Tournament rules regarding different backs on cards.

bakija wrote:

And yet an awful lot of folks would object to such a notion. As they don't like using sleeves. For any number of reasons (I, for one, kind of object to sleeves on the ground that it is very difficult to actually shuffle decks in sleeves; I have been to many an event where someone at the table is "shuffling" their deck with sleeves into "randomized" piles, and then they stack them up and do a bit of overhand stack shuffling, and call it done. And all I can think is "man. That deck is not remotely shuffled enough..."). Requiring them seems like a horrible idea. Especially given that the likelihood of someone trying to cheat by virtue of mixed card backs is really low in the first place. And it is incredibly easy to cheat with sleeved cards anyway.

Whether people shuffle their decks enough or not has nothing to do with sleeves. Or at least it shouldn't have. If people shuffle worse due to sleeves then they should be told to shuffle their decks properly.

bakija wrote:

I wouldn't necessarily say it is *easier* to cheat with sleeves (although it is certainly easier to cheat in some ways with sleeves), but it is *easy* to cheat with sleeves:

-Nick corners of sleeves intentionally to indicate a specific type of card. Very difficult to notice if you aren't looking for it.

This can be done easy with unsleeved cards as well.

bakija wrote:

-Get very similar but slightly different sleeves and use the difference to indicate a specific type of card (I do use sleeves on my crypt; I generally use just featureless black sleeves. Different brands of featureless black sleeves, for example, often are slightly different in terms of size or finish, such that they look almost the same, but if you know there is a difference, you can easily pick out the difference).

Which, like it or not, is already done with unsleeved cards. Identifying cards from different expansions and editions, give it a try with Sabbat and KoT if you don't believe me. The difference is like night and day.

bakija wrote:

-Intentionally stick cards together; if you slightly moisten the face of the sleeve on your Giant's Blood when mixing your deck and make sure it lands on top of a Villein, you can easily get them to cling together.

I'm not sure what kind of sleeves you're using, but I tried this and found it impossible with any of mine (got a few different brands). I'd certainly not call it easy.

bakija wrote:

I realize that the obvious card back differences can lead to people having information that they shouldn't, but if one assumes that everyone is playing in good faith, and that if they are using mixed backs, they are using reasonably varied cards with mixed backs, it isn't a problem. And if one realizes that it is at the very least just as easy to cheat with sleeved cards and not sleeved cards if one is inclined to cheat, one will probably come to the conclusion that mandating sleeves on decks isn't really a solution to anything.

If we assume good faith, the point about added possibilities to cheat with sleeves is a non-issue. In fact, if we assume good faith, the entire discussion (and part of the tournament rules) about cheating is meaningless.

Mandatory opaque sleeves when using cards with different backs is a solution to the issues that may arise due to cards having different backs. If you have differently backed cards I'd say it's really hard to spread the different backs enough to not be able to gain some information during most of your games (certainly harder than shuffling with sleeves). It might not be intentional cheating, but the information is there and that's bad enough for me.

You've replied to everything except for my conclusion, bakija.

As said, just because requiring sleeves doesn't solve the backing problem perfectly it doesn't mean we shouldn't use the solution. We're basically allowing one kind of card back variance (jyhad vs. vtes backing and colour schemes) and disallowing all other kinds of card back variance.

Xaddam wrote:

KevinM wrote:

b)because you don't assume that players are guilty and create institutional rules stating such (see: the 'Mandatory Deck Lists' discussion)

If it was a real hassle, I could see your point. But as it is sleeving takes 10 minutes and costs you 10 dollars the first time. Also, during tournament play I think we should value the integrity of the competition over our insecurities.

So you believe that people that don't play with sleeves have no integrity, or their integrity is somehow less than yours? I see.

Oh, my Paypal address is , I'll be awaiting your $10 so that I can start sleeving my cards. ;)

Xaddam wrote:

Shuffling with proper sleeves is so much easier than without sleeves.

I'd be willing to make a bet with you (for that $10, say?) that I can sufficiently randomize my unsleeved deck faster than you can achieve the same result with your sleeved deck.

But let's say that your statement (and mine) is unprovable. Ok? No problem.

As Kushiel stated, it is a fact that it is FAR easier to cheat with sleeves than without, since sleeves are easier to mark than a card. So, you should be more concerned with players that use sleeves than players that don't. Are you?

KevinM wrote:

So you believe that people that don't play with sleeves have no integrity, or their integrity is somehow less than yours? I see.

Oh, my Paypal address is , I'll be awaiting your $10 so that I can start sleeving my cards. ;)

I'm not a native speaker, so my syntax or semantics might off. I'm sorry if that's what's happened here.

Of course I don't mean that. By 'integrity of the competition' I mean our ability, as community members, to say "our competition format is fair and results reflects the participants' skill". If someone might have cheated and we didn't do our utmost to hinder it it's hard to claim the competition has integrity.

KevinM wrote:

As Kushiel stated, it is a fact that it is FAR easier to cheat with sleeves than without, since sleeves are easier to mark than a card. So, you should be more concerned with players that use sleeves than players that don't. Are you?

I'd still like some kind of proof for this statement.