An update happened a short while back that made a situation in which both players get a GL for a Deck/Decklist Problem not count to the current game score. From what I understand this was added mainly for the situations where a player can accidentally shuffle an opponent's card in after game 1. It also made the match feel more natural, instead of playing 1 game before sideboarding and calling that the match.

Now that this is in place, is there room to add something similar to Tardiness? The specific reasoning of shuffling an opponent's card in doesn't exist, but if the precedent is there should this extend across?
Telling both players that they're starting at Game 3 without sideboarding, and issuing them a time extension feels off to me.

I'm interested to hear other opinions on the matter!

As long as we are under 10 minutes, this extension shouldn't be too disruptive to the tournament. Seems reasonable.

Are you able to check if all players are in their seats during a large event?

Normally, the waiting player calls a judge. Who is going to call you when both are late?
Either they arrive simultaneous and will just start play, or one will call the judge on the other.

If this is really an issue though, should we even try to make their problem our problem? Either we spot both of them being late and give the penalty, or we don't spot it and the players will sort it out/call us.

Just my 2 cents though.

I'm not completely convinced on it, mostly because policy doesn't support it. There's nothing saying a double tardiness results in X.

Now, I understand that unusual situations occur. If it's something unusual going on, go for it, that's what having the ability to deviate is for. But this doesn't feel unusual. So I'd be less likely to go for the deviation.

The philosophy behind tardiness, as I understand it, is that we expect players to play within the announced time limits, and to keep things moving for everyone and to keep it fair for everyone. If these two players can't show up on time, and you consider giving them an extension for the 6, 7, 8 minutes that have elapsed, how is that going to effect the running of the rest of the tournament? What disruptions, if any, have or will occur? Is this really fair to everyone who showed up on time?

If they've shown up within a minute or two or the round starting, and are being prudent by calling a judge, I'm happy to give a 1-3 minute extension, assuming I'm the head judge. (Then again, I usually run events at 3/10 tardiness) Assuming I'm not, I'd bring it to his attention, and let him deal with it. If there's mitigating circumstances, I'm more than happy to deviate and allow them to play their normal Bo3.

There's a difference in philosophy between letting them play first to two wins with D/DLP and with Tardiness. Let's see if I can express that difference without sounding dumb.

With D/DLP, if both people have issues, we already fixed the problem. We also already gave them the time extension, but this one is “ok” because these time extensions are part of the process of running a tournament. Making them do one game just doesn't make any sense.

Though the reality is, I would wager the real reason for this change is to remove the angle shoot where you can swipe an opponent's card into your library after winning game 1 and try to win when it's “accidentally” discovered later on.

With Tardiness, two players show up late. We walk up, give an extension (One we wouldn't normally have to give if they'd been there on time), and then say “Welp you both did something wrong but hey you get a freebie this time.” What if two friends see they are paired against each other and just say “Well let's take a cigarette break then we'll still get to play.”

Maybe that's slippery-sloping it, but still. We want them in their seats on time. Not being in your seat on time delays the tournament. I think the GL to ensure people understand the importance of being there on time is important here.

Originally posted by Cj Shrader:

With Tardiness, two players show up late. We walk up, give an extension (One we wouldn't normally have to give if they'd been there on time), and then say “Welp you both did something wrong but hey you get a freebie this time.” What if two friends see they are paired against each other and just say “Well let's take a cigarette break then we'll still get to play.”

A similar scenario is two (or four) players in the final round loitering at the standings to see what everyone else is going to do before making their decision - if they know that they'll be fine as long as they both sit down late together, they'll hover at the standings, or wander over to listen in on other match negotiations to try to engineer their way into the playoffs rather than sitting down and playing their game.

Those points (raised by CJ and John) are great reasons to not change our stance on double Tardiness.

Another: it just doesn't happen. I say that knowing that, at least once in some odd circumstance, it has happened, and probably will again before the end of this decade.

But I've been doing this judging thing for a while (Johanna should tell you all about that, in a few months) … and I've never seen it. Double no-show, sure, but double tardiness? Nope, never seen it.

Toby's policy crew does a remarkable job of covering a LOT of territory with an admirable economy of words - but not every possible tangent will get covered, so odd exceptions like this may occur. C'est la vie.

d:^D

I have encountered this. The players were friends that happened to get paired up. The two of them were about 7 minutes late coming back from a smoke break.

They played a 1-game match that ended 2-1. They did not delay our tournament.

Will Colley
L2, Oberlin, OH
—– Original Message —–
From: Scott Marshall
To: wcc3@cs.oberlin.edu
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 12:07 PM
Subject: Re: Double Game Loss for Tardiness (Competitive REL)


Those points (raised by CJ and John) are great reasons to not change our stance on double Tardiness.

Another: it just doesn't happen. I say that knowing that, at least once in some odd circumstance, it has happened, and probably will again before the end of this decade.

But I've been doing this judging thing for a while (Johanna should tell you all about that, in a few months) … and I've never seen it. Double no-show, sure, but double tardiness? Nope, never seen it.

Toby's policy crew does a remarkable job of covering a LOT of territory with an admirable economy of words - but not every possible tangent will get covered, so odd exceptions like this may occur. C'est la vie.

d:^D

——————————————————————————–
If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this email. Or view and respond to this message on the web at http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/71884/

Disable all notifications for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/11311/
Receive on-site notifications only for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/11311/?onsite=yes

You can change your email notification settings at http://apps.magicjudges.org/profiles/edit