2428206:

In your case, if someone is winning because of stalling, it will get them in the end its unfortunate that you had to lose the way you did so he could advance but generally the better player wins, he may have stalled out a couple of people buteventually someone is going to ruin his day and he is going to lose because his lack of skill may come into the picture.

As a followup, the results have finally been submitted. In this case, the player ended 6 rounds with a 4w-2L record and placed 9th overall out of 34 players. For me, the most frustrating part of the situation is that I saw it coming from a mile away, and couldn't do anything to stop it. Seems as though it's time accept that stalling is part of the game. A rule that comes down to a judgment call isn't likely to change that, regardless of its penalty.

---

Charter Member, OC Fight Club
"I'd tell you more, but we don't talk about Fight Club."

Stalling should never be "part of the game." While the slow play will almost always come down to a judgment call, stalling should not, except in the cases where it isn't clear the the player is doing to to gain an advantage. Though, given the nature of stalling, there are a few questions that should get a judge to the root of the problem pretty quickly. If you think your opponent is stalling and the judge isn't doing anything, ask to talk to him away from the table and explain the entire situation. If your opponent gains an advantage by dragging the game out (i.e. it's game two and he won game one and doesn't think you can win in extra turns) and does it consistently, there's a problem. The current game count and the game state of the current game ("I can't win in extra turns; my opponent knows this and I think he's playing slowly to take advantage of that") are things you should definitely tell the judge. When we get called over for slow play, we don't automatically think stalling unless there's a reason for it: help us out and tell us exactly what's going on.

One thing to remember about stalling is that your opponent might not even realize they're actually doing it, as strange as that sounds. They know they won game one and know you can't win if they waste the time left on the clock so they play a bit slower to drag out the game. It's a conscious decision, but they might not realize it falls into the realm of stalling. Not that this excuses their behavior or lightens the penalty in any way, but it's something to consider.

---

They gave me some judge levels or something, too...

Demon, thank you for your earnest responses.
Apologies to those of you that view this as a QQ thread, but this is a topic that rarely gets discussed. I think we've all seen this happen somewhere, and the rules makers have deemed the action severe enough to warrant a DQ penalty. Presumably this was done to curtail this from happening in a match.

With that said, why else BUT an opponent stalling would a player ask a Judge to observe his match? Seems like Slow Play and Stalling go together like smoke and fire.
If I won the first game, I'm not calling a judge to observe.
If both my opponent and I have each won a game, I'm probably only calling a Judge to observe if my chances of winning depend on dealing more damage quickly.
Even when casually observing games as a judge, if I see a player playing more slowly, I'm asking the pair what game they're on and who won the previous ones.

But let's put all that aside for a minute. If, as a player who wants to win, I must...
a) detect that I'm being stalled against (as opposed to your generic garden-variety of Slow Play)
b) check my suspicion (against a rough time lapse developed in lieu of a hard-and-fast rule) before wasting a judge's time
c) summon the judge and explain to him how my opponent's deck plans to win

... why not just go the extra few feet and develop a rule that aids a player who knows something is wrong? That player is doing most of the work anyhow. Ask judges to bring a watch, and suggest they only allow 30 seconds to elapse before the first play is made on each player's turn.

---

Charter Member, OC Fight Club
"I'd tell you more, but we don't talk about Fight Club."

I think slow players and stalling players could be sorted easily with more formal action declarations and video/audio recording of matches on request.  Combined with public posting of recorded games and a reputation system to allow everyone to track penalized slow or stall players before they sit down across from them at a tournament.

If my opponent is slow playing and gets a warning or penalty for it then it would be nice if he could go back and review the game.  He might see that he was taking too long and adjust his play in future tournaments.  He could also access the opinions of many judges and players with regard to his speed of play.  Sometimes it is easier to take criticisms from friends than strangers.

If my opponent was stall playing (and cheating well enough to avoid DQ) then I could request match recording for later review.  If I play an opponent that has a reputation for stall wins then I could request match recording from the start.  After the tournament I could use a chess clock to review time use by both players. Even with priority passing a pattern of behavior could be established without split second time recording.   Most people could review a match and have a sense of "fishiness" if not solid evidence.

If I felt strongly that my opponent stall cheated  then I could go to his reputation page and post a link to the match recording with my notes.  I could read other posts while there.  Instead of asking a few judges to watch a suspect player why not ask the whole room?  False or unjust accusations could also get you a bad reputation.

If a player's record shows a pattern of wins that go to time and his recorded matches reinforce the pattern, then why not let everyone know about it.  All players have a responsibility to maintain a legal game and more facts and tools should be available to enable and empower that responsibility.

None of us should expect that any company is eager to bring attention to negative aspects of their business ventures.  As players and customers we should not expect anyone else to care more about this than we do.  If we ask the fox to guard our hen house then we can't complain about the job that gets done. 

Cheaters hurt the game the longer they are allowed to cheat and even their exposure can drive away players or create negative publicity that most business ventures will want to avoid if possible.  This fact alone can make these sorts of problems worse then they should be. 

 If someone has more to lose by stall cheating then they can gain then the smart cheaters won't stall cheat (and the stupid cheaters will be found out anyway).   Make them risk their entire reputation every time they cheat instead of just a match or single tournament.  Somewhere below a witch hunt but more than a scarlet letter suits my puritanical disposition.

---

Nothing is foolproof

Taping is an interesting idea in theory, but improbable. Who is going to be providing/performing the videotaping? Will thy have to add cinematography questions to the judge certifications?

I'm curious as WoW is my first TCG: do other TCGs have this problem? What do they do and/or how do they avoid this issue?

1539230:

One thing to remember about stalling is that your opponent might not even realize they're actually doing it, as strange as that sounds. They know they won game one and know you can't win if they waste the time left on the clock so they play a bit slower to drag out the game. It's a conscious decision, but they might not realize it falls into the realm of stalling. Not that this excuses their behavior or lightens the penalty in any way, but it's something to consider.

What? Are you seriously suggesting that rules should be different because people aren't that aware of them?

Should colluding not have such a harsh penalty because even top players (Bodimir and Fleckenstein) are not aware of them.

It doesn't matter what people know. The rules are the rules.

I Will call a Judge and say - my opponent is playing very slowly and I would like you to check from stalling. Then, to the other player - BTW, you know you can get DQed for stalling, right?

Cheers.

---

Come play at C & Js in Newark, CA

This slow play topic comes up every now and then, and the closely related stalling is usually interwoven with it.

In a previous thread I played devil's advocate and pointed out that once a player knows he has game 1 in the bag, he could definitely use clock to his advantage and chuck in some checks, questions and other tactics to burn away at the clock. All I got back then was people saying "that's cheating" and not really offering anything constructive to prevent players from doing it.

Once a player knows he has a variety of options he can do each turn, he can space them out over the remaining match to secure a win based on time remaining. It is cheating in that you are using a strategy that is outside the rules of the game (stalling), but as you are doing only valid actions, someone who is good at it can never be caught.

So putting on the cheater's hat, I will point out some examples of legal things you can do and not get in trouble, but do eat up time.

This is not to advertise how to cheat, but to show how cheaters can exploit the current rules. By sprinkling some of the listed things below over the game, they are eating away at the opponent's chances of making it before time is up. Some of these may take a few seconds, some may take a lot longer... all of them add up over a match however. But the key point here is, these things are all legal if you aren't trying to eat up time, and are only considered cheating if you are knowingly using them to stall. But of course, no one can read your mind, so if you played it smart noone would be able to tell. Hell your opponent could walk away thinking it was just bad luck.

Disclaimer: I am not advocating doing this to cheat. Just giving examples of how the pro-stallers exploit stuff.

1. Asking the opponent how many cards in hand
2. Asking to see the opponent's graveyard
3. Looking through your graveyard
4. Asking to read an opponent's cards in play
5. Calling a Judge over to ask a question on some card in play or in hand. This one can potentially take a lot of time depending on the response time of judges.
6. Looking at your face down resources
7. Ask your opponent to declare his actions so that you have a chance to respond. This works especially well for mage decks with counters. Even placing quests say "wait..." then consider your options carefully.
8. Declare attacks slowly and carefully, asking if they have any responses. Remember, your hero can attack even if you have no weapons.
9. Shuffle your deck for the full time limit (i think its 2 minutes). Mulligan, and shuffle again. Remember, alot of players place their cards down into piles when trying to shuffle. This is a lot longer then riffling and actual shuffling but appears to happen at an adequate pace.
10. Consider your side deck options, then consider the cards you will be swapping out.
11. Be aware of ALL the time limits on things like shuffling, siding, etc.
12. Never say you are stalling or playing slowly. If anything you are just considering your options more carefully now that you have the advantage and don't want to lose it.
13. Get the opponent talking to you. It's can be very hard to play while chatting (be it you or him who stops playing while chatting).
14. If you are accused of taking too long by your opponent, involve the judge and plead your case. Ask the opponent to sight one instance that they would consider stalling, then ask the judge if it's legal to do that. If you didn't do all these things too close together you are pretty much set and the opponent just wasted more time.

I often wonder how the game would change if game 1 and 2 (of a best of 3) had a set time for each. But it's not a full solution...

1261127:

Disclaimer: I am not advocating doing this to cheat. Just giving examples of how the pro-stallers exploit stuff. 1. Asking the opponent how many cards in hand 2. Asking to see the opponent's graveyard 3. Looking through your graveyard 4. Asking to read an opponent's cards in play 5. Calling a Judge over to ask a question on some card in play or in hand. This one can potentially take a lot of time depending on the response time of judges. 6. Looking at your face down resources 7. Ask your opponent to declare his actions so that you have a chance to respond. This works especially well for mage decks with counters. Even placing quests say "wait..." then consider your options carefully. 8. Declare attacks slowly and carefully, asking if they have any responses. Remember, your hero can attack even if you have no weapons. 9. Shuffle your deck for the full time limit (i think its 2 minutes). Mulligan, and shuffle again. Remember, alot of players place their cards down into piles when trying to shuffle. This is a lot longer then riffling and actual shuffling but appears to happen at an adequate pace. 10. Consider your side deck options, then consider the cards you will be swapping out. 11. Be aware of ALL the time limits on things like shuffling, siding, etc. 12. Never say you are stalling or playing slowly. If anything you are just considering your options more carefully now that you have the advantage and don't want to lose it. 13. Get the opponent talking to you. It's can be very hard to play while chatting (be it you or him who stops playing while chatting). 14. If you are accused of taking too long by your opponent, involve the judge and plead your case. Ask the opponent to sight one instance that they would consider stalling, then ask the judge if it's legal to do that. If you didn't do all these things too close together you are pretty much set and the opponent just wasted more time. I often wonder how the game would change if game 1 and 2 (of a best of 3) had a set time for each. But it's not a full solution...

I've observed this behavior in players before, and when you learn to recognize it, it becomes VERY obvious. Its easier to observe as a 3rd party watching the game because you can see what the player is holding, which puts his actions in context (like he's holding 3 Cinnamon Rolls). I've definitely pulled a judge aside an let him know what I observed before... not that he could go over and penalize it immediately, but to make sure he was "on notice" what to look for from that player. While no one of those actions you listed are on their own punishable, if a judge concludes that you're doing anything with the motive of intentionally wasting time, you can be penalized for it. Be sure to let a judge know if you see it happening. He might not be able to do anything about it right then, but it's possible.

---

@Lanky: Not at all. I even said that. See what you quoted there:

 Not that this excuses their behavior or lightens the penalty in any way

I just mentioned this as something to think about. Players often make the decision to do something that we consider cheating without being fully aware that what they're doing is, in fact, cheating. BUT. Regardless of whether or not they're fully aware of the rules, they still face the same penalties. Jim and David are a perfect example of what I was trying to say, actually. They thought they could prize split at any time during the tournament, not just in the finals. Even though they weren't aware that what they were doing is considered collusion, they were DQed for it. The reason I brought this up was, as in the case of the player habitually stalling, some people need to be told that what they're doing is wrong and counts as cheating. This doesn't mean I'm not going to DQ that player for stalling, I'm just going to have a nice long chat about it with him after he's been removed from the event.

---

They gave me some judge levels or something, too...

1261127:

14. If you are accused of taking too long by your opponent, involve the judge and plead your case. Ask the opponent to sight one instance that they would consider stalling, then ask the judge if it's legal to do that. If you didn't do all these things too close together you are pretty much set and the opponent just wasted more time.

Therein lies a problem with the current state of the rules. Without a cut-and-dried definition, a judge (or an educated player trying to convince a judge) has no basis to suspect what's going on without a pre-observation briefing from the stalled-against.

And let's be frank - asking a judge watch the entirety of a game 2 lasting 20+ minutes isn't what anyone wants. The judge is neglecting other matches, the accused doesn't want to sweat out those 20 minutes (assuming they don't get a natural high from cheating), and the stalled-against just wants a fair chance to win game 2.

---

Charter Member, OC Fight Club
"I'd tell you more, but we don't talk about Fight Club."

1338970:

1261127:

14. If you are accused of taking too long by your opponent, involve the judge and plead your case. Ask the opponent to sight one instance that they would consider stalling, then ask the judge if it's legal to do that. If you didn't do all these things too close together you are pretty much set and the opponent just wasted more time.

Therein lies a problem with the current state of the rules. Without a cut-and-dried definition, a judge (or an educated player trying to convince a judge) has no basis to suspect what's going on without a pre-observation briefing from the stalled-against.

And let's be frank - asking a judge watch the entirety of a game 2 lasting 20+ minutes isn't what anyone wants. The judge is neglecting other matches, the accused doesn't want to sweat out those 20 minutes (assuming they don't get a natural high from cheating), and the stalled-against just wants a fair chance to win game 2.

There's a pretty clear-cut definition of stalling, actually. It's intentionally manipulating match time to gain an advantage. The reason the judges need information about the match is to measure how much potential advantage is gained by slow playing. We're not mind readers. If something's going on that you think isn't right, tell us. We can figure it out by looking at your score pads and listening to the game, but that wastes time. Just say something.

Another thing to consider is that when you call a judge on your opponent, if they know what they're doing is against the rules, they'll stop doing it. This makes it hard for judges to catch people stalling, but it does help insure that you have a fair chance to win the match.

Also, the smoke and fire analogy of slow play and stalling is incorrect. The difference isn't what advantage they can gain by it, but their intention. If I'm taking a long time to make complicated decisions, I'm slow playing. If I'm taking a long time to decide to do nothing because I want to run out the clock, I'm stalling. Both cases can come to the same end: our match goes to time and you lose because you didn't get to play game 3. This sucks, but if I was just thinking too long throughout the match, I'm not going to get DQed because I wasn't trying to run down the clock.

---

They gave me some judge levels or something, too...

747828:

I've observed this behavior in players before, and when you learn to recognize it, it becomes VERY obvious. Its easier to observe as a 3rd party watching the game because you can see what the player is holding, which puts his actions in context (like he's holding 3 Cinnamon Rolls). I've definitely pulled a judge aside an let him know what I observed before... not that he could go over and penalize it immediately, but to make sure he was "on notice" what to look for from that player. While no one of those actions you listed are on their own punishable, if a judge concludes that you're doing anything with the motive of intentionally wasting time, you can be penalized for it. Be sure to let a judge know if you see it happening. He might not be able to do anything about it right then, but it's possible.

Anthony, thanks for sounding off.
In your opinion, is this the best we can do?

I'm now finished pleading my case. At this point, I think it's clear that I simply didn't know the rules well enough to ask the judge to observe specifically for what was going on. I don't like the taste of the medicine, but at least I know for next time.

---

Charter Member, OC Fight Club
"I'd tell you more, but we don't talk about Fight Club."

Would tracking number of turns help the judges once they are called? You could maybe also note down a time for each individual game.You could easily keep a running tally on the same piece of paper you do your hero's health on, and it might show some things up, particularly if game 1 saw twenty turns in 40 minutes, and game 2 ends up with 4 turns in the remaining 20.

If this would help I'd be doing that as soon as I saw Varanis hit the table as the hero.

This might be tough for the Varanis deck is using the deck death only win strategy =]

-no belts
-no niass
-shuffle graveyard quest
-healing and flickers

It's the most boring deck to ever play against and you regret wasting your life on the game after vsing it. But once they have the first win, if the opponent didn't concede, the number of turns will still be too high to be that relevant.

We took 50 turns for game one, then he deck deathed... that took about 50 minutes. So without seeing the trend over multiple games, such measurements are purely circumstantial at best and would probably be dismissed as such.