Play to Win situation

Either the player follows it, or the player gets removed from the game / disqualified for repeatedly failing to follow the judge's ruling. This is, how you say, forcing the player to do something.

Judge is not forcing him, he gives him choice - to follow the ruling, or to be disqualified. I am saying, and stand by that fact, that judge cannot force anybody to do anything. In your example - someone can end up being disqualified by doing nothing at all.

I am getting a feeling that you think that judge has some kind of power to enforce his rulings, while, in fact, his only power is a power of persuasion. A judge can persuade a player that he is correct. If he fails to do so, he can take further measures to ensure that tournament continues. Those further measures include that judge persuades rest of the participants that he is correct. If he fails to persuade other participants that he is correct, he should start thinking about quitting his career as arbiter. Judges ONLY tools are rules and tongue.

Being an aggressive judge does not do any good to attendants of the tournament that judge is ruling over. Think of judge as a mediator, not as executioner.

Megabaja wrote:

Think of judge as a mediator, not as executioner.

I think of the judge as the judge, and not some made-up crap you're trying to pull.

The judge makes a judgment. The players follow it.

It is not the judge's place to make the ruling that people will like most. It is not the judge's place to make the ruling that will annoy fewest people. It is not the judge's place to facilitate illegal play because the players like it that way.

This is not about mediation. This is not about execution. This is about following the damn rules.


If you want a game with a mediator, a counsellor and a talk-show host to interview players about how finding out their play was outlawed makes them feel, petition V:EKN for a rules change.

Megabaja wrote:

I am getting a feeling that you think that judge has some kind of power to enforce his rulings, while, in fact, his only power is a power of persuasion. A judge can persuade a player that he is correct. If he fails to do so, he can take further measures to ensure that tournament continues. Those further measures include that judge persuades rest of the participants that he is correct. If he fails to persuade other participants that he is correct, he should start thinking about quitting his career as arbiter. Judges ONLY tools are rules and tongue.

???

In what sport does the judge "persuade" the players of his rulings?

I think you're arguing just to argue, since what you are saying doesn't make any sense in the real world, because it doesn't happen like that at all. The judge makes a ruling, the ruling is followed.

Do you have any experiences to the contrary which make you believe what you are saying?

This discussion seems moot. The judge may not be able to order a player to take action X - but the judge can reset the game state at any point. This includes the state as though action X was taken!

Eg:
J: i recommend you play strike card A.
P: I refuse! And you can't make me! Nyah!
J: You get a warning, and game state is reset. Strike card A has been played by P's minion. Current phase is: P2's turn to choose strikes.

So, while a player may claim the "moral victory" of not having played the way the judge said, it makes no concrete difference.

I'm not saying that the judge SHOULD act this way, but as I understand it, he/she has this capability.

finbury wrote:

This discussion seems moot. The judge may not be able to order a player to take action X - but the judge can reset the game state at any point. This includes the state as though action X was taken!

Eg:
J: i recommend you play strike card A.
P: I refuse! And you can't make me! Nyah!
J: You get a warning, and game state is reset. Strike card A has been played by P's minion. Current phase is: P2's turn to choose strikes.

So, while a player may claim the "moral victory" of not having played the way the judge said, it makes no concrete difference.

I'm not saying that the judge SHOULD act this way, but as I understand it, he/she has this capability.

Huh? Judges don't order people to play any cards, they simply oversee things to make see people follow the rules. Playing or not playing a specific strike (assuming the minion in question fills the requirements) is the players decision, whether it may be a bad play or not.

Like I said, I'm not saying the judge SHOULD do this.... The strike card thing is a pretty extreme example, and I can't honestly think of a scenario where preventing a play-to-win breach would require this level of interference, but the rules would appear to allow it.

And, given that, any thought that a player might be able to self-oust even if a judge wanted them not to... just seems silly. "Reset game state" is the ultimate "oh no you didn't!"