These snide remarks about "what do we give back to the game" as competitive players from judges is really getting old. You know how I give back to the game? I max out credit cards getting packs! Lots of them! Seriously, I agree with Chris 100%. If a judge dosen't feel like doing their "job" they can give packs to someone else to do it. Easy fix.
Worlds 2009 In Review
- Thread starter Ruiner
- Start date
- Status
These snide remarks about "what do we give back to the game" as competitive players from judges is really getting old. You know how I give back to the game? I max out credit cards getting packs! Lots of them! Seriously, I agree with Chris 100%. If a judge dosen't feel like doing their "job" they can give packs to someone else to do it. Easy fix.
Rainbowgym
Active Member
One and Done for Regionals is something I would encourage (and spreading the Regionals over more weekends).
And about identify, I would suggest if anybody won one and enters a second one he/she get's a suspension untill after Worlds has been played for that season.
However, in that case Regionals should award a Worlds invite for the winner, otherwise winning a Regionals would cut you in your chances to earn a ranking invite.
Also it's not that difficult to put a list online with winner names (as check).
As for States I see no reason the have them one and done.
This also in regards with the Internationals scene, they don't have Regionals, so being limited to only 1 States will hurt them to much. (And also cuts you back on getting a ranking invite).
So the questions would be:
How "sad" would a person feel if they won a Regionals, (getting a Worlds invite + scholarship + swag) and not being able to play a second one.
Remember they still would have the option to play Nationals for the trip.
NoPoke
Active Member
Just personal experience on the one-and-done. My son won the first event of the series he entered when the system was in place and then had to sit out for the rest of the events. Not that much fun and not a way to practice for the bigger events either. Now the idea of spreading the wealth that is behind one-and-done I have no arguement with so we just got into the habit of passing down the goodies once he had collected his set. Same for his younger brother. Just how many hats does anyone need?
One-and-done also sits very poorly with the rating system. It would have to hand out invites too. Which may lead for some interesting travelling to the more distant pokemon regions.
One-and-done also sits very poorly with the rating system. It would have to hand out invites too. Which may lead for some interesting travelling to the more distant pokemon regions.
bullados
<a href="http://pokegym.net/forums/showthread.php?
Another experience with One-And-Done... A couple of years ago, one of the Juniors in this area was head and shoulders above every other Junior for about 200-300 miles in any direction. He went to 3 Regionals, and could have easily taken all three. He (and his father) chose to concede once in T4 and once in T2. He is the only person in the world to have all 3 trophies from a single Regional cycle.
That kind of gaming the system, I don't like. And I'd prefer the option weren't available in any form whatsoever.
That kind of gaming the system, I don't like. And I'd prefer the option weren't available in any form whatsoever.
Prof Clay
New Member
I somehow get the feeling that many players think that judges have "mystical abilities" when it comes to checking decks....
And I do understand the need to find out the metagame before making out a list, but baseball players come to the park with all the equipment they may need for a game...this includes having their own personal bats ready at the park
We definitely do need to make deck checks AVAILABLE for players to be sure prior to tournament day. We could have a table set up during the Grinder to do just that for the players :thumb:....but it is my honest opinion that on tournament day...when that list is turned in for deck/list check, and problems are found, then deck corrections (basic energy anyone) and penalties need to be assessed for the error. I guarantee if we do this, we will definitely have fewer errors from the players in the future
We are not checking decks to find YOUR problems, we are checking for the integrity of the event
Players...if you THINK you might have a sleeve problem...go ahead and change them out...be proactive
The sleeves from the competitors packs were an aberration that I am sure we will not see again...especially since we will ALL be hypersensitive to any new sleeves from a certain company.
I do like to think that all of our judges are on the players side...we just have to be on ALL the players sides at the same time for fairness.
My overall perspective on this is not from a judge standpoint....it comes from TEACHING high school for 13 years.
We definitely need DAVE and BDS back on stage. We all know they TRULY understand what is going on and NEVER come across as insincere or acting. Nick and Tracy need to go...or just have them involved with the Video Game.
Can't wait for the new season to begin honestly.:smile:
And I do understand the need to find out the metagame before making out a list, but baseball players come to the park with all the equipment they may need for a game...this includes having their own personal bats ready at the park
We definitely do need to make deck checks AVAILABLE for players to be sure prior to tournament day. We could have a table set up during the Grinder to do just that for the players :thumb:....but it is my honest opinion that on tournament day...when that list is turned in for deck/list check, and problems are found, then deck corrections (basic energy anyone) and penalties need to be assessed for the error. I guarantee if we do this, we will definitely have fewer errors from the players in the future
We are not checking decks to find YOUR problems, we are checking for the integrity of the event
Players...if you THINK you might have a sleeve problem...go ahead and change them out...be proactive
The sleeves from the competitors packs were an aberration that I am sure we will not see again...especially since we will ALL be hypersensitive to any new sleeves from a certain company.
I do like to think that all of our judges are on the players side...we just have to be on ALL the players sides at the same time for fairness.
My overall perspective on this is not from a judge standpoint....it comes from TEACHING high school for 13 years.
We definitely need DAVE and BDS back on stage. We all know they TRULY understand what is going on and NEVER come across as insincere or acting. Nick and Tracy need to go...or just have them involved with the Video Game.
Can't wait for the new season to begin honestly.:smile:
Last edited:
Kabigon_Jr
Active Member
Now, this argument could totally be wrong if the prior year states/regionals were held during the same weekend but I don't think so.
In regards to gaming to system, the system was set to limit the player. I know who you are talking about and I know the father. Prior to that year, that same Junior could have won multiple states and regionals if he so wanted, but THAT year he was limited to only winning one. So in POPs decision to not have the same child (or any other individual in the same/different age group) win multiple regionals, they limited it to the one-and-done. What was the kid and the father suppose to do? Let the kid win one regionals during the first weekend, then sit out for nearly two months? No, they did what they had to, so that they could enjoy the game during that season. There was also another junior during that time that had the same skills as the junior you mention, and he and his father could have done the same during the one-and-done season too (love you vinny :lol
, but some of us, including you, probably remember what happened.Yes. Bring back BDS and Dave 100% They both have done a ton of work to this game, and deserve to be the face of it. Not only that but they are beyond qualified for the task. I have nothing against Nick and Tracy, they are both very good at what they do...the problem is, what they do is probably not best for the Pokemon TCG.
Clay: I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but coming to the tournament with a blank deck form and a pen isn't not bringing your "equipment". Its simply waiting to customize your equipment at the last moment to best suit you. I mean, I could come with 20 different deck lists filled out, but that seems like an enormous waste.
What you said about checking for the integrity of the event holds true! I can make sure I am prepared, and that my sleeves and lists check out, but I certainly cannot vouch the same for the other 127 players in the event. It is comforting to know that the "safety net" is in place.
Going back to One and Done for those events: I was looking more at One and Done, not WON and Done. You PLAY in one event, and cannot play in a second. Unless you give first the invite, Won and Done really does mess with the rating structure and probably causes more issues than it solves.
As for the players "opinion" of judges. For me? It REALLY varies. I feel there a great number of fantastic judges in this game, but I think there are an equally large number of poor ones. But I do feel, coming from a primarily competitive background, that it is a fear that a lot of judges really do not understand the "competitive" side of the game. They can make the correct rulings 100% of the time, and make an event run smoothly, and issue appropriate penalties for issues. But the fear is that higher level player interactions are not being appropriately read.
I'll use a common term tossed around as an example. Pace of play is expected to be "constant" and "consistent." This could not be FARTHER from the truth! Some of my turns will take 30 seconds total. But if I wiff on a key draw, or my opponent plays down a card I do not expect, my turn may take significantly longer to re-calibrate a game plan. Turns where I have to work out a large amount of probabilities ( odds of me drawing a card, two cards even, and my opponent's ability to have a card, or so, and than to analyze what my odds of winning are if I don't take a long shot, etc ) take FAR longer than turns where my game is going "as planned". I have seen COUNTLESS times when these types of scenarios are not taken into account by judges when dealing with time issues.
Game state goes far beyond a board full of cards, and I feel that isn't truly being appreciated by a lot of judges. I know it is difficult because you are not watching full games but merely coming in at almost a freeze-frame state of the game, but from a player, it makes one paranoid that the wrong calls are going to be made, and they often are.
Some judges are too...proactive. I understand that a judge needs to be able to catch a game error when players do not, but this often leads to hawking over games, and making players feel very uncomfortable.
I'll use our resident PokeDaddy as a great example. Nationals 2008, top 32, Sunday morning. The flights combined and I get paired against Jason "Ness" Klackzynski. Leafeon Magmortar vs Gallade Gardevoir. To start off, we are talking with two of our friends ( Moss, and Chuck ) who were behind the barrier which was the cut off point for spectators. None of the other spectators at this point were given any problems as far as I could see, and at the least, a majority went unharassed. Yet PokeDaddy kicks them out of the area. Despite the fact we BOTH claimed it was cool if they watched.
None the less, we both take slower, drawn out turns because the matchup is close to 50-50, and neither of us want to make any mistakes. We knew a game 2 wasn't finishing regardless, not with the hour time limits and the two decks we were playing, so all of the eggs were in the game one basket so to speak. PokeDaddy was aggressive at telling us both to speed up DESPITE the fact that play pace was roughly equal on both sides ( I was slightly faster ) and that both me and Jason INSISTED that the other's play pace was more than appropriate and that we had no problems with it.
This does not stop him from issuing a vague "time extension" at roughly the 35-40 minute mark. Now, not only did neither of us want this, nor need it, but the amount of time was not even indicated. From a competitively standpoint, do you realize how HUGE of an impact this makes on a game? The implications of that are rather extreme. And neither of us had any issues with how the game was progressing. I would like to say that I had more judge intervention in that game than I have had in the prior 2 years of playing Pokemon combined. And had there been no judge? The game would have played out exactly the same way it did: ending without any issues at the 50 minute mark to a Warp Point, and me conceding game 2 once Jason filled his bench making sure that I couldn't steal a quick win in the low amount of time left.
I'm also fully aware that PokeDaddy has known about my issues over this incident, and others I have observed and that I am really doubting his claim of true neutrality towards me in general.
While that is an extreme example of over-judging, I do see it happen quite a bit. It really is distracting, unnerving, and damaging to the players. Both myself and Jason felt very uneasy and threatened during our game which, for reference, had NO issues or errors what so ever in it. And we both have played this game as long as anyone else has. If we felt unnerved, imagine what the average, or even worse, newer players, would feel.
This isn't the case with MOST judges. Yet there are enough that I do feel it is a relevant issue anyways. It is easier to pick out issues and call people out on them than it is to say "great job, 80% of you are doing a wonderful job". After reading my post, I know which half of the statements are going to stick out more, even though it applies to a vast minority.
They both have done a ton of work to this game, and deserve to be the face of it. Not only that but they are beyond qualified for the task. I have nothing against Nick and Tracy, they are both very good at what they do...the problem is, what they do is probably not best for the Pokemon TCG. Clay: I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but coming to the tournament with a blank deck form and a pen isn't not bringing your "equipment". Its simply waiting to customize your equipment at the last moment to best suit you. I mean, I could come with 20 different deck lists filled out, but that seems like an enormous waste.
What you said about checking for the integrity of the event holds true! I can make sure I am prepared, and that my sleeves and lists check out, but I certainly cannot vouch the same for the other 127 players in the event. It is comforting to know that the "safety net" is in place.
Going back to One and Done for those events: I was looking more at One and Done, not WON and Done. You PLAY in one event, and cannot play in a second. Unless you give first the invite, Won and Done really does mess with the rating structure and probably causes more issues than it solves.
As for the players "opinion" of judges. For me? It REALLY varies. I feel there a great number of fantastic judges in this game, but I think there are an equally large number of poor ones. But I do feel, coming from a primarily competitive background, that it is a fear that a lot of judges really do not understand the "competitive" side of the game. They can make the correct rulings 100% of the time, and make an event run smoothly, and issue appropriate penalties for issues. But the fear is that higher level player interactions are not being appropriately read.
I'll use a common term tossed around as an example. Pace of play is expected to be "constant" and "consistent." This could not be FARTHER from the truth! Some of my turns will take 30 seconds total. But if I wiff on a key draw, or my opponent plays down a card I do not expect, my turn may take significantly longer to re-calibrate a game plan. Turns where I have to work out a large amount of probabilities ( odds of me drawing a card, two cards even, and my opponent's ability to have a card, or so, and than to analyze what my odds of winning are if I don't take a long shot, etc ) take FAR longer than turns where my game is going "as planned". I have seen COUNTLESS times when these types of scenarios are not taken into account by judges when dealing with time issues.
Game state goes far beyond a board full of cards, and I feel that isn't truly being appreciated by a lot of judges. I know it is difficult because you are not watching full games but merely coming in at almost a freeze-frame state of the game, but from a player, it makes one paranoid that the wrong calls are going to be made, and they often are.
Some judges are too...proactive. I understand that a judge needs to be able to catch a game error when players do not, but this often leads to hawking over games, and making players feel very uncomfortable.
I'll use our resident PokeDaddy as a great example. Nationals 2008, top 32, Sunday morning. The flights combined and I get paired against Jason "Ness" Klackzynski. Leafeon Magmortar vs Gallade Gardevoir. To start off, we are talking with two of our friends ( Moss, and Chuck ) who were behind the barrier which was the cut off point for spectators. None of the other spectators at this point were given any problems as far as I could see, and at the least, a majority went unharassed. Yet PokeDaddy kicks them out of the area. Despite the fact we BOTH claimed it was cool if they watched.
None the less, we both take slower, drawn out turns because the matchup is close to 50-50, and neither of us want to make any mistakes. We knew a game 2 wasn't finishing regardless, not with the hour time limits and the two decks we were playing, so all of the eggs were in the game one basket so to speak. PokeDaddy was aggressive at telling us both to speed up DESPITE the fact that play pace was roughly equal on both sides ( I was slightly faster ) and that both me and Jason INSISTED that the other's play pace was more than appropriate and that we had no problems with it.
This does not stop him from issuing a vague "time extension" at roughly the 35-40 minute mark. Now, not only did neither of us want this, nor need it, but the amount of time was not even indicated. From a competitively standpoint, do you realize how HUGE of an impact this makes on a game? The implications of that are rather extreme. And neither of us had any issues with how the game was progressing. I would like to say that I had more judge intervention in that game than I have had in the prior 2 years of playing Pokemon combined. And had there been no judge? The game would have played out exactly the same way it did: ending without any issues at the 50 minute mark to a Warp Point, and me conceding game 2 once Jason filled his bench making sure that I couldn't steal a quick win in the low amount of time left.
I'm also fully aware that PokeDaddy has known about my issues over this incident, and others I have observed and that I am really doubting his claim of true neutrality towards me in general.
While that is an extreme example of over-judging, I do see it happen quite a bit. It really is distracting, unnerving, and damaging to the players. Both myself and Jason felt very uneasy and threatened during our game which, for reference, had NO issues or errors what so ever in it. And we both have played this game as long as anyone else has. If we felt unnerved, imagine what the average, or even worse, newer players, would feel.
This isn't the case with MOST judges. Yet there are enough that I do feel it is a relevant issue anyways. It is easier to pick out issues and call people out on them than it is to say "great job, 80% of you are doing a wonderful job". After reading my post, I know which half of the statements are going to stick out more, even though it applies to a vast minority.
dtrain
New Member
I completely agree Chris. I know judges are just doing their job but there are times when they intrude on a game but there is no reason to. Some examples: While playing in my first Nats this year, I had a judge intrude on my game because I didn't position my DGX correctly. I had both cards separated with the DGX HP covering DG out and the attacks of DG were clear to read but he still fussed over it. I witnessed another game when a judge interrupted because he felt both players weren't playing RPS correctly. Both players had no problems with the outcome of RPS.
Oh and in my topcut game, I had a judge who didn't know how best 2/3 worked and had to call over another judge xD.
I know they are just being cautious but I find that they put to much pressure on players.
Oh and in my topcut game, I had a judge who didn't know how best 2/3 worked and had to call over another judge xD.
I know they are just being cautious but I find that they put to much pressure on players.
Chris: I will state that the guidelines, which the players want the judges to follow to have "consistency"....they dictate the proper timeframes for certain game actions. The clock works for both. Yeah, that 1st deck search of a game is going to be the longest one and gets leeway (at least from me and many judges I know and have worked with). Later in the match, the searches need to be more timely. We certainly understand that critical times occur in a match and much thinking and calculating needs to take place. BUT, when the turn goes too long, a prompt is needed. Many players can play a perfect game w/o time limits. The better players can play the game AND make most of the correct decisions at crunch time in a timely fashion.
Keith
Keith
Diaz
New Member
This might be nit-picky, but I know of at least 2 people who've done that. There's this little diaz kid who managed it a couple years back.
Dave could talk for 2 min., shave time off the long event, save a bunch of money, and I would have enjoyed it more. Not intending anything negative, but Dave and BDS are people that we all know, and the ones who should be doing that sort of thing. imoYes. Bring back BDS and Dave 100%
Thank you Keith. Your response is much better than the one I was going to do. :tongue: 50 minutes for game 1 says it all.
Yea what about 50 mins for a game? In this era a 50 min game was common.
How about 50 minutes being short? In playtesting, ONE GAME, often goes an hour and fifteen minutes to 2 hours. Finishing a close game in 50 minutes is rushing often.
I am clearly not the only person who thinks this. Apparently PUI did, as they agreed 30 minutes was not enough time for a full game. Especially seeing how games were finishing all of last format ( 07-08, not 08-09 ) with players having taken under 3 prizes as of 30 minutes. With the increase to 40 minutes now, and games still not finishing on time, I find it offensive to be on the receiving end of a complaint that 50 minutes is unrealistic between two very skilled players in a very tight matchup. So WORST CASE SCENARIO, I fail to see how the ten minutes between the 40 ( suggested cut off ) and 50 is really all that relevant. Play a tough game. Play it well. Than tell me how fast I need to make tough decisions.
I am clearly not the only person who thinks this. Apparently PUI did, as they agreed 30 minutes was not enough time for a full game. Especially seeing how games were finishing all of last format ( 07-08, not 08-09 ) with players having taken under 3 prizes as of 30 minutes. With the increase to 40 minutes now, and games still not finishing on time, I find it offensive to be on the receiving end of a complaint that 50 minutes is unrealistic between two very skilled players in a very tight matchup. So WORST CASE SCENARIO, I fail to see how the ten minutes between the 40 ( suggested cut off ) and 50 is really all that relevant. Play a tough game. Play it well. Than tell me how fast I need to make tough decisions.
Absolution
New Member
Game 1 going to time in best of 3 match play is not at all uncommon. It frustrates me that, when, given an hour to play a match, there are still some judges that rush players - or worse, add unnecessary extensions to the match. If either player should have an issue with the pace of their opponent's play, it's at their discretion to voice their concern with their opponent and the judge. While not everyone understands what proper pacing is for a timed top-cut match, Games 2 and 3 of match play are akin to [IF NECESSARY] games in a playoff series - they aren't necessary in deciding the outcome.
I don't feel that it was uncommon at all for a single game to take 50 minutes in 2008. Anyone with knowledge of the format would probably agree with me. Gardevoir had so many things it could do on any given turn, to a point where it wasn't even stalling, but it just took forever. Scramble Energy was also available, making games even more drawn out and strategic.
If the purpose of matchplay is to finish 2/3 games, then it shouldn't be timed at all. I don't believe that to be the purpose.
If the purpose of matchplay is to finish 2/3 games, then it shouldn't be timed at all. I don't believe that to be the purpose.
I'm not here to state whether a timely played match should take 30 mins or 50 mins. (I've played matches at League that have taken an hour and a half!) All I am saying is the players ASK, or even better, DEMAND consistency from the judges and the penalty guidelines. The guidelines state a time frame for game actions. Yes, they are guidelines and can be bent some. Bottom line, there ARE time restrictions in tourney play. At home, playtesting with your "team", @ league...play as methodical as you want....play out ALL the scenarios. BUT, in a tourney, play within the rules is all the Judge Team asks.
How many times have we as a judge team, read on the 'Gym about tourney reports and the accusations that "X stalled me out" or "if I had just one more turn, I had the game!". The players jump up and down when they feel like they have been stalled out and "no one" came to their "rescue" from the Judge team!
**Side note, I know EXACTLY how it feels to be stalled out in a big tourney, right Chris?? Recall Eastern Regional in Rockville 2004? You stalled ME out to gain a DRAW. You admitted it to me later in the hallway..."I did anything I could to get that point". If you don't have that point ag'st me, you fail to make topcut. In topcut, you qualified for Worlds in Orlando, where you finished 2nd. BTW, where is MY trophy?? LOL /end side note**
Bottom line is this... the judging team is screwed either way it looks like in the players' eyes. If we step in and make prompts when not asked, then we are "butting our noses in where not needed". BUT, when we "miss" the stall out on table 5, then we are the jerks costing someone that topcut!
Let me ask this a different way. When you get engrossed in a movie, a game, read a book, a (insert fav. activity)......dont you lose track of the time that has passed??? I know I do! So, in a tourney, where you are "engrossed" and concentrating....isn't it possible that you "lose track of time" and that "timely" move in your opinion actually took forever in RL? That is when a judge should step in. A KOs B's active, B sits in "bhudda mode" contemplating who to bring up...tick tick tick..... I have seen players literally sit there for nearly a minute deciding. Guess what the guidelines state? 10 seconds to make that choice! If B suffers 4 KOs during the match as it winds down and no one calls him on this "slow play", he just burned 4 mins of clock. Think you could have another turn with those lost minutes to tie or win the game???
Keith
How many times have we as a judge team, read on the 'Gym about tourney reports and the accusations that "X stalled me out" or "if I had just one more turn, I had the game!". The players jump up and down when they feel like they have been stalled out and "no one" came to their "rescue" from the Judge team!
**Side note, I know EXACTLY how it feels to be stalled out in a big tourney, right Chris?? Recall Eastern Regional in Rockville 2004? You stalled ME out to gain a DRAW. You admitted it to me later in the hallway..."I did anything I could to get that point". If you don't have that point ag'st me, you fail to make topcut. In topcut, you qualified for Worlds in Orlando, where you finished 2nd. BTW, where is MY trophy?? LOL /end side note**
Bottom line is this... the judging team is screwed either way it looks like in the players' eyes. If we step in and make prompts when not asked, then we are "butting our noses in where not needed". BUT, when we "miss" the stall out on table 5, then we are the jerks costing someone that topcut!
Let me ask this a different way. When you get engrossed in a movie, a game, read a book, a (insert fav. activity)......dont you lose track of the time that has passed??? I know I do! So, in a tourney, where you are "engrossed" and concentrating....isn't it possible that you "lose track of time" and that "timely" move in your opinion actually took forever in RL? That is when a judge should step in. A KOs B's active, B sits in "bhudda mode" contemplating who to bring up...tick tick tick..... I have seen players literally sit there for nearly a minute deciding. Guess what the guidelines state? 10 seconds to make that choice! If B suffers 4 KOs during the match as it winds down and no one calls him on this "slow play", he just burned 4 mins of clock. Think you could have another turn with those lost minutes to tie or win the game???
Keith
billbilski
New Member
Anyone who thinks that a 50 min game was an exception last season has NEVER played G&G.........The mirror or Magmorter early to mid and empoleon late season rarely ended swiss on time and most often one game decided the winner in top cut.....Keith is right though.... sometimes judges are in an unwinnable position..... It's very hard to define stalling when the length of a turn isn't static in nature. How often have you played someone who is playing a reasonable but unhurried pace as are you and then when they get behind begin asking the judge to watch time. More than often a judge feels the need to increase the pace of play that had been "normal" all game. It's a very difficult thing to monitor...
Kieth: There is a HUGE difference between "Stalling" and "Time Management". 99% of the time players complain about "being stalled" they lost because their opponent was aware of the game state and time left and played their turns accordingly. They didn't take unusually long turns or actions. As long as a player isn't taking 45 seconds between plays ( an example ) and is being active in game ( playing cards, etc ) it isn't "stalling". Time awareness and management is a huge skill in this game, and to put it bluntly, 95% of players are terrible at it.
If I have worries about my opponent's pace of play, I will ALWAYS call a judge over as SOON as possible to watch my opponent's speed. Simply because I don't feel a judge can come in at the last 2 minutes of a game and accurate evaluate game speed with such a small sample size of a player's game.
I don't like the idea of "constant pace of play". I'd much rather see the time limit allotment treated like a game of Chess. Your total time spent playing vs their total time spent playing. If my opponent's are taking a minute and a half turns consistantly, and I'm taking 35 second turns, and need the occasional 2 and a half minute to 3 minute turn on crucial I'm "stalling". Even if I take up significantly less of the total time limit of the game. I'm not calling for the use of chess clocks, simply due to the expenses, and how difficult it would be to teach people to use them without error ( especially in 10- ) but the concept still stands. Magic Online uses that system. Rather than each round being an hour, each player has a 30 minute time bank. Run out of time and you lose.
And there is a big difference between "playing out every scenario" and "making good movies". I'm not calling for hour and a half time limits, I'm saying that for a game in top cut to go to 50 minutes is par for course last season. If all Steve's defense for how he butchered handling our game was that "no game should go 50 minutes anyways ( outside of roughly 50% of games played in that format if left untimed )" than I'm going to clearly take offense to that. Because it is simply a terrible misconception of how that format was played, and that sort of lack of familiarity is EXACTLY the type of thing I take issue with. I'm sure Steve can make all of the correct rulings regarding card interaction and catch game state infractions just fine, but the difference between a good judge, and one I want judging my match involves knowing things besides simple card interactions. Another aggrivating thing: KNOW THE CARDS. Especially the good ones! Nats 08 was a great example ( Nats 09 I cannot comment on having not played in the main event. ) I had judges have to pick up and read what popular cards even did. These are cards that had been in the spotlight the entire format. I understand if some kid has an Octillery on the bench and the card needs re-read. But to have to pick up and read Gallade by Nationals is simply outrageous.
Anyways, regarding your last example: CALL A JUDGE. Be proactive. 90% of these reports of people getting stalled, said player sits there twiddling their thumbs the whole 4 minute turn, signs the match slip, and runs off the complain online. A good judge should be able to look at a game state and tell if there is any realistic reason a player may need to think before a decision. 90% of the time, promoting an active requires no thought. You bring up who your attacking with next. But say your Claydol is dead, and you have a 2 card hand ( a night maintenance and a Power Spray ) and you have a Palkia and a Dialga on your bench, each with 1 energy and an energy gain. Your active is KOed. You need to count how many "outs" to a metal/water energy you have to influence which is the correct promotion. Now say the Palkia is the "correct" choice because you have 9 "water" ( between cyrus and roseanne's ) in the deck opposed to 6 metal. BUT! Your opponenet has a Luxray GL on the bench! They have a 4 card hand, no Claydol, and have used 2 Uxie. They need a Lightning, an Energy Gain, and a Luxray lvl X. How many Cyrus have they used? How many Energy Gain? Lightning??? SP Radar? If the odds of them having the return KO are too great, do you have to bring up the Dialga and take the lesser probability knowing that if they do return KO you lose anyways? You tell me I have 10 seconds to make that choice? Better yet, you tell me it is FAIR to give me 10 seconds to make that choice? MOST of the times, 90% of the game actions you take are near autopilot. But almost any act can be a difficult choice.
I also understand where you are coming from regarding not being able to please everyone. It puts you in a difficult position where if you overjudge, people get offended, but if you underjudge, people complain that they got "cheated" ( even though a majority of the time it is simply bitter sour grapes ). Regardless, it doesn't make for an excuse to FORCE time extensions on 2 FULLY compotent players who had EQUAL play pace and INSISTED ( BOTH of us ) that it wasn't necessary, and even than, not to be told HOW MUCH of an extension we got. In top cut...AT NATIONALS. That is simply bad judging. Jumping in and telling a kid to speed up play when hes taking a 45 breather between plays while his opponent is tapping his toes nervously is one thing, but if that player than says " no, its ok, don't worry about it " than don't enforce anything! Why a time extension wasn't treated like a "prize penalty" is beyond me. The victimized player can OPT whether to take it ( so as to not walk into POW/Scramble/Upper, etc ).
I'll use a good example from Worlds 04. My round 3 opponent had just topdecked a Gardevoir EX to put me in a very bad spot. She was down by a prize, but about to take it. She takes the longest turn in HISTORY ( I have a guaranteed return KO on her bench with a Blaziken EX, but it in turn gets KOed by Gardevoir EX ) and eats up nearly 2 and a half minutes of time before KOing me with 15 seconds left on the clock. I go, Oracle, Delcatty, *TIME* attach to Blaziken, firestarter, retreat, snipe something on her bench to win.
Now, say after a minute and a half of her turn, a judge runs in, sees her taking her time, issues a 3 minute time extension, or at the very least, insists she speeds up. I CLEARLY DO NOT WANT THIS! I'd opt out 100% of the time. If this was Steve, OOPS! No choice! I wouldn't know its 3 minutes either. ANNNNNND I lose the game because of unwanted judge intervention.
It is a players responsibility to call over a judge in situations like this because it isn't fair to ask a judge to be able to evaluate a game state and pace of play simply by walking past it or through the occasional glance. When they try to, it leads to errors. Its unrealistic to expect them to be able to.
If I have worries about my opponent's pace of play, I will ALWAYS call a judge over as SOON as possible to watch my opponent's speed. Simply because I don't feel a judge can come in at the last 2 minutes of a game and accurate evaluate game speed with such a small sample size of a player's game.
I don't like the idea of "constant pace of play". I'd much rather see the time limit allotment treated like a game of Chess. Your total time spent playing vs their total time spent playing. If my opponent's are taking a minute and a half turns consistantly, and I'm taking 35 second turns, and need the occasional 2 and a half minute to 3 minute turn on crucial I'm "stalling". Even if I take up significantly less of the total time limit of the game. I'm not calling for the use of chess clocks, simply due to the expenses, and how difficult it would be to teach people to use them without error ( especially in 10- ) but the concept still stands. Magic Online uses that system. Rather than each round being an hour, each player has a 30 minute time bank. Run out of time and you lose.
And there is a big difference between "playing out every scenario" and "making good movies". I'm not calling for hour and a half time limits, I'm saying that for a game in top cut to go to 50 minutes is par for course last season. If all Steve's defense for how he butchered handling our game was that "no game should go 50 minutes anyways ( outside of roughly 50% of games played in that format if left untimed )" than I'm going to clearly take offense to that. Because it is simply a terrible misconception of how that format was played, and that sort of lack of familiarity is EXACTLY the type of thing I take issue with. I'm sure Steve can make all of the correct rulings regarding card interaction and catch game state infractions just fine, but the difference between a good judge, and one I want judging my match involves knowing things besides simple card interactions. Another aggrivating thing: KNOW THE CARDS. Especially the good ones! Nats 08 was a great example ( Nats 09 I cannot comment on having not played in the main event. ) I had judges have to pick up and read what popular cards even did. These are cards that had been in the spotlight the entire format. I understand if some kid has an Octillery on the bench and the card needs re-read. But to have to pick up and read Gallade by Nationals is simply outrageous.
Anyways, regarding your last example: CALL A JUDGE. Be proactive. 90% of these reports of people getting stalled, said player sits there twiddling their thumbs the whole 4 minute turn, signs the match slip, and runs off the complain online. A good judge should be able to look at a game state and tell if there is any realistic reason a player may need to think before a decision. 90% of the time, promoting an active requires no thought. You bring up who your attacking with next. But say your Claydol is dead, and you have a 2 card hand ( a night maintenance and a Power Spray ) and you have a Palkia and a Dialga on your bench, each with 1 energy and an energy gain. Your active is KOed. You need to count how many "outs" to a metal/water energy you have to influence which is the correct promotion. Now say the Palkia is the "correct" choice because you have 9 "water" ( between cyrus and roseanne's ) in the deck opposed to 6 metal. BUT! Your opponenet has a Luxray GL on the bench! They have a 4 card hand, no Claydol, and have used 2 Uxie. They need a Lightning, an Energy Gain, and a Luxray lvl X. How many Cyrus have they used? How many Energy Gain? Lightning??? SP Radar? If the odds of them having the return KO are too great, do you have to bring up the Dialga and take the lesser probability knowing that if they do return KO you lose anyways? You tell me I have 10 seconds to make that choice? Better yet, you tell me it is FAIR to give me 10 seconds to make that choice? MOST of the times, 90% of the game actions you take are near autopilot. But almost any act can be a difficult choice.
I also understand where you are coming from regarding not being able to please everyone. It puts you in a difficult position where if you overjudge, people get offended, but if you underjudge, people complain that they got "cheated" ( even though a majority of the time it is simply bitter sour grapes ). Regardless, it doesn't make for an excuse to FORCE time extensions on 2 FULLY compotent players who had EQUAL play pace and INSISTED ( BOTH of us ) that it wasn't necessary, and even than, not to be told HOW MUCH of an extension we got. In top cut...AT NATIONALS. That is simply bad judging. Jumping in and telling a kid to speed up play when hes taking a 45 breather between plays while his opponent is tapping his toes nervously is one thing, but if that player than says " no, its ok, don't worry about it " than don't enforce anything! Why a time extension wasn't treated like a "prize penalty" is beyond me. The victimized player can OPT whether to take it ( so as to not walk into POW/Scramble/Upper, etc ).
I'll use a good example from Worlds 04. My round 3 opponent had just topdecked a Gardevoir EX to put me in a very bad spot. She was down by a prize, but about to take it. She takes the longest turn in HISTORY ( I have a guaranteed return KO on her bench with a Blaziken EX, but it in turn gets KOed by Gardevoir EX ) and eats up nearly 2 and a half minutes of time before KOing me with 15 seconds left on the clock. I go, Oracle, Delcatty, *TIME* attach to Blaziken, firestarter, retreat, snipe something on her bench to win.
Now, say after a minute and a half of her turn, a judge runs in, sees her taking her time, issues a 3 minute time extension, or at the very least, insists she speeds up. I CLEARLY DO NOT WANT THIS! I'd opt out 100% of the time. If this was Steve, OOPS! No choice! I wouldn't know its 3 minutes either. ANNNNNND I lose the game because of unwanted judge intervention.
It is a players responsibility to call over a judge in situations like this because it isn't fair to ask a judge to be able to evaluate a game state and pace of play simply by walking past it or through the occasional glance. When they try to, it leads to errors. Its unrealistic to expect them to be able to.
meganium45
Active Member
I know (of course from not being there on staff) but from talking to people that I respect and trust (Keith and Steve being among them) that the handling of the slow play and stalling issues at Worlds 2008 was not a judgment that Steve was doing out of hand, but something that was told by the staff to not only be attentive to, but exactly how to handle the situation were it to occur.
From what you have said Chris, it sounds EXACTLY like what was directed of the judges at Worlds 2008.
I don't think Steve has or had it "out" for you. Steve has a very direct manner of a judging style which, while not the same style as all other judges, is always fair. I got to work with Steve for the first time, maybe ever, at Worlds 2009 in the Juniors, and even though he and I may disagree on the boards from time to time, I would have him on my staff for any event.
A lot of what you are directing at Steve I don't think came from Steve, but came from above. There is a lot more instruction and detail paid to specific situations than a player will ever know.
At Worlds 2008, and before, stalling was a major concern. I can't imagine the amount of time that was taken by the staff, and by TPCi, to try and come up with a system that would be the most fair to all individuals.
Do 2 Worlds Title Class players like you and Jason think it was fair in your circumstance? Sounds like no. Is it a policy that has evolved? Yes. Do I have any doubt that Steve would handle the situation, were it to happen tomorrow, just as he was directed to do so by TPCi and his head judge? No doubt at all.
Am I probably overstating this? Yes, but I think you are taking an unfair run at Steve here. He was the judge who made the call, true. Sounds like you are going after the policy behind the call. Easier to do it if you separate it from your attack on the person.
Vince
From what you have said Chris, it sounds EXACTLY like what was directed of the judges at Worlds 2008.
I don't think Steve has or had it "out" for you. Steve has a very direct manner of a judging style which, while not the same style as all other judges, is always fair. I got to work with Steve for the first time, maybe ever, at Worlds 2009 in the Juniors, and even though he and I may disagree on the boards from time to time, I would have him on my staff for any event.
A lot of what you are directing at Steve I don't think came from Steve, but came from above. There is a lot more instruction and detail paid to specific situations than a player will ever know.
At Worlds 2008, and before, stalling was a major concern. I can't imagine the amount of time that was taken by the staff, and by TPCi, to try and come up with a system that would be the most fair to all individuals.
Do 2 Worlds Title Class players like you and Jason think it was fair in your circumstance? Sounds like no. Is it a policy that has evolved? Yes. Do I have any doubt that Steve would handle the situation, were it to happen tomorrow, just as he was directed to do so by TPCi and his head judge? No doubt at all.
Am I probably overstating this? Yes, but I think you are taking an unfair run at Steve here. He was the judge who made the call, true. Sounds like you are going after the policy behind the call. Easier to do it if you separate it from your attack on the person.
Vince
- Status