Maykel, please don't try and stretch one section of policy to cover something else.

Years ago, we talked a lot on the Judge List about “reverse engineering” - the process by which a judge figures out what penalty seems right, then tries to find an infraction to fit (“close enough”).

A player shuffling for a reasonable amount of time is not refusing to play.
A player shuffling for an unreasonable amount of time is also not refusing to play - but may be guilty of Slow Play.
A player shuffling for an unreasonable amount of time in order to abuse the time limit may be guilty of Stalling.

That phrase of MTR 2.4 that you've quoted is meant exactly as worded - a player (for whatever reasons) refuses to play. It's a fairly unusual situation, but it needs a very clearly defined policy for those rare occurrences. And, that's ALL it means.

d:^D

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

we talked a lot on the Judge List about “reverse engineering”

whoops, that should read

we talked a lot … about the evils of “reverse engineering”…

Roger that Uncle Scott.

For my defense, when I wrote that reply, I “thought” that since he kept shuffling over and over (as a Pregame procedure), he has been refusing to start playing the actual “game”. That's why I “thought” the MTR 2.4 could be applied to push him to start the game.


I do have another question, what about Jedi mindtrick-ing player S?:P

As a judge that got called, or witness such a game, can I simply quote the MTR 2.4 (not applying it right away), to make player S “think” he could get a game loss if he don't stop shuffling and start playing.

maybe saying something like:
“You know what, MTR 2.4 says *pulls out my gadget and show him the relevant part from MTG: Judge Core App*, so I'm not gonna just let you kept shuffling until the end of round time”.

or in short, can we “bluff” the players?
of course, with the good intention to keep the game continues, not to take advantage of any of those players.

I know this is stepping into the shady path down the dark side, but can we think of this as a “necessary evil”?
:D

shuffling until the end of the round is really against the rules, so why
don't you just show him the rule that he's actually breaking?

You're right,
point taken.

thanks!

The problem with bluffing a player with something is that they'll go around thinking what you bluffed them to be true then become unhappy down the line when they find out otherwise. Which leads to overall distrust.