Worlds 2009 In Review

[Ruiner]

I just wanted to thank Mike for chiming in and at least mentioning that things are being read. I know I'm burning bridges, and surely offending at least a few people here ( nothing new ) but as long as my opinion is at least being read ( not necessarily adopted, but read ) than I feel like its worth it. I'm doing this in order to try and improve the game in my eyes, so even if you do not agree with me, at least realize my intents. Do I think one of my threads is going to cause major changes in the way things are run? No. I'd like them to, but I'm realistic. I do like to think that maybe they can at least get some things relooked at and reconsidered in terms of if they are being handled ideally or not.

Anyways, going back to the discussion, first regarding Lawman: Flashback to ECSC 04. I won on time. I made a terrible blunder mid game ( the game I should have won, not drawn had I played competently ) and knew at that point I had no opportunity to actually win the game. Over the next few turns, I played more methodically. I "stalled" by playing unnecessary cards and taking longer, but still appropriate amounts of time to decide my actions. Was it slower than my previous turns? Certainly. Was it any slower than a GOOD NUMBER of players "standard pace of play"? NO. I play fast. I play faster than I should. I misplay at times because I play so fast. In tough game situations, I'll slow down quite a bit.

Every good player has good time management. The term is FAR more appropriate than "gaming the clock". Those who do NOT take time into account in games pay for it because everyone else at a high level is doing so. Even if such a blanket statement isn't 100% accurate, Read many of my tournament reports, my newest Worlds one being a good example: Round 3, my opponent was down to 2 prizes and I had 6 at roughly the 15 minute mark. I had a good game state, but I had already come to the realization I was going to lose on time. I SHOULD have lost on time. There was no realistic reason that he should have lost that game, and against 90% of players, I would have lost. And yes, before you ask, I would be "ok with it". Clearly I don't like LOSING, but I'd rather lose to a player who is playing their best game possible than one who gets lucky.

Example: My opponent was using Machamp, Dusknoir, Lumineon. I would have much rather preferred he wins on time, with me at 2 prizes to his 1, than for me to tie it up because he "lets" me back in the game, only to have him flip 4 heads with Machamp to win ( where say, 3 doesn't KO me ). I'd much rather lose knowing my opponent played CORRECTLY. I'd be disappointed I lost, but would I complain about my opponent "stalling me"? NO. Listen to a number of the good players talk between rounds. People relentlessly ask " how'd you do? " to their friends between rounds. " I lost on time" is often the answer. Do you know why? They lost on time. They didn't "get stalled". They lost to a mechanic that is intrinsically a part of any TCG. Now, this isn't saying that you cannot be STALLED. I've seen examples of stalling. I've been victim to it too, but very rarely because I know that, gasp, you are able to call a judge over if it becomes an issue. 99% of stalling happens due to player fault.

Also, to those who are reading the conversation: Lawmans an amazing guy, and I have the utmost respect for him. I have nothing against him calling me out on the "personal" example, as I've told him that had I not won on time, I lost that game. I don't hold it against him, and I hope he doesn't hold anything against me.

Also, as to my choice to single out Steve. He is posting in the discussion and was acting rather hypocritical in the process. I feel that gives me plenty of right to bring him up within the context of the thread.

Regardless of his "mandate" to judge accordingly, I find it hard to believe it was mandated to judge rudely. There wasblatant hostility in the way he judged.

I think ChaosJim pointed out exactly what my concern with "active" judging in his Vince vs Inchy analogy.

It 100% is NOT right to assume that a player is making plays because of malicious intent opposed to because they simply do not know better. If a player is making plays, regardless of how bad or worthless they are, they are still legal moves. If a player has a hand full of trainers on the last turn of the game, and just so happens to be able to legitimately take a five minute turn ( chains of PokeDrawers, Great Balls, Super Scoop Up, a Luxury Ball, PokeTurns, PokeDex, etc...think the crazy Uxie Crobat deck that Rob Downs used a lot of this season ) how is it the judges right to intervene and say " im sorry, it doesn't matter...don't play those, ship the turn to your opponent please".

Based on that same logic, are you telling me, using the Rob Downs deck example, that say the Uxie deck got up a bunch of prizes, but ran out of Crobats and such. His opponent is close to tying the game on prizes. Rob's deck has 15 cards in hand, as his opponent had a weak start, and he didn't have to overextend with a lot of his trainers. Theres 4 minutes left in the game. Rob's deck simply draws through his deck for those 4 minutes, ending the game. It goes over what should be a traditionally normal length turn, but he is PLAYING cards legitimately. You cannot assume every player plays to the same level of ability and skill as another player, and that is why it is difficult, if not straight out incorrect, to judge as such.

Now, let me bring up something about there being "no such thing as gaming the clock". There are two things. There is STALLING, and there is proper play. There is no "gaming the clock" in between. Stalling is sitting there, with no legal plays, wasting excessive amounts of time. Retreating, checking a discard pile, asking hand size, playing a supporter, playing a stadium, playing a Night Maintenance, using a Great Ball, using Claydol, Playing an Uxie, using Crobat G, PokeTurning it twice and than benching another basic to eat up 2-3 minutes worth of time to prevent an opponent from getting an extra turn is NOT stalling. It is NOT "gaming the clock". It is " Not throwing away a game" and it is 100% legitimate. That is NOT being "stalled out". That is "losing on time", a sad side effect that WILL HAPPEN as a result of time limits. When you enforce time limits ( which clearly are necessary ) you will have to deal with playing towards those time constraints.

I'll use Magic as an example. They have strict guide lines for how to handle time. Players have an option to use X amount of time to Sideboard, and X amount of time to resolve mulligans. ( Players can optionally mulligan up to 7 times...one less card in hand per mulligan ) If a player wins game 1, spends 2 minutes sideboarding ( max allowed ), and Mulligans, takes the full amount of time to shuffle in between, mulligans to 5 again, takes full time, mulligans to 4, etc etc etc all the way down to 0 to eat up the full allowed time, preventing his opponent from starting the 2nd game? Do you know what the judge does? He asks the players to fill out the match slip and moves on.

Players KNOW the guidelines, and know the perimeters of the game. The judges do not, and should not, intervene because those guidelines appear "cruel" during any given game state. To proactively judge in such a way really oversteps the boundaries of "judging" and simply playing for the players themselves. As long as plays are within the appropriate time PER PLAY, there shouldn't be any question beyond this. The idea of a "set time limit PER TURN" is strictly terrible. Play should be judged per play, not per turn, because the number of players per turn dictate the length of a turn. Turns are not static. Plays are far closer to static than a turn is. ( Even this isn't close to realistic, as an opening turn Cyrus takes far more time than evolving a Pokemon...but it is more realistic than the overarching turn misnomer )

Players need to be given a little more respect while doing what they do, which is play. Judges should be an outside presence, not a third party within the game which have to be taken into consideration while playing. I know a number of players who claim they get nervous when judges walk past them at events such as Nationals. This shouldn't be the case. I am far more in favor of conservative judging opposed to liberal judging at events.

I haven't been on in the past few weeks as I've been rather busy, and I'm not sure how often I will be able to stop back in to comment on this thread, but I've noticed a number of other great posters offering their feedback so feel free to keep the discussion alive. I'm going to go through all the trouble of getting oked into the Professor forums here, and hopefully we can have some more discussions within there. I'm not here simply to drive a wedge between players and judges, as I really do want to above all else see improvements in the game. Sometimes the most heated arguments lead to the most results, and hopefully we can see the game we all love become better as a result.

 

[Prof Clay]

Every good player has good time management. The term is FAR more appropriate than "gaming the clock". Those who do NOT take time into account in games pay for it because everyone else at a high level is doing so. Even if such a blanket statement isn't 100% accurate, Read many of my tournament reports, my newest Worlds one being a good example: Round 3, my opponent was down to 2 prizes and I had 6 at roughly the 15 minute mark. I had a good game state, but I had already come to the realization I was going to lose on time. I SHOULD have lost on time. There was no realistic reason that he should have lost that game, and against 90% of players, I would have lost. And yes, before you ask, I would be "ok with it". Clearly I don't like LOSING, but I'd rather lose to a player who is playing their best game possible than one who gets lucky.

What do you call a match where 1 player is definitely over doing the unnecessary card plays, checking the discard pile, counting the opponents hand size every turn...and then player 2 decides to do the same in retaliation.

The judge issues a 5 minute extension on the match to stop the foolishness and play the game. Immediately player 1 scoops. If player 1 hadn't been planning on winning on time, why would the player have scooped even though his opponent did not have an advantage on the board?

 

[Lawman]

Chris: Our match in 04 at the Regional ended in a draw, with time called on yout turn to tie it up. No true hard feelings, as I am doing what I do best now and you ended up showing the World what a high caliber player you are by getting 2nd in FL. As you acknowledge, we have talked about this before face to face and that is why I felt comfortable to discuss here.

We can agree to disagree on "gaming the clock". I have my own ideas, as you have yours.

Keith

 

[Ruiner]

Clay, I'm a bit confused on your example. If one playing is "stalling" to win on time, under what rationale would his opponenet think " i'll show THIS guy! " and decide to further dig himself into a hole? That should never, in any sane game, happen.

If a player is unhappy with the pace of play of his opponent, they need to call over a judge at this point. I would hope that no player would let 3+ turns like this occur. If I'm up by 3 prizes and my opponent wants to take 5 minute turns, hey, more power to them. Thats like telling a boxer they have to restart the fight because his opponent hit him below the built but in doing so left himself open to get clocked in the face and knocked out. Due to the nature of the game, penalties against one player aren't ALWAYS going to benefit the "wronged" party.

The source of the problem is that even 40 minutes are not REALLY enough to fully play a game of competitive Pokemon. When a significant number of games are decided by a turn, players are forced into playing a different game. Timed Pokemon is vastly different than untimed Pokemon, and players and judges ( players in PARTICULAR ) need to realize this and not try to treat it as otherwise. People need to stop trying to turn Timed Pokemon into Untimed Pokemon. You can't expect the same perimeters of an untimed game to carry over to a timed game. Rather than fight against the players and the confines of the format your forcing us to play under, ACKNOWLEDGE that time is an important part of the game, one forced on us ( I doubt many people LIKE time limits ) and that everything is easier to judge, and manage, once people stop fighting that. Rather than run out string upon string of rulings and guidelines to try and make timed play as much like untimed play as possible, its so much easier to simply acknowledge the nature of the beast thats been created and let it function how its intended ( for better or worse ) rather than to fight it at every turn and make things even worse for everyone involved. ( Don't pretend that you ENJOY judging issues involving time, )

 

[Prof Clay]

Clay, I'm a bit confused on your example. If one playing is "stalling" to win on time, under what rationale would his opponenet think " i'll show THIS guy! " and decide to further dig himself into a hole? That should never, in any sane game, happen.

If a player is unhappy with the pace of play of his opponent, they need to call over a judge at this point. I would hope that no player would let 3+ turns like this occur. If I'm up by 3 prizes and my opponent wants to take 5 minute turns, hey, more power to them. Thats like telling a boxer they have to restart the fight because his opponent hit him below the built but in doing so left himself open to get clocked in the face and knocked out. Due to the nature of the game, penalties against one player aren't ALWAYS going to benefit the "wronged" party.

The source of the problem is that even 40 minutes are not REALLY enough to fully play a game of competitive Pokemon. When a significant number of games are decided by a turn, players are forced into playing a different game. Timed Pokemon is vastly different than untimed Pokemon, and players and judges ( players in PARTICULAR ) need to realize this and not try to treat it as otherwise. People need to stop trying to turn Timed Pokemon into Untimed Pokemon. You can't expect the same perimeters of an untimed game to carry over to a timed game. Rather than fight against the players and the confines of the format your forcing us to play under, ACKNOWLEDGE that time is an important part of the game, one forced on us ( I doubt many people LIKE time limits ) and that everything is easier to judge, and manage, once people stop fighting that. Rather than run out string upon string of rulings and guidelines to try and make timed play as much like untimed play as possible, its so much easier to simply acknowledge the nature of the beast thats been created and let it function how its intended ( for better or worse ) rather than to fight it at every turn and make things even worse for everyone involved. ( Don't pretend that you ENJOY judging issues involving time, )

Chris...this was a REAL game at Nats last year by people you know. Rather not get into names, but player 1 was WINNING the game and slow playing. Both players decided to "game the clock" to get the final turn. You said there was no "gaming the clock" but this is a REAL example of what you said didn't exist.

One player was obviously NOT trying to win by taking 6 prizes...they were going for being 1 prize ahead at the end of time.

I have no problem with someone playing their deck, taking time to calculate all the right moves. I have no problem with a 4 minute turn...if the player is obviously working toward advancing the game. I'd like to think I can tell the difference after watching thousands of high level matches over the last few years.

Explain to me the reasoning for player 1 to scoop...while winning the game...even before the end of regulation time, knowing that there would be a 5 minute extension.

 

[MrMeches]

Actually, I do enjoy Judging issues involving time as they are the harder ones to Judge.

As for the "Gaming the Clock", ever elite player does this. When players consistently take 1 minute at the beginning and through the middle of games to get ahead to slow to 2.5 minutes at the end of the game, Time Management becomes Gaming the Clock. If you have a pace of play that is consistent in several matches until you hit that one game where it goes longer, you get ahead, and then begin to take longer turns (legal or not) oyu are now Gaming the Clock to win on time. More than likely you have made the determination of "I can win on time" and thus begin to slow your pace.

40 minute matches are fine. Keep throwing out Magic references and most of us will keep saying Magic isn't Pokemon. The reason Magic has longer timed rounds, is the abundance of cards allowed and the tiers, and don't forget sideboards. Pokemon is complex and the move to 40 minutes rounds was great, but it is apples and oranges. Just because they are both TCGs, doesn't put them in the same grouping.

Judging at Nats and Worlds 08, there were many issues with time and as Mike mentioned, it was clear what was expected of the Judging staff. Steve is an assertive Judge and makes his points very concise and clear. Some take it as Aggression, others appreciate the quickness of his resolve for issues. If you have problems iwht certain individuals, air it out with them instead of slandering them here.

FaceBook just had a lawsuit that was upheld with someone slandering a person in an open forum much like this is..... just saying people might want to consider how they approach and discuss things specifically in the future!

Fish

 

[Ruiner]

Which is what I was also addressing in the rest of my post. You CANNOT expect players to treat timed Pokemon as if it suddenly were not timed.

MOST close games have a different winner based on one turn. You cannot expect players to compete at any sort of serious level if you don't expect them to acknowledge this and play accordingly. Its simply unrealistic. Otherwise, the new skill set is seeing who can dupe judges into thinking they aren't "gaming the clock" as you call it. I call it playing the game under the confines we are given by the floor rules. If we were playing Pokemon, it wouldn't be an issue. We aren't playing Pokemon though. We are playing a modification of it.

You don't have two chess players play off, tell them its a timed game, and then enforce they act like its untimed. The second you add more rules or variations to a game, the strategy and approaches you take need to vary.

Tell me, your in the top 8 of Worlds. Its game 3. You have a watch, and you know how much time is left on the clock as a result. Your ahead one prize. If you extend your turn 30 seconds, by checking your opponents discard pile, playing a Night Maintenance, shuffling, and retreat, you win the game. Are you telling me you opt not to take the win there? Are you telling me you expect a majority of players not to? Now realize that at high level, your opponent is going to be doing their best to set up the final turns so that it ends with their opportunity to be ahead on prizes too. Even if you can claim a player SHOULD be "above" it, your forcing those "wholesome" players to be at a DISTINCT disadvantage against MOST of the field. At the very least, players are forced to play within those rules in a variation of the whole kill or be killed logic.

Also, I stand by the fact that in that example, if player B didn't call a judge over about the situation, NO ONE SHOULD HAVE INTERFERED. If they have enough awareness of what is going on ( they clearly knew their opponent was trying to win on time, which for reference, ISN'T A SIN. Winning on time, without STALLING, is COMPLETELY FINE. Any example of formulating a game plan to win within time that is done so LEGITIMATELY isn't CHEATING, nor should it be PENALIZED. How many people are not grasping this is the most frustrating part of this discussion. ) than no, a judge shouldn't intervene to offer a time extension at all.

I'll use the 2007-2008 format as a good example. When a majority of games between decent players ( those who used GG and Empoleon, which was well over 50%...more at the top tables ) end with 2-4 prizes remaining, you can't expect players to play for a six prize game when they know within the first few turns that they AREN'T playing a 6 prize game, they are playing a different game entirely. When a player realizes midgame how a game is going to be decided, you cannot ask them to play as if they do not.

Stalling should be punished. But a MAJORITY ( VAST majority ) of time management is NOT stalling. The way the term "gaming the clock" is thrown around it is like a blanket negative term to group any form of time acknowledgement alongside stalling, which is so far beyond ludicrous that it baffles me.

Another analogy. Mixed Martial Arts. Its the third round, and after the first two rounds, fighter A is up huge on points, but is extremely winded and in bad shape going into round 3. They know if they last the end of the round they are going to win on points, despite the fact that they are almost certainly going to be beat if the fight goes longer than that round. Is it wrong for them to purely go on the defense at this point? Both fighters knew the way the game was scored, they both know how much time is left, should a referee step in and demand the fighter either start swinging punches or have to go another round?

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

MrMeches: I really don't appreciate the threat of my comments being SLANDER seeing how I'm simply recounting what happened. There is nothing slanderous about it.

While different games, the number of parallels that can be drawn between Pokemon and Magic are too many to overlook. While there are distinct differences, to claim they are SO different that there can't be any common ground in which what works for one can work in the other is questionable.

In all honesty, the ideal time limit for a round should be an hour. I'm actually curious about a statistic. At Worlds and Nationals, what percentage of games "finished"? How many went to time? If it reaches a certain percentage, even with the time limit up from last year, 40 minutes may simply not be enough. Claiming 40 minutes is plenty is irrelevant if a large number of games prove otherwise.

I know a number of people continually ask for time limits to be changed to "X minutes +X turns ". This would be an improvement over what we currently have, but it doesn't eliminate the issue really, as players will simply incorporate those turns into their game plans.

Even the argument that a player's play pace shifting dictates time management is flawed. If I'm taking 1 minute turns, I'm rushing. Watch Jason K, our 2 time World Champion play. His turns rarely take one minute or less, if ever. When my deck is running smoothly and I have an advantage, sure, I'll take one minute turns because those can be done on autopilot. But the second the game shifts into a different state, your right I'm going to slow down, as will most players. There is a large overlap of trying to win a game on time, and simply slowing down because you need to think. Usually those games where you shift from winning to losing momentum are conveniently the ones which require the most thought and precision. In most of these cases, I'd expect a players pace to slow even if they WEREN'T trying to win on time. If a player takes fast, 1 minute turns for the first 2/3rds of the game, but suddenly they get Dusknoir'd, and their active KOed by a card they don't expect, VASTLY changing game state, I'd fully expect a very long next turn, and for the next few turns to be vastly slower than the previous fast turns they took. Because of the time limit, players play FASTER then their natural pace of play. I don't want to see players punished for NOT RUSHING because they have to actually think about a difficult situation.

I'm not saying that there are not problem scenarios, but most alleged issues of "stalling" are not actually stalling. There need to be guidelines and penalties for stalling, but it seems like there is an unnecessary witchhunt to burn at the stake anything that even has the potential to maybe come close to almost possibly looking kinda like it may evolve into stalling. When your misjudging 80% of the situations to weed out the 20%, it isn't for the benefit of the game or the players.

 

[MrMeches]

In MMA, if fighters are not engaging the opponent or are idle for too long, yes the Ref interferes and expresses the need for combat. In Asian markets, if they do this they lose part of the purse... bad analogy.

I do understand the positioning of getting to the last few minutes and trying to win on time. It is a win, a cheap win, but a win. However, there is a distinct difference if your place suddenly slows or if you naturally are slowing. Win enough matches by using this particular technique and you have developed a pattern. If you develop a pattern, then this can become a discretionary situation for a Judge to determine if you are creating this win scenario consistently, or is it legitimate.

That is what YOU are not understanding. As Judges, we understand what your saying, but the opposite does not seem to be going on. Game State is a Judges priority, this includes the timeliness of play under the Rules documents provided. I actually dislike the statement

We aren't playing Pokemon though. We are playing a modification of it.

as it is Pokemon. The growth and development of the Formats dictate new rules and guidelines be set forthwith. Same with any game, computer, software... It evolves into a greater game and needs more assistance in Judging specific events. By the statement you made, we should all go back to the WotC Rules and disregard everything except Base Set. That was the original Pokemon... so by your statement, everything after is not?!?

Many Judges have become such through means of playing the game first! We understand things far better than many realize, and also have several discussions about varying issues across the World. "Gaming/Working the Clock" is a term used worldwide and accepted as a negative thing.

Fish

 

[Prime]

Tell me, your in the top 8 of Worlds. Its game 3. You have a watch, and you know how much time is left on the clock as a result. Your ahead one prize. If you extend your turn 30 seconds, by checking your opponents discard pile, playing a Night Maintenance, shuffling, and retreat, you win the game. Are you telling me you opt not to take the win there? Are you telling me you expect a majority of players not to? Now realize that at high level, your opponent is going to be doing their best to set up the final turns so that it ends with their opportunity to be ahead on prizes too. Even if you can claim a player SHOULD be "above" it, your forcing those "wholesome" players to be at a DISTINCT disadvantage against MOST of the field. At the very least, players are forced to play within those rules in a variation of the whole kill or be killed logic.

It seems to me that a person's morals and ethics would determine if the person would eat up the 30 seconds or not.

Personally, I wouldn't. I couldn't look at myself in the mirror knowing that I won a game I shouldn't and that I stopped someone from progressing forward in the tournament when they rightfully deserved to. I wouldn't feel right about doing it.

But I guess others don't have the same morals and ethics. For them, a win is a win, however you achieve it (within the rules).

I think morals and ethics also come into the picture when people are judging. If you (Chris) are judging and watch a player eat up the clock, you would not step in and add time. Yet, if another judge with different morals and ethics saw the same action, they may step in and add on time to the game. Since we all have different morals and ethics, I feel we will see a lot of different rulings at events.

 

[Ruiner]

With the analogy, fighting not to get knocked out is different than turtling in a corner the whole time. A fighter can fight defensively instead of aggressively.

The problem with developing a pattern is, 90% or more of the time, there is no way to accurately judge any sort of pattern. When you have an absurd player to judge ratio, can you really expect a judge to see a large enough sample of a particular players games throughout an entire day to notice a distinct enough pattern? Clearly if a player has a judge called on them for multiple rounds, it becomes a lot simpler, but it seems to me that a lot of these pattern calls have to be based on insufficent evidence simply because I can't see how any one judge can watch enough of one players game to notice their play pace throughou multiple stages of multiple games.

I'll again point to Rob Down's deck. One of it's game plans is to be able to take such long turns while being so fast that it gets up on prizes and wins that way. What about the Flygon deck that ran Memory Berry for the soft lock on Claydol's, aiming to keep prizes tied before taking the first prize once time is called? What about Jeremy Maron's Pidgey Stall in top cut of Worlds against the switch-less Castform start of the Metanite deck? Don't tell me he had any game plan short of winning that game on time. Was he to be punished for that play?

I think your also overlooking something about what I am arguing. I'm not sitting here saying " This ISN'T in the floor rules" or " this WASN'T what your told to do". I'm saying it SHOULDN'T be. I'm making the case that these are BAD approaches to handling these problems. Just because something is a rule doesn't mean it is the best case scenario. The floor rules are floor rules, I fully understand that it is a judges job to enforce this. I have enforced all of the floor rules the past year since I started judging again, whether I agree with them or not. Abiding by the rules doesn't mean you have to AGREE with them. I'm not telling you, as a judge, to throw the floor rules aside. I'm trying to get people to look at those rules and rethink them, because they aren't the most effecient possible.

" we aren't playing Pokemon though. We are playing a modification of it."

I couldn't stand by this statement any stronger. You seem to really misinterpret it by your reference to WotC rules. The rules change. New mechanics are added, we have a steep power creep, cards get rotated, etc. That isn't even close to what I was getting at.

Lets say I held three tournaments tomorrow. One was held untimed. One was held with 40 minutes, and one was held with 10 minute time limits. Do you think the decks would be the same? Do you think the strategies would be the same? Do you want a player to approach their pace of play and plan to win on all 6 prizes in the 10 minute game the same way they would in the untimed game? While a 40 minute game is not a 10 minute game, the game DOES get played differently than it would be untimed. Adding a time limit drastically alters the way the game is played.

I'll use online poker as an example. Texas Hold'em, standard 9 man tournament. Blinds raise every 8 minutes. Now, play in a Turbo, where blinds raise twice as fast. The game is played the same way, but how you bet, how aggressive you are, etc, changes drastically. The rules of the game may not change, but the confines in which you play it in impact the game as much as an actual mechanic change.

I'm not saying that a game of Pokemon using a base set starter deck is played differently than a game played using a rulebook from a Supreme Victor's theme deck. That had nothing to do with what I was saying. Thats the evolution of the game. I'm saying we are adding rules to the game. The time limit. If you don't realize this has a greater impact on how the game plays than some are giving it credit for, than its difficult to try and reason about how time management isn't a crime, it is a necessity of play. By adding a time limit, you have to accept that players inherently are forced to play in it. Don't expect them to sit at the table and pretend they don't know the round has a set finish point.

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

"Morals and ethics" are a pretty vague, loaded set of words to be throwing around in relation to what your saying Prime.

First of all, who is to say that using 30 minutes to make 100% legal moves within the floor rules of the game is a game you "shouldn't win". If you are not stalling ( You are not ) you deserve to win that game. If your opponent sees that extra turn, you misplayed. You lost a game you rightfully should have won.

Are you implying that because I feel that judges should take a more hands-off approach that I am morally or ethically inferior to someone who will jump in the minute they see something they don't believe abides by how they feel the game should be played? If I see a player cheat, or if I see a game state error, I am 100% going to intervene. But when I have something on hand that is completely subjective, I am going to be far less likely to intervene. Does that question my morals? My ethics? Or simply my belief as to the role of a judge in this game?

Every judge aims to lack bias while doing their job. Very few succeed at that. Rarely does it end up making any impact. The more pro-active a judge is in grey areas and unquatifiable cases, the more likely that bias is to show through and disrupt a game state incorrectly. It isn't an easy line to walk. I think a lot of people are selling me short in my ability to do a job that is asked of me when judging, just because I don't necessarily agree with some of what I'm enforcing.

If I felt Gallade Gardevoir was an unfair deck, and bad for the game, and should be banned, I'm still going to play it. If I disagree with a rule or ruling, I'm still going to enforce it. It doesn't make me a hypocrit for enforcing something and than coming on a message board and protesting it. It makes me someone who cares enough to voice his opinion and try to change what should be a malleable document.

 

[meganium45]

This is a great discussion.

Nice when all sides admit that an issue is not black and white, when it is not black and white.

Here's the fun consideration.

We have a lively debate including Fulop, Fish, Lawman, Clay, Diaz, Pokedaddy, that has had other people chime in.

No doubt that this will show that there is enough debate and issues here.

These are some of the best players and some of the best judges in the country in this debate.

How difficult must this issue be in areas where there are not top-notch judges to help decide these issues? Lucky there are not a lot of those areas, but my goodness.

Vince

 

[prodigal_fanboy]

Prime -- I lost a game at Nats on time. It was my most cherished game of the tournament. My opponent got up a prize and held the prize exchange. If you accept that time-remaining is part of the game-state, as I do, then my opponent won because he kept better track of game-state than I. As such, within the confines of the rules, he was the better player. You're telling me I should feel slighted because I failed to bring a stopwatch myself?

 

[Lawman]

As a Judge at Nats and Worlds, I can tell you the high majority of matches in swiss ended before the 40 min mark. I like the 40 mins/rd in swiss. Trust me, I am sure Pete, Dave, et al looked out over the tables as time wound down to see what the status looked like.

What Chris may view as a player as acceptable number of searches through an oppo's discard pile may very well be viewed differently by a judge AND the rules guidelines! Not saying either one is 100% ironclad proof, just saying.

Keith

 

[Jaeger]

It seems to me that a person's morals and ethics would determine if the person would eat up the 30 seconds or not.

Personally, I wouldn't. I couldn't look at myself in the mirror knowing that I won a game I shouldn't and that I stopped someone from progressing forward in the tournament when they rightfully deserved to. I wouldn't feel right about doing it.

But I guess others don't have the same morals and ethics. For them, a win is a win, however you achieve it (within the rules).

How many games have you ever played with $5000 on the line? Its really easy to sit infront of a computer at home and say it. Not so much when it is stareing you in the face. 99% of a players would take the cheap win. A better question would be how many of them would feel bad about it.

 

[meganium45]

Jay, I don't think that is the case.

Silvestro did not take the win in that way in a top cut game at Nats.

I personally watched your 3/4 match at Worlds, have seen you play in the past, and don't believe you would have taken the win in that way. Just not the way you seem to play.

I have seen many of the best players lose, know they are going to lose, and get up and shake their opponent's hands.

I don't think this is a "rampant plague" throughout our game.

Does it happen from time to time? I am sure it does.

Do we need to try and stop it from happening? Yep.

Do we have to assume every time someone is playing slow, or making a decision they are stalling? That is the great debate.

Do we have to assume everytime someone says they are making a decision, that we believe they actually are making a decision, and not playing clock? Not at all.

Slow play and stalling can be debated until the end of time. There is no clear definitions which allow us to get it right 100% of the time. Something this subjective, their can't be.

All we can do is put guidelines and philosophies out there, and pray for judges and players alike to have the honor and the wisdom to follow the spirit of the game.

Is there only one right answer? Gee. Tough question.

Vince

 

[Prime]

You're telling me I should feel slighted because I failed to bring a stopwatch myself?

No. How I feel isn't how you will feel. I don't expect it to. Like I said above, we all have different ethics and morals. There is no 'right' set of ethics or morals, but a ton of different varieties of them.

I wasn't condemning anyone for feeling differently than I would. We are all different, we will feel differently on the same subject.

"Morals and ethics" are a pretty vague, loaded set of words to be throwing around in relation to what your saying Prime.

First of all, who is to say that using 30 minutes to make 100% legal moves within the floor rules of the game is a game you "shouldn't win". If you are not stalling ( You are not ) you deserve to win that game. If your opponent sees that extra turn, you misplayed. You lost a game you rightfully should have won.

Are you implying that because I feel that judges should take a more hands-off approach that I am morally or ethically inferior to someone who will jump in the minute they see something they don't believe abides by how they feel the game should be played? If I see a player cheat, or if I see a game state error, I am 100% going to intervene. But when I have something on hand that is completely subjective, I am going to be far less likely to intervene. Does that question my morals? My ethics? Or simply my belief as to the role of a judge in this game?

Every judge aims to lack bias while doing their job. Very few succeed at that. Rarely does it end up making any impact. The more pro-active a judge is in grey areas and unquatifiable cases, the more likely that bias is to show through and disrupt a game state incorrectly. It isn't an easy line to walk. I think a lot of people are selling me short in my ability to do a job that is asked of me when judging, just because I don't necessarily agree with some of what I'm enforcing.

If I felt Gallade Gardevoir was an unfair deck, and bad for the game, and should be banned, I'm still going to play it. If I disagree with a rule or ruling, I'm still going to enforce it. It doesn't make me a hypocrit for enforcing something and than coming on a message board and protesting it. It makes me someone who cares enough to voice his opinion and try to change what should be a malleable document.

Morals and ethics are very vague, but I feel fit the situation well.

I respect your opinion and how you feel considering an abundance of legal actions to soak up the clock as a tactic. I feel differently. Neither ways of feeling is the 'right' way to feel about the situation and many of us will feel differently about it.

My thoughts about how you would judge something just illustrates how our ethics and morals affects how we judge. Like before, who can say that one judging style is 'right' or 'wrong', just putting the thought out there.

 

[PokeDaddy]

A Reminder...

From the penalty guidelines:

7.6. Unsporting Conduct
This group of penalties covers the inappropriate actions taken by players or spectators at an event. This category always assumes that the offending actions are intentional. A player does not have to be actively involved in a match to receive an Unsporting Conduct penalty. While players and spectators should enjoy their tournament experience, they also need to remember that their actions can have a negative impact on fellow participants.

7.6.2. Major
Players are expected to behave in a respectful manner to all attendees and staff of a Pokémon TCG event. Players who don’t behave properly need to be reminded to with the issuance of a penalty. Infractions in this category have a direct impact on event operation or cause a small degree of emotional distress to those around them.
Examples of Unsporting Conduct: Major include:

• Leaving a large amount of garbage in the tournament area.
• Failure to comply with the instructions of the event staff.
• Engaging in gamesmanship/rules lawyering.
• Attempting to manipulate a match through intimidation or distraction.
• Refusal to sign a match slip.
• Making legal plays which have no effect on the game in progress to manipulate the time remaining in a match.
• Playing slowly to manipulate the time remaining in a match.

Recommended Starting Penalty:
Tier 1: Game Loss
Tier 2: Game Loss​

 

[prodigal_fanboy]

[*]Making legal plays which have no effect on the game in progress to manipulate the time remaining in a match.

The definition of no effect is debatable here in my understanding -- the examples provided by Chris do effect game state (retreating, Claydol despite not needing anything, Night Maintenancing cards in). Are they defined to hvae no effect on the game in progress merely by virtue that time is about to be called and they don't enable the taking of a prize per se?

 

[Yoshi-]

IMO legal plays with no effects are something like moving nrg around with Magnezone LvX all the time, actions that dont change the gamestate.

 

[baby mario]

The definition of no effect is debatable here in my understanding -- the examples provided by Chris do effect game state (retreating, Claydol despite not needing anything, Night Maintenancing cards in). Are they defined to hvae no effect on the game in progress merely by virtue that time is about to be called and they don't enable the taking of a prize per se?

I agree.

Does this mean that, if time is running out and a player who is ahead on prizes uses NM or Claydol that a judge is going to suspect them of stalling?

You could equally argue that a player using those cards is preparing for their NEXT turn.