Among my own group of friends we did have one player who consistently took very long turns in the way you describe. I organised to play multiple casual games of two headed giant where I partnered with him. I was able to talk through his decision making with him and let him lead the discussion on what both of our decks would do each turn, offering suggestions and comments.

It turned out he understood the options he had each turn and saw those pretty quickly but what was holding him back was uncertanty. He was incredibly nervous that he'd missed something and so spent a lot.of time walking through ‘what ifs’. I also noticed that he was frequently assessing his plays without reference to the board state (fearing a counterspell from a tapped out opponent with no cards in hand was my favourite) and I was able to help him see this. Being able to suggest lines of play then have them supported as well as encouraging some simple board state awareness has helped him speed up considerably.

Just one other comment, payers do play at different paces and we need to remember that a more deliberate style of play is acceptable. Be careful that this player's reputation doesn't mean that ‘he’s too slow' is just a ‘fact’ with the group even if he is/has improved.

@Eric: I would like to respectfully disagree with you regarding this not being a TO issue, and agree with George and Evan. While I agree with you 100% in the sense that this is something for a judge to handle and not something for the TO to become directly involved in, as far as attributing infractions, giving advice to the player, and so on, is concerned, I think that George and Evan's point, at least the way I read it, is that the TO has a store to run.

I think the point is that, when a store runs Regular events, it's expected that there's a very obvious line: if you're cheating, scumming people out of games, lying about game information, being overly uncooperative, and so on, that needs to be punished. Short of that, I think that players, particularly newer and/or more casual players, can sometimes feel like it's “anything goes”, in the sense that they can have the same decorum at the store as they do at their own kitchen table, in terms of things such as, in this example, how long it takes to make a play decision (whether or not we intend them to have that impression is another story, the issue at hand is that they do, whether we want them to or not). To use a personal example as an illustration of the point, a buddy of mine used to play in my playgroup's (Regular REL) weekly draft nights. He would take multiple minutes to make every pick, and when we asked him to speed up, he was nontrivially annoyed and eventually stopped coming of his own accord because he didn't like the atmosphere.

In the case that a newer player starts getting hammered on (whether they are actually getting hammered on is largely irrelevant; the more relevant part is whether or not they feel like they are), they may start recommending to their friends or others in the community to not attend that store, on the basis that it's “too competitive”, “overly spikey”, “has a bad atmosphere”, “has unfair judges” (whether the judge was being fair or not, there can be a perception of unfairness), and so on, and all of these things are bad for business. As a result, the TO, who has rent to pay and a shop to maintain, needs to be involved in making decisions such as this, because it would be really bad for a judge to ruin a store's reputation without the store owner's consent.

Anyway, that's how I read George and Evan's opinions. This seems perfectly reasonable to me, but I could definitely be way off-base with this opinion XD

I'm going to firmly agree with Eric's assertions that the judge should exhaust all their options at handling this on their own. At its core, a rule/expectation is being broken, and it is our CHOSEN DUTY to educate the players and maintain the community. You can do equal damage to a TO's reputation by not maintaining a fair and fun atmosphere, by force occasionally.

To clarify my earlier point, I feel that upgrading to GLs and discussions of removing the player from a single event (let alone requesting that they not play there) are uncommon and significant enough that the TO should be made aware that you're having to flex your muscles. Especially with newer TOs, they may need to understand why this is becoming a problem and why you have to do something that could be perceived as harsh to a casual player.

Lyle makes an excellent case about the conduct of a store's judges and their appearance to the casual player. I think it's for both the TO and Judge's protection that they're on the same page, lest the judge be hung out to dry if the store allows the player to continue.

It's worth remembering (and educating players!) that there is an expectation levied on players that they will complete their match within the time allotted to them, and that slow play isn't just an arbitrary punitive strike for holding up the tournament. With that in mind, I absolutely agree that this isn't really a TO issue, though it can't hurt to inform them in a store environment so that everyone is on the same page regarding the outcome of any actions you as the judge have to take to ensure these expectations are being met.

Edit: Oops, totally didn't even see the second page! Sorry if I'm repeating anything already said :)

Edited Rebecca Lawrence (May 30, 2014 10:39:33 PM)