Historically card text knowledge has been resvered to those with great memory or who has the card in front of them. But now that smartphones are becoming common everyone with one can access all card texts easily. This has caused me to think.
Is the knowledge of cards a right or is it an advantage reserved for those with good memory? Am I allowed to check up card texts on my smartphone? If I ask the table "what does X do?", are they obliged to help me? If they're obliged, do they recite from memory or do can I have them check it up on their smartphone? Are the judges obliged to share card texts with all players who asks for it?
Adam Esbjörnsson,
Prince of Örebro
Card text knowledge is a right for players.
Previously, you could read the card text on the card instead of reading the card text on your smartphone.
The only difference is that on the smartphone you have the latest cardtext which can be useful on old prints.
As for card knowledge ("is there a card that does X?"), I think we should prohibit any out-game search, simply because it's too much time consuming.
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
In general players don't need to answer questions when asked about cards not in play or being played. Lying about those cards isn't outright forbidden, but as a Judge I would consider it unsportsman-like conductship, and issue a caution, etc.
Regarding the use of electronic helpers: the tournament rules have the following passage:
>
> 1.5. Electronic Devices
>
> The head judge or tournament organizer may choose not to allow players to participate with electronic devices (such as cellular phones, pagers, and/or portable audio units) turned on.
>
But the keyword is may, imho.
I wouldn't mind the use much, if you don't do it too often and it doesn't take too much time. id est, do it preferably on another player's turn. You should know your own cards in your deck.
Yes, people with a better memory are at an advantage, so are better or experienced players.
In my opinion, players should not be allowed to do ANY KIND of research during the game -- only judges.
The background is: You could not only research card texts, but also deck lists (and the like), so you would be able to "guess" online, what kind of deck you play against ... if you were fast, you could also ask someone outside the game for assistance ...
Yes, this is painting worst case scenarios, and, of course, such information is not that big advantages as it is in a game like chess ...
National Coordinator Germany nc [dot] germany [at] magenta [dot] de
> Hakuron wrote:
> In my opinion, players should not be allowed to do ANY KIND of research during the game -- only judges.
>
> The background is: You could not only research card texts, but also deck lists (and the like), so you would be able to "guess" online, what kind of deck you play against ... if you were fast, you could also ask someone outside the game for assistance ...
>
I agree with Hakuron. Net-deck and/or somewhat rigid archtypes are fairly common and having players hit up the smartphone for TWDA lists to check for (probable) ratios or to remind themselves of which cards they have to be on their guard against strikes me as undesirable.
Asking the judge for the cardtext on whatever card is absolutely fine, however.
Drain
So, could I be super wasteful and print out a hardcopy of every card that exists and check that instead? This would be WAY slower than a smartphone search. Or, more extremely, can print out the TWDA?
I think a smartphone search is totally reasonable, since it speeds up a manual search of these hardcopy resources.
Every player at the table has different experience levels with their opponents' decks (e.g. maybe you saw my deck in a previous round, maybe you are from my playgroup, maybe you know that I always play S&B decks).
I think, as long as your knowledge was gained in a way that all players could access, go for it. If someone wants to borrow my phone to check Vampidroid, I'm happy to share it.
Now, this brings me to my person pet peeve - I hate scouting other people's decks at tournaments. If you're ousted, don't go watch the other tables with the intent to discover what each other player is playing that day. It would be nice if there was a Loser's Lounge, where ousted players could hang out, away from active games, until the next round started. If you figure out what I'm playing WHILE playing against me, cool, use that knowledge in future rounds, but please don't tell the rest of the tournament what my deck's surprise is today.
Scouting bothers me because the knowledge exchange isn't reciprocal - you find out what I'm playing, but I don't learn anything about your tricks.
Whether your browsing a printed document or the internet, I guess it can fall under the following category
> 5. Tournament Violations
> 5.1. Cheating
>
> Cheating will not be tolerated. The head judge reviews all cheating allegations, and if he or she determines that a player cheated, the head judge will issue the appropriate penalty based on the V:EKN Penalty Guidelines. All disqualifications are subject to later V:EKN review, and further penalties may be assessed.
> Cheating includes, but is not limited to, the following intentional activities: Receiving outside assistance or coaching
>
(browsing the rulebook shouldn't be considered as an outside assistance, rather an in-game assistance).
Prince of Paris, France
Ratings Coordinator, Rules Director
> Miasmat wrote:
> So, could I be super wasteful and print out a hardcopy of every card that exists and check that instead? This would be WAY slower than a smartphone search. Or, more extremely, can print out the TWDA?
>
Any research like this may fall foul of Slow Play rules. In extremis, possibly Stalling rules or Sportsmanship.
Personally, as a Judge, I wouldn't mind if someone did use a smartphone to rsearch something during the game BUT, unless it was something trivial like updated card text from rulings, I would like to be called over as Judge to basically say "Yes, that's how it work. Add 2 min to the end of your game."
Retired Baron of Sydney, Australia, 418
> Hakuron wrote:
> In my opinion, players should not be allowed to do ANY KIND of research during the game -- only judges.
>
It's unfortunate that the world is this way, but even if 99% of players have only good intentions when trying to research cards via a mobile device, there will be that 1% who will do it to waste time or scour the TWDA for potential hints about the deck. It should be prohibited completely except by judges who are researching for a particular situation in a game. Hard and fast rule makes it fair for all.
When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike.
pckvtes.wordpress.com
@pckvtes
> Miasmat wrote:
> Now, this brings me to my person pet peeve - I hate scouting other people's decks at tournaments. If you're ousted, don't go watch the other tables with the intent to discover what each other player is playing that day. It would be nice if there was a Loser's Lounge, where ousted players could hang out, away from active games, until the next round started. If you figure out what I'm playing WHILE playing against me, cool, use that knowledge in future rounds, but please don't tell the rest of the tournament what my deck's surprise is today.
>
> Scouting bothers me because the knowledge exchange isn't reciprocal - you find out what I'm playing, but I don't learn anything about your tricks.
>
For me, watching the game at other tables when you are no longer playing is part of the atmosphere at a tournament (another similarity to chess) and perfectly okay with me, as long as everybody is following the course of the game in general.
I agree with you that SPYING by looking permantly at my hand from behind is a nuisance.
National Coordinator Germany nc [dot] germany [at] magenta [dot] de
> Miasmat wrote:
> Scouting bothers me because the knowledge exchange isn't reciprocal - you find out what I'm playing, but I don't learn anything about your tricks.
>
It shouldn't bother you under the circumstances that you describe, because if you have no time to scout, it's likely that you're getting VPs in every game, and the ones scouting aren't, so who cares about them? You'll likely oust them just like everyone else has been ousting them.
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/
Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017
> Jeff wrote:
> It's unfortunate that the world is this way, but even if 99% of players have only good intentions when trying to research cards via a mobile device, there will be that 1% who will do it to waste time.
>
Stalling.
> or scour the TWDA for potential hints about the deck.
>
Unsportsmanlike Conduct.
> It should be prohibited completely except by judges who are researching for a particular situation in a game. Hard and fast rule makes it fair for all.
>
Why make new rules to cover situations already prohibited by current rules?
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/
Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017
> It should be prohibited completely except by judges who are researching for a particular situation in a game. Hard and fast rule makes it fair for all.
>
> KevinM wrote:
> Why make new rules to cover situations already prohibited by current rules?
>
Allow me to rephrase...
Judges should use their discretion to prohibit it completely unless they are researching...
No new rule needed, but advice to judges is not let it happen on your watch because it will cause problems at some point.
When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike.
pckvtes.wordpress.com
@pckvtes
> Jeff wrote:
> No new rule needed, but advice to judges is not let it happen on your watch because it will cause problems at some point.
>
As I continue to state on VEKN.net when these hypothetical absolutes appear:
I've judged near a thousand tables now in over a hundred tournaments, in multiple states and even in another country, and I've never once encountered a situation regarding [EXAMPLE MENTIONED IN THIS THREAD] and any kind of bad behavior. So, either I'm continually not encountering [EXAMPLE MENTIONED IN THIS THREAD] that y'all are so sure must mathematically exist, or everyone in my tournaments behaves themselves based on the sole authority -- me -- and that authority's attitude.
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/
Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017
> Jeff wrote:
> Allow me to rephrase...
>
> Judges should use their discretion to prohibit it completely unless they are researching...
>
> No new rule needed, but advice to judges is not let it happen on your watch because it will cause problems at some point.
>
Jeff Kuta is not saying a new rule is needed.
"Problems" doesn't have to mean "stalling", "Unsporstmanlike conduct", or something else against the rules.
I was thinking about the game state discussions recently. Specifically, that it is everybody's responsibility to make sure every other player is aware of gamestate. If a player is on his phone looking things up while the game is going, doesn't this present a problem related to his awareness of game state and thus a problem for everyone else.
I don't know. It just seems stupid to be on the phone during a game while it is going. Am I wrong? Isn't this part of what the judge can do for the players? I have asked more than once about cards that I'm unsure when to play or what ruling exists for that card.
> TorranceCircle wrote:
> I was thinking about the game state discussions recently. Specifically, that it is everybody's responsibility to make sure every other player is aware of gamestate. If a player is on his phone looking things up while the game is going, doesn't this present a problem related to his awareness of game state and thus a problem for everyone else?
>
Hypothetically, sure. IRL, not so much as a glimmer.
> I don't know. It just seems stupid to be on the phone during a game while it is going. Am I wrong?
>
No, but that stupidity doesn't rise to the level -- and never has, ime -- to warrant the statements that Jeff is making.
> Isn't this part of what the judge can do for the players?
>
Do what, exactly? Outlaw/prohibit something that isn't a problem?
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/
Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017
> KevinM wrote:
>
> > Isn't this part of what the judge can do for the players?
> >
> Do what, exactly? Outlaw/prohibit something that isn't a problem?
>
I was unclear. Can't the judge help a player to understand what or how to play a card? look up rules or clarifications?
> TorranceCircle wrote:
>
> > KevinM wrote:
> >
> > > Isn't this part of what the judge can do for the players?
> > >
> > Do what, exactly? Outlaw/prohibit something that isn't a problem?
> >
> I was unclear. Can't the judge help a player to understand what or how to play a card? look up rules or clarifications?
>
Yes, the judge can explain the mechanics of a card and/or the card's interaction to a player. Yes, the judge can explain and/or look up a rule/ruling/clarification/errata for a player.
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/
Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017
> KevinM wrote:
> Yes, the judge can explain and/or look up a rule/ruling/clarification/errata for a player.
>
So back to the original post:
>
> Is the knowledge of cards a right or is it an advantage reserved for those with good memory? Am I allowed to check up card texts on my smartphone? If I ask the table "what does X do?", are they obliged to help me? If they're obliged, do they recite from memory or do can I have them check it up on their smartphone? Are the judges obliged to share card texts with all players who asks for it?
>
Xaddam, isn't it okay to just ask the judge? Is there some advantage gained or lost?
> KevinM wrote:
> I've judged near a thousand tables now in over a hundred tournaments, in multiple states and even in another country, and I've never once encountered a situation regarding [EXAMPLE MENTIONED IN THIS THREAD] and any kind of bad behavior. So, either I'm continually not encountering [EXAMPLE MENTIONED IN THIS THREAD] that y'all are so sure must mathematically exist, or everyone in my tournaments behaves themselves based on the sole authority -- me -- and that authority's attitude.
>
Then VTES players are the angels of the world. I agree that by and large we're a trustworthy lot. However, I've refereed in the neighborhood of 250 soccer games and experienced the awful side of bad behavior many times. As an assistant, I have seen scores of examples where the center referee didn't use their authority when warranted and that caused lots of problems later on. Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile. Perhaps those experiences have skewed my perception, but some people are just cheating bastards. My advice to judges: don't get burned on your watch. Doesn't mean be a jerk, but be clear about your expectations.
When you are anvil, be patient; when a hammer, strike.
pckvtes.wordpress.com
@pckvtes
> TorranceCircle wrote:
> Xaddam, isn't it okay to just ask the judge? Is there some advantage gained or lost?
>
I don't think that would be a problem at all. But, I don't know how the rules actually work. I could see that card texts are only a "rightful knowledge" (knowledge everyone has a right to) if you actually have the card in front of you, but I could also see that the entire Card List is "rightful knowledge" at any point in the game. If all card texts is "rightful knowledge" a good way to ensure this would be to make judges obliged to answer queries concerning a card's exact card text.
All of these question were in earnest. I don't know how the rules work and I don't think I've seen it discussed before.
Adam Esbjörnsson,
Prince of Örebro
> Xaddam wrote:
> .... but I could also see that the entire Card List is "rightful knowledge" at any point in the game. If all card texts is "rightful knowledge" a good way to ensure this would be to make judges obliged to answer queries concerning a card's exact card text.
>
> All of these question were in earnest. I don't know how the rules work and I don't think I've seen it discussed before.
>
I think its an interesting question. "Should the judge be obligated to answer questions concerning a card's exact text or ruling?" I don't know, I haven't read the judge's guide. Maybe some of the judges who have read the judge's guide could tell us if this is mentioned or not.
From my experience in Los Angeles, I've never seen a judge refuse to tell a table exact card text or ruling. I don't know how players would react if they didn't.
I'm trying to think of when a judge would refuse to do this (thereby raising the question of obligation). Maybe when a player is speculating as to a card he thinks another player may have, and wants to know the exact card text of that card?
> TorranceCircle wrote:
> I'm trying to think of when a judge would refuse to do this (thereby raising the question of obligation). Maybe when a player is speculating as to a card he thinks another player may have, and wants to know the exact card text of that card?
>
I've never seen a Judge refuse a "How does X card work?" question during a game if the answer was remotely relevant to play. If you keep pestering the Judge about all possible cards, you might get a Stall Warning, but I would argue that card text and effects (and ESPECIALLY rulings and errata) are considered to be public knowledge.
Non-Camarilla
> Xaddam wrote:
> Historically card text knowledge has been resvered to those with great memory or who has the card in front of them. But now that smartphones are becoming common everyone with one can access all card texts easily. This has caused me to think.
>
> Is the knowledge of cards a right or is it an advantage reserved for those with good memory? Am I allowed to check up card texts on my smartphone? If I ask the table "what does X do?", are they obliged to help me? If they're obliged, do they recite from memory or do can I have them check it up on their smartphone? Are the judges obliged to share card texts with all players who asks for it?
>
All that seems covered by Tournament Rules 1.5 .
> etherial wrote:
> I've never seen a Judge refuse a "How does X card work?" question during a game if the answer was remotely relevant to play. If you keep pestering the Judge about all possible cards, you might get a Stall Warning
>
More problematically, in most tournaments, judges are in short supply. Either there's one main judge, or you're using the multi-judge system and many of them will still be playing games (at any given point in time).
Using up lots of judge time is often going to be a problem. The judge can't keep an eye on the table with two new players, or the table with the really troublesome deal-making situation, or wherever else the judge might prefer to direct their attention.
> Miasmat wrote:
> Now, this brings me to my person pet peeve - I hate scouting other people's decks at tournaments. If you're ousted, don't go watch the other tables with the intent to discover what each other player is playing that day. It would be nice if there was a Loser's Lounge, where ousted players could hang out, away from active games, until the next round started. If you figure out what I'm playing WHILE playing against me, cool, use that knowledge in future rounds, but please don't tell the rest of the tournament what my deck's surprise is today.
>
Then again, scounting can also be done by a group of people who between rounds share the info on the decks they played against in the previous round.
Finnish Politics!
> Pascal wrote:
>
> > Xaddam wrote:
> > Historically card text knowledge has been resvered to those with great memory or who has the card in front of them. But now that smartphones are becoming common everyone with one can access all card texts easily. This has caused me to think.
> >
> > Is the knowledge of cards a right or is it an advantage reserved for those with good memory? Am I allowed to check up card texts on my smartphone? If I ask the table "what does X do?", are they obliged to help me? If they're obliged, do they recite from memory or do can I have them check it up on their smartphone? Are the judges obliged to share card texts with all players who asks for it?
> >
> All that seems covered by Tournament Rules 1.5 .
>
1.5 only gives the head judge/organizer the option to disallow use of electronic devices. It says nothing about the other, and in my opinion more interesting, question (knowledge of card text being a right vs an advantage for those with good memory).
> I could see that card texts are only a "rightful knowledge" (knowledge everyone has a right to) if you actually have the card in front of you, but I could also see that the entire Card List is "rightful knowledge" at any point in the game.
>
Since several dozens of cards don't actually do precisely what the card text says and another couple of dozen cards have multiple versions with different card texts floating around, I think the fairly obvious answer should be "card texts are rightful knowledge" to everyone, even if they don't happen to have the memory.
> Xaddam wrote:
> If all card texts is "rightful knowledge" a good way to ensure this would be to make judges obliged to answer queries concerning a card's exact card text.
>
I truly do not understand where these questions are coming from.
Did some judge ever NOT tell you -- or anyone you have ever heard of anywhere ever -- the current card text when you or someone else asked for it?
If so, why didn't you immediately report that person to the VEKN at the time?
If not, why do you believe rules ensuring judges' obligatory behavior need to be implemented?
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/
Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017
I don´t think any checking of smartphones or similar devices should be allowed except for checking time. Good memory is a skill in Vtes just as good tabletalk or just playing smart. IMHO.
But if a player asks a judge to see the latest wording of a card, the judge should show it. IMHO.
"My strategy? Luck is my strategy, of course."
Indeed, what Henrik said. I would like to know if knowledge of cards is prohibited in any way (via disallowing out-of-game sources, aka smartphones). If it is not prohibited is it facilitated (by the judge)?
> KevinM wrote:
> I truly do not understand where these questions are coming from.
>
> Did some judge ever NOT tell you -- or anyone you have ever heard of anywhere ever -- the current card text when you or someone else asked for it?
>
> If so, why didn't you immediately report that person to the VEKN at the time?
>
Off-topic, irrelevant, conjecture and somewhat combative. PM people in the future for questions like these.
> KevinM wrote:
> If not, why do you believe rules ensuring judges' obligatory behavior need to be implemented?
>
They already exist, that's what the judge's guidelines are. It's better to have standard procedure on paper so that I can expect to be treated fairly when I'm at a non-local tournament.
Adam Esbjörnsson,
Prince of Örebro
> Xaddam wrote:
> Indeed, what Henrik said. I would like to know if knowledge of cards is prohibited in any way (via disallowing out-of-game sources, aka smartphones). If it is not prohibited is it facilitated (by the judge)?
>
> > KevinM wrote:
> > I truly do not understand where these questions are coming from.
> >
> > Did some judge ever NOT tell you -- or anyone you have ever heard of anywhere ever -- the current card text when you or someone else asked for it?
> >
> > If so, why didn't you immediately report that person to the VEKN at the time?
> >
> Off-topic, irrelevant, conjecture and somewhat combative. PM people in the future for questions like these.
>
Completely on-topic, relevant, non-combative, and yes, conjecture, because, as I stated, I have no idea where these questions of his are coming from, so I need to ask more questions to be able to answer properly.
I'm sorry that you were confused by my method of obtaining more information.
And, again: Please do not tell me how to use this forum.
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/
Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017
I'm quite unsure. I wouldn't like it if people got help from outside. But I'd appreciate if someone looks up card texts and/or rulings. I think there aren't many people who like to cheat with electronic devices. And even if there isn't much they can get out of it. I mean okay, they could look up a deck in the TWDA. But nothing guarantees that the deck at the table is the deck from the net. Does that really help that much to have to prohibit reasonably helping devices?
(OT: Why does every discussion at this forum have to heat up that much?)
Baron of Frankfurt
> KevinM wrote:
> non-combative,
>
You don't get to choose how you're interpreted. You might be fine with your tone, but you can't change the fact that I find it hostile.
> KevinM wrote:
> Completely on-topic, relevant [...] and yes, conjecture, because, as I stated, I have no idea where these questions of his are coming from, so I need to ask more questions to be able to answer properly.
>
> I'm sorry that you were confused by my method of obtaining more information.
>
I want the same answer to my question as anyone else asking the exact same question. Even if they have a different intent, background or desire than me motivating that same question. So, if you find an answer to the original question that you could not find without me telling you of my personal intentions and desires that answer would not be what I asked for. This is why your question is off-topic.
The rules forum should for 99% part be logic, evidence and gamemaker's intent. Desires and anecdotes should not be part of rule-making. If you wish to discuss possible ways to cheat I would point you to the general forum, or at least create a new thread.
Adam Esbjörnsson,
Prince of Örebro
> Xaddam wrote:
>
> > KevinM wrote:
> > non-combative,
> >
> You don't get to choose how you're interpreted. You might be fine with your tone, but you can't change the fact that I find it hostile.
>
If I can't change the fact that you find it hostile by *telling* you that no hostility is meant then you are quite closed-minded, not to mention unfriendly. And since I don't think that of you, based on previous encounters that we've had, I think this is a bone that you don't want to give up. But that's on you, not me. All I can do is to say that it wasn't hostile and then it's on you to proceed from there. Me personally, I'd say to myself, "OK, he wasn't being hostile" and continue on without believing in the hostility.
> KevinM wrote:
> Completely on-topic, relevant [...] and yes, conjecture, because, as I stated, I have no idea where these questions of his are coming from, so I need to ask more questions to be able to answer properly.
>
> I'm sorry that you were confused by my method of obtaining more information.
>
I want the same answer to my question as anyone else asking the exact same question. Even if they have a different intent, background or desire than me motivating that same question. So, if you find an answer to the original question that you could not find without me telling you of my personal intentions and desires that answer would not be what I asked for. This is why your question is off-topic.
The rules forum should for 99% part be logic, evidence and gamemaker's intent. Desires and anecdotes should not be part of rule-making. If you wish to discuss possible ways to cheat I would point you to the general forum, or at least create a new thread.[/quote]We agree! Desires and anecdotes should not be part of rule-making. That is why I am questioning him about his reasons for the questions.
As I and others have famously said many, many -- way too many times -- if you don't like the posts then you don't have to read and respond to them.
Telling someone how to discuss things or criticizing their method of discussion isn't usually relevant or useful, and is mostly a waste of time. Just think of how much time both you and I have spent discussing this when you -- not me, but you -- could have just gone past it.
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment...Complacency...Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! vtesville.myminicity.com/
Facebook: www.facebook.com/groups/129744447064017
> Joscha wrote:
> And even if there isn't much they can get out of it. I mean okay, they could look up a deck in the TWDA. But nothing guarantees that the deck at the table is the deck from the net. Does that really help that much to have to prohibit reasonably helping devices?
>
I agree. I think the real issue would be the player who is busy looking things up instead of playing.
In a single judge or multi judge event this could really help the judges.
Of course, if a person is standing behind a player and sending texts to a player about the oppositions hand this would be bad. Hmmm!
> TorranceCircle wrote:
> Of course, if a person is standing behind a player and sending texts to a player about the oppositions hand this would be bad. Hmmm!
>
Whoa, that really would be mean and a disgustin behaviour. Don't give them ideas...
Baron of Frankfurt
Just given my reading of the judges guideline, it does not seem to be advocating the prohibition of electronic devices, but rather giving judges the option to.
Personally, I see no reason to forbid electronic devices unless they're being disruptive. Especially for card text lookup, I think it's a great time saver. Since current card text is a right, why should the player have to delay the game to call over an overworked judge, who's just going to use the same source?
As for players searching through the TWDA, I really don't find it that a credible threat. Frankly, even if they do, SO WHAT?
1. Are you playing a deck archetype that is easily identifiable?
2. Is your deck exactly identical to one of the ones in the TWDA?
3. Does your opponent know for a fact that your exact deck is in the TWDA?
4. Is there only ONE deck in the TWDA that matches the general description of your deck?
5. Does knowledge of what cards are in your deck give them some play advantage in the current situation?
If the answer to any of the above questions was "No" or "Maybe", then the method can be worse than useless to your opponent. I say worse than useless because thinking you know your opponent's decklist and being wrong can be more harmful than having a general idea of what's in his deck.
Even if the answers to all those questions is yes, the time it would take to sift through the TWDA would easily incur a delay of game penalty.
So yah. I see no harm, and a lot of good that can come from using electronics, in most cases.