Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

RiTides wrote:
I see your point, yak, and you're right- it sounds like we were talking about rules that were 100% clear and obviously in error, not ones that are "up for interpretation" (which are many).

However, I agree with the quote above- I don't think players agreeing to play a scenario other than the one laid out is OK at all. It does lead to some players strong-arming others... I saw this in a tourney where one player rearranged all the terrain to his advantage, then asked the other player if it was OK. What were they going to say? In the packet, it clearly said terrain was fixed... but the guy who moved it was rather intimidating, and got away with it with his opponent's "consent".

People might say that it's better to have the kind of environment where everyone is responsible for their own game and that's it... personally I just like to have a little more support if possible from the organizer/TO. Especially over something I can't control, like players at another table agreeing to play something other than the laid-out scenario, and possibly thereby gaining an advantage- particularly if the scenario made it hard to achieve a massacre, while the one they choose to play makes it easier (meaning one player or the other from that table will likely advance ahead of our table).

The rules are the rules and all that... but I do see your take on it and I imagine that in a large venue a lot of this is really beyond your control, depending on the judge-to-player ratio.
I'm thinking of smaller events where it is more manageable, personally, as that has been my experience as a player. Somehow, I had the expectation that things would be more strict / by the book at a larger event or GT, which I'm planning to attend a few of this summer... and it's a little bit disconcerting to hear that apparently it's not, or might even be the opposite.

And I've seen quite a few tournaments where terrain is 'set up by the organizer' but has clearly been pushed around so players can set their display boards on the table (this happens all the time) and I've seen the exact same kinds of 'strong arm' tactics used by players sticking to the tournament rules about terrain instead of just calling over an organizer/judge to set the terrain back up. Does that mean terrain placed by an organizer is a bad idea? Of course not, the point is player's 'strong arming' each other can happen no matter what rules are being used in any possible circumstance. And truth be told, if a player is getting 'strong armed' over abandoning a mission rule then that certainly isn't going to be the last time it happens in their game.

Fundamentally, a tournament, even more important than deciding a winner, is an event designed to provide all its attendees a series of fun games to play. This is not a sporting tournament where if you lose your first game, you pick-up your stuff and go home. It is (besides crowning a champ) an excuse to get together and play a bunch of fun games. But at the end of the day, you are still playing X amount of separate games against X amount of individual opponents. You are ultimately responsible for your games. If you think your opponent doesn't know his rules, your first move should not be to call a judge, but rather, to ask him about the rules followed by borrowing his codex to check things out if your doubts persist. In anything besides a 6 man tournament, you cannot expect a tournament judge/organizer to be present to jump in to correct rules issues...you have to first and foremost try to work out your issues like you would in any normal game and then if you can't come to an amicable resolution a tournament judge needs to be called over.

Again, this isn't a sporting event. Tournament judges are not referees. You and your opponent are principally responsible for how your game is resolved. If you feel like you're afraid that you're going to get 'strong-armed' by your opponents then you really need to either get comfortable with asking your opponents a TON of questions about the rules you don't know (and get used to borrowing their codex when its their turn to learn stuff you don't know), OR you need to get past the fear and just accept that most games you play are against nice people and the 'strong-arming' only happens in a minority of cases so just let it go and enjoy yourself.

But yeah, you can't expect 'support' from the tournament judges/organizers beyond the times you actually call them over and it isn't fair to the other attendees (who also need rules judges sometimes) and the tournament judges themselves for you to be calling them over before you've exhausted the normal process of rules discussion between you and your opponent.

And as for players abandoning mission rules...whether or not this should be done is certainly debatable, but the truth is, it happens and 99% of the time its not for any nefarious reason but rather because some tournament organizers continue to put idiotic mission rules into their tournaments and again, players are paying to pay fun games and if BOTH players recognize that a mission isn't going to be fun, then they will change the mission. This is always going to happen and there frankly isn't anything a tournament can (or should) do to stop it beyond getting rid of those stupid mission rules that players are rebelling against.

And I will go as far as to say this: if both players are honestly trying their hardest to win the game and are both okay with changing the mission rules to something more fair and balanced (in the opinion of BOTH the gamers) and doing this somehow affects the outcome of the tournament...then that scenario rule should not have been used in the first place.

In the example that Mannahnin posted about above apparently Player A would have won the tournament if Player B (in a separate game) had been forced to play some sort of lop-sided scenario. In other words, the scenario was essentially deciding the overall champion of the tournament rather than the final game being played! Think about that for a second.

yakface wrote:Fundamentally, a tournament, even more important than deciding a winner, is an event designed to provide all its attendees a series of fun games to play. This is not a sporting tournament where if you lose your first game, you pick-up your stuff and go home. It is (besides crowning a champ) an excuse to get together and play a bunch of fun games. But at the end of the day, you are still playing X amount of separate games against X amount of individual opponents. You are ultimately responsible for your games. If you think your opponent doesn't know his rules, your first move should not be to call a judge, but rather, to ask him about the rules followed by borrowing his codex to check things out if your doubts persist. In anything besides a 6 man tournament, you cannot expect a tournament judge/organizer to be present to jump in to correct rules issues...you have to first and foremost try to work out your issues like you would in any normal game and then if you can't come to an amicable resolution a tournament judge needs to be called over.

If only more people had this mentality.

It's an appropriate enough mentality; I think, however, that fun is the property of the individual in the final evaluation.

Beyond anything, a tournament organizer should be creating an environment where fun is most easily attained by the widest range of player types. It is a questionable thing, for an organizer to in any way foist HIS idea of fun upon the full range of his attendees. Not a fully realized thought, but one that always comes to mind.

Very fair points, and a lot to digest. In the end it does make sense to me for each individual to be responsible for their own games, as they would be in any "for fun" setting.

Perhaps I was expecting a bit too much of the TO at an event that I attend. I haven't personally had any problems at tournies I've been to, but it's been a concern.

Cheers for the insightful post...

yakface wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:
Even if the error is made in all innocence, and most of the game has been played that way with both players being fine with it, it is likely to impact future games. If the player with the Tervigon is not corrected now he is likely to keep doing it going forward. And this may result in a rules dispute in one of the subsequent games. Again, as noted before, the Tervigon player could present the argument- "I did it in game 1, with the judge standing right there and watching, and nothing was said; so obviously I am in the right." In my experience, when I have seen and corrected an error like this, it is most frequently an honest mistake/lack of rules knowledge, and both players have appreciated the information.

I have seen this statement made several times in this thread that if a judge doesn't say something he's somehow giving silent consent that a rule being broken is 'okay' to do in future games.

Let's examine this proposed situation:

1) It assumes that the player breaking the rule knows what he's doing.
2) It assumes the judge who is witnessing the game knows that a rule is being broken.
3) It assumes that somehow the person breaking the rules knows the judge watching the game knows the rule is being broken and is purposely keeping his mouth shut.

No, it doesn't. All of those assumptions are unnecessary except "2". Whether or not the player realizes he's actually breaking a rule, if his opponent objects to the move and he remembers the judge being at the table during the same maneuver in the earlier game, he can claim in all honesty that the judge witnessed it before and raised no issue.

yakface wrote: The other issue is that so far the two examples brought up by others in this thread are situations where the rules being broken are situations where if you sat gamers down and had them re-read the rules 100 out of a 100 would agree on how to play the right way. The Ork codex is perfectly clear that Mobs OVER 10 men strong are Fearless and the Tyranid codex is perfectly clear that the Swarmlord does not have the Hive Commander special rule.

There is a MASSIVE difference between a rule that is 100% to clear to every single gamer who reads it (and is just being broken out of either pure ignorance or due to willful cheating) and the huge amount of rules that *don't* provide the same answer to 100% of the gamers who read them. The examples given also highlight rules affecting only a single player's army, as opposed to a broken rule that has been equally affecting both players up to that point in the game.

Sure, certainly, there is a distinction here. But those really fuzzy situations are increasingly uncommon with the better-quality FAQS GW has been putting out, and the INAT at events which use it.

IME, as well, the vast majority of questions/mistakes I see at tournaments are regarding relatively clear rules. 5th (and its FAQs) is much better written than previous editions, but people still screw stuff up all the time. The 100/100 situations crop up quite often.

yakface wrote: While there is certainly no harm in a judge pointing out a blatantly clear rule being broken if he catches it in the moment. But what happens in Janthkin's example if he doesn't catch the issue until turn 3 or 4 when the Tervigon has already been on the table moving and doing things for several turns?

IME both players deal with it and move on. They're usually both appreciative of the correction. And it doesn't screw up their future games, as the hands-off policy enables. Every time I've been in that situation the guys have mostly been happy that they won't screw that up in the future, and been able to deal with any oddness in their current game and move forward amicably in their current game.

yakface wrote:So yes, stepping in to correct really blatant rules mistakes will always be acceptable. But in general the policy for any decently-sized event needs to be that the tournament judges mind their own business unless asked for their assistance.

I respect your opinion, and acknowledge that there are some 60/40 situations out there which you need to be sensitive about. If you, as the judge, are not 100% confident and able to show the players in the rules, it is probaly better to stay out of it. Sure. But overall I still disagree very much with your overall conclusion.

Yakface wrote:However, if they both legitimately wanted to win the game to the best of their ability but didn't want to play that scenario then frankly that is their call to make. No tournament judge or organizer could or should walk over to their table and force players to play a game in a way they don't enjoy, ever.

I can count dozens of times in the years I've seen players purposely ignore tournament scenarios they've felt are ridiculously stupid and frankly that's their right so long as both players agree.

I totally disagree that it's their right; at least as long as they're in contention to win the event. There is a shared social contract with all the players at the tournament to all play by the same rules. If the tournament winner did not play the same scenarios as the guy who came in second place, his win is entirely illegitimate and he should be Disqualified. It's cheating. Sometimes the scenario isn't dumb at all; it's the players' lack of understanding. Like guys who hate KPs, or haven't adapted their lists to 5th and think of Cap & Control as "drawhammer". The players' judgement is not always right in these case.

But if two players are on a lower table at the end of the event and not in contention want to mess around and disregard a scenario they regard as "dumb" for their own fun when it's not impacting anyone else, I could see that being okay.

yakface wrote:*BIG snip*

Yak, 100% agreed with most of your post, above.

yakface wrote:*And as for players abandoning mission rules...whether or not this should be done is certainly debatable, but the truth is, it happens and 99% of the time its not for any nefarious reason but rather because some tournament organizers continue to put idiotic mission rules into their tournaments and again, players are paying to pay fun games and if BOTH players recognize that a mission isn't going to be fun, then they will change the mission. This is always going to happen and there frankly isn't anything a tournament can (or should) do to stop it beyond getting rid of those stupid mission rules that players are rebelling against.

I agree that stupid missions are a bigger problem, and that TOs need to make sure their missions (in general) are as fun as fair as possible. I still completely disagree that it's reasonable or fair to the other players for anyone who's in contention to win the event to disregard the missions and not play by the same rules as everyone else at the event.

yakface wrote:In the example that Mannahnin posted about above apparently Player A would have won the tournament if Player B (in a separate game) had been forced to play some sort of lop-sided scenario. In other words, the scenario was essentially deciding the overall champion of the tournament rather than the final game being played! Think about that for a second.

And think about the fact that the rules packet and advertisementss clearly explained the nature of the event to the players. Unbalanced, wacky scenarios were expected and to be regarded as an obstacle and challenge to their ingenuity. Everyone else who was in contention to win manned up and dealt. And most of the guys who weren't, still chose to play it as it lays. Sometimes an unbalanced wargame scenario can be a lot of fun, and you can appreciate the moral victories you strive for in a game you know is lopsided.

Player B might still have won; he would have had more of an uphill battle, and likely wouldn't have gotten the Massacre he would need to beat out player A, who did extremely well in that final scenario. He had fewer VPs that player A going into the round, so was playing from behind to catch up and win the event. He cheated and that cheating made it much easier for him to do so.

There is a shared social contract with all the players at the tournament to all play by the same rules. If the tournament winner did not play the same scenarios as the guy who came in second place, his win is entirely illegitimate and he should be Disqualified. It's cheating. Sometimes the scenario isn't dumb at all; it's the players' lack of understanding. Like guys who hate KPs, or haven't adapted their lists to 5th and think of Cap & Control as "drawhammer". The players' judgement is not always right in these case.

+1 absolutely.

The missions are the damn missions. If an IG player hates nightfight, then its his problem, not the problem of the mission. Sometimes missions are unbalanced on purpose. (Maybe another mission unbalanced in the other direction to rebalance it) So it is plain cheating if some player just ignores that fact and play another mission that suits his army better.
I have also seen players just remove terrain from the table in perfect harmony. This is also unacceptable.

But the problem is: If the players are lets say in turn 3 and play killpoints instead of an objective mission accidentally (yes, that happens... ), what should a TO do? Force them to restart the game with maybe half of the time, so it will be in favour of the faster army? So I think the best decision would be simply to let them continue their started game.

I respect your opinion, and acknowledge that there are some 60/40 situations out there which you need to be sensitive about. If you, as the judge, are not 100% confident and able to show the players in the rules, it is probaly better to stay out of it. Sure. But overall I still disagree very much with your overall conclusion.

Well we have a good way to deal with it. We have a quite close and gentlemanlike community here. YMMV of course.
But we do it like this:

This is the translation of our most competitive national team tournament rule issue procedure published:

1. Try to solve the problem by yourself (look into the rules and argue it out).
2. If not possible, call the official judge.
3. The judge will listen to both players and decides then.
4. This decision has to be accepted.
5. If not, the TO is free to remove points or to even disqualify.

In lesser competitive environments point 4 to 5 can be removed, because it will be common sense.
And you can substitute the official judge by either the TO or another player.

That procedure is pretty much identical to that used at large events here too.

But it doesn't address the question raised in this thread.

But it doesn't address the question raised in this thread.

As far as I know, the question of this thread was whether a TO is supposed to take initiative if he sees something done wrong, wasnt it?

I presented a hidden relation.

My described procedure implies an intern clarification between the players before any influence from outside takes place.
This means a TO or judge will be there on call, not on his own initiative.

Again, in local tournaments the top players are more competent than the TO, so they will be asked for a call, often the TO takes part of the tournament if the number of participants is not even.

In competitive environment the players know the rules anyways and are able to look stuff up and work it out on their own. And guys who play clearly wrong most of the time wont be an option for winning the tournament due to Swiss System. So a particular initiative is not required. And walking on the table turn three and correct a rule that is played wrong for 3 turns will not correct the game result, it is better for fairness sake to let the guys continue with the wrong rule, because they both planned with it.

Mannahnin wrote:
No, it doesn't. All of those assumptions are unnecessary except "2". Whether or not the player realizes he's actually breaking a rule, if his opponent objects to the move and he remembers the judge being at the table during the same maneuver in the earlier game, he can claim in all honesty that the judge witnessed it before and raised no issue.

I think we might be discussing two different fundamental concepts here. I am talking about a situation (based on Janthkin's original premise) where (either through ignorance or mutual agreement) neither player objects to the rule being broken.

If a player is objecting to a rule being broken then there is contention between the players and if a judge happened to be standing over the game they would almost certainly look to him to make the decision and even if they didn't the fact that they were in disagreement would give precedence for the judge to step in regardless.

But the premise of this thread has not been that situation. In Janthkin's example neither player realized that a rule had been broken until Janthkin noticed it and pointed it out to them. If Janthkin had failed to do this and the player who broke the rule later figured out he broke the rule (or was secretly doing it on purpose) there is absolutely NO expectation that Janthkin seeing this happen and letting it go constitutes a judge's consent because again, there's no indication that the judge actually knew a rule was being broken!

Like I said before, if I were in Janthkin's position, I would not have said anything no matter what because I would not have known that the Swarmlord doesn't have Old Adversary. Judges cannot and should not be expected to know every rule, rather they just need to have a firm grasp of the overall rules and the ability to know where to look to find the answers. That's why when I'm a judge one of the first things I often do when called over to the table is ask for the player's codex or rulebook so I can double-check the rules before I make a decision.

So no, a judge not saying something when a rule is being broken (and their opponent doesn't say anything either) does not give the player breaking the rule precedence to break the rule later in the tournament...it is a mistake that when discovered needs to be stopped in any future games of the tournament.

Sure, certainly, there is a distinction here. But those really fuzzy situations are increasingly uncommon with the better-quality FAQS GW has been putting out, and the INAT at events which use it.

IME, as well, the vast majority of questions/mistakes I see at tournaments are regarding relatively clear rules. 5th (and its FAQs) is much better written than previous editions, but people still screw stuff up all the time. The 100/100 situations crop up quite often.

The thing about the INAT is that it is a fan-made document...meaning the rulings aren't 'rules'. If the players want to play their game ignoring every ruling in the INAT then that's their right so long as both players agree. That's why I think it is very important that judges don't interject unless called upon by dissenting opponents...because as long as agreement is happening then (right or wrong) that's THEIR game to play as they see fit.

I respect your opinion, and acknowledge that there are some 60/40 situations out there which you need to be sensitive about. If you, as the judge, are not 100% confident and able to show the players in the rules, it is probaly better to stay out of it. Sure. But overall I still disagree very much with your overall conclusion.

Again, I don't think its about being 'right' or 'wrong'. There are so many situations where you can literally bust out the rulebook and show people the rules and they will still cling to different interpretations. You may think as the judge you're jumping in to correct an 'obvious' oversight when in reality you end up disrupting the game that was being played in a way acceptable to both players until you created the point of contention by making player A think that player B is 'breaking' a rule.

Obviously, as I've said several times in this thread, there are situations that are much more and less clear-cut, but in general I do think the overall mandate needs to be for judges to stay out of games unless players have a disagreement they can't resolve.

I totally disagree that it's their right; at least as long as they're in contention to win the event. There is a shared social contract with all the players at the tournament to all play by the same rules. If the tournament winner did not play the same scenarios as the guy who came in second place, his win is entirely illegitimate and he should be Disqualified. It's cheating. Sometimes the scenario isn't dumb at all; it's the players' lack of understanding. Like guys who hate KPs, or haven't adapted their lists to 5th and think of Cap & Control as "drawhammer". The players' judgement is not always right in these case.

But if two players are on a lower table at the end of the event and not in contention want to mess around and disregard a scenario they regard as "dumb" for their own fun when it's not impacting anyone else, I could see that being okay.

Perhaps I'm leaning more and more towards the NOVA open mentality but I believe that each individual game should matter more than the overall make-up of the tournament scenarios. If BOTH players hate Kill Points and don't want to play that mission then so be it. Regardless of whether or not anyone thinks it is proper, it is GOING TO KEEP HAPPENING because people are playing money to enjoy playing games and if they hate rule X and their opponent hates rule X then they're going to not play using rule X...as long as both players are trying their hardest to win the game then this should have no appreciable affect on the tournament outcome.

If it does, then the tournament has bigger problems of fairness to worry about then two players wanting to play a game the way they enjoy it, IMHO.

He had fewer VPs that player A going into the round, so was playing from behind to catch up and win the event. He cheated and that cheating made it much easier for him to do so.

Cheating? That means you're saying the player purposely chose to alter the mission to give himself a better advantage to win the tournament and his opponent that agreed was either in collusion with him or was simply ignorant. I think that sounds like a REALLY strong accusation compared with the description of what happened, but if its true then you believe the tournament organizer should have stripped the guy of the title and knocked him out all prize support because he 'cheated' to win?

It doesn't sound like 'cheating' at all to me. I could be wrong, perhaps this guy was nefarious and knew exactly what he was doing and totally duped his opponent into following suit (as I obviously wasn't there).

Ultimately I am generally down for playing missions as written in tournaments, but have I also ignored a really stupid mission rule that my opponent suggested we ignore at some point in some tournament? I'm absolutely certain I have even though I can't remember any instances first-hand.

But I would also be completely unapologetic about doing it again if I thought the rule was going to make the game miserable for either me or my opponent and my opponent totally agreed (or vice-versa), because these are my games to play, not a computer simulation constructed to determine the perfect solution.

Regardless of whether you think it is right or wrong, people are going to keep doing it not because they are trying to cheat the system but because they want to enjoy their games. And until tournament organizers start watching every game with a judge and enforcing 'tournament rules' on both players by the judge (like a ref in a sporting event) then the way tournament games are played it ultimately going to rest with the two players so long as they are in agreement with each other.

yakface wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:No, it doesn't. All of those assumptions are unnecessary except "2". Whether or not the player realizes he's actually breaking a rule, if his opponent objects to the move and he remembers the judge being at the table during the same maneuver in the earlier game, he can claim in all honesty that the judge witnessed it before and raised no issue.

I think we might be discussing two different fundamental concepts here. I am talking about a situation (based on Janthkin's original premise) where (either through ignorance or mutual agreement) neither player objects to the rule being broken.

If a player is objecting to a rule being broken then there is contention between the players and if a judge happened to be standing over the game they would almost certainly look to him to make the decision and even if they didn't the fact that they were in disagreement would give precedence for the judge to step in regardless.

It appears that you're missing my point. I am talking about Janthkin's original situation as well, and one potential negative impact on the event if your approach were used. I'll try to explain better:

This is the situation presented: Neither player objects. The judge stands there, sees the error, recognizes it as such, but fails to intervene.

Then, in a SUBSEQUENT game, the player who has been permitted to break the rules attempts the same move, but it is objected to by his opponent, and the first player justifies his play by reference to the judge having been present for the same maneuver in the previous game.

Said subsequent game could be the next game, or it could be much later in the tournament. What if that player's illegal play happens to facilitate him getting onto a top table? If it's table 1, in round 5 (the final round, say), and a judge or the opponent objects to the play, the situation is likely to be more tense, because the stakes are higher. Much better for the mistake to be caught earlier, so by the time the later round comes around that confusion has already been cleared up. To my way of thinking, if the judge has a chance to correct a rules error early, it's always better to do so rather than waiting for it to crop up again later and the impact potentially to be worse.

One of the problems with the "noninterventionist" philosophy you're advocating, to my mind, is that it prolongs the period of player ignorance and it facilitates the rules bring broken in multiple subsequent games; not just the one the judge happened to witness originally. It's sweeping the dirt under the carpet rather than just cleaning it up in the first place.

yakface wrote:Like I said before, if I were in Janthkin's position, I would not have said anything no matter what because I would not have known that the Swarmlord doesn't have Old Adversary. Judges cannot and should not be expected to know every rule, rather they just need to have a firm grasp of the overall rules and the ability to know where to look to find the answers. That's why when I'm a judge one of the first things I often do when called over to the table is ask for the player's codex or rulebook so I can double-check the rules before I make a decision.

Completely agreed. I'm not sure what you're arguing, here. Of course the judge cannot be expected to know every rule in the game off the top of their head. I'm talking about situations where (like Janthkin in his example) the judge DOES know the rule. And in my opinion he is obligated to correct the players, not just for the sake of the game presently being played, but for the sake of those two players' future opponents, and for the greater integrity of the tournament as a whole.

yakface wrote:

Sure, certainly, there is a distinction here. But those really fuzzy situations are increasingly uncommon with the better-quality FAQS GW has been putting out, and the INAT at events which use it.

IME, as well, the vast majority of questions/mistakes I see at tournaments are regarding relatively clear rules. 5th (and its FAQs) is much better written than previous editions, but people still screw stuff up all the time. The 100/100 situations crop up quite often.

The thing about the INAT is that it is a fan-made document...meaning the rulings aren't 'rules'. If the players want to play their game ignoring every ruling in the INAT then that's their right so long as both players agree. That's why I think it is very important that judges don't interject unless called upon by dissenting opponents...because as long as agreement is happening then (right or wrong) that's THEIR game to play as they see fit.

I once again disagree. If the tournament in question has announced that the INAT is in play, the INAT most certainly is 'rules' for that tournament. I completely disagree that any two players have the right to disregard tournament rules in the play of the tournament. They have made an implicit agreement/social contract by entering into the tournament to play in accordance with its rules. Doing otherwise is breaking faith with the organizer and the other players, at least as long as the outcome of their game can affect the other players. As I said before; if it's the last game and neither player is in contention to win a prize, then I could see it as acceptable.

I am for a kind of judgement of solomon.

If a judge sees a broken rule, he may intervene if he sees a reason.

I would present my (subjective) interpretation of the correct procedure to the players and leave space for argumentations. If they both are willing to continue playing wrong (because it would change the game balance otherwise) the judge should let them.
If they prove me wrong, I should also be fair enough to admit it. (Unless its a tournament houserule)
If they accept the correction, its fair enough anyways.

But there are certainly situations, where a judge will add fuel into the fire if he intervenes.