Thus scenario involves three players, with as the judge.

Control player (CP)
Observer (O)
Shuffler (S)

CP and S are moving to game three with 15 min left in the round. CP shuffles and presents. S continues to shuffle. And shuffle. And shuffle.

You observe the following conversation.

CP: Bro are you done shuffling?
S: No.
CP: You've been shuffling for 10 minutes.
S: So. .. it's FNM.
O: It's still Slow Play, you should let him cut your deck.
S: He's playing control. I don't like playing against control.
O: Doesn't matter.
S: If i get you next round and you're playing control I'll run the clock out too.

What do you do?

Talk to S. Explain that weaponizing the clock is not a behavior we
tolerate, and possibly explain the philosophy behind that. Firmly issue an
instruction to shuffle and play in a timely manner, and inform him that
even at FNM we consider stalling a Very Bad Thing. Issue a time extension
and move on.

Keep an eye on him through the night, directly or via an observer to see if
he tries it again.

Firstly I'd thank O for their help and then remind them to call for a judge
instead of interceding on their own.

As for S I am highly inclined to remove this player from the event as they
have admitted to trying to run out the time and obviously have a knowledge
of expectations at higher RELs. The player is obviously attempting to
manipulate the match result with their actions and has indicated a willful
intent to do so in the future. This is a “serious problem” behavior at any
REL and risks the integrity of the tournament at a very basic level.
On Jun 30, 2014 1:39 PM, “Darren Horve” <

I'm not a fan of making the improper determining of match results stretch into covering this. It feels too much like engineering an infraction to fit a penalty we prefer.

In this case, I think it comes down to what the player knows. Does he know it's against the rules to shuffle forever at FNM? (as opposed to “sure, it's illegal, but the penalty at FNMs is a slap on the write so who cares”) Is he intentionally breaking a game rule?

I'd pull him off to the side and have a friendly chat with him, asking him if he knows he can't just shuffle forever. His answer will determine whether I help him avoid playing against against this control deck or not (and the rest of the tournament).

There's a chance that he'll take my “let's step aside” as “he's going to DQ me?” and tune his answers to avoid that. If I get the sense he's actually lying to me, he again doesn't need to worry about playing against Control (or anything else) that event. But if he gets the “we have a Serious Problem” message from the action, I'm going to call it a win since half the job is done and I didn't actually have to start the conversation yet.

I agree with Patrick. To me, this seems like a Serious Problem (intentionally and knowingly breaking MTR 5.5) and S is going to need to be very convincing in order to continue playing in the event today.

Originally posted by Patrick Cool:

As for S I am highly inclined to remove this player from the event as they
have admitted to trying to run out the time and obviously have a knowledge
of expectations at higher RELs. The player is obviously attempting to
manipulate the match result with their actions and has indicated a willful
intent to do so in the future. This is a “serious problem” behavior at any
REL and risks the integrity of the tournament at a very basic level.

I think it's worth noting that “stalling” or some equivalent isn't expressly mentioned in the JAR as a Serious Problem, though if you advise this player to not do that, if they continue it falls under:

If you have warned a player who may be upsetting others and your warning has not curbed their behaviour, or if a player is being threatening or aggressive, these situations are Serious Problems.

I think we can all agree this isn't an acceptable behavior, but as applied I don't think the JAR supports an immediate DQ unless you want to make the case that this behavior knowingly violates “performing (pre-game procedures) in a timely manner” as outlined in MTR 2.3 (or “stalling is not acceptable” under MTR 5.5) and falls under a Serious Problem:

Intentionally and knowingly breaking or letting an opponent break game or tournament rules, or
lying. (“Bluffing” about cards opponents can't normally see is permitted).

Personally, I agree with Trevor's approach. Give the player the fear of God that this is not acceptable at all, and he's shuffled quite enough and it's time to play the game. If he does it again, I'd remove him from the tournament.

Edit: turns out if you use brackets, the intervening text doesn't show up!

Edited Evan Cherry (July 1, 2014 07:25:34 AM)

That is fair. Depending on how the discussion goes I might handle a similar
situation differently but as I said based on the statements of the player I
would be inclined from the start to be removing them.

A convincing argument could be made by the player, but an active disregard
for the rules is bad news even at fnm.
On Jun 30, 2014 5:04 PM, “Evan Cherry” <

I'm not a fan of making the improper determining of match results stretch into covering this. It feels too much like engineering an infraction to fit a penalty we prefer.

This would not fall under improper determining of match results. It may fall under intentionally breaking tournament rules.

Does he know it's against the rules to shuffle forever at FNM? (as opposed to “sure, it's illegal, but the penalty at FNMs is a slap on the write so who cares”)

I am not sure what is meant by the ‘as oppoesd to’ here, so what I am about to say may be redundant, but I just want it to be really clear: If a player does something that you know is illegal because they believe that no one really cares or will do anything about it at Regular REL, it is still a Serious Problem and they are about to learn this lesson very abruptly.

My opinion here: yes, Stalling is not expressly called out in the JAR, because we work really hard to make sure that it fits into two pages and so cannot explicitly cover everything. However, as noted, doing this intentionally is implicitly covered.

If the player knows that what they are doing is illegal and is doing it on purpose, I am happy with removing them here. If they are ignorant, educating them seems appropriate (and I would not be adverse to giving a time extension, as mentioned by Trevor). It is definitely worth reinforcing to them that there is almost nothing that is illegal at higher RELs but legal at Regular - the only thing that I can think of off the top of my head is that players are allowed to assist one another during deck construction at Regular, which is Outside Assistance at other RELs. Just because we are more generous on things like exact knowledge of timings and are more forgiving in penalties and fixes at Regular REL does not mean that things are not illegal!

Is anyone bothered by the last comment made by S? Seems to me that should be addressed, too.

Originally posted by Patrick Cossel:

Is anyone bothered by the last comment made by S? Seems to me that should be addressed, too.

That statement is, for me, the catalyst, that would likely help me decide to remove that player (and explain why, so he will learn from the experience).

d:^D

Originally posted by Patrick Cossel:

Is anyone bothered by the last comment made by S? Seems to me that should be addressed, too.

Absolutely.

As a bit of clarification, this was the account from one of my players at one of the stores I frequently judge. I was at my OTHER store when this happened. Initially he texted me and asked what it was called if someone shuffled for 10 minutes - I said Slow Play and didnt hear anything further about it.

When I saw him on Monday (we work in proximity), he gave me the in depth account. I told him that if this is actually how it played out, then I would have DQ'd him.

The big issue was that the TO was right there and simply shrugged his shoulders, thinking there was nothing he could do about it.

I go there this week. Hopefully, I can shed some light on this for him.

Before reading others' responses:

Player S's conduct is quite Unsporting. While we're at regular here and not competitive, this still constitutes a potential Serious Problem in my eyes. I would begin with “S, can I speak to you for a moment?” and pull him away from the table. At that point I would explain that what he is doing is unfair to his opponent, and that while the fifty minutes allotted in a match are his to do with as he pleases, they are intended to be used to play Magic, and if he wants to continue participating in the event, he should use his time accordingly.

I would be calm, professional, but firm with S. His attitude is poor and his actions are immature, and what he is doing is not acceptable at any level of organized play.


After reading the thread:

Yeah, pretty much agreed with everyone. I think I might be a little gun-shy on DQing players in general, which is why in my response I said I'd send him back to the table after a stern talking-to. Thinking more about it, it seems unlikely that this person could talk me out of sending him packing.

S's last statement pretty clearly shows that he knows what he's doing is not kosher. He is making it clear that what he is doing is ‘running out the clock’ to avoid playing a proper match of Magic. But he may legitimately not know how serious a problem this actually is.

In my own events, S would get a firm Educational Experience from yours truly, explaining what Stalling is and why it's not allowed. He gets one chance to fix his behaviour, and if he doesn't, the DQ hammer falls. I have very, very little tolerance for this kind of BS. I'm all about second chances, but third chances much less so.

My interpretation of JAR is that this starts out as General Unwanted Behavior, which becomes a Serious Problem if it persists despite a warning from me.

I don't think I would fault O for not calling me sooner, since I'm already observing the situation, which O presumably is aware of.

This scenario's kind of interesting, in that at competitive, USC - Stalling is a separate DQ-able offense from USC - Cheating. Philosophically, I would assume that all DQ offenses at competitive should be considered Serious Problems at regular. That said, Cheating, Aggressive Behavior, and Improperly Determining a Winner are called out in the JAR, not Stalling.

We could examine this through the lens of USC - Cheating. Part of USC - Cheating at competitive is intentionally and knowingly breaking a game or tournament rule. S is taking his actions deliberately, and is very likely doing so to gain an advantage. The only question is whether his statements indicate that he actually knows that playing at a reasonable pace is part of the rules.

If S is a new player, I think this is just a Serious Educational Experience. If S has played in competitive events before, and could be reasonably expected to know about USC - Stalling or TE - Slow Play, this is definitely a DQ.

Given that Stalling is a DQ offense at Competitive, is it a serious enough problem to merit a DQ at regular, even if the player is a new player? (in the same way that Improperly Determining a Winner is a DQ no matter who you are)

Originally posted by MTR 2.4:

“If a player refuses to play, it is assumed that he or she has conceded the match.”

We could also just apply this part of the MTR everytime S tries to shuffle till the round clock is up.
Do it a couple of times, notify players of this rules, and make sure they call you if an opponent refuse to play (you could put this in between the announcement, or when you call out for players who have finished their match to submit their result, etc)

And surely he'll realize that this little trick of his, isn't really working.

Though his last statement/“threat” to shuffle till time when he gets to play with O, is indeed a Serious Problem.