More discussion on DCI Time Rules

[Storm]

so SCG boston is over, and there were a couple of things ive never seen before.

1) stax winning?

2) me losing in the top 8 due to time infringements? Everyone there late saturday night heard me yell due to "time limit" in the top 8. The Situation:

Its Game three and my oppenent has a necro on the table, a full hand and is at one. I have like eight mana on the table but only a single black source.Recoup in yard along with a couple merchant scrolls, and its my turn. I draw DT. So I Think for about a minute and half to two minutes about whether to tak my chances and scroll up a drain and hope he doesnt have two threats or attempt to dt and win the game, presuming he doesnt have misdirection in hand. So after two minutes, i go for the DT. I arrange a plethora of options some being - ancestral,tinker,timewalk,tendrils,drain, etc..
The judge informs me that i have 15 seconds to search or i "fail to find". I quickly take time walk. figuring i have three turns to just "draw" anything. I end up losing, after figuring out that lotus would have won the game for me. SIgh

I empathize with your position - because I would have been in the same position and just as flustered.


However, before the tournament I gave Paul M a piece of advice.    My teammate was playing Pitch Long.    I told him this: If you play Meandeck Gifts to call a judge over at the earliest sign of slow play.   Why?

Here's the deal:  We are not in the McCarthy era of magic.    Get used to it.  Did you hear what happened to Eric Becker at SCG Charlotte? 

Regardless of whether the Top 8 is timed or not, judges will still enforce the "reasonable time" rule.  Under the DCI floor rules evey single search should take NO MORE than one minute.    Thus, a simple search under a Fetchland should take no longer than a search for cards under Dday or Gifts Ungiven.


I told Paul to call a judge for this reason:  Gifts Ungiven, and particularly meandeck gifts, is in my opinion the hardest deck in the format to pilot PERFECTLY.  Which is not to say that you can't pilot it well or very well.  But to get perfect gifts piles every time is the trick.

Simply put, its not possible to do so in a reasonable time.   You have as much time to make that decision as a limited player does to decide whether to play some dumb creature on their mainphase.    Thats the way it is. 

There has been a HUGE debate on the SCG forums recently about particularly this issue: 

Read up on what this judge has to say about it:  http://www.starcitygames.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=290682

It's frustrating, it's upsetting, it's maddening even.... but that's the rules.

It sounds like the judge made the right call under the rules, even though we don't like it. 

[Hi-Val]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. A tournament isn't where you learn to play your deck.

Complex play situations come up often in testing if you test enough. Looking at hand XYZ, you should be able to relate to previous patterns in your memory.

Chess players don't have to think about every strategy every time they move a piece and chess is definitely as complex as magic. People complaining about time limits are people who don't test enough to know how to resolve these situations already and they're trying to make up excuses for their ill-preparedness.

We are NOT in the McCarthy era of Magic, we're in the era where judges finally enforce the rules as they were written. Nobody is out to "get" you or whatever, so even the McCarthy analogy is pretty flawed.

[Storm]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. A tournament isn't where you learn to play your deck.

Complex play situations come up often in testing if you test enough. Looking at hand XYZ, you should be able to relate to previous patterns in your memory.

Chess players don't have to think about every strategy every time they move a piece and chess is definitely as complex as magic. People complaining about time limits are people who don't test enough to know how to resolve these situations already and they're trying to make up excuses for their ill-preparedness.

We are NOT in the McCarthy era of Magic, we're in the era where judges finally enforce the rules as they were written. Nobody is out to "get" you or whatever, so even the McCarthy analogy is pretty flawed.

Regardless of whether you find that analogy applicable, there can be no denying that there has been both a shift in ideology regarding judging recently as well as an increase in various enforcement mechanisms.

First and foremost is the shift towards intent.   Intent is the new standard for judging.   Whereas before if a person played Spoils of hte Vault or Demonic Consultation naming "Lotus" that would get you screwed, now judges say taht intent matters more.   

Second and correllary is that since intent is the primary standard, cheating is more harshly adjudicated.   Cheating is now more often inferred from conduct that previously would not have been considered as such.

Finally, slow play.   

Vintage compresses the normal game of magic by many turns and yet the same slow play standards apply.  I strongly urge you to read my previous post and the link within it (I say that to everyone in this forum).   In vintage, such standards border on the absurd in many cases.    Technically, one minute to find 4 Gifts cards?  That's 15 seconds per card.   Good luck!

[Komatteru]

Whereas before if a person played Spoils of hte Vault or Demonic Consultation naming "Lotus" that would get you screwed, now judges say taht intent matters more.

The thing about that is that it is both player's responsiblities to make sure the game state is accurate, and that all decisions made are clear to both player.  Obviously, you know that there is no card called "Lotus," and if you think your opponent named a card called "Lotus," and don't ask for clarification, then you are allowing the game state to be misrepresented and that could be construed as cheating.  "Lotus" what? Gilded Lotus, Black Lotus, Lotus Petal, Lotus Vale, Lotus Guardian?  There's a ton of card with "Lotus" in the name.  "Lotus" does not uniquely describe any card in Magic.

Suppose you let your opponent get away with naming just "Lotus," and he removes Black Lotus in the top 6, and then somewhere later in the process he reveals Lotus Petal.  As he goes to add it to his hand, you call him a "cheating sack of shit," and then he argues with you that he meant Lotus Petal.  Since you didn't bother to ask for clarification as to what "Lotus" meant, you allowed this situation to occur.  What this looks like to a judge is that both players are trying to cheat the other, and it's not possible to back up anymore.  Only an idiot would name Black Lotus if he knew it were in the top 6 cards, and given that information, the player would not make that choice anymore.  You could say to randomize the library and do it over, but that isn't correct either, as maybe the order of the library is significant--maybe the guy Brainstormed back two really bad (or really good but not useful now) cards, and if you shuffle, you destroy that.  It is possible that a double game loss would need to be issued here, as we have what appears to be both players trying to cheat each other.  One or more DQ's might be in order, as this could be an example of blatant cheating, which earns an automatic DQ.

The "intent" part of this is so that one player isn't allowed to cheat the other.  In this situation, one player could say "Lotus" assuming that both players understood he was referring to "Black Lotus." When the other tries to argue the other way, he's trying to take advantage of his lack of effort to discern the true effort.  In other words, he thought he could gain an advantage from the other player's shortcut.  That's not wholly the fault of the player playing Consultation, as when he said "Lotus," and no questions were asked, he assumed that it was understood what card he was naming.  It is usually clear that the player playing Consultation knows what card he wants to name, and if the way he conveys that intention is not clear to the other player, whose responsibility is it to ask for clarification?  If someone is giving you instructions, does anyone he ever explain it one way, and then immediately explain it a different way after you said "Yeah, sure."?  That would be stupid, would it not?

slow play

Yeah, I think we need to redefine what a decision is.  What cards to grab with Gifts is not one decision, it's 4.  If you have 13 cards in hand with Necro, the decision to discard is not 1 decision.  It's 6.  You aren't picking one card to discard, you are picking 6.  Unfortunately, the high-level judges seem to think that one game action is one decision, regardless of how many things go into it.

Somehow, playing 10 spells and storming up to 10 is viewed as 10 separate decisions.  No one would expect you to play 10 spells in succession all in a minute.  However, discarding 10 of 17 cards is one decision.  Not sure how that works out, but whatever.

The thing that really is absurd with Necro is that the game is over (one way or the other usually) on the next turn.  If you take 3 minutes to set the Necro hand, and the game ends in 5-8 minutes, apparently that is too slow for judges.  I'd like to see a game of standard end in that amount of time.  Even if you godfish your aggro deck, and your opponent does nothing but play lands or discard cards, it'll take longer than that.


Also, wasn't this thread about Boston at some point in time?

[The Atog Lord]

Actually, this situation hasn't been possible in the last three or four years. The official ruling on cards which ask you to "name a card" has been for years that an actual Magic card must be named.

And for whatever it's worth, I'm very happy to see judges actually enforcing slow play rules in Vintage.

[Storm]

Actually, this situation hasn't been possible in the last three or four years. The official ruling on cards which ask you to "name a card" has been for years that an actual Magic card must be named.

RE: JD and Atog Lord:

This is not true at all!

I was in an Extended PTQ Jan 2005 playing Osyp's UW Desire deck.  I was 5-0-1 and I needed one more win to draw into top 8.   (This was the last PTQ I've played in, btw).

My opponent was playing the Teen Titans deck.   He had seen the White Wall (Sunscape Famiilar?) that decreases the casting cost of blue spells in my hand.   He played Cabal Therapy naming "The White Wall."   He couldn't remember the card and yet the judge said that this was acceptable!   I was SO PISSED off. 

The judges explained that htis was a change in philosophy.  I spoke to the head judge extensively and we talked about cards like Consult, etc.   What about Meddling Mage naming Tendrils of Despair when it was quite clear that they meant Tendrils of Agony?   Intent governs.

So, JD and Rich, chew on that.

[Dante]

JD - if you have 17 cards in hand - do you really think it's fair/appropriate to allow 10 minutes (1 minute per "decision") to decide which cards to discard?  That's 20% of the entire 50 minute MATCH!  In no way is it unreasonable to ask someone to decide which cards to discard in 1-2 minutes...

[Komatteru]

Actually, this situation hasn't been possible in the last three or four years. The official ruling on cards which ask you to "name a card" has been for years that an actual Magic card must be named.

The rules only state that the card has to be uniquely identified from the stated information.  Saying "that card from Alliances that lets you pitch a blue card and pay 1 life to counter a spell for no mana" is a pretty obvious desciption of Force of Will.  That's what the rules ask for, as Steve poined out.  Altough, Steve's opponent's description was not fully clear.  If he had said "The white wall that reduces the cost of blue spells," that should have proved a sufficient description of Sunscape Familiar.

In all cases, saying "I don't know what that is" and getting more information would be a good idea.  "Tendrils of Despair? Never heard of that card. Are you sure about what you are naming?" (it's from Weatherlight, btw)  You can say that you're telling your opponent how to play his cards, but that is irrelevant.  If you want to have to deal with a judge later and possibly get penalized for something you know you could have prevented, go right ahead.  Just doesn't seem worth the hassle later for something you can easily remedy with a couple simple questions.

So, JD and Rich, chew on that.

I never said you have to name the card exactly.  I said you have to make it clear which card is being named.  There are many ways to do this.

JD - if you have 17 cards in hand - do you really think it's fair/appropriate to allow 10 minutes (1 minute per "decision") to decide which cards to discard?  That's 20% of the entire 50 minute MATCH!  In no way is it unreasonable to ask someone to decide which cards to discard in 1-2 minutes...

No, I don't.  Allowing 1 minute per decision would be excessive in this situation.  In fact, allowing 1 minute across the board for all decisions is pretty asinine, and nothing would ever finish then.  Does it make sense to allow someone a full minute to decide which land to fetch out?  However, given that there are 10 decisions to be made, requiring all of them to be made in 1 minute would be stupid as well.  Taking 20 seconds for a decision would put the total time at about 3.5 minutes, which is not 20% of the match.  Similiar decisions should be grouped together and not given the same weight as independent decisions, but because one action requires 6-10 things to be done doesn't make it a single decision.

I guess my point is this: the rules state that all decisions must be made "in a reasonable amount of time regardless of complexity," but that is not what is enforced.  No judge would allow you to spend a full minute fetching out a land with Polluted Delta--that would clearly be stalling. However, they will allow you that full minute for Gifts Ungiven.  So what is this?  Looks like inconsistency to me.  Here, we have what are considered two decisions, but one is allowed more time than the other because it is....more complex.  Fuck, so much for the rule as written...

[Storm]

IMO, you should have to name a card if it says name a card, but if you name the wrong card when you were supposed to name another, that in my view, is your fault.

Cabal Therapy specifically tests format knowledge.  To obviate that by providing a sufficient description is ridiculous imo.

I hate judging by intent.   

JD, you are slightly conflating the floor rules and the penalty guidelines.  But that is not your fault.  They are HORRIBLY written.

Some day I'll write an article tearing them apart for their inconsistency and lack of precision. 

[Hi-Val]

RE: JD and Atog Lord:

This is not true at all!

I was in an Extended PTQ Jan 2005 playing Osyp's UW Desire deck.  I was 5-0-1 and I needed one more win to draw into top 8.   (This was the last PTQ I've played in, btw).

My opponent was playing the Teen Titans deck.   He had seen the White Wall (Sunscape Famiilar?) that decreases the casting cost of blue spells in my hand.   He played Cabal Therapy naming "The White Wall."   He couldn't remember the card and yet the judge said that this was acceptable!   I was SO PISSED off. 

The judges explained that htis was a change in philosophy.  I spoke to the head judge extensively and we talked about cards like Consult, etc.   What about Meddling Mage naming Tendrils of Despair when it was quite clear that they meant Tendrils of Agony?   Intent governs.

So, JD and Rich, chew on that.

Explain Oliver Ruel's DQ then. Whole lotta intent there, right? No, it was a technical infraction of the rules. He could have intended to make sure the cards didn't fly out of his hand and it doesn't matter.

IMO, you should have to name a card if it says name a card, but if you name the wrong card when you were supposed to name another, that in my view, is your fault.

Cabal Therapy specifically tests format knowledge.  To obviate that by providing a sufficient description is ridiculous imo.

The rules agree with you. If they name Tendrils of Despair, it's their fault. If they name the 2BB storm card from scourge, they're within the rules.

Cabal Therapy specifically tests format knowledge. It does not test quick recollection of a name. It tests remembering the function of a card.

Also, I don't know that I have EVER seen people fizzle their Consults in a tournament because they couldn't think of a card name. You've always been able to ask a judge to identify a card and its Oracle text, even without the full name. How are German players supposed to name Balance when the card is called Equipoise in German in an international event? The rules are clear and have always been clear about naming cards.

If you're going to Bobby Fisher all of your plays, learn how to do it in the allotted time by practicing at home. The other options are: get warned out of the event or change DCI policy, which has been consistent for quite awhile.

[Komatteru]

The reason they allow desciption is to save time.  Since players are allowed access to the Oracle text of any card at any time, the procedure for resolving the situation where a player knows most of the information of a card (mana cost, expansion, power/toughness, card text, card type, etc.) would be to search the Oracle for cards matching that description, present the player with a list, and then let him get the name from there.  That's an infinite waste of time, so they just allow descriptions to make life easier.  Realize that asking for Oracle rules text when you know the name of a card is equivalent to asking for the name when you know most of the Oracle rules text and/or other things on the card.  In both cases, you are filling in the information you can't remember with the Oracle help.

Would it not be unreasonable for the DCI to force players to memorize all the Oracle text for cards?  Then why do they have to memorize the names of every card ever?

[Storm]

What about the inconsistency of doing what the card commands?

Cabal Therapy says "Name a card"

White wall that reduces cc is not the name of a card.

Sure, you can short cut, but that isn't the letter of the law.  That's judging based on Intent.   Which I despise. 

Also, I'd like to show you how poorly worded the penalty guidelines are - if not actually inconsistent with the floor rules. 

[Komatteru]

You're being really technical about the "name a card."  Do you want to waste 5-10 minutes of each match waiting for the judge to get the Oracle text?  Or would you prefer not to allow access to the Oracle at all?  You obviously can't limit access to the Oracle, since that would be impossible.  Why would you get to see the Oracle text for a card you didn't know that an opponent played and not for one that might be in his hand?  (What I mean is that your opponent plays a Japanese card you don't know, so you should be able to get the Oracle Text for it.  But why shouldn't you be able to get the casting cost for Spectral Shift if your opponent only has 1 mana open and you can't remember whether it costs U or 1U?)  Removing all access to the Oracle would be an obvious disaster.

By your logic Steve, you should be mandated to shuffle between each Desire copy.  After all, that's what the card commands.

The reason they allow these things is to save time.  Given an a match with infinite time, we wouldn't have these shortcuts.  Since we want them to finish before next year (in 50 minutes no less!), we allow shortcuts.

I know the penalty guide well.  I know, it's a pain in the ass.  There's a lot of "well, you know, you might do this..."  There's like a list of infractions, and not a lot of description as to what defines each infraction.  I once put cards from Divining Top into my hand accidently, and I was given a warning for procedural error, not drawing extra cards.  It seems to me I did accidently draw extra cards, but that wasn't my intent--I just made a mistake and my opponent and I both realized it before anything got to the point where we couldn't identify the cards.

[Storm]

No, I raise that issue not to show that I"m correct, but to show you that tensions, inconsistencies and contradictions abound.  The way we resolve these is by reference to what lawyers call "policy."  Here the policy of saving time seems to be important.  But there has also been a policy shift to judge based on intent more than objective factors.

This has resulted in greater and stronger enforcement of the rules in many instances, esp. where there shouldn't be.

Hence: the McCarthy era of magic, a moniker I find perfectly fitting.