A player not in his or her seat 10 minutes into the round will receive a Match Loss and be dropped from the tournament unless he or she reports to the Head Judge or Scorekeeper before the end of the round.

I am trying to start a conversation about the reasons why this part of policy is in its current form.

Ever since the Planeswalker Points system replaced the old point system, there has been no disincentive to not-drop other than the match loss you would receive for tardiness. However, this disincentive has had little effect on the increase in number of no show tardiness penalties given out in that time frame (at least in the US). I'd argue that its possible that the bigger effect on determining whether a player drops from the tournament is common courtesy.

The increase of no show infractions seen at events since the change has probably made life harder for scorekeepers. I think that, from personal experience, the largest number of penalties that are entered at a tournament are no show tardiness penalties.

Am I suggesting that we get rid of this clause in the IPG, and the only disincentive to not drop? I don't know. Currently, I'm not convinced. There would be an increase in the number of not drops. However, the amount of work performed by the responding judge (not having to write the penalty out on the back of the match slip) and the scorekeeper(s) (not having to enter the penalty into the software) would decrease.

Thoughts?

Edited Jason Flatford (March 7, 2013 05:39:25 AM)

Just for clarity, are you proposing to keep to the automatic drop, and just
eliminate the Match Loss penalty? I also assume the player who turned up
would still get a match win.

Paul Smith

paul@pollyandpaul.co.uk

Jason,

What exactly are you discussing?

That we NOT drop these people that don't show?

What happens then to people that don't show? They get paired again for the
next round?

Kind regards,
RichardD

2013/3/7 Jason Flatford <forum-3257@apps.magicjudges.org>

He is suggesting it not be a penalty, so the judges and scorekeepers have less bookwork.


________________________________
From: Richard Drijvers
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 3:46 AM
To: Heckt, Andy
Subject: Re: Match loss penalty for Tardiness (Competitive REL)

Jason,

What exactly are you discussing?

That we NOT drop these people that don't show?

What happens then to people that don't show? They get paired again for the
next round?

Kind regards,
RichardD

2013/3/7 Jason Flatford <forum-3257@apps.magicjudges.org<mailto:forum-3257@apps.magicjudges.org>>

——————————————————————————–
If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this e-email. Or view and respond to this message on the web at http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/16263/

Disable all notifications for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/3257/
Receive on-site notifications only for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/3257/

You can change your email notification settings at http://apps.magicjudges.org/profiles/edit

What exactly are you discussing?

I'd like to discuss the viability of getting rid of the tardiness infraction for no shows. Of course, the players who no show would be dropped from the event and their current round opponent would receive the win.

In practice, this means that the judge will still be called over, will
still need to write down that the player didn't show and the SK will still
need to drop that player.
The only difference is that these situations will no longer be documented
so we will no longer be able to track players who often don't show up for
their round(s).
This mainly saves the SK time, because writing down the infraction +
penalty takes less than a minute.

As I understand it, this is the time you wish to save, correct?

I don't see any problem with saving this time, while keeping the infraction
in place.
This would mean this infraction would no longer be traceable in the
accumulated penalty database. I guess for this matter we would have to ask
WotC how they feel about that.

Kind regards,
Richard Drijvers


2013/3/7 Jason Flatford <forum-3257@apps.magicjudges.org>

As a judge who spends quite a bit of time scorekeeping bigger events, I would very much support not tracking this infraction unless the DCI believes it remains a relevant reference point for accumulated warnings.

Hm, maybe I have been rogue all of these years, but I have only been
recording the penalty if the person actually showed up at some point. If
they don't, the absent player gets a Match Loss and I drop the player. The
only reason to have the Match Loss is so that there is a way for the match
to end. I'm not sure how to word it otherwise. There is no need to track
these penalties, since the person is no longer in the event, so I don't
know why the SK would be entering these anyway.

Shawn

Originally posted by Shawn Doherty:

There is no need to track
these penalties, since the person is no longer in the event, so I don't
know why the SK would be entering these anyway.

Shawn

Because it is Policy? ;-)

I've never been able to match Shawn's roguishness. We Lawful clerics tend to be much greater sticklers for policy so I'm strongly in Jason's camp for why I've always entered the penalties.

I don't have a problem with modifying policy to reduce this paperwork.
Maybe award a “Match Win” to the opponent instead of a “Match Loss” to the
absent player. That way we don't have to track the behavior.

I can't see how it's that relevant for tracking purposes. I doubt almost
any player who was Tardiness dropped ever became aware of it, since they've
usually left the venue. It's certainly not an infraction that's going to
come up more than once a tournament, and players aren't going to commit it
until they've left anyway. The only thing I could see happening is a
player receiving a letter for the repeated offenses, which would certainly
be a strange one to get as the player. Can we actually envision a scenario
where a player gets suspended for repeated Tardiness penalties?

I don’t think I’d worry about penalizing the person who leaves without dropping, but I do find it discourteous to the person who they’re supposed to be paired with who is likely only sticking around because they want to play.



I’ve never seen it done, but would anyone have an issue repairing two players with similar records that both have no-show opponents? Obviously, this is going in the opposite direction, where we were trying to avoid extra work, and now we’re creating some.



From: Justin Miyashiro
Sent: March-07-13 7:37 AM
To: thatoldguy81@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Match loss penalty for Tardiness (Competitive REL)



I can't see how it's that relevant for tracking purposes. I doubt almost
any player who was Tardiness dropped ever became aware of it, since they've
usually left the venue. It's certainly not an infraction that's going to
come up more than once a tournament, and players aren't going to commit it
until they've left anyway. The only thing I could see happening is a
player receiving a letter for the repeated offenses, which would certainly
be a strange one to get as the player. Can we actually envision a scenario
where a player gets suspended for repeated Tardiness penalties?

——————————————————————————–
If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this e-email. Or view and respond to this message on the web at http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/16276/

Disable all notifications for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/3257/
Receive on-site notifications only for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/3257/

You can change your email notification settings at http://apps.magicjudges.org/profiles/edit

I guess i also deviate from policy then. I write no show in the drop box for the player that didn't show. Fill it out as the person there wins 2-0. And sign/initial for the no showing player.

Effectively the no show ended up with a match loss and are no longer in the event.
This is very obvious to people what happened.

I don't write the whole thing out on the back at all as that seems very well no useful.

I guess what is gained by tracking this info? I can really only think of 2 things we do nothing with tardiness or we ban someone for being tardy all the time. Correct me if I am missing something.

Thanks
Ryan

Sent from my iPad

On Mar 7, 2013, at 7:04 AM, “Richard Drijvers” <forum-3257@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:

Originally posted by Michael White:

I don’t think I’d worry about penalizing the person who leaves without dropping, but I do find it discourteous to the person who they’re supposed to be paired with who is likely only sticking around because they want to play.

I've never seen it done, but would anyone have an issue repairing two players with similar records that both have no-show opponents? Obviously, this is going in the opposite direction, where we were trying to avoid extra work, and now we’re creating some.

First you would have to wait 10 minutes for the person to no show. Then you would have to take the time and effort to find another no show and pair the two opponents. This could cause a significant delay to the tournament, not to mention the issue of pairing people with different points. What if a top seeded player accidently no shows? Then we wouldn't be able to pair that opponent down to a lower seeded player, therefore we would be treating some players differently than other players based on record, which I believe we should want to not do as much as possible (chose my wording very carefully there as to attempt to not begin another argument).

I'd strongly suggest against this suggested course of action.

Edited Jason Flatford (March 7, 2013 07:46:54 AM)