Forum von PlanetMTG (http://www.pmtg-forum.de/wbb2/index.php)
- Artikeldiskussionen (http://www.pmtg-forum.de/wbb2/board.php?boardid=7)
-- Pro Tour Hollywood, Teil 2 (http://www.pmtg-forum.de/wbb2/thread.php?threadid=854)
| Zitat: |
| Originally spammed by Jan Ruess: Da er im ersten Spiel ein Slowplay-Warning bekommen hat, würde es auch sieben statt fünf Extrazüge geben. |
| Zitat: |
| ...Slowplay-Warning bekommen hat, würde es auch sieben statt fünf Extrazüge geben. |
| Zitat: |
| Originally spammed by Dray Prescot: PRO TOUR BERLIN |
| Zitat: |
Gerard schiebt zunächst einen Token vor den Sower, nimmt dann die Hand weg, lehnt sich zurück und guckt mich an. Dann jedoch fällt ihm auf, dass mein Sower 3/3 ist, und er will noch den zweiten Token zum Block dazunehmen. Das will ich ihm aber nicht mehr gestatten und ich rufe einen Judge, der aus der Sache (meiner Meinung nach völlig übertrieben) eine zehnminütige Diskussion mit einzelnen Befragungen, Befragung von Zuschauern und Hinzuziehen des Headjudges macht |
| Zitat: |
Eric Shukan told me another juicy story, one that shows the importance of proper communication. The basic gist of it is that Player A attacked. Player B made a block, then leaned back in his seat. Let me repeat that; Player B blocked and leaned back in his seat. A few seconds passed. In these types of stories a few seconds always seem to pass. After the few seconds, Player A made a sound, roughly a "Huh?" of puzzlement at the less than optimal blocking assignment that Player B had made. The "Huh?" forced Player B to look back over the game state, and noticing the bad block and made an addition block, fixing the bad situation. This prompted a series of protestations from Player A, who insisted that Player B had already finished blocking. A judge was called for and Eric rode to the rescue. Being a rather hairy and subjective situation, Eric pulled the two players away from the table and interviewed them separately to prevent them from interrupting each other and trying to influence their stories. Player A’s story was pretty much as appears here. Player B’s story was… different, but only slightly so. He failed to tell Eric about leaning back in his chair and he insisted that he was still thinking about his final blocks. The two stories didn’t quite mesh. These are the kinds of calls that really put judges to the test, since the comprehensive rules don’t cover inconsistent stories. But this being a feature match - did I forget to mention that? - Eric had a plethora of witnesses to turn to just beyond the rail. The operative thing when interviewing witnesses is to make sure they are impartial. Eric was very careful to ask about any relationships between spectators and players. Several impartial witnesses corroborated Player A’s story, complete with Player B leaning back in his seat, which is why it appears here as the "definitive" account. The key question that Eric asked the witnesses regarding the lean was whether they thought that Player B was done making blocks at that point, or if he was merely thinking things through. "He was done blocking." All the witnesses agreed. At that point, Eric had a potentially explosive situation. He re-interviewed Player B, and now closed in on the operative action and what it meant. "Were you done blocking?" "No, I wasn’t," said the player. Player A, several witnesses, and at this point, Eric himself disagreed. Unfortunately, that’s the end of the story I got from Eric on site. I tried to follow up with an interview last week, but with our various busy schedules heading into Regionals, we couldn’t hook up. At the end of the story it seemed like things were heading towards a DQ, as Eric stated his belief that the player was lying to him about being done with his blocking assignments. However, there were no DQs in the main event, so somewhere something changed. Maybe seeing the writing on the wall, the player fessed up in time. Actions do often speak louder than, or as much as words in Magic. How often do you end your turn by saying "Go," and how often do you make the Burger King open palm gesture? Do you declare all of your targets, or do you just point the burn spell at the crispy critter? What does it mean when a player makes a block, then leans back in his chair? But one of the important lessons is that actions, even very common ones, can mean different things to different people. While plenty of people interpreted the leaning back as Player B finishing his blocks (and based on the action that Eric demonstrated to me, I would have as well), an interpretation isn’t a finalized game action and there are plenty of judges that would hesitate to make the interpretation that leaning back equals done with blocks. In situations like this, you should always ask for verbal confirmation, a simple "Are those your blocks?" gets you a hard objective reply and it isn’t necessarily going to give away the fact that your opponent is about to make a stupid block and you want to confirm it. Too often players will rush things and not get a simple verbal confirmation that could allay and future confusion because "OMG I can’t believe you blocked like that! Damage on the stack?" Even in verbal communication, there is room for misunderstanding as words too can mean different things to different people. The classic case is "Okay." To one player it means "Okay, I have no response and I am allowing your spell to resolve," while the other is actually saying "Okay, you play that spell. Now what is my response going to be?" Which is correct? In these cases (I did have a call like this at Hollywood, but it generally comes up once per tournament), judges will often go to the past precedent; has the word "okay" been used in the "allow the spell to resolve" capacity earlier in the match? Tips Remember the little things that your opponent says, especially how they customarily allow your spells to resolve. Is it "okay," "uh huh," "sure"...? Train yourself not to automatically say something like "okay" when your opponent plays a spell. I usually say "Huh?" or "interesting." |
| Zitat: | ||
Original von Huy
Ist das eigentlich neu? Oder nur auf der Pro Tour so? Beides? |
| Zitat: |
| Originally spammed by Zeromant: Das ist es doch gerade: Es fehlt eine an einer nachvollziehbaren Stelle veröffentliche Auflistung von aktuellen Veränderungen des PG! Etwas, was ich anklicken kann, und wo steht: June 1st, 2008 Slow Play - When a player is given an infraction for slow play, there is no longer extra time issued. Instead there is an additional extra turn for each player or team at the end of the round. Unsporting Conduct - Beieng unshaven or having unkempt hair ist now mentioned explicitly as an example for unsporting conduct - minor. Incorrect Representation - players are now allowed to hide permanents they control under snacks or beverages, as long as those can be considered sufficiently nutricient (head judge decision). Smearing or wetting cards ist still not allowed, though. |
| Zitat: |
| Original von Peterl zensiert |
| Zitat: | ||
Original von Huy
Vielleicht hilft Dir ja Yawgatogs Seite weiter: http://yawgatog.com/resources/ Schoener gibt's meines Wissens nach nicht |
| Zitat: |
| Original von Xardas "Unsporting Conduct - Beieng unshaven or having unkempt hair ist now mentioned explicitly as an example for unsporting conduct - minor." War das nen Scherz, oder gibt es eine solche sinnlose Regelung tatsächlich? |
Forensoftware: Burning Board 2.3.6, entwickelt von WoltLab GmbH