from "infinite wins" to "stalling blows"

[Norm4eva]

This is full of problems.  First of all, as already stated, this is not a loop, you cannot declare you're doing it X times.  Second, the judge can have access to whatever information he needs to figure these details out.  He can check the decklist, look at the deck itself, question the player, etc.  And if the player is going to lie to the judge about having a fire//ice in his deck, then it's a much more clear-cut cheating situation than whether or not he is stalling.

I'm a little weirded out by the idea that the judge can base a player's decision to play it out or not by looking at decklists.

So like, if I build my deck to stall via (groan) Solitary Confinement or some such, and my opponent sees I've got Squee lock or whatever is tech at the time, and they still insist on playing it out, am I in the right to call a judge so they can appraise their decklist and determine whether or not they can answer my lock?  And if they can't, are they stalling by forcing me to actually end the game somehow?  Or was I a dicknose who brought a deck that can only win by waiting for the opponent to draw 53 more cards?

This sort of feels like it's OT, but this bit of information about a judge's capacity to rule on stalling seems to wander into strange territory.  Is it stalling to bring 60Island.dec to a tournament, since you can't really answer... anything?

[Apollyon]

I'm a little weirded out by the idea that the judge can base a player's decision to play it out or not by looking at decklists.

The decklists can be part of an investigation into Stalling. They won't be the entirety of the investigation.

What do you feel is objectionable to using a decklist in an investigation?

So like, if I build my deck to stall via (groan) Solitary Confinement or some such, and my opponent sees I've got Squee lock or whatever is tech at the time, and they still insist on playing it out, am I in the right to call a judge so they can appraise their decklist and determine whether or not they can answer my lock?  And if they can't, are they stalling by forcing me to actually end the game somehow?  Or was I a dicknose who brought a deck that can only win by waiting for the opponent to draw 53 more cards?

A judge can't answer the question "Can my opponent beat me?", because that would both give away private information and constitute outside assistance.

Your opponent has the right to keep playing, as long as they are doing it quickly. They can't just draw a card, think for a bit, then play a land, think some more, ineffectually swing with their creatures, and pass turn.

This sort of feels like it's OT, but this bit of information about a judge's capacity to rule on stalling seems to wander into strange territory.  Is it stalling to bring 60Island.dec to a tournament, since you can't really answer... anything?

The definition of Stalling is: playing slowly or doing things that don't advance the gamestate in order to run off time on the clock with the intent of using the round clock to impact the match result.

It's not Stalling to bring 60 Island.dec to a tournament. It is, however, Stalling to play slowly with the intent of turning losses into draws.

[Clariax]

We do not need multiple threads for the same topic (This is the second time in as many days I'm posting this).  If you're not sure if your post belongs in a new thread or added to the existing thread, that you're quoting the existing thread is probably a good hint to follow.