Author Topic: Re: Enforcing Time Limits (Read 3199 times)

EmJayBee83 · « **on:** April 23, 2015, 06:35:19 AM »

Quote from: jbeers285 on April 22, 2015, 06:55:26 PM

Honestly I am prepared to take full advantage of turn timers at nats. Not to be rude but to try and dodge timeouts. I may even bring a stop watch.

This may have quite the opposite effect of what you are looking for.

The presence of a turn timer would be a signal to some players--and I would count myself among them--that playing deliberately and by the book is called for. When faced with a tricky decision, like whether or not to reactivate my single artifact, I would have absolutely no issue with taking the full 90 seconds allotted every prep phase to make that decision. I would also make sure I took the full amount of allowed time to make a reasoned judgement on whether or not to start a battle, with whom or what to fight a battle, which cards to discard. etc. I am sure that adding it all up, I could spend three minutes or more on my turn even if in the end I would do absolutely nothing of consequence during it.

I sincerely hope you can win in 8 turns or so, because (just guessing here) that would be all you could expect to get against such a player.

Redoubter · « **Reply #1 on:** April 23, 2015, 07:48:09 AM »

I have no problem with bringing a timer to games, but how to present it would be tricky. Would you just use it every game so that you aren't targeting individuals, or would you just bring it out if people take too long? The latter could be more...problematic, for obvious reasons.

However, anyone who intentionally used up the timer just to use up the timer is being ridiculous in my opinion.

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on April 23, 2015, 06:35:19 AM

I am sure that adding it all up, I could spend three minutes or more on my turn even if in the end I would do absolutely nothing of consequence during it.

I sincerely hope you can win in 8 turns or so, because (just guessing here) that would be all you could expect to get against such a player.

Sure, take the time to consider your options, but if you're saying that you would use up the time every single time just because you can, then that is just being petty.

jbeers285 · « **Reply #2 on:** April 23, 2015, 08:09:08 AM »

I agree with the idea of intentionally eating the time at every spot while doing nothing is very petty and in my opinion unsportsmanlike.

As for the question redoubter asked, I would use it every game not mater who I played in order to not single anyone out and to not make it personal. Same thing with shuffling an opponents deck.

What's funny about this discussion with timeouts is that we have to have it. This makes me reiterate that DRAWING IS NOT A PROBLEM in redemption.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #3 on:** April 23, 2015, 09:54:02 AM »

Just as context...I took two timed losses in T1-2P at the last Nats (knocking me out of any chance of top-cutting)--games in which when time was called I was set up for an inevitable win--against players who played considerably outside of the quote-official-time-limits-unquote. In both cases, I knew as soon as the games began I could not win just because of who my opponents were.

Quote from: Redoubter on April 23, 2015, 07:48:09 AM

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on April 23, 2015, 06:35:19 AM
I am sure that adding it all up, I could spend three minutes or more on my turn even if in the end I would do absolutely nothing of consequence during it.

I sincerely hope you can win in 8 turns or so, because (just guessing here) that would be all you could expect to get against such a player.

Sure, take the time to consider your options, but if you're saying that you would use up the time every single time just because you can, then that is just being petty.

I am saying that any player who pulls out a timer is being a real jerk*. The only reason for doing so is either as a form of intimidation or an attempt to impose a heightened level of legalism to the match--both of which are inimical to the spirit of the game. Using my full allotment of time every single time is a direct answer to either motivation.

I am willing to be seen as "petty" if it helps to deter un-Redemptionlike behavior in others.

*Mod Edit - Removed attempt to circumvent language filters.

Redoubter · « **Reply #4 on:** April 23, 2015, 10:01:21 AM »

So...I need to get this straight, a player who wants to avoid timeouts by making sure that the time limits are being enforced is doing something unsportsmanlike, and a sportsmanlike response is to be petty and ensure that time is wasted?

That does not make any sense, and is an inappropriate reaction to a legitimate concern. If anything is un-Redemptionlike behavior, it is what you are describing.

Gabe · « **Reply #5 on:** April 23, 2015, 10:47:18 AM »

You guys are welcome to discuss the pros and cons of enforcing time limits but I've broke it off into it's own thread.

Deliberately using up all the available time for each step of your turn when you don't intend to do anything is both against the rules outlined in the Tournament Host Guide and against the spirit of the game. If it happens during a tournament I'm judging I'll issue you a warning. If the behavior continues I'll disqualify you. If I'm playing I'll encourage the judge to do the same.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #6 on:** April 23, 2015, 11:08:18 AM »

Quote from: Redoubter on April 23, 2015, 10:01:21 AM

So...I need to get this straight, a player who wants to avoid timeouts by making sure that the time limits are being enforced is doing something unsportsmanlike, and a sportsmanlike response is to be petty and ensure that time is wasted?

I have at no point advocated exceeding an enforced time limit. If you are going to treat time limits in a legalistic way (which having a stop watch would imply), you cannot turn around and complain that players fully utilizing their allotted time are doing anything wrong.

Quote

That does not make any sense, and is an inappropriate reaction to a legitimate concern.

Bringing a stop watch to time your opponent is *not* a legitimate way to deal with such concerns. The rule has always been that a player cannot stall. Whether this is occurring if determined by the following procedure **if you feel your opponent is stalling** you call a judge over. The judge then uses his discretion* to determine if stalling is taking place. Play timing has never been something enforced by the individual players.

*Although this discretion takes into account whatever time limits, I have never ever seen a judge treat these number like hard and fast rules. The only rule that has ever been enforced is that a player cannot stall, and that determination has never been left to the opposing player or to any mechanical means.

Redoubter · « **Reply #7 on:** April 23, 2015, 11:15:07 AM »

If you disagree with the use of a stopwatch, then take it to a judge. They can decide if it gets used or how to treat the situation. To stall is not only against the rules, but it is childish and unsportsmanlike. You may not advocate exceeding the time limit, but you are advocating people stall, which is against the rules even if you do it in the time allotted, and is certainly against the spirit of sportsmanship you have claimed to be protecting.

If you feel another is in the wrong, acting wrong in retaliation is still not justified, sorry.

browarod · « **Reply #8 on:** April 23, 2015, 11:22:37 AM »

The Tournament Host Guide starting on page 10 has breakdowns of the time limits per round/action.

Gist:
-90 seconds from start of turn to take all actions prior to battle phase (including putting a hero in to start a battle).
-30 seconds from the last time a card was played to play a card or pass initiative.
-90 seconds from the end of battle to take all discard phase actions, turn must end at 90 seconds.

There's also a vague "Players may have additional time during any stage if they have played a card requiring searching a discard or draw pile, or are asking a question or requesting a ruling from a referee." that doesn't specify how much time, but generally the above time limits apply for each phase.

EDIT: I could have sworn someone asked what the time limits officially were, but I can't find it now.

EmJayBee83 · « **Reply #9 on:** April 23, 2015, 11:28:08 AM »

Quote from: Redoubter on April 23, 2015, 11:15:07 AM

If you disagree with the use of a stopwatch, then take it to a judge.

I will. In order to use up as much game time as possible I will, however, wait until my first turn, and then call a judge over for an official ruling as to whether and which non-game materials are allowed at the table.

Quote

You may not advocate exceeding the time limit, but you are advocating people stall, which is against the rules even if you do it in the time allotted, and is certainly against the spirit of sportsmanship you have claimed to be protecting.

We are agreed that the rule is against stalling. Since stalling has nothing to do with the allotted time limit and only a judge can determine whether a player is stalling or not, what is the "legitimate concern" that you feel a stop watch will resolve?

Quote from: browarod on April 23, 2015, 11:22:37 AM

EDIT: I could have sworn someone asked what the time limits officially were, but I can't find it now.

I did, but it got deleted during a modification. The other times that I have heard bandied about were things like 30 seconds per 50 cards to search a deck, 30 seconds per 50 cards to shuffle a deck, etc.

RTSmaniac · « **Reply #10 on:** April 23, 2015, 11:34:30 AM »

I am a slow player by nature. My thought processes are not as they once were either. I apologize in advance for any offense.

Eragon5 · « **Reply #11 on:** April 23, 2015, 11:36:44 AM »

I hope that people would try to win by playing redemption, not by trying to get a timeout. While I understand the sentiment of being able to use allotted time I hope you'd use that time as an attempt to strategize or think over your options instead of just using it since you have a right to it.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #12 on:** April 23, 2015, 11:40:31 AM »

Playing intentionally slow isn't childish its called strategy and its perfectly legal if you do so under the time limits because no judge can determine your intentions. I have done it on purpose before and have had it done to me. Is it the best for the game? Probably not but neither are mammoth decks.

I have no problem with timers but if you are going to time people you have to be willing to risk the fact that they will slow down just to spite you. Its no more "petty" than timing people. And if winning so important that you need a stopwatch, maybe some extra time to think about your philosophy would be good. Not that everyone who would use a clock has that mindset.

If I played someone with a stop watch I wouldn't mind because I know how frustrating timeouts is and wouldn't stall.

Redoubter · « **Reply #13 on:** April 23, 2015, 11:41:11 AM »

Quote from: EmJayBee83 on April 23, 2015, 11:28:08 AM

I will. In order to use up as much game time as possible I will, however, wait until my first turn, and then call a judge over for an official ruling as to whether and which non-game materials are allowed at the table.

How does this attitude not scream out to you as something incredibly childish and unsportsmanlike?

The timelimit rule is not necessary about intentional stalling, we have rules on that, but more to have a rule in place for players who don't finish their turns in a timely fashion (even if they aren't intentionally stalling, a la analysis paralysis).

I also like how you quoted the entirety of my post...except for the part where I pointed out that doing something wrong just because someone else is wrong in your opinion is still wrong. Whatever your reasons, acting in the fashion you advocated is still wrong.

Quote from: TheHobbit on April 23, 2015, 11:40:31 AM

I have no problem with timers but if you are going to time people you have to be willing to risk the fact that they will slow down just to spite you. Its no more "petty" than timing people. And if winning so important that you need a stopwatch, maybe some extra time to think about your philosophy would be good.

Still a wrong attitude to take ("eye for eye"). Also, avoiding timeouts is different than just timing to 'win the game'.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #14 on:** April 23, 2015, 12:29:49 PM »

Quote from: Redoubter on April 23, 2015, 11:41:11 AM

Still a wrong attitude to take ("eye for eye"). Also, avoiding timeouts is different than just timing to 'win the game'.

They are different things yes but the goals of both are the same so why is one more ethical than the other.

jbeers285 · « **Reply #15 on:** April 23, 2015, 12:38:01 PM »

Timing out on purpose to win a game you may not win is not the same as holding a timer to ensure each player gets the most possible turns to try and win. They are different things.

Redoubter · « **Reply #16 on:** April 23, 2015, 12:38:30 PM »

Quote from: TheHobbit on April 23, 2015, 12:29:49 PM

Quote from: Redoubter on April 23, 2015, 11:41:11 AM
Still a wrong attitude to take ("eye for eye"). Also, avoiding timeouts is different than just timing to 'win the game'.
They are different things yes but the goals of both are the same so why is one more ethical than the other.

The stated goal of one is to avoid a timeout and ensure that time limits are observed. The stated goal of the other is "to spite" the player using the stopwatch.

We may have a good discussion about whether the use of a stopwatch is a good idea (I'm open to it personally, but would not fault a judge for disallowing it), but there is no defending the use of stalling to spite another player.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #17 on:** April 23, 2015, 12:49:44 PM »

Quote from: jbeers285 on April 23, 2015, 12:38:01 PM

Timing out on purpose to win a game you may not win is not the same as holding a timer to ensure each player gets the most possible turns to try and win. They are different things.

Your using a stop watch to win games you might not win.

Quote from: Redoubter on April 23, 2015, 12:38:30 PM

Quote from: TheHobbit on April 23, 2015, 12:29:49 PM
Quote from: Redoubter on April 23, 2015, 11:41:11 AM
Still a wrong attitude to take ("eye for eye"). Also, avoiding timeouts is different than just timing to 'win the game'.
They are different things yes but the goals of both are the same so why is one more ethical than the other.

The stated goal of one is to avoid a timeout and ensure that time limits are observed. The stated goal of the other is "to spite" the player using the stopwatch.

We may have a good discussion about whether the use of a stopwatch is a good idea (I'm open to it personally, but would not fault a judge for disallowing it), but there is no defending the use of stalling to spite another player.

There's also no stopping it so your point is not valid, it doesn't matter. Honestly people don't play this game to be nice, they play it to win. If you want to come across as technicall doing it that's your prerogative but you should not be mad at the other guy for being technical either.

Redoubter · « **Reply #18 on:** April 23, 2015, 12:54:38 PM »

Quote from: TheHobbit on April 23, 2015, 12:49:44 PM

There's also no stopping it so your point is not valid, it doesn't matter.

Are you saying that there is nothing to stop you from being a poor sport and intentionally spiting another player? And that because of that, it doesn't matter what is right?

Because you are wrong on both points. As Gabe pointed out before, and I will concur with, as a judge they will be warned and they will forfeit games if I have to deal with this type of unacceptable attitude or behavior at any tournament, even if someone's sense of conscience and good sportsmanship doesn't stop them first.

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #19 on:** April 23, 2015, 01:02:45 PM »

For the last time you can't punish people for "stalling" within time limits. Otherwise you're just jumping to conclusions about the intentions of the player and are a really bad judge. I haven't seen officers handing out speeding tickets to drivers driving the limit without the intention of going anywhere.

Red Dragon Thorn · « **Reply #20 on:** April 23, 2015, 01:09:06 PM »

For the last time, yes we can, and we will.

Redoubter · « **Reply #21 on:** April 23, 2015, 01:11:56 PM »

Quote from: TheHobbit on April 23, 2015, 01:02:45 PM

For the last time you can't punish people for "stalling" within time limits. Otherwise you're just jumping to conclusions about the intentions of the player and are a really bad judge. I haven't seen officers handing out speeding tickets to drivers driving the limit without the intention of going anywhere.

Real life examples aren't going to help any cause here, sorry.

On the first point, I certainly can. If you take literally every action 'to time' and it is clear that it will continue without intervention, I would be shirking my duties as a judge to ignore that. I will give warnings, and then I will give forfeits. It is a judgement call for the judge, but that's why we have them in the first place, to make those judgements.

(instaposted by RDT on the issue)

TheHobbit13 · « **Reply #22 on:** April 23, 2015, 01:16:23 PM »

Its perfectly legal to use your allotted time. That's why its there. It doesn't matter how you use of it or how much of it you use.

Redoubter · « **Reply #23 on:** April 23, 2015, 01:22:28 PM »

Quote from: TheHobbit on April 23, 2015, 01:16:23 PM

Its perfectly legal to use your allotted time. That's why its there. It doesn't matter how you use of it or how much of it you use.

And 3 Elders are telling you that this interpretation is wrong, and that intentionally using all of the 'time allotted' per action for every time limit is stalling. It has also been clarified how it will be ruled if observed.

So, really, that part of the conversation is over. We won't have continued postings advocating poor sportsmanship, demonstrating anti-Redemption attitudes, or constant argument about the interpretation of the rules that has been given.

If we want to talk about time limits generally or usng a timer specifically, that can continue. Otherwise, I'm locking this thread.

Redoubter · « **Reply #24 on:** April 23, 2015, 01:38:55 PM »

And based on the immediate response, that won't happen.

Locked.

News:

Author Topic: Re: Enforcing Time Limits (Read 3199 times)

browarod

TheHobbit13

TheHobbit13

TheHobbit13

TheHobbit13

TheHobbit13