Deck List Discussion

I'm starting a new thread for this, since it was requested in the Budapest ECQ thread that we not get too out-of-hand over there. On May 19, 5:40 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On May 19, 5:30 pm, jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net wrote: > > > If it's as blatant as Malkavian Dementia, I bet someone'd notice. > > Well, sure. But an extra Sudden Reversal? When you already have some > in the deck? Or whatever? If people are going to cheat, they are going > to cheat, and they'll do it in whatever way gets around the safeguards > the exist to prevent cheating. I think safeguards that prevent nearly all Malkavian Dementia swapping (or changing their entire decks) are still valuable (when the circumstances warrant, at least) even if they fail to prevent some instances of Sudden-Reversal swapping. Your mileage may vary, as always. -witness1

In article <837f0bf7-f6e7-448f...@n8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, witness1 <jwnew...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > I think safeguards that prevent nearly all Malkavian Dementia swapping > (or changing their entire decks) are still valuable (when the > circumstances warrant, at least) even if they fail to prevent some > instances of Sudden-Reversal swapping. Yeah, see, I don't. If it means that someone who legitimately just accidentally lost a card or picked up an extra one gets DQed. I have never been to a tournament with deck lists in my life (and I've been to an awful lot of tournaments), and have never once felt like they were needed. If someone wants to cheat, they are going to cheat. If they can't cheat by swapping their decks out due to deck list checks, they are going to cheat in another way that can't be caught by deck checks (monkeying with pool, marking their crypt, "forgetting" to play a card to the ashheap, whatever). You simply can't stop people from cheating in this game if they want to cheat, and at a certain point, you just need to assume that the vast majority of people aren't going to try and cheat and go from there. And while trying to stop as much cheating as you can is certainly an admirable plan, if it results in people who are legitimately not cheating getting DQed, then it isn't worth it. Peter D Bakija pd...@lightlink.com http://www.lightlink.com/pdb6/vtes.html "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?" -Gaff

Peter D Bakija wrote: > witness1 <jwnew...@bellsouth.net> wrote: >> I think safeguards that prevent nearly all Malkavian Dementia >> swapping (or changing their entire decks) are still valuable (when >> the circumstances warrant, at least) even if they fail to prevent >> some instances of Sudden-Reversal swapping. > > Yeah, see, I don't. If it means that someone who legitimately just > accidentally lost a card or picked up an extra one gets DQed. I have > never been to a tournament with deck lists in my life (and I've been > to an awful lot of tournaments), and have never once felt like they > were needed. > > If someone wants to cheat, they are going to cheat. If they can't > cheat by swapping their decks out due to deck list checks, they are > going to cheat in another way that can't be caught by deck checks > (monkeying with pool, marking their crypt, "forgetting" to play a > card to the ashheap, whatever). You simply can't stop people from > cheating in this game if they want to cheat, and at a certain point, > you just need to assume that the vast majority of people aren't going > to try and cheat and go from there. And while trying to stop as much > cheating as you can is certainly an admirable plan, if it results in > people who are legitimately not cheating getting DQed, then it isn't > worth it. I have two friends in the Internet Security business, and both of them have told me that if the options are to allow full access to the internet to all employees (with security on company PCs, obviously) or to allow limited access to the internet to all employees, they ALWAYS choose to be more restrictive (e.g. "This site is unavailable...") rather than less. When asked why, they both said the same thing: There will always be users that try to download what they aren't supposed to download, so better safe than sorry. That being the case, I'd suggest that the groups in-question aren't doing it correctly. Here is a better strategy, with less misery for everyone. If they are using decklists since they KNOW that certain players are/have cheated, they should have ejected those cheaters, reported them to the VEKN, told them not to come back for a year (or whatever), and then they wouldn't have had to use decklists. If they are using decklists since they THINK that certain players are/have cheated, they should be taken aside and have it explained to them that certain actions look like cheating and that, without making any judgements, it must be stated that cheating isn't allowed, and these kinds of things will be CLOSELY WATCHED. Hopefully that would remove the incentive for those cheaters to cheat in that playgroup. If not, then see above. Cheaters should be punished and ostracized, not tolerated via decklists. 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! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/

On May 19, 6:02 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article > <837f0bf7-f6e7-448f-94a4-fe69d4705...@n8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, > > witness1 <jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > I think safeguards that prevent nearly all Malkavian Dementia swapping > > (or changing their entire decks) are still valuable (when the > > circumstances warrant, at least) even if they fail to prevent some > > instances of Sudden-Reversal swapping. > > Yeah, see, I don't. If it means that someone who legitimately just > accidentally lost a card or picked up an extra one gets DQed. Judges should certainly be allowed to excersize judgment. -witness1

[ quoted text not captured ] This is a great post Kevin. My feeling on decklists is it's taking the easy way out, and probably not solving 100% what you are looking to solve. Also, it may be unfairly penalizing stupidity, tiredness, and spaciness, without actually penalizing cheaters. I see the requirement of decklists as the lazy, passive agressive, [word that means an unwillingness to confront those who are causing the problems] way out, instead of handling the problem straight on. On another front, I can see a reason to require decklists - because you want to be sure to have the decklists to report as soon as the tournament is over. I can see requiring all finalists to submit a decklist before the game begins, just so you know you have it. best - chris

On May 20, 4:25 am, librarian <aucti...@superfuncards.com> wrote: > Kevin M. wrote: > > Peter D Bakija wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] See, this i have no issue with. Finalists get an extra 30 minutes or whatever before the final round to submit their decklists, perfectly okay. Finalist gets DQ'ed right before the final for missing 3 cards from his deck list, 1 of which is just wrong in amount, not perfectly okay at all. If you know people are cheating, keep a very close eye on them, to the point of getting a judge to stand and watch them ALL the time. Alternatively, make sure they know that the penalties for getting caught in any kind of excessive cheating (to separate this from someone forgetting a DNR clause or something) or severe in the extreme. Me, I have always enjoyed the old guantlet as the perfect punishment. Although maybe making the deck in question go through a guantlet could be much more traumatic

Question is should someone with a real cheat (i.e. exchanging cards in his deck) be punished in the same way as someone missing 1 disarm in their deck (and another sporting an additional one :P )

On May 19, 11:31 pm, "Kevin M." <youw...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > That being the case, I'd suggest that the groups in-question aren't doing > it correctly. Here is a better strategy, with less misery for everyone. > > If they are using decklists since they KNOW that certain players are/have > cheated, they should have ejected those cheaters, reported them to the > VEKN, told them not to come back for a year (or whatever), and then > they wouldn't have had to use decklists. > > If they are using decklists since they THINK that certain players are/have > cheated, they should be taken aside and have it explained to them that > certain actions look like cheating and that, without making any judgements, > it must be stated that cheating isn't allowed, and these kinds of things > will be CLOSELY WATCHED. Hopefully that would remove the incentive > for those cheaters to cheat in that playgroup. If not, then see above. > Not sure if I'm reading you correct here, but I'm guessing that you by "certain players" mean that the organizers know the names/looks of these players and thus can single them out. That might not be the case. The organizers might just use decklist since the think that some (random, unknown) players will cheat. It does happen, even if you have a speech before the tournament. And the use of decklists doesn't mean that judges won't CLOSELY WATCH for other forms of cheating. It just means that changing your deck is one form of cheating that will be quite hard to get away with. > Cheaters should be punished and ostracized, not tolerated via decklists. I don't see how you tolerate cheaters by the use of decklists. Sure, if all you do is tell people to hand in a decklist and then you don't care about anything else. But that's not how it usually goes.

[ quoted text not captured ] Not generally, if the judge has reason to believe the circumstances warrant different handling. For example, if a table was being set up and it collapsed and the players reassembled their decks in a hurry and, as I walked by, I found a copy of Wake With Evening's Freshness nestling next to someone's bag, I'd likely treat that pretty differently to finding a copy of Malkavian Dementia in a deck that suddenly finds itself in a final with three Malkavian decks. As the judging guidelines say: "If the judge believes that the situation has significant, extenuating circumstances, he or she is free to modify the penalty as appropriate." Which is to say, I'd generally go along with a harsh penalty - Game Loss generally, rather than instant Disqualification - but judges are empowered and encouraged to bear the whole situation in mind. (Obviously, at the final, GL and DQ are the same thing.) And note that the default penalties generally assume unintentional infractions - you can upgrade for players who are obviously being cocks. There's also the long-standing question of how / where deck list checking should be handled, relative to the final. Some players have in the past suggested that the checks on the finalists' decks should be handled at the end of the previous round. If your deck is illegal, you lose the game you've just finished (0GW, 0VP - possibly even 0TP), but could requalify for the final if your earlier scores are still strong enough. So if I got 3 GWs and 11VP, I could still potentially get into the final with 2GWs and 7VP, when my 4VP third game is knocked out. Alternatively, you could knock out their strongest game - so if I got 5VP in the first round and 2VP in the second round (2R+F), my deck list infraction as a finalist would knock out round one and leave me with round two only. Certainly, I wouldn't try to impose this sort of thing on a tournament *now* (because it's not possible under the current rules), but it might be a viable option for the future. Alternatively again, you could hand a player their decklist in ten minutes before the final, ask *them* to check it, and then do the judge check afterwards. This should remove the unintentional "Whoops, I have LSJ's copy of Gather in my Toreador deck" sort of slip-ups. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

On May 20, 5:03 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > Not sure if I'm reading you correct here, but I'm guessing that you by > "certain players" mean that the organizers know the names/looks of > these players and thus can single them out. That might not be the > case. Sure. But if you are using decklists 'cause people in the past have cheated in ways that using decklists would fix? Kevin's post is completely reasonable--rather than blanket punishing *everyone* (i.e. requiring deck lists and DQing people for what are likely just honest mistakes), just specifically punish the people cheating. If you catch someone actually cheating? Sure. DQ them. You can do that *without* a blanket deck list policy. > The organizers might just use decklist since the think that some > (random, unknown) players will cheat. It does happen, even if you have > a speech before the tournament. Sure. But again, deck lists don't stop people from cheating. People will cheat if they want to cheat. If they think they can't get away with cheating due to deck lists, they'll cheat in some other way. I suspect that VTES players break down into 2 groups: -People who aren't going to cheat (the vast majority) -People who will cheat (the vast minority) And if you are willing to cheat, you are willing to cheat. If you can't cheat by changing your deck, you'll cheat by not spending enough pool or by "forgetting" a DNR clause or by looking at someone's hand or whatever. So you can make a blanket rule (deck lists and DQs for irregular decks) that might stop one form of cheating, but also will punish completely innocent players (the vast majority of the players) for being sloppy, tired, or hung over. Or, conversely, you can *not* make a blanket punishment rule, and just be a judge and use your judgement. And if someone seems to be cheating, call them out on it and do what you need to do. > And the use of decklists doesn't mean that judges won't CLOSELY WATCH > for other forms of cheating. It just means that changing your deck is > one form of cheating that will be quite hard to get away with. Maybe, maybe not. How are the deck lists used? If there are deck lists, when are the checked? Randomly? That being the case, if the advantages of cheating outweigh the likelyhood of getting checked, cheaters will still cheat. Before the final? Then you illegally modify your deck during the prelims and put it back to original form before the final. Do you check every deck at the start of the tournament? Then you change it after it has been checked. If people want to cheat, they are going to cheat. But I suspect that the vast majority of players aren't going to cheat in the first place. > I don't see how you tolerate cheaters by the use of decklists. Sure, > if all you do is tell people to hand in a decklist and then you don't > care about anything else. But that's not how it usually goes. Well, no. His point was (as I understand it) that deck lists are a knee jerk blanket reaction to people cheating. If last time, someone cheated by changing their deck, and your reaction is "next time I'll use deck lists...", that is less effective than "This time, I'll DQ that guy". -Peter

On May 20, 2:15 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On May 20, 5:03 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Not sure if I'm reading you correct here, but I'm guessing that you by > > "certain players" mean that the organizers know the names/looks of > > these players and thus can single them out. That might not be the > > case. > > Sure. But if you are using decklists 'cause people in the past have > cheated in ways that using decklists would fix? Kevin's post is > completely reasonable--rather than blanket punishing *everyone* (i.e. > requiring deck lists and DQing people for what are likely just honest > mistakes), just specifically punish the people cheating. If you catch > someone actually cheating? Sure. DQ them. You can do that *without* a > blanket deck list policy. > > > The organizers might just use decklist since the think that some > > (random, unknown) players will cheat. It does happen, even if you have > > a speech before the tournament. > > Sure. But again, deck lists don't stop people from cheating. People > will cheat if they want to cheat. By that reasoning there'd be no point in rules against cheating at all? Removing one possible way of cheating has to be better than removing none of the possible ways? And, as I said, there's nothing in using decklists that prohibits organizers from dealing with other types of cheating as well. > If they think they can't get away > with cheating due to deck lists, they'll cheat in some other way. I > suspect that VTES players break down into 2 groups: > > -People who aren't going to cheat (the vast majority) > > -People who will cheat (the vast minority) > > And if you are willing to cheat, you are willing to cheat. If you > can't cheat by changing your deck, you'll cheat by not spending enough > pool or by "forgetting" a DNR clause or by looking at someone's hand > or whatever. So you can make a blanket rule (deck lists and DQs for > irregular decks) that might stop one form of cheating, but also will > punish completely innocent players (the vast majority of the players) > for being sloppy, tired, or hung over. Or, conversely, you can *not* > make a blanket punishment rule, and just be a judge and use your > judgement. And if someone seems to be cheating, call them out on it > and do what you need to do. You can use decklist and use judgement at the same time? I don't understand the horror in writing down your deck (something lots of people do anyway, to post on the newsgroup etc) and handing the paper over to the organizer. I don't think there's no real need to use decklists except for bigger events, and for those tournaments I don't think it's too much to ask that people isn't hung over/sloppy/tired when they write the decklist. It's not more than ~100 or so cards and won't take more than 10 minutes. > > And the use of decklists doesn't mean that judges won't CLOSELY WATCH > > for other forms of cheating. It just means that changing your deck is > > one form of cheating that will be quite hard to get away with. > > Maybe, maybe not. How are the deck lists used? If there are deck > lists, when are the checked? Randomly? That being the case, if the > advantages of cheating outweigh the likelyhood of getting checked, > cheaters will still cheat. Before the final? Then you illegally modify > your deck during the prelims and put it back to original form before > the final. Do you check every deck at the start of the tournament? > Then you change it after it has been checked. If people want to cheat, > they are going to cheat. But I suspect that the vast majority of > players aren't going to cheat in the first place. How the decklists are used is up to the organizers, ofc. And that can be discussed, since there are surely better and worse ways to use them. It's not a bulletproof system though, I agree. But I don't see how it's so horrible either, unless the judges are psychopaths who uses forgotten Disarms in different sleaves as an excuse to DQ people. > > I don't see how you tolerate cheaters by the use of decklists. Sure, > > if all you do is tell people to hand in a decklist and then you don't > > care about anything else. But that's not how it usually goes. > > Well, no. His point was (as I understand it) that deck lists are a > knee jerk blanket reaction to people cheating. If last time, someone > cheated by changing their deck, and your reaction is "next time I'll > use deck lists...", that is less effective than "This time, I'll DQ > that guy". How about if the reaction is "This time, I'll DQ that guy" AND "next time I'll use decklists"? Using decklists in your following tournaments doesn't make you unable to DQ people in your current one.

Yes i was disqualified. No i didn't cheat. What happens? Before start of tournament i have decided to do one last change in my deck. i asked friend of mine for some cards (Deep song). i wanted to exchange them for fiendish tongues. That friend started to search for them in a box of card. as i didn't know how many he will have with him i just wrote down fiendish tongue with no numbers and deep song with no number and continued with writing deck list. and oops i forgot to add there correct number after i have exchanged card in my deck. and i forgot to write down Rack. shit happens. my fault life sucks. i was after night shift in work and i spent 3 hours in car driving for tournament. i was tired and i made a mistake. does this appologize me? no that's fully my mistake and my fault. rules are strict and i admit my fault and mistake. i'm not upset about that. i made a mistake and i have to pay for that. decklists are fine and are not. many players just don;t like them. i knew opne guy that is dislectic and therefor he manytime just simply made a mistake in writing decklists. thanks god he was never DQ before of that. decklists should avoid any cheating with cards and exchanging them. but what about cards that you give to another players on the tournament? Deranges, Montreals, pentex, troublemakers and plenty other. there is a plenty of option to get some other player's cards. in case of morons that would not return such cards (as many of them can be quite valuable) you will be disqalufied. i don;t think that's fair. but i was a judge on tournament when a guy gets to the final with weenie potence deck. during decklist check he was missing 2 disarms. i asked all guy he played with for deck check if they dind't find any of his card. at that time disarm was vaulable card with cost over 15 $ and we didn't find any one of them. should that player be disqualified? i don't think so, but due to rules he had to be. i heard another really terrible story. on big tournament with aproximately 100 players happens following: one guy regestered and gave judge decklist for block wall deck. but he played first two rounds with turbo stealth bleed. he made 2GW and 8 VPs. he thought that is enough for finals so he take that wall deck for third round and get 2VPs. he made it to finals and passed decklist check. then played finals. thanks god some of plasyers he played before with bleed deck saw it and witnessed to judge his cheating. Judge found another players that confrimed his cheating as well. all this happens during final game that other playes was already playing. he was DQ. fnals was closed after alomst 1 hour of game and restarted. did decklist check helped? not at all. there are plenty of other forms of cheating. i met guy that never payed for action cards (after the rule was changed to pay after succesfull action) - he played weenie DOM bleed with tons of dominate kines (quite usefull nto to pay). i saw one lady that always used dreams to get a blood on uncontroled vampire at the end of her's predator turn. she burned last counter but she left the dreams in play and started to use it again. i heard about plenty of players that prepare their top deck cards. even in my gorup we got player that sometime do it. i saw manytimes payers not to apply any of gehena effects especialy for Slow withering, Blood weakness and Veil of darkess. is this cheating? those cards change the usual rules of game and they change it a lot. somebody just can forgot. decklist are not changing almost any cheating. there are too many forms of cheating that are not prevented by any way.

On May 20, 11:06 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > By that reasoning there'd be no point in rules against cheating at > all? No, that isn't the case at all. But if people are getting DQed for minor deck list infractions that are likely the result of honest mistake, then the system has failed. And should be changed. > Removing one possible way of cheating has to be better than > removing none of the possible ways? And, as I said, there's nothing in > using decklists that prohibits organizers from dealing with other > types of cheating as well. Sure. But as deck lists tend to have ironclad, blanket penalties atteched to them, they tend to result in undesirable results. If people want to use deck lists, go nuts. But people should not be getting DQ'ed for minor deck inconsistiencies that are far more likely the result of honest mistake than cheating. > You can use decklist and use judgement at the same time? Sure. But to this point, all reports of people being DQed due to deck list irregularity seem to fall on the side of "We just drew the hard line!" than "Well, judgement indicated that he was cheating rather than it was an honest mistake." If you want to use deck lists, go crazy. But again, people should not be getting DQed 'cause their deck is off a couple cards for what is likely an honest error. If someone has the same problem 3 tournaments in a row? Yeah, probably cheating. If their deck is wildly different than the deck list should indicate? If someone who has never show any indication of cheating has 2 or 3 missing cards in their deck? Probably not cheating. > I don't understand the horror in writing down your deck (something > lots of people do anyway, to post on the newsgroup etc) and handing > the paper over to the organizer. There is no horror. Unless you get DQed due to a deck list check, and your deck is missing a couple cards (that accidentally got left in your deck box) or picked up a couple extra cards (from the deck it was next to). > How the decklists are used is up to the organizers, ofc. And that can > be discussed, since there are surely better and worse ways to use > them. It's not a bulletproof system though, I agree. Sure. But if people are getting DQed for what are in all likelyhood perfectly innocent errors, they are being used badly. > How about if the reaction is "This time, I'll DQ that guy" AND "next > time I'll use decklists"? > Using decklists in your following tournaments doesn't make you unable > to DQ people in your current one. No, it doesn't. But if you can DQ people for cheating without using deck lists, why bother in the first place? Again, I have never been to a tournament that used deck lists in my life. Ever. I have never run a tournament that used deck lists. I have never felt the need or that anyone was cheating 'cause they weren't in use. I mean, yeah, ok, if you feel they are necessary, then use them. More power to you. But I'm unconvinced that they are necessary or even particularly helpful in the long run. But that is me. -Peter

On May 20, 5:56 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On May 20, 11:06 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > By that reasoning there'd be no point in rules against cheating at > > all? > > No, that isn't the case at all. But if people are getting DQed for > minor deck list infractions that are likely the result of honest > mistake, then the system has failed. And should be changed. I'd say that's judges failing. The system only points out the deck infractions. > > Removing one possible way of cheating has to be better than > > removing none of the possible ways? And, as I said, there's nothing in > > using decklists that prohibits organizers from dealing with other > > types of cheating as well. > > Sure. But as deck lists tend to have ironclad, blanket penalties > atteched to them, they tend to result in undesirable results. If > people want to use deck lists, go nuts. But people should not be > getting DQ'ed for minor deck inconsistiencies that are far more likely > the result of honest mistake than cheating. Sure. DQ shouldn't be used unless there's reason to believe cheating is involved. > > You can use decklist and use judgement at the same time? > > Sure. But to this point, all reports of people being DQed due to deck > list irregularity seem to fall on the side of "We just drew the hard > line!" than "Well, judgement indicated that he was cheating rather > than it was an honest mistake." If you want to use deck lists, go > crazy. But again, people should not be getting DQed 'cause their deck > is off a couple cards for what is likely an honest error. If someone > has the same problem 3 tournaments in a row? Yeah, probably cheating. > If their deck is wildly different than the deck list should indicate? > If someone who has never show any indication of cheating has 2 or 3 > missing cards in their deck? Probably not cheating. Same old, same old. Still agree. > > I don't understand the horror in writing down your deck (something > > lots of people do anyway, to post on the newsgroup etc) and handing > > the paper over to the organizer. > > There is no horror. Unless you get DQed due to a deck list check, and > your deck is missing a couple cards (that accidentally got left in > your deck box) or picked up a couple extra cards (from the deck it was > next to). If it's two random cards left in your deck box I'm sure most judges would be fine with just putting them back into the deck (same thing with two random extra cards in the deck). If it's two cards that looks suspiciously useful in the final round, and doesn't seem to belong in the deck otherwise it's a different story imo. > > How the decklists are used is up to the organizers, ofc. And that can > > be discussed, since there are surely better and worse ways to use > > them. It's not a bulletproof system though, I agree. > > Sure. But if people are getting DQed for what are in all likelyhood > perfectly innocent errors, they are being used badly. Yeah. > > How about if the reaction is "This time, I'll DQ that guy" AND "next > > time I'll use decklists"? > > Using decklists in your following tournaments doesn't make you unable > > to DQ people in your current one. > > No, it doesn't. But if you can DQ people for cheating without using > deck lists, why bother in the first place? Again, I have never been to > a tournament that used deck lists in my life. Ever. I have never run a > tournament that used deck lists. I have never felt the need or that > anyone was cheating 'cause they weren't in use. I mean, yeah, ok, if > you feel they are necessary, then use them. More power to you. But I'm > unconvinced that they are necessary or even particularly helpful in > the long run. But that is me. Deck lists is an easy way to find one kind of cheaters. I don't think they're necessary on a standard tournament, but cheating has been known to happen on larger events (and switching 5xPursuits for 5xSide Strikes can make or break gamewin). On the whole I agree with you though, and the best would be if there were no need for decklists. It's nice to have a bunch of decklists to read after tournaments though, for new ideas and stuff.

On May 20, 10:57 am, tatadl...@gmail.com wrote: > decklists should avoid any cheating with cards and exchanging them. > but what about cards that you give to another players on the > tournament? Deranges, Montreals, pentex, troublemakers and plenty > other. there is a plenty of option to get some other player's cards. > in case of morons that would not return such cards (as many of them > can be quite valuable) you will be disqalufied. i don;t think that's > fair. I have gotten in the habit of sleaving a card before another player takes control of it. I don't play with my deck or crypt sleaved (many local players doing the same) and it really helps make sure you get your cards back. Even in the case of other players using sleaves, if you can get some really unique looking sleaves the cards will find their way back to you. We don't use decklists, but it is still a great way to not lose valuable cards. Later, ~Rehlow

henrik wrote: > On May 20, 5:56 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: >> On May 20, 11:06 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> By that reasoning there'd be no point in rules against cheating at >>> all? >> No, that isn't the case at all. But if people are getting DQed for >> minor deck list infractions that are likely the result of honest >> mistake, then the system has failed. And should be changed. > > I'd say that's judges failing. The system only points out the deck > infractions. The system under this topic is one whereby any, each, and every infraction carries a mandatory DQ penalty. Under such a system, the judge's judgment is removed. Any failing of such a system is not a judge's failing. Sounds like you're talking about a different system, and that you and PDB6 agree.

On May 20, 6:41 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > henrik wrote: > > On May 20, 5:56 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > >> On May 20, 11:06 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> By that reasoning there'd be no point in rules against cheating at > >>> all? > >> No, that isn't the case at all. But if people are getting DQed for > >> minor deck list infractions that are likely the result of honest > >> mistake, then the system has failed. And should be changed. > > > I'd say that's judges failing. The system only points out the deck > > infractions. > > The system under this topic is one whereby any, each, and every infraction > carries a mandatory DQ penalty. Under such a system, the judge's judgment is > removed. Any failing of such a system is not a judge's failing. What system is that? I read in James Coupe's post earlier in this thread, and after that I looked in the Judges Guide as well. I figured that should be the system here, but I might be looking in the wrong place? (I can't find anything about mandatory DQ for deck/list errors at least). http://www.white-wolf.com/vtes/index.php?line=veknJudgesGuide [...] Please remember that these are only guidelines. If the judge believes that the situation has significant, extenuating circumstances, he or she is free to modify the penalty as appropriate. [...] 102. Deck Problem - Illegal Main Deck (Legal Decklist) Definition: This penalty applies to tournaments in which decklists are being used. This penalty applies to players who have misplaced cards from their deck or have cards from a previous game in their deck. Players are considered to have an illegal deck when one of the following conditions is true (while the decklist still indicates a legal deck): * The main deck contains an illegal number of cards. * The main deck contains cards that are illegal for the format. * The contents of the main deck do not match the decklist. Philosophy: The decklist is the ultimate guide to a player's deck. If the decklist indicates a legal deck, but the actual contents of the deck do not match the decklist, the player should restore the deck to reflect the decklist. If the judge can determine with complete confidence that the deck/decklist discrepancy is due to an error on the decklist (a player is using an all Gangrel deck and has Campground Hunting Ground listed on the decklist instead of Zoo Hunting Ground), he or she may decide to fix the decklist instead. A warning should be issued in this case. Penalty: Game loss, and then be instructed to make any changes necessary to make the contents of the deck match what is recorded on the decklist. The changes must be complete before the next round begins for the player to continue in the tournament. > Sounds like you're talking about a different system, and that you and PDB6 agree. If what you're saying is true, then we seem to agree all the way.

On May 20, 1:18 pm, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > On the whole I agree with you though, and the best would be if there > were no need for decklists. It's nice to have a bunch of decklists to > read after tournaments though, for new ideas and stuff. Sure. I suspect that (as has been pointed out), we actually agree here. What I am objecting to is what appears to be situations where people are DQed for minor deck list errors that are likely the result of honest error. If people are using deck lists and then reacting rationally to minor, understandable deck list infractions, then that's fine. Again, I'm not super fond of deck listing, but if it is a reasonable tool being used in a reasonable fashion, not a bad thing. What tends to get reported around here, however, seems to be (and the tournament in question here seems to be yet another example of) examples of people being DQed for minor deck list infractions. Which I find objectionable. Again, if this makes people happy, ok. If not, I'd like to think that someone might adjust their policies. -Peter

On May 20, 2:14 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On May 20, 1:18 pm, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On the whole I agree with you though, and the best would be if there > > were no need for decklists. It's nice to have a bunch of decklists to > > read after tournaments though, for new ideas and stuff. > > Sure. I suspect that (as has been pointed out), we actually agree > here. What I am objecting to is what appears to be situations where > people are DQed for minor deck list errors that are likely the result > of honest error. Just to point out, statements like "If people are going to cheat, they are going to cheat, and they'll do it in whatever way gets around the safeguards the exist to prevent cheating" don't really give that impression. I know you're Peter Bakija, and you love to ramble, but staying on target would be helpful :P -witness1 (I'm glad we all agree that judges should use judgment)

henrik wrote: > On May 20, 6:41 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> henrik wrote: >>> On May 20, 5:56 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: >>>> On May 20, 11:06 am, henrik <www.hen...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> By that reasoning there'd be no point in rules against cheating at >>>>> all? >>>> No, that isn't the case at all. But if people are getting DQed for >>>> minor deck list infractions that are likely the result of honest >>>> mistake, then the system has failed. And should be changed. >>> I'd say that's judges failing. The system only points out the deck >>> infractions. >> The system under this topic is one whereby any, each, and every infraction >> carries a mandatory DQ penalty. Under such a system, the judge's judgment is >> removed. Any failing of such a system is not a judge's failing. > > What system is that? The system that was used in the tournament that led to this thread.

On May 20, 7:27 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >> The system under this topic is one whereby any, each, and every infraction > >> carries a mandatory DQ penalty. Under such a system, the judge's judgment is > >> removed. Any failing of such a system is not a judge's failing. > > > What system is that? > > The system that was used in the tournament that led to this thread. Ok. I figured that would've been the regular VEKN-stuff (meaning the Judges Guide would apply). While at it, could you tell me whether it's a correct interpretation of the VEKN guidelines I'm making (about faulty deck/list not meaning a mandatory DQ)?

henrik wrote: > While at it, could you tell me whether it's a correct interpretation > of the VEKN guidelines I'm making (about faulty deck/list not meaning > a mandatory DQ)? The VEKN doesn't require mandatory anything as far as penalties go, as James quoted.

In article <77b4ec81-3605-4be5...@h23g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>, tata...@gmail.com wrote: > no that's fully my mistake and my fault. rules are strict and i admit > my fault and mistake. i'm not upset about that. i made a mistake and i > have to pay for that. Yeah, you shouldn't have to get DQed for what is a completely reasonable and unintentional mistake. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <9fef9221-ce54-4539...@v4g2000vba.googlegroups.com>, jwnew...@bellsouth.net wrote: > Just to point out, statements like "If people are going to cheat, they > are going to cheat, and they'll do it in whatever way gets around the > safeguards the exist to prevent cheating" don't really give that > impression. I'm not really quite sure what impression isn't being given. As I have said, I don't think that the vast majority of people playing this game are going to cheat. Even if they can get away with it. 'Cause cheating at VTES is just sad and pathetic. So you have the vast majority of VTES players (who aren't going to cheat) and the slim minority (who will cheat, and will cheat in whatever way they feel they can get away with it). The likelyhood that a minor decklist error is the result of intentional cheating (given the assumption that most people aren't going to cheat) is very small. So you can: A) Assume that everyone is trying to cheat, and assume that minor decklist errors are likely the result of people trying to cheat, and accept that you are going to harshly punish people for what are most likely honest mistakes. or B) Assume that the vast majority of people are not trying to cheat, and assume the minor decklist errors are most likely the result of honest mistakes, and accept that you are going to occasionally let cheaters get away with cheating. I'm always going to go with (B). As I suspect that most people are not trying to cheat. And while someone somewhere *is* probably trying to cheat, and will cheat however they feel they can get away with it, I don't think fear of this justifies punishing people for honest mistakes. > I know you're Peter Bakija, and you love to ramble, but staying on > target would be helpful :P I'm not quite sure where I wasn't on target. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you? [ quoted text not captured ]

On May 20, 3:56 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > I'm not quite sure where I wasn't on target. Maybe I'm misunderstanding > you? No, I think I've just been on a binge of misunderstanding things lately. Sorry. -witness1

On May 20, 4:25 pm, jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net wrote: > No, I think I've just been on a binge of misunderstanding things > lately. Sorry. Heh. No problem. Was just confused. I mean, it isn't like I *don't* ramble and always make perfect sense or anything :-) -Peter

On Wed, 20 May 2009 15:45:30 -0400, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article > <77b4ec81-3605-4be5...@h23g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>, > tata...@gmail.com wrote: > >> no that's fully my mistake and my fault. rules are strict and i admit >> my fault and mistake. i'm not upset about that. i made a mistake and i >> have to pay for that. > > Yeah, you shouldn't have to get DQed for what is a completely reasonable > and unintentional mistake. I think the bottom line is this: IF decklists are required at an event AND there are deck list checks implemented during the event then the penalties for incorrect decklist and/or incorrect deck should be (*have* to be) administered. Arguing whether it makes sense to have decklists is reasonable. Bursting into a hysteric fit whenever someone gets their GL for having an incorrect decklist is futile. It is always communicated in advance that the tournament will use decklists. People should invest the effort into making sure their decks are legal and their decklists are correct if they choose to attend a tournament that uses deck list checks. -- Regards, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > I think the bottom line is this: IF decklists are required at an event > AND there are deck list checks implemented during the event then the > penalties for incorrect decklist and/or incorrect deck should be (*have* > to be) administered. Sure, where "the penalties" range from "warning" to "banned from VEKN". > Arguing whether it makes sense to have decklists is reasonable. Bursting > into a hysteric fit whenever someone gets their GL for having an incorrect > decklist is futile. Um. No one is bursting into a hysteric fit whenever someone gets DQed from the tournament. Propping up strawmen is futile. > It is always communicated in advance that the > tournament will use decklists. People should invest the effort into > making sure their decks are legal and their decklists are correct if they > choose to attend a tournament that uses deck list checks. It's also communicated in advance that the VEKN rules will be used. That doesn't mean that accidentally dropping and revealing an Ascendance when you go to play your Wake should always result in being DQed, even though one could say that players should invest the effort into making sure they maintain absolute control of their hands.

On Thu, 21 May 2009 14:00:27 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > Daneel wrote: >> I think the bottom line is this: IF decklists are required at an event >> AND there are deck list checks implemented during the event then the >> penalties for incorrect decklist and/or incorrect deck should be >> (*have* to be) administered. > > Sure, where "the penalties" range from "warning" to "banned from VEKN". Glad we agree. >> Arguing whether it makes sense to have decklists is reasonable. Bursting >> into a hysteric fit whenever someone gets their GL for having an >> incorrect >> decklist is futile. > > Um. No one is bursting into a hysteric fit whenever someone gets DQed > from the tournament. At least one person is always doing it. It seems different people chime in from time to time. > Propping up strawmen is futile. > >> It is always communicated in advance that the >> tournament will use decklists. People should invest the effort into >> making sure their decks are legal and their decklists are correct if >> they >> choose to attend a tournament that uses deck list checks. > > It's also communicated in advance that the VEKN rules will be used. And they are. > That doesn't mean that accidentally dropping and revealing an Ascendance > when you go to play your Wake should always result in being DQed, even > though one could say that players should invest the effort into making > sure they maintain absolute control of their hands. As per the minor procedural error, the entry penalty is usually caution, which can escalate after later instances, to even a DQ (though I'm yet to see such escalation). You know, Scott, I'm not sure where you're coming from. If you beleive the penalty of GL is in line with the penalty guidelines, but is too harsh as for a mismatching deck / decklist, then say so, I think you have more influence over this than many of us (even if the penalty guidelines are not your sole jurisdiction). If you beleive that the penalty is not even in line with the guidelines, and there is a malpractice in issuing a GL for this kind of discrepancy, then clear up the misunderstanding, so there will be future clarity in the matter. If you beleive that using decklists in general is not good for the game, then say so. I really don't see your angle here. -- Regards, Daneel

In article <opuuajkz...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > I think the bottom line is this: IF decklists are required at an event > AND there are deck list checks implemented during the event then the > penalties for incorrect decklist and/or incorrect deck should be (*have* > to be) administered. Sure. But the penalties are not required to be "automatic disqualification" for any infraction. That is the issue here. Nowhere in the VEKN rules are automatic disqualification for any deck list infraction mandatory. The judge is allowed to use their judgement. That people are regularly determining that any deck list infraction is grounds for automatic, instant disqualification, and then applying this penalty indiscriminately is, for my money, problematic. > Arguing whether it makes sense to have decklists is reasonable. Sure. > Bursting into a hysteric fit whenever someone gets their GL for having an incorrect > decklist is futile. Who is bursting into a hysteric fit? And if rational discussion on the subject results in some judges saying "Huh. You mean I can use my judgement and I'm not forced to automatically and indiscriminately disqualify people for any deck list violation, regardless of how minor it seems? Perhaps I will change my methods...", it could hardly be called futile. > It is always communicated in advance that the > tournament will use decklists. People should invest the effort into > making sure their decks are legal and their decklists are correct if they > choose to attend a tournament that uses deck list checks. And I fail to see how it is bad to invest effort into trying to convince people that such a hard line, indiscriminate, draconian policy is neither mandatory nor a good idea. [ quoted text not captured ]

In article <opuuapp0...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > At least one person is always doing it. It seems different people chime in > from time to time. You seem to have an incredibly questionable understanding of what is or is not a "hysteric fit". [ quoted text not captured ]

On May 21, 4:07 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <opuuajkzk4o6j...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> > wrote: > > > I think the bottom line is this: IF decklists are required at an event > > AND there are deck list checks implemented during the event then the > > penalties for incorrect decklist and/or incorrect deck should be (*have* > > to be) administered. > > Sure. But the penalties are not required to be "automatic > disqualification" for any infraction. That is the issue here. Nowhere in > the VEKN rules are automatic disqualification for any deck list > infraction mandatory. The judge is allowed to use their judgement. That > people are regularly determining that any deck list infraction is > grounds for automatic, instant disqualification, and then applying this > penalty indiscriminately is, for my money, problematic. That section of the guidelines could use cleaning up, though. -witness1

In article <92f29286-4157-4c28...@s21g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, jwnew...@bellsouth.net wrote: > That section of the guidelines could use cleaning up, though. Sure--maybe they could (another possible worthwhile result of this discussion), but they seem not that vague for my money: >>The head judge or tournament organizer may require players to register their decks upon arrival at a tournament. Registration records the original composition of each deck. Once a tournament official receives a player's decklist, the deck may not be altered. Failure to properly register a deck will result in the head judge applying the appropriate provisions of the V:EKN Penalty Guidelines. The V:EKN recommends that organizers check a reasonable number of decks against their decklists each round.>> And the penalty guidelines are both very specific and leave open room for judgement. In the case of a deck that doesn't match the deck list, the judge has the discrepancy to determine that it is a legitimate decklist error (in which case the deck is to be fixed and a warning issued) and in worst case scenario, issue a game loss. Neither of which are automatic disqualification. [ quoted text not captured ]

On May 21, 4:30 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article > <92f29286-4157-4c28-bf10-8c1e4bcdb...@s21g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, > > jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net wrote: > > That section of the guidelines could use cleaning up, though. > > Sure--maybe they could (another possible worthwhile result of this > discussion), but they seem not that vague for my money: > > >>The head judge or tournament organizer may require players to register > > their decks upon arrival at a tournament. Registration records the > original composition of each deck. Once a tournament official receives a > player's decklist, the deck may not be altered. Failure to properly > register a deck will result in the head judge applying the appropriate > provisions of the V:EKN Penalty Guidelines. The V:EKN recommends that > organizers check a reasonable number of decks against their decklists > each round.>> > > And the penalty guidelines are both very specific and leave open room > for judgement. In the case of a deck that doesn't match the deck list, > the judge has the discrepancy to determine that it is a legitimate > decklist error (in which case the deck is to be fixed and a warning > issued) and in worst case scenario, issue a game loss. Neither of which > are automatic disqualification. From the top of the page: "All penalties in this document (with the exception of section 160) assume that the infraction is unintentional." So, no, I don't think Game Loss is supposed to be the "worst case scenario". It's the default for a main deck that doesn't match the (legal) decklist. From section 102: "This penalty applies to players who have misplaced cards from their deck or have cards from a previous game in their deck." Which seems way out of line to me - a Game Loss is the standard penalty for picking up an opponent's Disarm? That's what it says. From section 102: "If the judge can determine with ****complete confidence**** that the deck/decklist discrepancy is due to an error on the decklist (a player is using an all Gangrel deck and has Campground Hunting Ground listed on the decklist instead of Zoo Hunting Ground), he or she may decide to fix the decklist instead. A warning should be issued in this case." It's not surprising to me that people interpret "complete confidence" differently from "use your judgment", even if they were intended to mean the same thing. So I'm not surprised that judges choose to apply the section 102 penalty even though section 101 is _probably_ (or even _almost_ certainly) more appropriate, because they don't feel _completely_ confident. (You also only apply the less harsh 101 penalty if you can convince the judge that the Disarm actually belongs in your deck where no minion has potence). I agree that the penalties given seem out-of-line with the infractions (from way over here in the States, given only the info I've heard secondhand, etc.). And I agree that judges should be using their judgment to adjust the guidelines for circumstances where using them directly would lead to absurd results. But they really look like they could use some work. -witness1

Daneel wrote: > I really don't see your angle here. My angle is to get people (players, organizers, judges) to reflect and reason.

On May 21, 4:46 pm, jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net wrote: > And I agree that judges should be using their > judgment to adjust the guidelines for circumstances where using them > directly would lead to absurd results. But they really look like they > could use some work. Fair enough. -Peter

[ quoted text not captured ] Just on another tangent... How many tournaments do you see players scrabbling for anything that can make a mark on a page, any chunk of paper bigger than a business card/train ticket and flipping through every last card in their deck at the venue or outside the venue??? Most of the qualifiers I've been to have either a) had others doing that, b) had me doing similar in the glove-box of my car. It seems to me to be a set of laws that attempts to police a problem in a way that only makes things more complicated... If people are going to cheat... they will cheat. A decklist seems to be a nice way to report the results and writing one is often an activity that comes last in people's minds and does little to stop cheating. The people most likely to pick up the cheating (or having the wrong cards, or picking up cards from the game before) are the other people playing at the table. They probably should get a judge over and get the judge to ask the appropriate questions.

[ quoted text not captured ] In a way that appears to be rather vague to me. Would you humor me by answering three questions on what you think about decklists and the appropriate penalty (if any)? It would help me see your point more clearly. Q1: Do you think that the penalty of Game Loss for a (non-mistype) mismatch between the decklist and the deck is generally in line with the penalty guidelines? Q1Y (assuming YES to Q1): Do you think that said penalty, even though is in line with the penalty guidelines, is too harsh of a penalty in general for this kind of error? Q1N (assuming NO to Q1): What do you think is the proper penalty for this kind of transgression as per the penalty guidelines? Q2: Do you think that requesting decklists from the entrants is generally good for the game? -- Regards, Daneel

On Thu, 21 May 2009 16:07:49 -0400, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <opuuajkz...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> > wrote: > >> I think the bottom line is this: IF decklists are required at an event >> AND there are deck list checks implemented during the event then the >> penalties for incorrect decklist and/or incorrect deck should be >> (*have* >> to be) administered. > > Sure. But the penalties are not required to be "automatic > disqualification" for any infraction. That is the issue here. Nowhere in > the VEKN rules are automatic disqualification for any deck list > infraction mandatory. The judge is allowed to use their judgement. That > people are regularly determining that any deck list infraction is > grounds for automatic, instant disqualification, and then applying this > penalty indiscriminately is, for my money, problematic. ...and nowhere did anybody say anything about automatic disqualification. Because there is no automatic disqualification involved. The Judge uses his discretion to determine whether the discrepancy is attributable to a mistype (e.g. writing only Sudden), a confounded entry (e.g. Ingrid Russo vs. Ingrid Rossler, Victoria vs. Victoria Ash), or a potential loss/addition during the games (e.g. missing 1 Disarm and having 89 cards). In these cases I've never seen any penalty; the decision was always to correct the deck or decklist in the obvious way. If the discrepancy is functional (there are actually different cards written on the decklist and included in the deck) then the penalty is usually Game Loss. I've not yet seen (or admistered) an actual DQ for this (although due to how Archon handles the finalists, technically a DQ is administered to remove them from the finals). I wasn't present at this game in question, so I'm not sure whether an actual DQ was issued or whether it is just a GL that was technically issed as a DQ. But on the numerous previous events I've participated in, the penalty was always GL. >> Arguing whether it makes sense to have decklists is reasonable. > > Sure. > >> Bursting into a hysteric fit whenever someone gets their GL for having >> an incorrect >> decklist is futile. > > Who is bursting into a hysteric fit? > > And if rational discussion on the subject results in some judges saying > "Huh. You mean I can use my judgement and I'm not forced to > automatically and indiscriminately disqualify people for any deck list > violation, regardless of how minor it seems? Perhaps I will change my > methods...", it could hardly be called futile. I don't really see that going anywhere. Sure it's not mandatory to issue anything. Nor are requesting decklists mandatory to begin with. I think it's good to have the kind of discussion where we discuss whether it makes sense to have decklists at all for tournaments. Or, for that matter, whether changing the contents of the decks between rounds should be prohibited at all. But I digress. Let's assume for now that the contents of the decks are not allowed to be changed between rounds, and a decklist is requested. If everybody knows that the practice is to issue a Game Loss in any case there is a non-typo, non-mistype, non-ingame lost/"gained" difference between the decklist and the deck, everybody is fully motivated to: 1) make sure they jot down the contents of their decks accurately, and 2) not change anything on the deck between rounds (especially important and trackable for the finals, where due to scouting there is the highest likelihood that game-specific information can be beneficial to the player). If everybody knows that the practice is to issue a Warning (or lower penalty) in such cases, there is effectively no penalty. As you need multiple transgressions of the same type during the same tournament for the penalties to escalate, issuing a Warning for this is equal to issuing no penalty at all. If there is a limit (written or practiced) of, say, X cards, to what difference is tolerable before the penalty of Game Loss is administered, then that basically means: change X cards as you see fit. If we want to encourage changing the contents of the decks, then sure, doing this is recommended. Otherwise, it is not. Plus, there is the question whether you force the player to switch back to the decklist or alter the decklist to mirror the deck (giving players different options to change their decks). As for fairness... On one hand the player who made an honest mistake by, say, for whatever reason not being able to count all his 102 cards and write them down properly (let's say he was traveling for a long time, and had no time to write the decklist before the event, and was pretty tired and made a couple of mistakes, or managed to trade in a Heart of Cheating and happily included it in the deck after submitting the decklist) will feel pretty bad about being denied his place in the finals if despite all odds he manages to gain enough points. On the other hand... the 6th seed player who played fairly, and whose decklist is matching, will feel pretty bad about some higher seed who deliberately changed the contents of his deck to better cope with the finals (say, by playing 4 Suddens in the prelims, and writing 2 Sudden, 2 Direct on the decklist to have more bargaining power in the more diplomatic finals) but who can play at the finals despite this as the intentionality is not provable, and the judge uses a "1-2 cards are still only Warning" practice. Rule #1 of judging - if you need to make a call, that will favor one person, the other person will feel bad about it. >> It is always communicated in advance that the >> tournament will use decklists. People should invest the effort into >> making sure their decks are legal and their decklists are correct if >> they >> choose to attend a tournament that uses deck list checks. > > And I fail to see how it is bad to invest effort into trying to convince > people that such a hard line, indiscriminate, draconian policy is > neither mandatory nor a good idea. By the way you get no extra points for the demagogy. The policy is strict but fair, egalitarian, and necessary (with the caveats involved: assuming decklists are requested, assuming the contents of the decks are not permitted to be changed, etc.). -- Regards, Daneel

On Thu, 21 May 2009 15:56:04 -0700 (PDT), Juggernaut1981 <brassc...@gmail.com> wrote: > On May 22, 6:59ï¿œam, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: >> On May 21, 4:46ï¿œpm, jwnewqu...@bellsouth.net wrote: >> >> > And I agree that judges should be using their >> > judgment to adjust the guidelines for circumstances where using them >> > directly would lead to absurd results. But they really look like they >> > could use some work. >> >> Fair enough. >> >> -Peter > > Just on another tangent... > > How many tournaments do you see players scrabbling for anything that > can make a mark on a page, any chunk of paper bigger than a business > card/train ticket and flipping through every last card in their deck > at the venue or outside the venue??? Most of the qualifiers I've been > to have either a) had others doing that, b) had me doing similar in > the glove-box of my car. Some tournaments actually hand out sheets of paper (either blank, or printed with a frame and space for deck info entries) to facilitate deck-list writing. I know when I was judging events where the organizer requested decklists I always brought paper and a dozen spare pens with me, just in case. > It seems to me to be a set of laws that attempts to police a problem > in a way that only makes things more complicated... It definitely adds a new level of complexity to tournaments. > If people are going to cheat... they will cheat. A decklist seems to > be a nice way to report the results and writing one is often an > activity that comes last in people's minds and does little to stop > cheating. It will stop (or more likely prevent) some instances of cheating. Sure, it won't stop all possibilities. > The people most likely to pick up the cheating (or having the wrong > cards, or picking up cards from the game before) are the other people > playing at the table. They probably should get a judge over and get > the judge to ask the appropriate questions. I called a judge on every single occasion when any of my opponents made a mistake that could have been interpreted as deliberate. The judge never issued anything (except Ginï¿œs, who at one time issued a Caution for minor procedural error). Although it's not strictly part of this discussion but calling a Judge is part of the table dynamics, even though it should be removed from it. The "guy who called the judge" is suddenly looking at less friendly opponents. Plus the judge never really dares, without having perfect knowledge, to issue any serious penalty. So if you see someone potentially cheating -> you'll probably be in a worse situation if you call the judge, than if you just keep silent. -- Regards, Daneel

In article <opuud5z5...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > ...and nowhere did anybody say anything about automatic disqualification. Well, in the tournament that started this discussion this time around (see: Budapest ECQ), someone (top seed, IIRC) was DQed right before the start of the final for having a minor deck list error (3 cards were off from the list, as they were changed before the start of the tournament and he forgot to fix his deck list). Which is someone getting DQed for a minor decklist error. > In these cases I've never seen any penalty; the decision was always to > correct the deck or decklist in the obvious way. And yet someone was recently DQed from a big tournament for a minor decklist infraction. [ quoted text not captured ]

On Sat, 23 May 2009 12:56:58 -0400, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <opuud5z5...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> > wrote: >> ...and nowhere did anybody say anything about automatic >> disqualification. > > Well, in the tournament that started this discussion this time around > (see: Budapest ECQ), someone (top seed, IIRC) was DQed right before the > start of the final for having a minor deck list error (3 cards were off > from the list, as they were changed before the start of the tournament > and he forgot to fix his deck list). Which is someone getting DQed for a > minor decklist error. I'm not sure it was automatic; I'm sure the judge used his judgement. I'm also not sure it was a DQ; it's possible that it was only a GL, and inputted into the Archon as a DQ due to the way how Archon treats the finalists. Whether or not the infringement was a "minor deck list error" I cannot comment, I'm sure the judge used his judgement to determine the severity of the deck list error in question and administered the correct penalty. >> In these cases I've never seen any penalty; the decision was always to >> correct the deck or decklist in the obvious way. > > And yet someone was recently DQed from a big tournament for a minor > decklist infraction. See above. -- Regards, Daneel

On May 23, 1:26 pm, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > I'm not sure it was automatic; I'm sure the judge used his judgement. Maybe, maybe not. The guy in questions claims he was DQed. > Whether or not the infringement was a "minor deck list error" I cannot > comment, I'm sure the judge used his judgement to determine the severity > of the deck list error in question and administered the correct penalty. All indications are it was a minor deck list error. It is certainly possible that the judge used his judgement to determine the severity of the deck list error. It is also certainly possible that the procedure in place was (as it seems based on what folks posted) that a deck list error resulted in a DQ. -Peter

On Sat, 23 May 2009 10:37:09 -0700 (PDT), Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On May 23, 1:26ￜpm, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: >> I'm not sure it was automatic; I'm sure the judge used his judgement. > > Maybe, maybe not. The guy in questions claims he was DQed. Which doesn't meant the penalty was automatic. It is more likely that the judge used his judgement to determine the severity of the infringement and what the penalty should be. >> Whether or not the infringement was a "minor deck list error" I cannot >> ￜ comment, I'm sure the judge used his judgement to determine the >> severity >> ￜ of the deck list error in question and administered the correct >> penalty. > > All indications are it was a minor deck list error. I'm not sure about that. Can you automatically say that "3 card difference" is a minor deck list error? What about a 5-card difference? Where do you draw the line? > It is certainly possible that the judge used his judgement to > determine the severity of the deck list error. Quite likely, actually. > It is also certainly possible that the > procedure in place was (as it seems based on what folks posted) that a > deck list error resulted in a DQ. I'm sure the specific nature of the deck list error was weightet before the judge determined the appropriate penalty (GL or DQ as it is). -- Regards, Daneel

On May 23, 1:46 pm, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > I'm sure the specific nature of the deck list error was weightet before > the judge determined the appropriate penalty (GL or DQ as it is). You are no more sure of anything than I am. And we can speculate till the end of time. But all of this is irrelevant; the point is that we all agree that if deck lists are being used, they should be used sanely and rationally. -Peter

On Sat, 23 May 2009 10:54:57 -0700 (PDT), Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > On May 23, 1:46ￜpm, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: >> I'm sure the specific nature of the deck list error was weightet before >> ￜ the judge determined the appropriate penalty (GL or DQ as it is). > > You are no more sure of anything than I am. And we can speculate till > the end of time. But all of this is irrelevant; the point is that we > all agree that if deck lists are being used, they should be used > sanely and rationally. ...and also consistently. Which is part of fair, I guess, and may be covered by rational. Yeah, it's hard to disagree with that. :) -- Regards, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > Although it's not strictly part of this discussion but calling a Judge > is part of the table dynamics, even though it should be removed > from it. The "guy who called the judge" is suddenly looking at less > friendly opponents. Plus the judge never really dares, without > having perfect knowledge, to issue any serious penalty. You just love your strawmen, don't you? There's no such thing as "perfect knowledge". There's a judge who knows someone cheated, and a judge who doesn't know such a thing. If the judge knows, they kick the cheater's ass out of the tournament and report them to the VEKN. If the judge doesn't know, they look at the situation, take the player(s) aside if needed, and have appropriate discussions with the player(s). > So if you see someone potentially cheating -> you'll probably be > in a worse situation if you call the judge, than if you just keep silent. Ridiculous. 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! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/

On Sat, 23 May 2009 12:53:07 -0700, Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote: > Daneel wrote: >> Although it's not strictly part of this discussion but calling a Judge >> is part of the table dynamics, even though it should be removed >> from it. The "guy who called the judge" is suddenly looking at less >> friendly opponents. Plus the judge never really dares, without >> having perfect knowledge, to issue any serious penalty. > > You just love your strawmen, don't you? > > There's no such thing as "perfect knowledge". There's a judge who > knows someone cheated, and a judge who doesn't know such a thing. > If the judge knows, they kick the cheater's ass out of the tournament > and report them to the VEKN. If the judge doesn't know, they look > at the situation, take the player(s) aside if needed, and have > appropriate discussions with the player(s). Do you have an understanding of how many times did a judge report cheating so far, or act on an allegation of cheating? My impression out of the couple of games I played or judged is this. Maybe I'm wrong. But I doubt it. >> So if you see someone potentially cheating -> you'll probably be >> in a worse situation if you call the judge, than if you just keep >> silent. > > Ridiculous. Experience. -- Regards, Daneel

On May 23, 7:26 pm, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > On Sat, 23 May 2009 12:56:58 -0400, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> > wrote: > > > In article <opuud5z5vjo6j...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> > > wrote: > >> ...and nowhere did anybody say anything about automatic > >> disqualification. > > > Well, in the tournament that started this discussion this time around > > (see: Budapest ECQ), someone (top seed, IIRC) was DQed right before the > > start of the final for having a minor deck list error (3 cards were off > > from the list, as they were changed before the start of the tournament > > and he forgot to fix his deck list). Which is someone getting DQed for a > > minor decklist error. > > I'm not sure it was automatic; I'm sure the judge used his judgement. Uh, no, it was "Um really sorry about this, but your DL is wrong thus we have to DQ you." > I'm also not sure it was a DQ; it's possible that it was only a GL, and > inputted into the Archon as a DQ due to the way how Archon treats the > finalists. > As I sat there and listened to Peter being told he was getting DQ'ed I am pretty sure it was a DQ... > Whether or not the infringement was a "minor deck list error" I cannot > comment, I'm sure the judge used his judgement to determine the severity > of the deck list error in question and administered the correct penalty. Well what do you call an extra Fiendish tongue and 2 Ani rush cards in a Tzi deck? > > >> In these cases I've never seen any penalty; the decision was always to > >> correct the deck or decklist in the obvious way. > > > And yet someone was recently DQed from a big tournament for a minor > > decklist infraction. > > See above Same > > -- > Regards, > > Daneel

On Sat, 23 May 2009 16:17:07 -0700 (PDT), Blooded Sand <sand...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> ...and nowhere did anybody say anything about automatic >> >> disqualification. >> >> > Well, in the tournament that started this discussion this time around >> > (see: Budapest ECQ), someone (top seed, IIRC) was DQed right before >> the >> > start of the final for having a minor deck list error (3 cards were >> off >> > from the list, as they were changed before the start of the tournament >> > and he forgot to fix his deck list). Which is someone getting DQed >> for a >> > minor decklist error. >> >> I'm not sure it was automatic; I'm sure the judge used his judgement. > > Uh, no, it was "Um really sorry about this, but your DL is wrong thus > we have to DQ you." That doesn't make it automatic. Had the decklist mistake been only writing "Fiendish" instead of "Fiendish Tongue" for example, the Judge could have judged differently, e.g. "although there is a mistake on your decklist, there is no penalty for you this time, because the mistake is minor". >> Whether or not the infringement was a "minor deck list error" I cannot >> ￜ comment, I'm sure the judge used his judgement to determine the >> severity >> ￜ of the deck list error in question and administered the correct >> penalty. > > Well what do you call an extra Fiendish tongue and 2 Ani rush cards in > a Tzi deck? What do you call two extra Fiendish tongues and 4 Ani rush cards? What do you call 6 extra Fiendish tongues? What do you call swapping out 5 Intercept for rushes? What do you call a single extra Heart of Nizchetus? I'm really not sure where people draw the line. The only consistent way I see of doing this is drawing the line at "any functional change". -- Regards, Daneel

On May 24, 7:00 am, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > On Sat, 23 May 2009 16:17:07 -0700 (PDT), Blooded Sand > >> I'm not sure it was automatic; I'm sure the judge used his judgement. > > > Uh, no, it was "Um really sorry about this, but your DL is wrong thus > > we have to DQ you." > > That doesn't make it automatic. The exact reason I am saying it was automatic is that there was never ANY indication that a warning, GL or any other disciplinary could be issued. The only option was, apparently, a DQ. Which means that as there was a decklist used, and as there mistake on the decklist, the DQ was an auto move. Daneel, I was there, I discussed it with the judge and prince, the DQ was automatic. Accept, move on.

On Sun, 24 May 2009 01:57:17 -0700 (PDT), Blooded Sand <sand...@gmail.com> wrote: [ quoted text not captured ] I'm not sure what you understand as automatic then. The judge decides what the infringement is and then decides what the penalty should be for the infringement. The penalty should be consistent with the level of transgression (but this doesn't make it automatic - it makes it consistent). Automatic: whenever there is any discrepancy between the decklist and the deck, an automatic DQ is issued (even if the discrepancy is clearly a mistype, e.g. writing Victoria on the deck list and having Victoria Ash in the deck; or is a typo, e.g. writing Heart of Niezechetus instead of Heart of Nizchetus; etc.). Judgement: the level of the discrepancy is assessed and then based on it the penalty is decided and applied. Examples of penalties a Judge could consider to be in line with different types of deck list type errors: typo - ignore; mistype - fix the decklist; functional difference - game loss. Of course, the exact penalty is up to the Judge's discretion (I guess, hence the DQ in this case). -- Regards, Daneel

Daneel wrote: > On Sun, 24 May 2009 01:57:17 -0700 (PDT), Blooded Sand > <sand...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On May 24, 7:00 am, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: >>> On Sat, 23 May 2009 16:17:07 -0700 (PDT), Blooded Sand >> >>> >> I'm not sure it was automatic; I'm sure the judge used his judgement. >>> >>> > Uh, no, it was "Um really sorry about this, but your DL is wrong thus >>> > we have to DQ you." >>> >>> That doesn't make it automatic. >> >> The exact reason I am saying it was automatic is that there was never >> ANY indication that a warning, GL or any other disciplinary could be >> issued. The only option was, apparently, a DQ. Which means that as >> there was a decklist used, and as there mistake on the decklist, the >> DQ was an auto move. >> >> Daneel, I was there, I discussed it with the judge and prince, the DQ >> was automatic. Accept, move on. > > I'm not sure what you understand as automatic then. He does. In the tournament in question, if the judge found an error in the decklist, a DQ was automatically given. As actually happened. As he said.

[ quoted text not captured ] What makes you sure about this? What happened (based on the recollections): there was one instance of faulty decklist. Yes, 1 out of that 1 case was judged the same way. That doesn't make it automatic. It's 1 case. What could have happened: different infringements could have resulted in different penalties. Which we don't know, I guess, as no other decklist related infringement was recorded. I'm not sure anyone said anything along the lines of, for example, "any type of decklist or deck content mistake is an automatic DQ". I'm sure different types of errors carry different consequences. -- Regards, Daneel

In article <opuue37b...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > What do you call two extra Fiendish tongues and 4 Ani rush cards? What do > you call 6 extra Fiendish tongues? What do you call swapping out > 5 Intercept for rushes? What do you call a single extra Heart of > Nizchetus? I'm really not sure where people draw the line. The only > consistent way I see of doing this is drawing the line at "any > functional change". There is a reason that consistency is called the bugbear of little minds. Judges are judges so they can judge. If an error seems like a reasonable, honest error, they can treat it as such. You don't need to treat all deck list errors identically in the name of consistency. As that results in insane outcomes. How does the judge know that a given error is reasonable and honest? They use their judgement. As that is what they are there for. If there is a deck list error that, to the judge, seems like it could be a reasonable and honest mistake, as opposed to intentional cheating? Treat it like a reasonable and honest mistake. [ quoted text not captured ]

Daneel wrote: > On Sun, 24 May 2009 08:46:59 -0400, LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> As he said. > > What makes you sure about this? Because I do not doubt that the person reporting exactly that is being truthful.

[ quoted text not captured ] So, just to rephrase: you trust the recollection of a player (who, of course, has no way to tell what the judge was thinking, what he was weighting, what alternatives he had considered) enough to automatically assume that the judge didn't use judgement when he made the judgement. I'm not sure I agree with this. But I think this is mostly hairsplitting; in case you missed it, you might wish to answer the specific questions I had in that other post, I'm really interested in learning what you think (and I'd rather prefer to discuss specifics instead). -- Regards, Daneel

On Sun, 24 May 2009 10:23:03 -0400, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <opuue37b...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> > wrote: >> What do you call two extra Fiendish tongues and 4 Ani rush cards? What >> do >> you call 6 extra Fiendish tongues? What do you call swapping out >> 5 Intercept for rushes? What do you call a single extra Heart of >> Nizchetus? I'm really not sure where people draw the line. The only >> consistent way I see of doing this is drawing the line at "any >> functional change". > > There is a reason that consistency is called the bugbear of little minds. > > Judges are judges so they can judge. If an error seems like a > reasonable, honest error, they can treat it as such. You don't need to > treat all deck list errors identically in the name of consistency. As > that results in insane outcomes. How does the judge know that a given > error is reasonable and honest? They use their judgement. As that is > what they are there for. > > If there is a deck list error that, to the judge, seems like it could be > a reasonable and honest mistake, as opposed to intentional cheating? > Treat it like a reasonable and honest mistake. Referring to the following section of the rulebook: 102. Deck Problem - Illegal Main Deck (Legal Decklist) Definition: This penalty applies to tournaments in which decklists are being used. This penalty applies to players who have misplaced cards from their deck or have cards from a previous game in their deck. Players are considered to have an illegal deck when one of the following conditions is true (while the decklist still indicates a legal deck): The main deck contains an illegal number of cards. The main deck contains cards that are illegal for the format. The contents of the main deck do not match the decklist. Philosophy: The decklist is the ultimate guide to a player's deck. If the decklist indicates a legal deck, but the actual contents of the deck do not match the decklist, the player should restore the deck to reflect the decklist. If the judge can determine with complete confidence that the deck/decklist discrepancy is due to an error on the decklist (a player is using an all Gangrel deck and has Campground Hunting Ground listed on the decklist instead of Zoo Hunting Ground), he or she may decide to fix the decklist instead. A warning should be issued in this case. Penalty: Game loss, and then be instructed to make any changes necessary to make the contents of the deck match what is recorded on the decklist. The changes must be complete before the next round begins for the player to continue in the tournament. ...if the judge sees the mismatch between the deck and the decklist, and he has no *complete confidence* that there is an error on the decklist (the example is similar to the ones I gave) then the recommended penalty is the Game Loss. If the judge suspects actual intentional cheating is involved, the section on cheating should be consulted, and the penalty is likely disqualification without a prize (and possible additional actions by VEKN). However, as the judge will most likely not take the burden of judging that the discrepancy is actual cheating (just like he probably won't have *complete confidence* that it is an error with the decklist if there is actual contentual difference) the appropriate way to handle this is to go with 102 and a GL. While you (and undoubtedly many other people) may feel that issuing even a GL to a would-be finalist on what can potentially be a clerical error is unfair or unreasonable, I don't see much reason to deviate from the judge guidelines (as not kicking out a transgressor from the finals means being unfair to the fairly played 6th seed). -- Regards, Daneel

On Thu, 21 May 2009 16:10:19 -0400, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <opuuapp0...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> > wrote: >> At least one person is always doing it. It seems different people chime >> in >> from time to time. > > You seem to have an incredibly questionable understanding of what is or > is not a "hysteric fit". You know, if the glove doesn't fit... But seriously, I may have been a little impatient when phrasing that, it's just that the same discussion comes up time and time again and I see it as both futile and a general insult to judges (as most of the rhetoric is attacking judges on why they judged as they did - as opposed to the guidelines that spell out the judgement; or as opposed to the need to have decklists; or as opposed to the need to play the exact same deck in all rounds). I see some good discussion possibility with these topics. But it would make sense to start off the right way and focus on the constructive topics instead of just questioning other people's judgement. The latter doesn't add any value and won't likely bring about any solution in any easy way. -- Regards, Daneel

Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: >So, just to rephrase: you trust the recollection of a player (who, of >course, > has no way to tell what the judge was thinking, what he was weighting, >what > alternatives he had considered) enough to automatically assume that the > judge didn't use judgement when he made the judgement. It's pretty easy to find out what a judge was thinking. Ask them. Like Blooded Sand has told us he did. -- James Coupe PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR. EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING. 13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

On May 24, 1:23 pm, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > While you (and undoubtedly many other people) may feel that issuing > even a GL to a would-be finalist on what can potentially be a > clerical error is unfair or unreasonable, I don't see much reason > to deviate from the judge guidelines (as not kicking out a > transgressor from the finals means being unfair to the fairly > played 6th seed). It is completely unreasonable. And this is why deck lists are a bad idea. -Peter

On May 24, 7:23 pm, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > On Sun, 24 May 2009 12:30:40 -0400, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > > Daneel wrote: > >> On Sun, 24 May 2009 08:46:59 -0400, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: > >>> As he said. > > >> What makes you sure about this? > > > Because I do not doubt that the person reporting exactly that is being > > truthful. > > So, just to rephrase: you trust the recollection of a player (who, of > course, > has no way to tell what the judge was thinking, what he was weighting, > what > alternatives he had considered) enough to automatically assume that the > judge didn't use judgement when he made the judgement. Daneel: As previously stated, I discussed this situation with the Judge in question (who is an awfully nice man by the way, who felt terrible about this). He felt that as the rules were set up the way they are, he had no choice but to administer a DQ due to DL infringement. There was no possibility of a lighter punishment. The player had made a DL mistake, thus the penalty HAS to be a DQ. > I'm not sure I agree with this. But I think this is mostly hairsplitting; Hairsplitting is you (who was not in Budapest, did not see the incident occurring, who did not have a chance to have a chat with the prince, judge and person with the incorrect DL about what happened and why) telling me (who WAS in Budapest, DID see the incident occurring, who DID have a chance to have a chat with the prince, judge and person with the incorrect DL about what happened and why) why and how something happened. You are quite frankly using a combination of trolling and strawman arguments here mate. If you honestly feel the DQ was not automatic, you are utterly, completely and indisputably wrong > Daneel

In article <opuuf2z2...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: > But seriously, I may have been a little impatient when phrasing that, it's > just that the same discussion comes up time and time again and I see it > as both futile and a general insult to judges (as most of the rhetoric is > attacking judges on why they judged as they did - as opposed to the > guidelines that spell out the judgement; or as opposed to the need to > have decklists; or as opposed to the need to play the exact same deck in > all rounds). Sure--but this isn't a discussion that is attacking judges on why they judges as they did. This is a situation where a judge simply followed the established rules; someone had a deck that was different than their deck list. They were automatically DQed. The issue here is not the judge. It is the rule. > I see some good discussion possibility with these topics. But it would make > sense to start off the right way and focus on the constructive topics > instead of just questioning other people's judgement. The latter doesn't > add any value and won't likely bring about any solution in any easy way. No one here is questioning anyone's judgement. I'd likely be less critical if actual judgement was an issue here. But the rule that was apparently established was "deck list inconsistency = DQ". And that is what happened. If the rules was different (or non existent), a different result likely would have occurred. [ quoted text not captured ]

On May 25, 3:40 pm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <opuuf2z2g8o6j...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> > wrote: > > > But seriously, I may have been a little impatient when phrasing that, it's > > just that the same discussion comes up time and time again and I see it > > as both futile and a general insult to judges (as most of the rhetoric is > > attacking judges on why they judged as they did - as opposed to the > > guidelines that spell out the judgement; or as opposed to the need to > > have decklists; or as opposed to the need to play the exact same deck in > > all rounds). > > Sure--but this isn't a discussion that is attacking judges on why they > judges as they did. This is a situation where a judge simply followed > the established rules; someone had a deck that was different than their > deck list. They were automatically DQed. > > The issue here is not the judge. It is the rule. The only person I can see trying to create an imaginary issue regarding it being about the judges judgement is Daneel. Each time I mention the fact that the DQ was automatic, he starts going on with "you cannot know yadda yadda blah blah." I was there, I saw the DQ happen, I heard the convo, I spoke to all involved afterwards, it was an auto DQ simply because that is what the rules said it has to be. Let me restate it to be more obvious, clear and simple. If you are playing in a tournament in Hungary, AND they require decklists at that tournament, AND there is a mistake on your decklist, you will automatically be DQ'ed. Understand now, Daneel?

On Mon, 25 May 2009 09:40:56 -0400, Peter D Bakija <pd...@lightlink.com> wrote: > In article <opuuf2z2...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> > wrote: >> But seriously, I may have been a little impatient when phrasing that, >> it's >> just that the same discussion comes up time and time again and I see >> it >> as both futile and a general insult to judges (as most of the >> rhetoric is >> attacking judges on why they judged as they did - as opposed to the >> guidelines that spell out the judgement; or as opposed to the need to >> have decklists; or as opposed to the need to play the exact same deck >> in >> all rounds). > > Sure--but this isn't a discussion that is attacking judges on why they > judges as they did. This is a situation where a judge simply followed > the established rules; someone had a deck that was different than their > deck list. They were automatically DQed. > > The issue here is not the judge. It is the rule. Ok, so maybe I misread something. It really came off for me as a criticism of the judges. I've no issue with discussing whether the rule is bad or not. -- Regards, Daneel

On Mon, 25 May 2009 03:25:13 -0700 (PDT), Blooded Sand <sand...@gmail.com> wrote: > On May 24, 7:23ￜpm, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> wrote: >> On Sun, 24 May 2009 12:30:40 -0400, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote: >> > Daneel wrote: >> >> On Sun, 24 May 2009 08:46:59 -0400, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> >> wrote: >> >>> As he said. >> >> >> What makes you sure about this? >> >> > Because I do not doubt that the person reporting exactly that is being >> > truthful. >> >> So, just to rephrase: you trust the recollection of a player (who, of >> course, >> ￜ has no way to tell what the judge was thinking, what he was weighting, >> what >> ￜ alternatives he had considered) enough to automatically assume that >> the >> ￜ judge didn't use judgement when he made the judgement. > > Daneel: As previously stated, I discussed this situation with the > Judge in question (who is an awfully nice man by the way, who felt > terrible about this). He felt that as the rules were set up the way > they are, he had no choice but to administer a DQ due to DL > infringement. There was no possibility of a lighter punishment. The > player had made a DL mistake, thus the penalty HAS to be a DQ. The player made a specific DL mistake. >> I'm not sure I agree with this. But I think this is mostly >> hairsplitting; > > Hairsplitting is you (who was not in Budapest, did not see the Nitpick: I was actually in Budapest at the time of the incident. > incident occurring, who did not have a chance to have a chat with the > prince, judge and person with the incorrect DL about what happened and > why) telling me (who WAS in Budapest, DID see the incident occurring, > who DID have a chance to have a chat with the prince, judge and person > with the incorrect DL about what happened and why) why and how > something happened. > > You are quite frankly using a combination of trolling and strawman > arguments here mate. If you honestly feel the DQ was not automatic, > you are utterly, completely and indisputably wrong Categorizing the specific type of infringement is already a judgement. Or assessing the severity of the infringement. There is usually a point at which the infringement is identified to the level that the penalty is obvious. Decklist error = DQ is simply not true. Specific type of decklist error (functional difference - as judged by the judge) = GL (or DQ I guess - as judged by the judge) is probably true in most cases. -- Regards, Daneel

On Mon, 25 May 2009 07:43:20 -0700 (PDT), Blooded Sand <sand...@gmail.com> wrote: > On May 25, 3:40ￜpm, Peter D Bakija <p...@lightlink.com> wrote: >> In article <opuuf2z2g8o6j...@news.chello.hu>, Daneel <dan...@eposta.hu> >> wrote: >> >> > But seriously, I may have been a little impatient when phrasing that, >> it's >> > ￜ just that the same discussion comes up time and time again and I >> see it >> > ￜ as both futile and a general insult to judges (as most of the >> rhetoric is >> > ￜ attacking judges on why they judged as they did - as opposed to the >> > ￜ guidelines that spell out the judgement; or as opposed to the need >> to >> > ￜ have decklists; or as opposed to the need to play the exact same >> deck in >> > ￜ all rounds). >> >> Sure--but this isn't a discussion that is attacking judges on why they >> judges as they did. This is a situation where a judge simply followed >> the established rules; someone had a deck that was different than their >> deck list. They were automatically DQed. >> >> The issue here is not the judge. It is the rule. > > The only person I can see trying to create an imaginary issue > regarding it being about the judges judgement is Daneel. Each time I > mention the fact that the DQ was automatic, he starts going on with > "you cannot know yadda yadda blah blah." I was there, I saw the DQ > happen, I heard the convo, I spoke to all involved afterwards, it was > an auto DQ simply because that is what the rules said it has to be. Categorizing the specific type of infringement is already a judgement. Or assessing the severity of the infringement. There is usually a point at which the infringement is identified to the level that the penalty is obvious. > Let me restate it to be more obvious, clear and simple. If you are > playing in a tournament in Hungary, AND they require decklists at that > tournament, AND there is a mistake on your decklist, you will > automatically be DQ'ed. Understand now, Daneel? Decklist error = DQ is simply not true. [ quoted text not captured ]