Originally posted by Dan Collins:

The entire USC category says the HJ is the final arbiter on what constitutes USC, and based on this, I would be issuing a GL the first time, and disqualifying them the second time.

I'd like to pose a question to the folks who have been discussing DQ's if the player repeats the behavior. What provision in the IPG allows judges to disqualify someone for repeatedly violating direct instructions and/or repeatedly committing USC-Minor?

IPG 1.3 APPLYING PENALTIES


If repeated, the judge is expected to directly instruct the player not to repeat the offense, and further offenses are treated as Unsporting Conduct —Major for failing to follow the direct instruction of a tournament official

with

IPG 4.2 Unsporting Conduct —Major

Additional Remedy
The player must correct the behavior immediately, and can expect to be removed from the tournament venue upon further offenses. As with Unsporting Conduct —Minor infractions, if the offense occurs at the end of a game, it is acceptable for the judge to apply the penalty to the next game instead.


From: Paul Baranay
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2014 3:08 PM
To: Heckt, Andy
Subject: Re: BLEEP BLEEP in the BLEEP and BLEEP BLEEP BLEEEEEEP - SILVER (Knowledge Pool Scenarios)

Dan Collins
The entire USC category says the HJ is the final arbiter on what constitutes USC, and based on this, I would be issuing a GL the first time, and disqualifying them the second time.

I'd like to pose a question to the folks who have been discussing DQ's if the player repeats the behavior. What provision in the IPG allows judges to disqualify someone for repeatedly violating direct instructions and/or repeatedly committing USC-Minor?

——————————————————————————–
If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this email. Or view and respond to this message on the web at http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/50864/

Disable all notifications for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/8317/
Receive on-site notifications only for this topic: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/8317/?onsite=yes

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

Originally posted by Paul Baranay:

Dan Collins
The entire USC category says the HJ is the final arbiter on what constitutes USC, and based on this, I would be issuing a GL the first time, and disqualifying them the second time.

I'd like to pose a question to the folks who have been discussing DQ's if the player repeats the behavior. What provision in the IPG allows judges to disqualify someone for repeatedly violating direct instructions and/or repeatedly committing USC-Minor?

I was going to leave this thread alone, but since you quoted me, I'll be happy to respond. You specifically asked about repeated USC-Minor infractions or repeated failure to follow direct instructions, USC-Major, however this also would apply to USC-Major for aggressive or threatening behavior. Regardless, if multiple infractions are committed simultaneously, only the most serious penalty is applied. That penalty is probably for USC-Major. One clause was mentioned:

IPG 1.3
Some violations of tournament rules will not meet the criteria for any specific infraction. Many minor offenses that a player can commit, even intentionally, are not covered by a specific infraction should be handled initially with a Caution. If repeated, the judge is expected to directly instruct the player not to repeat the offense, and further offenses are treated as Unsporting Conduct — Major for failing to follow the direct instruction of a tournament official.

This does not apply here because we are not talking about a tournament rules violation, and we are not talking about an action that does not have a corresponding infraction.

If we accept either the argument that 1) the player's actions themselves meet the criteria for USC-Major, or 2) the player's actions are only USC-Minor, but the repeated infraction following our stern warning to Be Nice meets the criteria for USC-Major, we have:

IPG 4.2 Additional Remedy
The player must correct the behavior immediately, and can expect to be removed from the tournament venue upon further offenses.

That doesn't actually say “disqualify”, but it strongly implies it. Alongside:

IPG Title Page
The DCI wishes to make it clear if a penalty should be upgraded if it is repeated.

I don't believe that there is such a thing as upgrading to a match loss, the only match loss is for OA, which specifically makes sense. If we're upgrading from a GL, then it is almost certainly to a DQ.

Alternately, 3) you think that this doesn't qualify as USC-Major. To that I say:

IPG 4
The Head Judge is the final arbiter on what constitutes unsporting conduct.

And rule that even though the first offense was minor, now that the player has been told how offensive he has been twice, the repeat offense is a greater category of unsporting conduct because it was done knowingly and intentionally. Note that we're talking about a player whom has somehow managed to use incredibly offensive and divisive imagery to describe his opponents, then did it again, then was told not to do it again, then did it a third time. Depending on the venue or TO, there may be specific rules authorizing the ejection of participants who engage in this behavior. If all that isn't enough to qualify the upgrade, we have the “head judge's discretion” or “deviation from the IPG” or simply “the philosophy of the IPG”. For example:

IPG 1
The level of penalty an infraction carries is based on these factors…Repeated offenses by the player within the tournament…The amount of disruption it causes (time and people affected) in discovering, investigating, and resolving the issue.

IPG 1
The Head Judge may not deviate from this guide’s procedures except in significant and exceptional circumstances…

The IPG specifically makes it clear that speech that involves threats of violence or that is offensive and directed at a certain minority is considered more severe than simply foul language. Further, the IPG is aware that it cannot list every possible situation and in many cases lists a few examples of the “class” of infraction, leaving the specific interpretation up to the community at large. The remainder of this comment is simply my argument in support of deviation. In part due to a significant gender gap in our community and the geek community at large, and in part due to having some humanity, the community has expressed a very low level of tolerance for speech which could be construed as gender-based discrimination. Even if gender is not a factor in this individual's speech, the possibility exists for a bystander to observe this behavior, observe the actor being allowed to stay in the event, and draw a conclusion about how safe (cf. “safe space”) a place our community is for certain groups. We are ultimately answerable to our community, and this is an issue that our sister communities have been seriously rocked by, and have uniformly responded to with a set of zero tolerance policies. I'm still convinced that the IPG de jure supports the USC-Major-DQ upgrade due to repeated offenses, but were I in the situation today I would not feel at all bad justifying this DQ.

Edited Dan Collins (Feb. 6, 2014 09:09:00 PM)

I like Chris' answer back on Page 1. Based on the initial description, I don't see any evidence that this falls under the UC-Major definition of offensive of profane language is such classified under UC-Minor (incidentally, is this really a thing? This sounds like a wide variety of “-ism”s on the part of the DCI here…). Ask the initial judge if he actually gave F***dy a Warning, or just said something akin to “I'm warning you, don't do that again” (which, despite using the word “Warning”, is actually classified as a Caution). If a Warning was actually filed, then upgrade to GL as appropriate. If a Warning was not filed, then F***dy got lucky and got a Caution for UC-Minor the first time; give him the proper Warning for this second (first officially recorded) offense.

EDIT: Also, as Andy quoted above, IPG states that the first offense is a Warning, the second is a “Direct instruction” and the third+ is “failure to follow direct instruction” which is a DQ.

Edited Lyle Waldman (Feb. 7, 2014 09:22:21 AM)

We need to investigate further to determine if the initial penalty was correct - depending on what Freddy said & how he said it last round, it could be any of UC-Minor (excessively profane language), UC-Major (insult based on gender), or Aggressive Behaviour (acts in a threatening way).

As well as assessing the appropriate penalty as is being discussed, I would also inform the Tournament Organizer, as this may well be something they have a policy of their own on.

Given that this is a “second offence”, I would not be surprised if the TO removed them from the event at this point anyway. This should not influence our own IPG-based decision, but we need to know about it before we communicate with the player, as it would not be good to (for example) “give them a Direct Instruction” per Lyle's case or issue UC-Major then 2 minutes later tell them that they're out of the event despite having not having committed any further offences in those 2 minutes.

Ultimately, this is not language we want at events, and someone who repeatedly uses it is not a person we want at events. I would consult with the TO and then remove this person from the event.

Edited James Winward-Stuart (Feb. 10, 2014 12:00:41 PM)

Originally posted by Dan Collins:

That doesn't actually say “disqualify”, but it strongly implies it.

That doesn't actually say “Disqualify”, period. If someone is being disruptive enough to get multiple USC-Majors, then there's a strong chance the TO will kick them out.

Originally posted by Dan Collins:

Alongside:

IPG Title Page
The DCI wishes to make it clear if a penalty should be upgraded if it is repeated.

I don't believe that there is such a thing as upgrading to a match loss, the only match loss is for OA, which specifically makes sense. If we're upgrading from a GL, then it is almost certainly to a DQ.

The “if” in that quote is very important. We call out infractions and sections that have upgrade paths or special upgrade circumstances. There is no generic upgrade clause that applies to the whole document.

There's no such thing as upgrading to a Match Loss because no infraction or upgrade path upgrades to one (back when there was, the standard upgrade path was W-GL-ML-DQ). The same is true of DQs, though.

Lyle Waldman
and the third+ is “failure to follow direct instruction” which is a DQ.

I think you misspelled GL here.

The original intent of “failure to follow a direct instruction” was to give the judges' orders some weight (so, for example, players couldn't argue when a judge needed them to move). If you actually find yourself invoking it, it's a sign that something went pretty awry along the way.

IPG Title Page
The DCI wishes to make it clear if a penalty should be upgraded if it is repeated.

Wow… I've read this line dozens and dozens of times and always skipped over the first “if”. It completely changes the meaning of the sentence. It appears I'm not the only one.

Maybe “The DCI wishes to make it clear when a repeated penalty should be upgraded.”

Thanks to everyone who participated in this most recent dip in the Knowledge Pool. A lot of discussion about how to handle this (obviously) sensitive subject. And, with our apologies, we offer up a rather lengthy “answer” - that goes well beyond just providing “the answer”. Please, take the time to read and understand this, as it's a very important subject - for all of us, at any level, and any sort of event.

In order of occurrence, the original penalty by Jorge was correct - even if nobody else was complaining about the language Freddy used, Jorge is correct in stepping in and asking Freddy to stop using that type of language and assessing the USC:Minor.

For this occurrence, having been already assessed a USC:Minor, Freddy will be receiving another one, this time upgraded to a Game Loss as per the upgrade path for that penalty. Given that he is between rounds in this scenario, the Game Loss will apply to next game Freddy plays in this tournament (most likely Game 1 of the next round).

The number of people who felt the initial ruling may have been too lenient illustrates an important point; if nothing else, take this from the scenario: everyone is different, and we must respect that. Respecting different comfort levels is important, and doing so in a compassionate manner is important - even (especially?!) when you don't share or understand someone's discomfort with a situation.

Paul Ekman, a highly respected and honored psychologist, gives us this great quote:
“A test of your humanity is to be able to be compassionate with a patient who is afraid of something that you know there is no reason to fear. Suppose a patient is afraid that a procedure is going to be very painful, and you know it will not hurt. You have to recognize the patient's fear and then act to reduce that fear. Do not brush it off as not worth your attention just because you know the fear is not based in reality. The patient is feeling fear; that is real. You do not feel the patient's fear, but you must act compassionately to reduce it.”

A number of people wanted to move from USC:Minor to Major here, citing that Freddy had been told not use the language previously. It's true that one example of UC - Major is “Fails to follow a direct instruction from a tournament official.” Let's not be overzealous with our application of that. Typically, if a player is doing something they shouldn't - often that's a violation of the MTR that's not specifically listed as an infraction in the IPG - then we explain why they shouldn't repeat that behavior. That constitutes “a direct instruction from a tournament official.” Also, we may directly instruct a player in other areas: “Please don't sit on the table, it might collapse” or “don't run in the venue, you might knock someone or something over”. When a player ignores such direct instructions, that's UC Major.

When we assess an Infraction from the IPG, and educate the player on their error, it does imply a direct instruction of “don't do that again”; we might even clearly state that. However, if they do repeat that? It's still the same infraction as before, and follows any upgrade path specified for that infraction. (Remember, not all infractions specify an upgrade path!) Note also that there are no upgrade paths that lead to DQ - that's an artifact of long ago.

Often, when we're faced with Unsporting Conduct, it's appropriate to involve the TO, venue management, store owner, etc. We recommend these steps, in order:

• de-escalate the situation, as appropriate;

• inform the TO and welcome their involvement (or accept the lack thereof);

• inform the player of any infraction;

• either ensure they will correct the behavior, or - with the TO's involvement - remove them from the venue.

A player crossed a boundary. As a judge, you are asserting that boundary. (Aim for “compassionate and respectful,” not “robotic and unfeeling.”) As a representative of the TO, you should understand any additional boundaries the TO may want to assert. If the TO is not willing to maintain the boundary set by tournament policies, challenge yourself to understand why, and - if it's available to you - educate the TO. And recognize that each of these steps can be uncomfortable, so take good care of yourself along the way.

****WARNING: POTENTIAL TRAUMA TRIGGER LANGUAGE****

Word choice matters. Specific words affect different people in radically different ways. While we used the word “rape” in the scenario, that word and words like it can themselves be harmful. We added the warning for trauma trigger language after a reader brought up this potential problem. We'd like to thank him for his awareness and for raising ours, as this knowledge will help us all improve these forums, our tournaments, and beyond.

For more information, we highly recommend Tasha Jamison's blog:

http://blogs.magicjudges.org/alliedstrategies/

Thanks again for participating and we look forward to seeing you at the next Knowledge Pool scenario!

Edited Scott Marshall (Feb. 12, 2014 12:17:05 PM)