconds of the deck search to go through and go "Golden, RH and no regular got it. Base, SF, HGSS and BW all are there good to know." I'm sure it's nothing new, but just something I'd pass along.

It helps you identify things easier, but also your opponent too.

If you use 4 kinds of switch, consider a best of 3.

In game 1, I see a base set and SF switch. Game 2, I see a HGSS and BW switch played. I have deduced your switch count of 4 while only seeing 2 played per game.