[POLL] Would you have done this?

[Complete_Jank]

On Saturday I played in a PTQ for extended.

During one round I get paired aggainst Tooth and Nail, which is a bad match-up for me. He uses Sensei's Divining Top at the end of my turn and looks at top 3 cards, and on his turn 8 he draws a card and then looks at his hand then looks at his Sensei's Divining Top then draws another card, then taps a land as if to activate Sensei's Divining Top. I say wait, you just drew two cards this turn.

He untaps his land and says he'll just use the top to draw the card.

I ask him to hold on. I make quick count, and it looks to be off, so I call for a judge. Multiple judges count cards and both verify he drew an additional card, and give him a game loss.

We move into game 2 and he wins, but takes so long that there is only 2 minutes left for game three. We shuffle and I muligan, and then shuffle and Muuligan, and then shuffle and Muuligan, and then shuffle and Muuligan, and then shuffle and Muuligan. Time is called and I get a draw in a round that I was destined to lose.


Question is, "Would you have called the judges in this case, even thoughh he had an ability that could let him draw the card, and he knew exactly which card was on top of his library?"

[Cait_Sith]

Yes. IT is called being a Magic Jerk. Someone wrote an article on it. If it were a PreRelease I would say fine, but in a PTQ expect me to be a rules Nazi.

[Firebrothers]

Yeah if this was at my local tournement I would have let it slide because I don't want to be a jerk and turn people away but since this was a PTQ I would have definatly called a judge.

[Getsickanddie]

Question is, "Would you have called the judges in this case, even thoughh he had an ability that could let him draw the card, and he knew exactly which card was on top of his library?"

At a PTQ yes.

[Pinder]

I would have called the judge as well. At anything with a REL higher than a Prerelease, it's the right move.

[Tha Gunslinga]

I'd call a judge in that case. He fucked up, so you call the judge so they can fix it. I'm a very lenient player, and I'm willing to rewind usually when my opponent screws up something minor, but drawing an extra card is too much for me to let go. I don't think it should be a game loss, but it's the kind of thing I'd call a judge on.

[TheInfamousBearAssassin]

At a PTQ? I wouldn't, but that's just because I don't want to call the judges' attention to the fact that I'm supposed to be banned.

[Complete_Jank]

At a PTQ? I wouldn't, but that's just because I don't want to call the judges' attention to the fact that I'm supposed to be banned.

LOL, your stock just went up.

I only know one person that was banned from magic, but he was #3 in the world in standard, but at least he did something huge, what did you do?

[DeathwingZERO]

A game loss does seem pretty harsh for that, especially since it's techincally a "recoverable game state", which would be basically to just rewind to his draw step. Knowing exactly which card he drew and when would also help your case with judges during that kind of scenario.

I definitely would have called a judge on it, but I would have also been fine with them telling him to actually activate the Top for that card, and continue with the game from there. He had the ability to draw the 2nd card, it would seem unfair to say "You lose" just because he did it differently than he wanted.

At a few PTQ's I've gone to, people have been able to slide on a lot worse than something like that. Especially when it came to activations from Top's and Swords (the equipment, not the white spell).

Personally, when a judge was called over to a final match between myself and another player playing with Shizo, we both had one in play for three consecutive turns using them for mana and abilities WHILE HE WATCHED before he even asked us about them both being in play at the same time.

[Eldariel]

At a GP or PT, yes. Outside that, nope.

[calosso]

At any event I would call the judge.

[Ewokslayer]

You have to call a judge in this case. Randomly drawing extra cards is way to big an advantage to let slide.

[tivadar]

Well, they're right, the game state could have been restored, he had just topped, so he knew what was there. If he hadn't, then drawing and changing his mind may have made a difference and he should be called on it. I'm somewhat surprised he got a game loss for this as well. I once flipped a card over when going to draw for the turn, this was turn 2, before any shuffle effects or anything, and I was issued a warning and asked to reshuffle my deck.

The more important thing here is that while this may have been an obvious oversight (he was intending to use top...), there's no indication in your description it was. This may mean he could have been intending to cheat as well. This is a pretty common move, draw card, use top/some other effect, draw another card, say that you used top during your upkeep... I have no idea if this was the case, and it sounds as if it wasn't, but either way, it's worth calling a judge. Either way, even for an honest mistake, at that level of play, by all means, call a judge, let THEM decide what the penalty should be, that's not your job.

I feel somewhat bad saying this, but honestly, playing competitively, be somewhat of a rules nazi. At that level, everyone should know the rules and be able to follow them, if they can't, it's not your job to let it slide, it's the judges. Though, once again, should they choose to let it slide, be courteous about it yourself.

[Toad]

Calling a Judge was the proper call. The game state is not accurate (one player has too many cards in hand), and Judges are responsible for repairing game states. Always call a Judge when a problem occurs, its not being a douche or anything, its just using the Judges for what they are supposed to do. That is, the GL was maybe too harsh, especially if the player stated his intention of using his Top to draw the card.


We shuffle and I muligan, and then shuffle and Muuligan, and then shuffle and Muuligan, and then shuffle and Muuligan, and then shuffle and Muuligan. Time is called and I get a draw in a round that I was destined to lose.
You can feel lucky that your opponent didnt call a Judge for that.
Cheating - Stalling, Disqualification without Prize.

Basic advice : never, ever, do that again.

[Ewokslayer]

That is, the GL was maybe too harsh, especially if the player stated his intention of using his Top to draw the card. From the description of events it didn't sound like his opponent mentioned using Top for the draw ability just using it to look at the top 3 after he had already drawn 2 cards that turn



You can feel lucky that your opponent didnt call a Judge for that.
Cheating - Stalling, Disqualification without Prize.

Basic advice : never, ever, do that again.

I meant to comment on that part but forgot.
Regardless of whether your opponent was cheating by drawing extra cards you were definitely cheating. Really, hardcore cheating.

[emidln]

From the description of events it didn't sound like his opponent mentioned using Top for the draw ability just using it to look at the top 3 after he had already drawn 2 cards that turn



I meant to comment on that part but forgot.
Regardless of whether your opponent was cheating by drawing extra cards you were definitely cheating. Really, hardcore cheating.

I actually play several decks where I am extremely comfortable around 3-4 cards. I would argue that this isn't always cheating, and unless the judge is intimately familiar with my deck, knows what I've seen of their deck, how I think , and the matchup, they are not in a position to tell me that I cannot mulligan looking for a better hand. After all, unless you know all of those things, you cannot reasonably tell me that I'm not looking for a better hand.

[Ewokslayer]

I actually play several decks where I am extremely comfortable around 3-4 cards. I would argue that this isn't always cheating, and unless the judge is intimately familiar with my deck, knows what I've seen of their deck, how I think , and the matchup, they are not in a position to tell me that I cannot mulligan looking for a better hand. After all, unless you know all of those things, you cannot reasonably tell me that I'm not looking for a better hand.

With only 2 minutes left in the round for a game 3. Mulliganing to 2 cards is highly suspect and can almost never be justified as not intentionally stalling for the draw.
Unless you are playing some crazy combo deck that requires only 3 cards or so I can say you aren't looking for a better hand.



162. Cheating—Stalling

Definition
A player intentionally plays slowly in order to take advantage of the time limit. Refer to section 161 for unintentional slow play.

Example
(A) A player has two lands in his hand, no options available to significantly affect the game, and spends several minutes "thinking" about what to do.

Philosophy
If it is clear that a player is stalling, he or she should face a serious penalty.

Penalty
Cheating—Stalling
All Levels
Disqualification without prize


I am kinda surprised that there wasn't a time extension considering the ruling during game one must have taken some time as game losses generally do.

[cdr]

I actually play several decks where I am extremely comfortable around 3-4 cards. I would argue that this isn't always cheating, and unless the judge is intimately familiar with my deck, knows what I've seen of their deck, how I think , and the matchup, they are not in a position to tell me that I cannot mulligan looking for a better hand. After all, unless you know all of those things, you cannot reasonably tell me that I'm not looking for a better hand.

If the judge thinks you are doing it to cheat, he is in a position to tell you that you are not looking for a better hand. Judges look at intent. Cheating by definition requires intent.

Nothing is ever unquestionable. If you are not mulliganing to stall, you should be able to convince a judge of that, and there won't be a problem.

Besides openly admitting that it was intentional, mulliganing down to two cards in the final minutes of the round against a bad matchup is about as blatent as you can get.

And yes, you should always call the judge when something goes wrong in a sanctioned match.

[emidln]

With only 2 minutes left in the round for a game 3. Mulliganing to 2 cards is highly suspect and can almost never be justified as not intentionally stalling for the draw.
Unless you are playing some crazy combo deck that requires only 3 cards or so I can say you aren't looking for a better hand.

You mean like SI? Dark Rit, Lotus Petal, Cruel Bargain isn't the most reliable combo, but it's infy times better to try for than Shield Sphere, IGG, Tendrils, Land Grant. One of those gives me a real chance at winning. The other does not.

Oh, how about this. I'm playing Sun Tower vs something that needs to cast a 1cc spell to win the game quickly. I mull to 2 to find Chalice or Trinisphere and can hit any of 12 lands and Chalice on a mull to 2. That's why I'd mull to 2. You might argue that the chances are very unlikely, but I'd argue that a hand with Smokestack, Uba Mask, Mox diamond, and Crucible is worse for me against something like high tide.

[Complete_Jank]

101.4. A player who is dissatisfied with his or her initial hand may mulligan. First, the starting player takes any mulligans. To take a mulligan, that player shuffles his or her hand back into the deck and then draws a new hand of six cards. He or she may repeat this process as many times as desired, drawing one fewer card each time, until the hand size reaches zero cards. Once the starting player has decided to keep a hand, those cards become his or her opening hand. Then each other player (in turn order) may take any number of mulligans. A player can’t take any mulligans once he or she has decided to keep an opening hand.

It is at a players discression how good a hand is. A judge can not say that any hand is keepable. In that situation, no hand was keepable as no hand would allow me to win with in that alotted time.


21. Shuffling
Shuffling must be done so that the faces of the cards cannot be seen. Regardless of the method used to shuffle, players’ decks must be sufficiently randomized. Each time players shuffle their deck, they must present their deck to their opponent for additional shuffling and/or cutting. Players may request to have a judge shuffle their cards rather than pass that duty to their opponent, this request will be honored at a judge’s discretion. By presenting their decks to their opponents, players are stating that their decks are correct, legal, and sufficiently randomized.

After decks are presented and accepted, any player who does not believe his or her opponent has made a reasonable effort to sufficiently randomize his or her deck must notify a judge. The head judge has final authority to determine whether a deck has been sufficiently randomized. The head judge also has the authority to determine if a player has used reasonable effort to randomize his or her deck. If the head judge believes that either the deck has not been sufficiently randomized or that a player has not made a reasonable effort to randomize his or her deck, the player will be subject to the appropriate provisions of the DCI Penalty Guidelines.

At REL 3 and higher events players must always shuffle their opponents’ decks at the beginning of games. The head judge can mandate the shuffling of opponents’ decks at lower RELs (1 and 2) as long as he or she announces this at the beginning of the tournament. If a shuffling effect takes place during gameplay, players may shuffle and must cut their opponents’ decks after the shuffling effect is completed.

Once players shuffle and/or cut their opponents’ decks, the cards are returned to their original owners. If the opponent has shuffled the player’s deck, that player may make one final cut.


23. Pregame Time Limit
Before each game, competitors have three minutes to shuffle their decks and present them to their opponents for additional shuffling and/or cutting. This three-minute period includes sideboarding, if applicable, but does not include shuffling an opponent’s deck or resolving any mulligans—if the DCI Floor Rules for the game in question specifically allow mulligans. Any mulligans or shuffling of opponents’ decks must be done in a timely manner before games begin. Shuffling requirements specified in section 21 apply during these steps.

If a player is subject to a deck check, that player will be given an amount of extra time equal to the time the check required plus three minutes.

I actually had 3 minutes, and could resideboard as I could say I was correcting for his deck again. My Muligan shuffles take about 30 seconds which are reasonable.


24. Midgame Shuffling Time Limit
A reasonable time limit will be allowed for all shuffling and deck-searching that occurs during a game. Player should be allowed thirty seconds to conduct simple searches; more complicated searches may be allowed more time at the judge’s discretion.

If a judge determines that a player’s shuffling time is excessive, that player will be subject to the appropriate provisions of the DCI Penalty Guidelines. Shuffling requirements specified in Section 21 apply.

[Nightmare]

While in theory, you're correct Mike, that you were within the rules in your actions, there is a heavy amount of discussion on this EXACT issue within the DCI right now. This is a known way to manipulate the rules (aka: cheat), and there isn't a clear-cut way to prevent it while allowing for truly bad hands to be mulled. That being said, given the situation you described, had I been judging and your opponent called me over, I'd be hard pressed to not DQ you.

[Toad]

Excerpt from Worlds blog :

Max Bracht (German National Team)
Infraction: Cheating - Stalling
During Max's final match of Day One, he was found guilty of intentionally playing in such a way as to ensure that the game could not finish by abusing the time limit. The key for this one was intent. Among several other things, Bracht clearly made decisions like taking several mulligans strictly for the purpose of running out the clock. This one caused some confusion initially, as players were mixing up the infraction with slow play, which is different. To be clear, a "slow play" infraction is when a player is inappropriately causing the match to go too slowly, but unintentionally. Stalling, on the other hand, is when a player is found to be intentionally abusing the clock. Over the course of the final game of this match, the judges observed many instances of intentional abuse of the clock, which is why the infraction was Cheating - Stalling as opposed to just Slow Play.

[Complete_Jank]

While in theory, you're correct Mike, that you were within the rules in your actions, there is a heavy amount of discussion on this EXACT issue within the DCI right now. This is a known way to manipulate the rules (aka: cheat), and there isn't a clear-cut way to prevent it while allowing for truly bad hands to be mulled. That being said, given the situation you described, had I been judging and your opponent called me over, I'd be hard pressed to not DQ you.

I have a problem with it as well, but it is in the rules. I first saw it used against someone else I knew in a large tourney in a Top 8 after the first game had taken almost all the time. This guy had won game one and took 3 minutes to shuffle, then presented, and then muliganed and took 30 seconds to shuffle, after he got the deck back, drew 6 cards and then chose to muligan again. The guy I knew asked the judge to do something and the judge told him it was with in the rules, and was completely legal. The guy got down to one card and time was called, and he won the match and moved into the finals.

I think it is horrible, but I learned that day that this is another tool to use in winning, or not losing. It is one more thing to add to my tools of being a Rule Nazi.


Circumstances drive your muligans.

I once had a match in a tourney that had got to the point of single elimination. I had won game one, and he had won game two on turn 4 after time had been called. No draws are allowed if it is single elimination. We were forced to play a game three under the "Sudden Death" rules. I muliganed down to 4 cards. He muligan down to 1 card. He muliganed til he had a 1cc card, and so did I. I was on the play, and played land and a creature. He drew a card and passed the turn. I drew a card and played a land and attacked on turn 2 for one and the win. He finally saw a 1 drop, and hoped to top deck a land. It is funny when you hear someone say a 1 card hand is actually keepable.



Now, which mod fucked with the poll? I think I know who.

[clavio]

He could have just used top. No, I wouldn't have done this.

[Complete_Jank]

Excerpt from Worlds blog :

Max Bracht (German National Team)
Infraction: Cheating - Stalling
During Max's final match of Day One, he was found guilty of intentionally playing in such a way as to ensure that the game could not finish by abusing the time limit. The key for this one was intent. Among several other things, Bracht clearly made decisions like taking several mulligans strictly for the purpose of running out the clock. This one caused some confusion initially, as players were mixing up the infraction with slow play, which is different. To be clear, a "slow play" infraction is when a player is inappropriately causing the match to go too slowly, but unintentionally. Stalling, on the other hand, is when a player is found to be intentionally abusing the clock. Over the course of the final game of this match, the judges observed many instances of intentional abuse of the clock, which is why the infraction was Cheating - Stalling as opposed to just Slow Play.

I bolded why he was given his Infraction. Had he played normally he would not have gotten an infraction.


I have two speeds to my play:

Normal - which is what I usually play at, this is the speed I can play at and not make mistakes.

Fast - This is the speed I play if I know I am already down, and time is against me. I usually make a mistake, but if I have a strong deck, it can usually forgive a mistake or two, as long as it isn't something big. If I lose because of a mistake, it doesn't matter as I was going to lose because of time.

[Ewokslayer]

You mean like SI? Dark Rit, Lotus Petal, Cruel Bargain isn't the most reliable combo, but it's infy times better to try for than Shield Sphere, IGG, Tendrils, Land Grant. One of those gives me a real chance at winning. The other does not.

That one is an easy decision. DQ for cheating. None of the cards listed were legal for the tournament in question. The format that the game in question is being played is relevant to determining intent.
Additional information such as shuffling time and time used to determine to take an additional mulligan would also be relevant.
As a side question: What the heck would you Cruel Bargain for that you haven't already seen in the 25 cards you had already seen prior to going down to 2 cards?


Oh, how about this. I'm playing Sun Tower vs something that needs to cast a 1cc spell to win the game quickly. I mull to 2 to find Chalice or Trinisphere and can hit any of 12 lands and Chalice on a mull to 2. That's why I'd mull to 2. You might argue that the chances are very unlikely, but I'd argue that a hand with Smokestack, Uba Mask, Mox diamond, and Crucible is worse for me against something like high tide. I am too lazy to figure out the actual percentages, but the chance of having a opening hand with a chalice or trinisphere prior to going down to 2 cards is stupidly high.


I have a problem with it as well, but it is in the rules. I first saw it used against someone else I knew in a large tourney in a Top 8 after the first game had taken almost all the time. This guy had won game one and took 3 minutes to shuffle, then presented, and then muliganed and took 30 seconds to shuffle, after he got the deck back, drew 6 cards and then chose to muligan again. The guy I knew asked the judge to do something and the judge told him it was with in the rules, and was completely legal. The guy got down to one card and time was called, and he won the match and moved into the finals.
A previous judge's screw up doesn't make it DCI policy. There are countless stories of a judge messing up every possible ruling.




I once had a match in a tourney that had got to the point of single elimination. I had won game one, and he had won game two on turn 4 after time had been called. No draws are allowed if it is single elimination. We were forced to play a game three under the "Sudden Death" rules. I muliganed down to 4 cards. He muligan down to 1 card. He muliganed til he had a 1cc card, and so did I. I was on the play, and played land and a creature. He drew a card and passed the turn. I drew a card and played a land and attacked on turn 2 for one and the win. He finally saw a 1 drop, and hoped to top deck a land. It is funny when you hear someone say a 1 card hand is actually keepable.
We aren't saying you can't mulligan to one, we are saying that doing so inorder to take advantage of the time limit is cheating. In your example time had already been called so no advantage for stalling would be possible.


162. Cheating—Stalling

Definition
A player intentionally plays slowly in order to take advantage of the time limit. Refer to section 161 for unintentional slow play.
You clearly stalled the game through legal actions inorder to get the game to end in a draw.


He could have just used top. No, I wouldn't have done this.
But he didn't activate Top. He drew an extra card and put it into his hand and then tried to activate Top's "stacking ability" Not having to put Top on top of your library to draw an extra card is some good.

[Toad]

I bolded why he was given his Infraction. Had he played normally he would not have gotten an infraction.
No, he was given the sanction because of the end game mulligans. I'm one of the Judges who "observed many instances of intentional abuse of the clock", so I think I know what happened here ;)

Feel free to think whatever you want about this situation. But whatever you end up deciding, taking mulligans to eat the clock is Stalling.

[Complete_Jank]

No, he was given the sanction because of the end game mulligans. I'm one of the Judges who "observed many instances of intentional abuse of the clock", so I think I know what happened here ;)

Feel free to think whatever you want about this situation. But whatever you end up deciding, taking mulligans to eat the clock is Stalling.

So you are saying the ONLY thing he did was muligan extra times and you DQ'ed him for that and nothing else effected your decision?

[Anusien]

So you are saying the ONLY thing he did was muligan extra times and you DQ'ed him for that and nothing else effected your decision?
No, what he did was intentionally take actions that don't advance the game state in order to eat the clock. What he did was pretty much the definition of stalling.

[Complete_Jank]

No, what he did was intentionally take actions that don't advance the game state in order to eat the clock. What he did was pretty much the definition of stalling.
You weren't there, and not the judge so I wasn't speaking to you. I believe this guy did more than just muligan from the sounds of it.

[Toad]

I wasnt HJ at the event so I didnt took the decision for the DQ. He got DQed for everything he did, which includes the excessive mulligans. The decision to DQ him was motivated by the mulligans, otherwise I doubt he would have gotten it.

I would DQ you for that regardless of the REL. Even at a FNM. Playing in a low level tournament (virtual REL0) is not an excuse for Cheating.

[Complete_Jank]

I wasnt HJ at the event so I didnt took the decision for the DQ. He got DQed for everything he did, which includes the excessive mulligans. The decision to DQ him was motivated by the mulligans, otherwise I doubt he would have gotten it.

I would DQ you for that regardless of the REL. Even at a FNM. Playing in a low level tournament (virtual REL0) is not an excuse for Cheating.

I did nothing else to slow game play, matter of fact I was playing faster than my opponent, and was trying to get him to hurry.

If you want to get real picky about it, There were less than 3 minutes when we ended game 2 and I am allowed 3 minutes to shuffle and sideboard my deck before presenting it. I didn't even need to Muligan to waste time, and I can't be forced to present my deck before I think it has been properly randomized, specially after a long game where I had most of my lands on the table. My first hand had no land and it was at that point that I decided there was no point in playing out the last game as neither of us could win. If either of us had a chance to win, It would have been I, but why bother when it could be a draw and both of us still in the tourney.

[Clark Kant]

Are you changing your story?


We shuffle and I muligan, and then shuffle and Muuligan, and then shuffle and Muuligan, and then shuffle and Muuligan, and then shuffle and Muuligan. Time is called and I get a draw in a round that I was destined to lose.

It sounds pretty clear here why you mulliganed repeatedly.

Btw, did you edit the poll? As I recall, the initial poll had the option "It doesn't matter, because you cheated far more blatantly than he did." which had like 80%+ of the votes just yesterday.

[Clark Kant]

There were less than 3 minutes when we ended game 2 and I am allowed 3 minutes to shuffle and sideboard my deck before presenting it. I didn't even need to Muligan to waste time, and I can't be forced to present my deck before I think it has been properly randomized, specially after a long game where I had most of my lands on the table. My first hand had no land and it was at that point that I decided there was no point in playing out the last game as neither of us could win. If either of us had a chance to win, It would have been I, but why bother when it could be a draw and both of us still in the tourney.

Did you just change your story?


We shuffle and I muligan, and then shuffle and Muuligan, and then shuffle and Muuligan, and then shuffle and Muuligan, and then shuffle and Muuligan. Time is called and I get a draw in a round that I was destined to lose.

It sounds pretty clear here why you mulliganed repeatedly. In fact, you sounded like you were proud of it in most of your replies early on.

Before all your replies were to the tune of, you did whatever it took to win. Now, suddenly, it was something you did because you prefered both of you getting a draw than your opponent getting a matchloss? That's pretty inconsistant.

Btw, did you edit the poll? As I recall, the initial poll had the option "It doesn't matter, because you cheated far more blatantly than he did." which had like 80%+ of the votes just yesterday.

[Complete_Jank]

Did you just change your story?


We move into game 2 and he wins, but takes so long that there is only 2 minutes left for game three. We shuffle and I muligan, and then shuffle and Muuligan, and then shuffle and Muuligan, and then shuffle and Muuligan, and then shuffle and Muuligan. Time is called and I get a draw in a round that I was destined to lose.

No, I never needed to muligan, there were less than 3 minutes left in the round after game 2 ended. I just did so rather than spending 3 minutes to shuffle and then present my deck.


It sounds pretty clear here why you mulliganed repeatedly. In fact, you sounded like you were proud of it in most of your replies early on.

Before all your replies were to the tune of, you did whatever it took to win. Now, suddenly, it was something you did because you prefered both of you getting a draw than your opponent getting a matchloss? That's pretty inconsistant.

I was proud to pull a draw out of a match that was not in my favor.


Btw, did you edit the poll? As I recall, the initial poll had the option "It doesn't matter, because you cheated far more blatantly than he did." which had like 80%+ of the votes just yesterday.

Members can't edit polls, only mods. A certain mod added the option...

"It doesn't matter, because you cheated far more blatantly than he did."

and also put 200 votes down for that option. If you would have looked at who had voted for all the choices you would have realized this. If you also would look at how all the answers are phrased you would notice I didn't have that as one of my choices. Also, if you just used common sense you would know the answer as well.

[kirdape3]

I mean, I'm actually pretty sure that what you did got Max Bracht a year ban from the DCI for doing the same thing.

Stalling (which is actually the exact thing you did under the current guidelines on the Judges' list) is really, REALLY bad.

[Complete_Jank]

I mean, I'm actually pretty sure that what you did got Max Bracht a year ban from the DCI for doing the same thing.

Stalling (which is actually the exact thing you did under the current guidelines on the Judges' list) is really, REALLY bad.

So what you are saying is that if you have less than 3 minutes in a round, the DCI rules that say you are given 3 minutes to present your deck don't apply?

Wow, lets just ignore the DCI rules. Rules are rules. They provide boundries and as long as you play within those boundries you are fine.

If there are less than 3 minutes in a round, and you start shuffling, you never have to play that last game. You are allowed 3 minutes to shuffle. It is time allowed to randomize your deck. No Judge can ever call you for stalling if there are less than 3 minutes in a round and you shuffle for less than 3 minutes. Those are the rules.

If the other player is upset about it, maybe he should have played faster, or called the judge over earlier if I was doing anything during the game to warrent a judge to be called over to watch for slow play. Often it is I, who call a judge over to watch my opponent for slow play.

EDIT:
Actually I could have called the Judge to watch my opponent for slow play, but I didn't want my opponent to play fast. I played my normal speed, but didn't care that he was wasting time. He cause himself to not win the match.

[SpatulaOfTheAges]

So what you are saying is that if you have less than 3 minutes in a round, the DCI rules that say you are given 3 minutes to present your deck don't apply?

Wow, lets just ignore the DCI rules. Rules are rules. They provide boundries and as long as you play within those boundries you are fine.

And most rules and laws allow a little wiggle room for said rules' enforcer to call BULLSHIT on rules lawyers who try to justify palpable raping of the spirit of the law.

[etrigan]

Just because they give you 3 minutes does not mean you have the right to take those 3 minutes whenever you want. Most, if not all, in-game actions are untimed. But if you take 45 minutes to decide to play a land, you're stalling. If you take a fraction of that time, you're still stalling.

In my mind, with 3 minutes left in the round, you using 3 minutes (100% of the remaining time) to shuffle and mulligan is roughly equivalent to taking 50 minutes to decide to play a land, turn 1, game 1. That is to say, also 100% of the remaining time. That is to say, stalling.


EDIT:
Actually I could have called the Judge to watch my opponent for slow play, but I didn't want my opponent to play fast. I played my normal speed, but didn't care that he was wasting time. He cause himself to not win the match.

You could almost make a case for this being stalling. However, you'd need a telepathing judge to be able to do notice it.

[Silverdragon]

On the topic about Max Bracht I'd like to add that he wrote an article about what happened from his point of view ( http://www.planetmtg.de/articles/artikel.html?id=2568 ) and that it wasn't just the mulligans that got him the DQ because after shuffling there were still 9 minutes on the clock and he "only" mulled down to 4 desperately searching for Repeal or Gemstone Caverns -> Remand (which he got at 4 cards).
In his opinion he got the DQ because he told the judges that he knew he played faster in game 2 than in game 3 and they misinterpreted it into him confessing that he cheated.
However in your case wouldn't it just be easier to offer your opponent the ID and if he declines play it out to prove it?

[Anusien]

So what you are saying is that if you have less than 3 minutes in a round, the DCI rules that say you are given 3 minutes to present your deck don't apply?

Wow, lets just ignore the DCI rules. Rules are rules. They provide boundries and as long as you play within those boundries you are fine.

If there are less than 3 minutes in a round, and you start shuffling, you never have to play that last game. You are allowed 3 minutes to shuffle. It is time allowed to randomize your deck. No Judge can ever call you for stalling if there are less than 3 minutes in a round and you shuffle for less than 3 minutes. Those are the rules.

If the other player is upset about it, maybe he should have played faster, or called the judge over earlier if I was doing anything during the game to warrent a judge to be called over to watch for slow play. Often it is I, who call a judge over to watch my opponent for slow play.

EDIT:
Actually I could have called the Judge to watch my opponent for slow play, but I didn't want my opponent to play fast. I played my normal speed, but didn't care that he was wasting time. He cause himself to not win the match.


You don't seem to understand the DCI guidelines on Stalling. You don't have to be guilty of slow play in order to be guilty of stalling. Stalling is intentionally taking advantage of the clock in order to gain an advantage. The DCI is giving you a guideline of 3 minutes for all of the pregame procedures, but that doesn't mean you're looking at 41 minute rounds.

[Complete_Jank]

However in your case wouldn't it just be easier to offer your opponent the ID and if he declines play it out to prove it?

Actually I did, and he didn't want to. Needless to say I did prove it, but I left that out.


You don't seem to understand the DCI guidelines on Stalling. You don't have to be guilty of slow play in order to be guilty of stalling. Stalling is intentionally taking advantage of the clock in order to gain an advantage. The DCI is giving you a guideline of 3 minutes for all of the pregame procedures, but that doesn't mean you're looking at 41 minute rounds.

Wait, I can be stalling without being charged with slow play? :eek: LOL:laugh: Do you know how stupid that sounds?

It isn't stalling, it is completely within the rules to take 3 minutes to shuffle. People are given infractions of stalling for slow play, not for taking 3 minutes to shuffle. They may also have done something with the shuffling, but that is not the main reason someone will ever be propperly banned for.


41. Cheating
Cheating will not be tolerated. The head judge reviews all cheating allegations, and if he or she determines that a player has cheated, he or she will issue the appropriate penalty based on the DCI Penalty Guidelines. All disqualifications are subject to DCI review and further penalties may be assessed.

Cheating includes, but is not limited to, the following intentional activities:
 Receiving or giving outside assistance
 Looking at opponents’ card faces while shuffling or cutting their decks
 Collusion to alter the results of a game or match (see section 25)
 Misrepresenting cards or rules
 Using marked cards/sleeves (see section 44)
 Drawing extra cards
 Illegally manipulating which cards are drawn from a player’s deck or his or her opponent’s deck
 Stalling the length of a turn to take advantage of a time limit Misrepresenting public information (point totals, statistics of cards in play, number of cards in a deck, and so on).
 Giving false or misleading information to a judge or tournament official

43. Slow Play
Players must take their turns in a timely fashion regardless of the complexity of the play situation. Playing too slowly or stalling for time is not acceptable. If a judge determines that a player is playing excessively slowly at any point during the tournament, the responsible player will be subject to the appropriate provisions of the DCI Penalty Guidelines.

[Ta Jugs]

It isn't stalling, it is completely within the rules to take 3 minutes to shuffle.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe you only have 1 minute to shufffle your deck.

[Complete_Jank]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe you only have 1 minute to shufffle your deck.


You have 3 minutes. I posted it earlier in the thread directly quoted from the DCI's rules.

[Parcher]

23. Pregame Time Limit
Before each game, competitors have three minutes to shuffle their decks and present them to their opponents for additional shuffling and/or cutting. This three-minute period includes sideboarding, if applicable, but does not include shuffling an opponent’s deck or resolving any mulligans—if the DCI Floor Rules for the game in question specifically allow mulligans. Any mulligans or shuffling of opponents’ decks must be done in a timely manner before games begin. Shuffling requirements specified in section 21 apply during these steps.

If a player is subject to a deck check, that player will be given an amount of extra time equal to the time the check required plus three minutes.

24. Midgame Shuffling Time Limit
A reasonable time limit will be allowed for all shuffling and deck-searching that occurs during a game. Player should be allowed thirty seconds to conduct simple searches; more complicated searches may be allowed more time at the judge’s discretion.

If a judge determines that a player’s shuffling time is excessive, that player will be subject to the appropriate provisions of the DCI Penalty Guidelines.

[Ta Jugs]

Ok jeez all I really needed was no your wrong.

[kirdape3]

At the beginning of the game you have 3 minutes to present your deck - that is, sideboard and shuffle sufficiently.

Complete_Jank: That is entirely correct. Slow play is exactly what it sounds like - taking 'too long' to do an action. Stalling is manipulating the clock to your advantage. You CAN do things like sideboard out all of your win conditions in the second game of a very long match to make sure you win 1-0, but both sides have to have the ability to play. Taking the full allotted time to present your deck at the tail end of a round to keep from playing a game will be stalling in every instance that I am aware of - both sides don't get the opportunity to play.

[Cait_Sith]

However he still stands (or would have stood) within the allotted time for shuffling and boarding. Also, if you knew your opponent had no way of beating you, why not just start it up to avoid suspicion?

[Anusien]

Wait, I can be stalling without being charged with slow play? :eek: LOL:laugh: Do you know how stupid that sounds?
Good thing you don't make the rules.


Slow Play—Playing Slowly

Definition
Players who take longer than is reasonably required to complete game actions are engaging in slow play. If a judge believes a player is intentionally playing slowly to take advantage of a time limit, that player is guilty of Cheating—Stalling (section 162).

Example
(A) A player is unsure of which creatures to block with and spends an unreasonable amount of time trying to decide.
(B) A player takes an unreasonable amount of time choosing how to divide the piles when resolving Fact or Fiction.
(C) A player spends time writing down the contents of an opponent's deck when resolving Haunting Echoes.

Philosophy
Slow-play penalties do not require a judge to determine whether a player is intentionally stalling. All players have the responsibility to play quickly enough so that their opponents are not at a significant disadvantage because of the time limit.


Slow Play—Exceeding the Pregame Time Limit

Definition
A player exceeds the time limit for completing his or her pregame steps.

Example
(A) After 3 minutes into a round at a Magic Pro Tour™ Qualifier, a player has not completed his shuffling.

Philosophy
This penalty assumes the player is not intentionally stalling. If the head judge believes it is intentional, refer to the penalty for stalling (section 162).
That is in there only to establish that 3 minutes is the absolute maximum time. You don't get 3 minutes, only to say, if you go over three minutes, you've taken too long. The same way you get like 3 minutes to go through the green light, but you're not expected to go that slowly.


Cheating—Stalling

Definition
A player intentionally plays slowly in order to take advantage of the time limit. Refer to section 161 for unintentional slow play.

Example
(A) A player has two lands in his hand, no options available to significantly affect the game, and spends several minutes "thinking" about what to do.

Philosophy
If it is clear that a player is stalling, he or she should face a serious penalty.
Key phrase there is "in order to take advantage of the time limit." If you take specific game actions in order to take advantage of the clock, you're cheating. If you're just playing slowly, that's slow play. Note that "A player intentionall plays slowly" is referring to playing the game, not the "Slow Play" entry in the penalty guidelines. If you mulligan to run the clock out, you're Stalling. You can crack one fetchland, get a land and shuffle, crack another fetchland, get a land and shuffle, crack a third fetchland, get a land and shuffle, conducting each one very quickly but if the only intent is to run the clock out, you're cheating. The difference is that you can be taking these actions quickly, but you're still not advancing the game state forward. In this case, cracking multiple fetchlands is an acceptable shortcut, and failing to use appropriate shortcuts can be a Procedural Error, or in this case, cheating.

The punishment for intentional cheating is always Disqualification Without Prize, for what it's worth.

[Complete_Jank]

Good thing you don't make the rules.

In each of your examples it talks about game play. I never was in a game, thus it is not slow play, and I didn't take longer than the allowed time to shuffle, thus it wouldn't be stalling.



So, what everyone is saying is that the DCI rules should read this...

Before each game, competitors have three minutes to shuffle their decks and present them to their opponents for additional shuffling and/or cutting. This three-minute period includes sideboarding, if applicable, but does not include shuffling an opponent’s deck or resolving any mulligans—if the DCI Floor Rules for the game in question specifically allow mulligans. Any mulligans or shuffling of opponents’ decks must be done in a timely manner before games begin. Shuffling requirements specified in section 21 apply during these steps.

If there are less than three minutes remaining in the round and you take the rest of the round to shuffle, then you will be DQ'ed because of stalling. If you shuffle really quickly, you will be DQ'ed for not randomizing your deck enough.

If some how you haven't been DQ'ed by this point and there is still time when the your opponent presents his deck to you, you must shuffle it. If you take too long once again you will be DQ'ed. If you hand it back and say it is fine to save time, you will be DQ'ed for failure to insure that your opponents deck is effectively randomized.


OK, is that good?

[Obfuscate Freely]

What everybody here - including several DCI-certified judges - is trying to tell you, is that you were guilty of cheating because of your intent, not just your actions.

Purposefully utilizing the clock in a way that could affect a match result is against the rules, and anyone who does so is cheating. Obviously this is a very difficult thing to enforce, since a judge must try to determine a player's intent in order to differentiate stalling from mere slow play, slow shuffling, or whatever, but that doesn't make it any less illegal to run out the clock by mulliganing, intentionally, under any circumstances.

[MattH]

How do judges determine intent, usually?

[Toad]

I never was in a game, thus it is not slow play
Game starts when you present your deck and sideboard to your opponent. Mulligan decisions are part of a game.


and I didn't take longer than the allowed time to shuffle, thus it wouldn't be stalling.
You dont understand what Stalling is. Stalling does not mean your actions are taking too long. This is Slow Play. Stalling is just abusing the clock. If you shuffle your deck in 10 seconds, but refuse to present it to your opponent because it is to your advantage to wait for 3 minutes to do so, you are Stalling.

If you resolve a Minds Desire for 15 at 2 minutes of the end of a round and insist on shuffling between each copies despite doing nothing relevant in between, because a 1-0 win is enough, you are Stalling. Even if you shuffle lightning fast.


Wait, I can be stalling without being charged with slow play?

Stalling and Slow Play are mutually exclusive.


OK, is that good?

You can use sarcasm as much as you want if you like. Dont complain if you get DQ'ed for Stalling one day though.

The morale of the story is : do not brag on forums about how you "mind tricked" your opponent or how you got a Draw instead of a potential Loss, because most of the time your actions involve Cheating. I am talking by experience. You can actually be banned based on reports made on forums.

It is also worse if you change your story at some point during the discussion and switch to "I wouldnt have lost anyways, I just wanted to be nice with my opponent" arguments.

[on1y0ne]

If you resolve a Minds Desire for 15 at 2 minutes of the end of a round and insist on shuffling between each copies despite doing nothing relevant in between, because a 1-0 win is enough, you are Stalling. Even if you shuffle lightning fast.

Actually, this is incorrect. The card instructs you to do so, so the shuffle is mandatory. Even for every copy. Now, if there was an agreement in the match at some other point that revealing the top N cards for Desire was acceptible, then doing it properly with little time left in the round may be considered stalling, but it would be decided on a case by case basis.

The best thing to do is to check with the Head Judge at the beginning of the tournament and see how he would like you to resolve the copies of the Desire. If he is okay with you revealing the top N cards after one shuffle, then do that. If you are told to do what the card says, then do what the card says, and shuffle between each storm copy.

You have to be consistant, and asking the head judge about a shortcut will alleviate any headaches in the future.

[Toad]

Actually, this is incorrect. The card instructs you to do so, so the shuffle is mandatory.

If your deck is already completely randomized, shuffling stops being mandatory and agreeing on not doing them is common practice. The only reason you would insist on still doing these shuffles would be to eat the clock. And that is Stalling.

[Hoojo]

If your deck is already completely randomized, shuffling stops being mandatory and agreeing on not doing them is common practice. The only reason you would insist on still doing these shuffles would be to eat the clock. And that is Stalling.

By default, I shuffle each time, as the card instructs me to. Granted, it is usually a quick riffle or crush, but if I did this could I be called on for stalling? Do I need to ask my opponent or judge if this is ok?

[Complete_Jank]

Game starts when you present your deck and sideboard to your opponent. Mulligan decisions are part of a game.

No they are not, are you even a judge, because most everything you have said is either incorrect or stretching the truth.


23. Pregame Time Limit
Before each game, competitors have three minutes to shuffle their decks and present them to their opponents for additional shuffling and/or cutting. This three-minute period includes sideboarding, if applicable, but does not include shuffling an opponent’s deck or resolving any mulligans—if the DCI Floor Rules for the game in question specifically allow mulligans. Any mulligans or shuffling of opponents’ decks must be done in a timely manner before games begin. Shuffling requirements specified in section 21 apply during these steps.

If a player is subject to a deck check, that player will be given an amount of extra time equal to the time the check required plus three minutes.

See, not part of the game, it is still pregame.


You dont understand what Stalling is. Stalling does not mean your actions are taking too long. This is Slow Play. Stalling is just abusing the clock. If you shuffle your deck in 10 seconds, but refuse to present it to your opponent because it is to your advantage to wait for 3 minutes to do so, you are Stalling.

I agree that is Stalling, if you are done randomizing your deck then holding, stroking, or cuddling with your deck for the rest of the time is stalling. However if you use the time to continue shuffling and randomizing your deck, it is not.


If you resolve a Minds Desire for 15 at 2 minutes of the end of a round and insist on shuffling between each copies despite doing nothing relevant in between, because a 1-0 win is enough, you are Stalling. Even if you shuffle lightning fast.

Unless told otherwise by a judge not to shuffle, you are not stalling. You are following the instruction of the card and each resolving copy. RTFC


It is also worse if you change your story at some point during the discussion and switch to "I wouldnt have lost anyways, I just wanted to be nice with my opponent" arguments.

You don't hear me changing my story, because I did nothing wrong. You don't see to have a clue about things, and you say you are a judge.

[Watcher487]

We move into game 2 and he wins, but takes so long that there is only 2 minutes left for game three. We shuffle and I muligan, and then shuffle and Muuligan, and then shuffle and Muuligan, and then shuffle and Muuligan, and then shuffle and Muuligan. Time is called and I get a draw in a round that I was destined to lose.

This here Jank is intent to use the clock and draw the match. You don't say anything else about this. Why you even added this is beyond me (other than to say that you got away with something you shouldn't have.) But, YOU STALLED THE GAME TO GET THE DRAW. I am a lvl 1 judge and if I personally saw this happening, you would have been given the extention in the first place then you would have been watched over for that time. Mind you guys were probably the last 2 people finishing in the round and you had called a judge over previously in the round. Those are 2 reasons to watch the round.

[Complete_Jank]

Mind you guys were probably the last 2 people finishing in the round and you had called a judge over previously in the round. Those are 2 reasons to watch the round.

Far from it, so many people were playing slow with all the U/W Post's decks, and the tourney was about 130 participants, matter of fact our table had all players still at it.

[Hoojo]

Originally Posted by DCI Universal Floor Rules
23. Pregame Time Limit
Before each game, competitors have three minutes to shuffle their decks and present them to their opponents for additional shuffling and/or cutting. This three-minute period includes sideboarding, if applicable, but does not include shuffling an opponent’s deck or resolving any mulligans—if the DCI Floor Rules for the game in question specifically allow mulligans. Any mulligans or shuffling of opponents’ decks must be done in a timely manner before games begin. Shuffling requirements specified in section 21 apply during these steps.

If a player is subject to a deck check, that player will be given an amount of extra time equal to the time the check required plus three minutes.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but reading this tells me Mulligans are NOT part of the Pregame Time Limit.

[quote]Originally Posted by DCI Universal Floor Rules
23. Pregame Time Limit
Before each game, competitors have three minutes to shuffle their decks and present them to their opponents for additional shuffling and/or cutting. This three-minute period includes sideboarding, if applicable, but does not include shuffling an opponent’s deck or resolving any mulligans—if the DCI Floor Rules for the game in question specifically allow mulligans. Any mulligans or shuffling of opponents’ decks must be done in a timely manner before games begin.

I don't know for a fact anyone on here is a judge, but I do know that people refer to Akki and only1one as judges very, very often. Can they clarify/verify this?

[kirdape3]

Both of them are Level 2 judges in the Upstate New York area. Toad is a Level 2 (or 3, don't remember but I do recall him being sponsored by the head of the French DCI for a L3 test) from Paris, France... who happened to be a judge at Worlds, where Bracht got caught.

From conversations with all of them IRL, I'd conclude that they were reasonably cognizant of current DCI practices vis-a-vis the Judges' list.

[cdr]

Maybe I'm missing something here, but reading this tells me Mulligans are NOT part of the Pregame Time Limit.


Any mulligans or shuffling of opponents’ decks must be done in a timely manner before games begin.

I don't know for a fact anyone on here is a judge, but I do know that people refer to Akki and only1one as judges very, very often. Can they clarify/verify this?

Correct. Mulligans and the decision to mulligan must be done in a timely manner, as the rule says. It's up to the judge to decide what "a timely manner" is. Higher-level judges generally have a common idea of what's reasonable.

As your deck should be already pretty well randomized, I would expect a mulligan to take less time than your original shuffling.


By default, I shuffle each time, as the card instructs me to. Granted, it is usually a quick riffle or crush, but if I did this could I be called on for stalling? Do I need to ask my opponent or judge if this is ok?
There are a lot of things we skip that rules or cards instruct us to do when not doing them has the same result as doing them, in the interest of saving time - these are called shortcuts.

Skipping a shuffle of an already-randomized deck to save time is a well accepted shortcut. There's no reason to be shuffling between Desire resolutions unless the deck becomes un-randomized (ex Sensei's Diving Top is activated, etc). A quick cut or crush might be considered reasonable, though.

[on1y0ne]

To answer the query, yes, I am a Level 2 Judge from Syracuse. Thanks to Kirdape for his more timely clarification of that fact.

I do have a few more things to say regarding some issues presented in this thread. First, there are good judges and there are bad judges. Just because someone has a Level N, it doesn't mean he or she has a better rules knowledge or a better ability to adapt or apply the rules to a given situation.

Second, I would like to note that even the best judges make mistakes. For example, while judging at the GP-New Jersey a few months back, I made a ruling that was contrary to the ruling that John Carter made, who was our head judge. For those who don't know, John Carter wrote the Saturday School rules Q&A articles for Wizards and is a Level 4 Judge. Anyway, my ruling was correct, his was not. They were at different tables, but were within minutes of each other, and involved the exact same cards. He did correct his ruling a few minutes later, and I only know that it happened because a spectator witnessed both rulings and told me, immediately after I made my ruling that it was ruled to the contrary by John.

I would like to add that when a judge posts in a public forum, he had better make sure his or her rulings are correct, because if they are not, then he or she loses credibility quickly.

My post earlier in regards to the shuffling between Desire copies, and whatnot, was completed only after a thorough review of the Archives of the Judges' discussion list. Research is the key when posting publicly. If I respond to a post or an IM or phone call (I get them all the time, and my AIM buddy list is filled with people I don't know...)I give the best answer I can at the time (as if judging a tournament) and if there is some time, I do some research to help the person out.

I guess that is all, for now. Brevity is the soul of wit.