731819:I am curious to hear well thought-out opinions on the "no pre-ordering of your deck" rule that exists in our tournamen policy. We have a few options we're looking at on the PM 3 forum:1. Keep the rule as is and enforce it.
2. Clarify the rule to allow some forms of presetting, but not others.
3. Remove the rule and make an insufficient randomization penalty.
P-33 Unsporting Conduct—Cheating (Penalty: Disqualification without Prize)
Cheating is the highest display of unsporting conduct a player can exhibit during a tournament. Cheating includes, but is not limited to, intentionally misrepresenting the game state, rules, or policies; reporting inaccurate information to tournament officials; and bribery. A statement must be sent to the address given at the beginning of this document outlining the incident leading to this penalty. Examples:
* A player in the Yu-Gi-Oh! TCG pre-sets his deck while side decking and does not sufficiently randomize his deck before presenting it to his opponent.
Lightsworns, Malicious/D-Draws, Grandmasters and other YGO cards are causing me to revisit this thread. Over the last (almost) year we have had a lot of healthy development on shuffling decks, and the proper procedures that both the player and the opponent should be using to ensure a fair game. (Of course I am still amazed at the player who top-4'd this weekend while frequently declining the cut.)
Back to the issue: It is blatant cheating to preset the order of cards, then make minimal/insufficient effort to randomize the deck. And the current P-33 (UC -Cheating) covers this perfectly. "Grouping" Sangan with Crush is an effort to stack to achieve a quick win, and just because the player does not stand a 100% chance of drawing it on the opening hand does not mitigate the penalty.
As compared to flat-out stacking, today's much more common mis-play is the current "de-clumping" of cards like Malicious, Grandmaster, Wulf, etc. followed by only minimal shuffling/cutting, to increase the likelihood that the cards are well positioned in the deck. Here, P-33 seems excessive and inaccurate when applied against "complacent player" actions.
To start with, De-clumping cards is "presetting" cards, and can (intentionally or unintentionally) allow a player unfair insight into the deck. It is an intentional act to improve the deck's draws, and manipulate his deck to avoid drawing a dead hand. If the player's actions stopped here, P-33 (UC - Cheating) would apply.
Now, if the player makes some effort at shuffling, but not enough to fully randomize the deck, where do we draw the line? Placing a card on/near the top just means it will be cut into the middle. The result of the "casual" play is the player potentially having knowledge of his deck, and/or potentially giving him an unfair draw. He certainly will not open with a hand of 3 Malicious.
I see great value in a "Insufficient randomization" penalty at Premiere events. I'd recommend defining the Penalty as a Match Loss, because, at premiere play, we should be holding the player accountable to the highest standards. But I also believe that this is one that the Head Judge should be allowed significant latitude in reducing depending on the evidence available. It should even include a caveate to allow it to be waived for our youngest players at locals, and maybe reduced to a Warning at Dragon Duel level events. [The analysis of the actual shuffling techniques would be subjective and will be left to the Head Judge's call. ] This penalty would be serve the purpose of increasing awareness, at the same time it would support player development and not create a "cheater" stigma for what could have been an honest mistake.
Enjoying the game