I've tried to get an answer to this already, but Kim thought i wanted to discuss the DQ (that i don't want), and i also send him a pm explaining, but since he didn't answered me in 2 days, i decided to create a new topic.

So,

Player A and Player B are playing, Player A is winning 1-0.

case1)
Time is running out, player A got no way to win, but can keep the game on a state that he cannot lose. So he keeps playing, altough only doing insignificant stuff, lets say he got a tamiyo emblem, and a dissipate in hand and plent of mana.

Is this considered stalling? I would say its not.

case2)

Player A, can win the game on the spot by simply attacking (a thing he obviously know) but he keeps, drawing, drop land, and passing. (all in a timely manner, not doing loops of any kind on his turn).

In this situation its obvious that he knows he can win, but its just letting the time pass.

I know we can't expect players to do the right actions to win, nor we can tell them, but how could this be handled? can this be stalling?


regards

You should be more specific about “insignificant stuff” in case 1. (Also
problematic in your original question, since “insignificant stuff” includes
pointless plays and countering your own spells.)

Basically, the question is whether continuing to play with no win condition
left and, for instance, countering every single spell your opponent casts
for the rest of the game, while keeping turns moving forward is acceptable,
right?


2012/11/22 José Moreira <forum-1960@apps.magicjudges.org>

A player who is advancing the game somehow is generally not stalling. So, your Case 2 player, by continuing the game, drawing and playing lands and so forth, is fine. He is under no obligation to win and his plays do not reflect any particular use of the clock.

Your Case 1 player is a little different. Simply sitting back and Dissipating all his opponent's spells is a valid strategy; he is changing the gamestate by exiling his opponent's cards and has a clear plan in mind - to prevent losing until the game ends in a draw (and the match in a win). This is not dissimilar to a player with a lot of removal spells playing to block and lock up the board so his aggro opponent can't win.

The difference would be a case like this - another player with a Tamiyo emblem casting, say, Rampant Growth, searching their library, finding no basic land left in it, shuffling, and then casting the RG again. Here they clearly have no intention with their play other than to exhaust the clock. There is no functional difference between what they are doing and literally just sitting there and doing nothing. That's the kind of difference I'd make my decision based upon.

I think the key difference is just because your hand isn't changing doesn't mean you're not advancing the game state.

If you dissipate all of your opponent's spells, each time the game state is changing (he has fewer cards in hand).

If you Rampant Growth with no lands in your library and you have a Tamiyo emblem. You are essentially restoring the game to the same state it was before. The only difference being you've tapped two mana which is insignificant to advancing the game state.

I'm not sure intent has any bearing on this. The Four Horsemen Orb/Monolith combo has every intent on advancing the game state, but cannot reliably do so in a timely manner.

Stalling is all about intent. In fact, the definition says “intentionally”
in it.

In Case 1, there's a fine line that the Tamiyo Emblem player walks. He is
well within his right to sit back and Dissipate everything his opponent
does. That's fine, he doesn't have to quit on the game and can make his
opponent beat him. However, making plays just to make plays and use time is
Stalling as long as you believe the player is doing it with the express
purpose of using up time. I think that when I come up to this situation, I
would first treat it like Slow Play and let the player know that their
behavior is unacceptable and to advance the game state and not make
pointless plays that do nothing. If they continue the behavior, then it's
certainly time to investigate.

In Case 2, this is where investigation comes in. You can't just snapcall
“Stalling, DQ” on this situation. The “Why?” answers will really determine
what the answer is, but a lot of them are hard to do until after the game.
What if for some reason the player didn't think it was lethal and you pull
them aside before it's over and ask “I noticed you're not attacking, it
seems you have lethal. Why?” and the player might go “Oh, man, I miscounted
this. Here, let me go attack and win this.” You end up having to wait until
after the game is over before pulling the player aside. “It looked to me
like you had lethal for a while there, why did you wait so long before
attacking?” There could be a perfectly valid answer… “I thought my
opponent had a Snapcaster and would be able to Unsummon 2 of my guys and
block another so it wouldn't be lethal, so I was waiting for more dudes.”
Or even the other end of “I forgot about such and such that gave my dudes
more power.”

With any DQ, it's important to investigate and ask the “Whys” and see what
comes up. There could be a perfectly innocent answer to the Why, and then
there might be something more guilty underneath there too. Try not to go
into the investigation with an answer already made up or you might only see
your answer and not the bits that get you to the correct answer.

-George FitzGerald
L2, Sarasota, FL

I believe The Four Horsemen is Slow Play, not Stalling, since it is not
intentional. =)


2012/11/23 George FitzGerald <forum-1960@apps.magicjudges.org>

Dominick, you would be correct on the Four Horsemen. However, it becomes
Stalling when the player intentionally Slow Plays. =)

-George FitzGerald
L2, Sarasota, FL

Originally posted by David Lyford-Smith:

This is not dissimilar to a player with a lot of removal spells playing to block and lock up the board so his aggro opponent can't win.

but isn't this a way to not lose? If he can make his opp not win, is that stalling?

George FitzGerald
In Case 2, this is where investigation comes in. You can't just snapcall
“Stalling, DQ” on this situation. The “Why?” answers will really determine
what the answer is, but a lot of them are hard to do until after the game.
What if for some reason the player didn't think it was lethal and you pull
them aside before it's over and ask “I noticed you're not attacking, it
seems you have lethal. Why?” and the player might go “Oh, man, I miscounted
this. Here, let me go attack and win this.” You end up having to wait until
after the game is over before pulling the player aside. “It looked to me
like you had lethal for a while there, why did you wait so long before
attacking?” There could be a perfectly valid answer… “I thought my
opponent had a Snapcaster and would be able to Unsummon 2 of my guys and
block another so it wouldn't be lethal, so I was waiting for more dudes.”
Or even the other end of “I forgot about such and such that gave my dudes
more power.”

So, we should expect players to do the right call? Do the player have the dutty to win, if possible?

Let me put some examples:

Player A, controls Restoration Angel, plenty of mana, and counters in hand. is at 16 life.
Player B, has a kitchen finks, no hand, is at 6 life.

tX:Player A, draws, drop land, passes. all very quickly, in a timley manner.
tx+1: PlayerB, draws, cast somthing that is countered. and passes.
tx+2: Player A, draws, and passes
tx+3: Playerb, draws, try to cast something and passes.
loop while cards on library.

Can this be stalling? Player A, cleary knows he can win, but instead is not winning.

@George Ahh you're correct. There have been so many “Slow Play” discussions lately, I glanced right past that this was about “Stalling”.

Stalling is not abount if you try to win or not. Stalling is about “Are you actions driven by the intentionaly purpose of taking advantage of the time limit?”. If yes, then you are very likely stalling, if not then you are not stalling (but it still can be Slow Play).

The actions the players take help us to find out if the player is Stalling or not, but the actions are not deciding factor. The deciding factor is the intend of the player. Sometimes it is easy to find out the intent by the actions, sometimes it is not.

So if a player decides not to win the match, is this Stalling? In my opinion, not automaticly. He may have legitimate reasons for it, like wants to see more cards from the opponents deck or even if he wants to torture the other player by destroying every chance the other player might have. But if he is intentionaly not winning to avoid another game and wants to reach the time limit before he actualy decides to win - then I would consider stalling.

That is in my opinion the reason that make stalling dqs so hard. You actualy have to read the mind of the player if wants to abuse the time limit.

I think a relevant point here is the exact wording of the rule.

5.1. Cheating — Stalling
Definition
A player intentionally plays slowly in order to take advantage of the time limit.
If the slow play is not intentional, please refer to Tournament Error — Slow Play instead.


I think the relevant point here is that the “player intentionally plays slowly”.
if i have read your scenarios right, it involves the player trying to drag the game out.

My interpretation of the rule is that the player is trying to extend the game, by using slow play.
in your scenario, the player is trying to extend the game by using available game actions in a timely manner.
As long as the player is advancing game state I see no problem.
I have not seen a rule that says a player must play to win.










Subject: Re: Stalling, what can be considered? (Competitive REL)
From: forum-1960@apps.magicjudges.org
To: neil_meyer@hotmail.com
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2012 16:20:03 +0000

Stalling is not abount if you try to win or not. Stalling is about “Are you actions driven by the intentionaly purpose of taking advantage of the time limit?”. If yes, then you are very likely stalling, if not then you are not stalling (but it still can be Slow Play).

The actions the players take help us to find out if the player is Stalling or not, but the actions are not deciding factor. The deciding factor is the intend of the player. Sometimes it is easy to find out the intent by the actions, sometimes it is not.

So if a player decides not to win the match, is this Stalling? In my opinion, not automaticly. He may have legitimate reasons for it, like wants to see more cards from the opponents deck or even if he wants to torture the other player by destroying every chance the other player might have. But if he is intentionaly not winning to avoid another game and wants to reach the time limit before he actualy decides to win - then I would cons ider stalling.

That is in my opinion the reason that make stalling dqs so hard. You actualy have to read the mind of the player if wants to abuse the time limit.

——————————————————————————–
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/9230/

Disable all notifications for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/1960/
Receive on-site notifications only for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/1960/

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

I agree with Neil.

There are many times where the player knows there is five minutes left on the clock, sees that he will not be able to win (maybe the opponent has a much better board state, whatever..) and begins to play more defensively, attempting to draw the game intentionally.

That is NOT intentionally playing slowly, that is however intentionally trying to run out the clock in order to draw.

As far as I know, this has always been allowed, otherwise it would be very difficult to force players to play aggressively, saying they must attempt to win..

Well lets try an example… Game 1 Alice is at 2 life with in a very defensible position (fog banks, sphere of safety whatever) as well as a Sudden Shock in hand. Bob is at 2 life and is trying to break Alices defences for the win. Alice knows she can't lose the game so long as she keeps 1R untapped.

Is it Stalling to let Bob continue to crash against her defences while she runs out time knowing that Game 2 will likely draw?

I don't think it is. I believe the conditions of the “Slow Play” infraction, are a meant to be a precondition for “Stalling”.

Originally posted by Neil Meyer:

I think a relevant point here is the exact wording of the rule.

5.1. Cheating — Stalling
Definition
A player intentionally plays slowly in order to take advantage of the time limit.
If the slow play is not intentional, please refer to Tournament Error — Slow Play instead.

I think the wording of this infraction is most conducive to analysis from a quasi-legal standpoint. The wording quite clearly indicates that there are two requirements for the infraction to be made out on the facts: there must be a wrong action (playing slowly) and a wrong intention (in order to take advantage of the time limit). Unless both elements are present, there is no justification in the text for concluding that a player is stalling. I prefer this approach because it is analytically elegant and because it dovetails nicely with Slow Play–which is simply the same infraction minus the requirement of wrong intention.

To answer the OP, in both cases even if the player blatantly admitted to my face that his intention was to run out the clock, that alone would be insufficient to award a penalty for Stalling. The salient point would be whether, in the pursuit of this intention, he had in fact been playing slowly. For this I would look to the definition of Slow Play, which is as follows:

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 Cheating — Stalling.

It is also slow play if a player continues to execute a loop without being able to provide an exact number of iterations and the expected resulting game state.

In neither case is there a question of an unbounded loop, so I would simply look to the rate at which the player was taking legal game actions. Provided he was doing so at a reasonable pace, I would not find Slow Play, and therefore would not find Stalling. I would even go so far as to say that playing his own spells and then countering them, or re-playing rampant growth with a library devoid of basic lands with a Tamiyo emblem in play would not be Stalling (provided he has limited mana and therefore is not in the realm of an unbounded loop): these actions are merely evidence of his intention to run out the clock (which, for argument's sake, let us say he has admitted); unless he proceeds at an unreasonably slow pace, he hasn't satisfied the other requirement of the infraction.

Of course, determining what constitutes “longer than reasonably required” will allow for some discretion. I would concede that it would be reasonable to hold that a player who knows he has no basic lands in his library is taking longer than necessary to resolve a rampant growth if he takes more than a quick glance through his deck before shuffling. This will be up to the investigating judge to determine, but it does not substantially undermine the logic of the two-pronged analysis.

Edited Robert Hinrichsen (Nov. 24, 2012 06:54:39 AM)

I guess if we look at exactly the way it's worded:

It is also slow play if a player continues to execute a loop without being able to provide an exact number of
iterations and the expected resulting game state.

If the player says, “I will cast Rampant Growth 5 times with the expected board state to be the same except all my mana is tapped.” This would be legal then?

Consequently, could the judge/player agree to shortcut to the end of that?