A player calls you over and asks to speak to you away from the table. They ask a simple rules question, and you answer it. The player still doesn't grasp the game state (or at least, not the optimal play) so they ask the question slightly differently several times.

When (if ever) do we reach the point where we tell the player that they need to return to their match and make a decision?

Edited William Anderson (June 27, 2015 04:52:54 PM)

Originally posted by William Anderson:

They ask a simple rules question, and you answer it.

Define *simple*?

I'll use a real world example:
My opponent controls Leyline of Sanctity, can I target them with Gitaxian Probe?
Can I cast it with no target?
So I'm unable to cast Gitaxian Probe?

Given that all three of these questions are different–no repeat questions, no repeat answers, no repeat rules–I think that it's perfectly reasonable to provide an answer. In this particular case it would take quite a bit more before I felt the need to rush this player back to his or her match.

I think this is a you-gotta-be-there question, but as a theory, after two or three times answering functionally the same question (which as Eli points out, the example given is not), I would say “I don't think I can give you any more information without coaching you, which judges aren't allowed to do. Why don't we go back to the table, you play what you're going to play, and I'll hang on for a few minutes to make sure it all goes smoothly?”

The implied question of whether this is TE – Slow Play is answered in the negative.

Talking to a judge should never be Slow Play. If you are issuing an appropriate time extension, no conversation with a player should ever affect their ability to complete the match in the allotted time.

If you feel that a conversation is taking a long time and going nowhere, you can politely end that conversation and instruct the players to continue the match. (In fact, this is required on many appeals.)

It's handy to look at the definition of Slow Play:
"A player takes longer than is reasonably required to complete game actions. If a judge believes a player is
intentionally playing slowly to take advantage of a time limit, the infraction is Unsporting Conduct — Stalling."

Emphasis is mine.

We can always give a time extension for an interaction with a judge.

I was under the impression that the initiative to cut down on Slow Play was motivated by other players/judges having to stay longer, rather than the players in the offending game itself. Is this incorrect?

Slow Play is problematic both because it potentially slows the event and
because it prevents the players in the match from being able to
appropriately complete their games. If the second were not a concern, we
would not have Stalling as a separate infraction for which we DQ the player.

Slow play definitely affects tournament integrity, as it limits the amount of turns the non-slow player gets to take. Potential for abuse is high, because it's very hard to differentiate it from stalling, and it would be relatively simple to sculpt your deck decisions around being favored by limiting the number of turns each player takes.


IPG 3.3 Excerpt
“Philosophy
All players have the responsibility to play quickly enough so that their opponents are not at a significant
disadvantage because of the time limit. A player may be playing slowly without realizing it. A comment of “I need
you to play faster” is often appropriate and all that is needed. Further slow play should be penalized.”

When you're in extra turns, or in non-timed rounds, the penalty can still apply, however, because there's other potential for advantage, even if it's just from the judge falling asleep. Cautions are the most free thing ever, hand them out like candy for Slow Play, and your event will go so much more smoothly.

For the record, this doesn't mean I think that calling a judge would ever be slow play, although it could potentially be stalling. Just that there's no good reason not to pass these cautions around freely.

Edited Josiah O'Neal (June 30, 2015 04:43:51 PM)

To answer the original question, I feel I would try to end the conversation once I am not able to answer the new questions with new information. I would say “I already answered this question, my answer was ______. Do you have any other unrelated questions, or are you able to return to your match?”