The IPG also explictly states, that I may choose to apply it to the next match. I'm not taking into account who will benefit. How I'm currently interpreting those rules is: if a match almost ended, apply the penalty to the next round. It's an exception to how we usually handle match loses and to the statement you quoted.

Initial impression, before reading the rest of the thread: USC-Major for them both, Match Loss for them both, applied at the beginning of the next round.

Having read the other responses:

Several people seem to be saying that Nolan's action can't be USC-Major because it nominally refers to a game action rather than a person. I disagree; even when not explicitly directed at an individual, it's certainly possible for slurs to "create a feeling of being harrassed… bullied“ (and hence, that it's reasonable to expect them to). Particularly since the game action that's the nominal target of the slur was performed by an individual. I'm willing to be convinced in that this particular case it's what Sean Catanese called ”casual use“ and USC-Minor instead, based on the (lack of) severity and repetition in this particular case, but the mere fact that it's not explicitly directed at your opponent shouldn't be dispositive (nor should the fact the Amy clearly doesn't see ”gay“ as a serious slur).

As Sean Catanese said, the reason judges have the ability to apply a penalty at the start of the next round is so that there's no ”free pass“ on Unsporting Conduct when you're ”about to lose the match anyway“. Giving Nolan a Match Loss in the current match would clearly be a free pass. Doing the same to Amy isn't quite as clear-cut, but it feels like we should be applying the penalty in the same way to bother players and does better meet the objective of providing ”a round to cool down".

Originally posted by Myles Butler-Wolfe:

This case is more profane language than sexual hate.

Well put Myles. I think this is the perfect way to concisely explain the situation.

While the two players are using language that we would like to discourage, I don't think that the average person (LBGTQ or otherwise) would interpret it as hate speech.

Sorry Glenn, but I can't agree with your statement, and stating that you
believe that to be generally true isn't helpful to an adult discussion.


On when to apply the USC-Major I do wonder if the “That's gay” comment was
intended as a concession. I could very easily see myself saying “That
sucks” in the situation and moving to pick up my cards. I'd be happy to ask
him if there were any game actions he was going to take to advance the game
in response to the Bonfire, if he didn't then I'd by applying the ML to the
next round. I also feel that asking such questions would give me a really
good insight into if they player was trying to use this as an avenue for
baiting a ML.

My biggest concern here is the same concern that I've seen in my profession (and throughout America as a whole, but that's a soap box for a different day): If we do not consider context here, then almost every interaction becomes USC.

You observe a male player and a female player finishing up a game. Male player goes “well, I'm gonna smack that ass tonight like you just smacked mine”.

BAM! USC

Context: The players are married and this is the sort of banter they have between themselves.

If we don't consider this, then every interaction becomes like the kid who chewed his bread into the form of a gun and got suspended from school: a ridiculous extension of a good policy.

Yes, we should stamp out anti- X behavior immediately. However, it is an unfortunate truth that this just could be two people who reverted to “Nuh-uhn, you are” type behavior.

Yes we want to keep our environment safe, but we do not want to OVER-enforce a rule that is solid. To do so would create an environment where no one has fun and no one interacts with one another. We'd have entire MtG tournaments where people would be too afraid to say anything in fear of a USC.

“Well it sucks you lost your first round, but good luck on the rest of the tournament”
“JUDGE! He is making fun of me”

Words mean things.

I want to share my own experience with my race (Japanese) and a word that means something to me: “Jap.” As this wikipedia entry explains, that word has been used historically as a slur against Japanese people in the United States. When I was young, my mother took me to a protest against a hair salon called “Jap.” It is one of my earliest memories in the States.

Today, many people refer to certain Magic cards as “Jap foils.” It's an innocent abbreviation, but it still reminds me of the history behind the word, and my own personal experiences. If I have some time, I might sit down and ask them politely to not use that word and what it means to me. In some circles, this effort has gotten people to use J-foil“ instead (it may also be that the rise in popularity of Korean foils, and the ease of calling them ”K-foils“ and ”J-foils“).

If someone calls something a ”Jap foil,“ I'm not going to give them a USC - Major. I'm not even going to give them a USC - Minor. Words mean things, but so does context, and there is zero malicious context here anymore. They are using the word to describe something that is seen as a super premium. It's positive. But like I said, I would prefer that they use a different term, and I will speak up without resorting to infractions and penalties.

People have mentioned the definition of ”gay“ that can mean ”happy.“ It's pretty easy to identify when this is the context. It is equally clear when that is not the context. You can be intentionally obtuse and say that you can't tell the context in a text description. I urge you not to be. I urge you not to ignore these words when they are used around you as a pejorative. I have read too many stories of people who have sat by and let a word used to describe their group be used in such fashion. They want to speak up, but they are afraid. They feel isolated because no one will speak up against this speech. They leave the communities where this continues, feeling that they have no place there. They feel it isn't welcoming and safe for them to be there. This is why our policies have been changed. This is why this Knowledge Pool exists. This is why we fight.

I guess I'm lucky that ”Jap" has come to mean something positive in the Magic community, but the history still stings. I can only imagine how badly it must hurt for people whose group name is still used as a pejorative today.

Originally posted by Riki Hayashi:

People have mentioned the definition of ”gay“ that can mean ”happy.“ It's pretty easy to identify when this is the context. It is equally clear when that is not the context. You can be intentionally obtuse and say that you can't tell the context in a text description. I urge you not to be. I urge you not to ignore these words when they are used around you as a pejorative. I have read too many stories of people who have sat by and let a word used to describe their group be used in such fashion. They want to speak up, but they are afraid. They feel isolated because no one will speak up against this speech. They leave the communities where this continues, feeling that they have no place there. They feel it isn't welcoming and safe for them to be there. This is why our policies have been changed. This is why this Knowledge Pool exists. This is why we fight.

By no means do I think they were using “Gay” in the term of happy. From reading the scenario, without talking to any party obviously, I read it more as a “That's stupid” “Well, you're stupid” - which is, unfortunately, a way people talk nowadays. But I will, through talking with them, try to determine how they meant it.

And like you mentioned in your example, and I said in my original comment, I would definitely talk to both parties and explain to them why we should NOT use this form of language, even if they meant it as ‘stupid’. I believe that a USC- Minor Warning would suffice to reign them in.

As the end result we want is for them NOT to use this type of language AND keep the environment fun and safe. And this penalty will accomplish all of what we want.

I'm confused by some of the suggestions that the players are engaged in a playground-style “Nuh uh! You are!” banter and therefore we should avoid penalizing them. USC penalties are used to curb disrespectful behaviour from players. Yes, it's possible that in the heat of the moment Amy and Nolan didn't stop to consider the words they were using, but the fact remains the words chosen are hurtful ones used in a context we don't want to condone.

It's not only Amy and Nolan we need to consider in this situation–it's also all the players near them, and in a broader sense everyone who goes to Magic tournaments. The fact that a spectator notified the judge of the situation is evidence that someone found the language hurtful, and I don't think it's hard to see why given the context.

Amy's statement is almost a textbook example of USC - Major.

Darren Hove said:

And like you mentioned in your example, and I said in my original
comment, I would definitely talk to both parties and explain to them
why we should NOT use this form of language, even if they meant it as
‘stupid’. I believe that a USC- Minor Warning would suffice to reign
them in.

I say:

That's exactly, and precisely, the usage we are trying to stamp out.
We've (mostly) eradicated the use of racial slurs to mean ‘cheap’
(even ones that, etymologically, had a different origin), ‘bad’ or
have other connotations in every day language. We've also, as a
society, reduced usage of gendered terms for various professions or
tasks. Heck, even usage of terms for various mental illnesses or
disorders for ‘stupid’ has been frowned upon for years: I remember
being discouraged from the use of the word ‘retard’ at a young age.

There's no reason why using a homophobic slur to mean ‘stupid’ should
be exempt from this idea. While Amy and Nolan might not know it, it's
probable that people in the room identify with the term ‘gay’. Using
it in a negative context like it is here makes being in the event less
pleasant for that person. While you might think nothing of it, you
aren't the one that's affected by it, either. Ask yourself if
someone who is in the group in question would be affected, not if you
are.

If we substitute the word ‘stupid’ for ‘gay’ in the question, it's a
whole different problem: stupid people aren't a protected class, and
there's not a lot of people whose identity has as a core facet their
stupidity, and certainly not in a positive way.

Stupid is not what was said.

Words mean things.

Originally posted by Darren Horve:

I would also make it perfectly clear, that while they may have meant no offense - this sort of dialogue is not acceptable.

Originally posted by Darren Horve:

I would definitely talk to both parties and explain to them why we should NOT use this form of language, even if they meant it as ‘stupid’.

As you can see, I too agree with stamping out the verbage here. I think that a Warning will accomplish what we are trying to achieve. In my profession we respond with like force. Meaning, you don't shoot someone with a Rocket Launcher if they threw a rock at you.

Here we can stamp out the behavior with a warning. These people may not think that their words have an effect outside of their sphere of interaction. So, to fix this we could easily issue the USC Warning and they learn a valuable lesson. Yes, we could issue the actual penalty instead of a Warning, but I think - unless we are talking about ‘hardcores’ that doing it this way will get them to think about their words more. Which, in the end, is what we want.

DISCLAIMER: Like I said before, I would definitely talk to them to ensure that they were just ill-informed or just unaware that of their words. If I felt, through talking to them, that they understood what they were saying / doing; then I would feel just as comfortable issuing the actual GL/ML as appropriate.

IMO, both statements are fairly direct examples of USC-Minor (Nolan) / USC-Major (Amy). I would investigate to see if Nolan is intentionally trying to get a rise out of Amy. If so, more severe activity occurs.

As for the penalties, I believe the exemption to apply the USC penalties in the next game/match is for this type of scenario. If it didn't exist, unsavory players would consistently take a chance at a end game insult to try and get free wins.

I would have them finish the game that they are playing, which probably ends with Amy winning. Then, I would issue the penalties to take effect in game 1 of the next round for both players.

-mf

Originally posted by Bradley Morin:

I'm confused by some of the suggestions that the players are engaged in a playground-style “Nuh uh! You are!” banter and therefore we should avoid penalizing them.

I don't believe that anyone has said this. From what I've seen, everyone agrees that this is either USC - Minor or USC - Major, and that both parties need a stern talking to. Nobody thinks that this language is the type of thing to be tolerated, and nobody thinks that using the word “gay” with the connotation of “stupid” makes it permissible.

The question is whether these words, in this context, are something that will reasonably make someone feel threatened, bullied, harassed, or stalked based on their status within a protected class.

That is not happening here - and yes, the context of the remarks plays a huge role in that. The words “disappointed” “offended” “saddened” and “outraged” might apply, but there is a *huge* difference between being offended and being bullied. To equate what happened here with what true bullying can be like is a huge slap in the face to people who have been bullied or harassed.

This is not a lesser form of bullying or harassment. This is not unintentional bullying or harassment. This is an unpleasant, brief, oral exchange with word choice in serious need of correcting.

In general, I implore people not to conflate the seriousness of the accusation with whether the crime actually occurred. Kafkaesque mock trials are just about the worst.

By the strict definitions in the IPG, Nolan has committed USC-Minor (he's used inappropriate language that doesn't have a place at a Magic tournament, and has likely made someone feel uncomfortable (that's not a requirement, but it's still likely to have happened)) and Amy has committed USC-Major (she's directly addressing Nolan with what sounds like an insult about sexual orientation (although “you're gay” isn't necessarily an insult, context here implies that she's not just reminding him that he's homosexual (as if he could forget)).

Now, taking in the totality of the circumstances, we have one player saying something inappropriate, and the other echoing it back. The main concern here is 1) this situation could escalate further and 2) the specific word(s) being used. Imagine if the exchange was “That's stupid.” “You're stupid.” or “That sucks.” “You suck.” Those are both times when we would probably caution the players to calm down and move on, or maybe issue USC-Minor infractions if it seemed particularly egregious.

I'm very hesitant to issue Amy a Match Loss and Nolan just a Warning for doing what essentially amount to the same thing, so I think my ruling here would be to issue USC-Minor to each side, separate the players if needed (the match is over; I can mediate filling out the results slip if needed) and sternly give a Warning to each player that language like that doesn't belong in this environment. (I think that also fits with the philosophy of the recent change to USC-Major in that we still end the interaction and give the players any necessary “cool-down” time.)

I might also conduct a brief investigation into whether or not either player has shown a history of this behavior, not necessarily to change how I handle this situation (barring previous USC Warnings which would necessitate upgrades), but to know if I need to watch either of these players more closely for this as the event progresses.

I like Darren's response on Page 1. While “You're gay” is pretty textbook UC - Major, if an ensuing investigation reveals that Amy did not mean to insult Nolan and was participating in banter, I would be willing to downgrade to UC - Minor. It should be reasonably obvious in context whether she was intending to hurt Nolan or was just joking.

Edited Lyle Waldman (July 26, 2014 07:26:42 PM)

Use of the word gay as a pejorative is clearly USC. For me, the only questions here are whether it's Major/Minor in each case, and when any penalties should be applied.

Normally, I'd say that Amy's statement is USC - Major, as it's directed harassment based on sexual orientation, whereas Nolan's is USC - Minor, since it's offensive language, but undirected.

However, in this situation, Nolan has already used the word as a pejorative, so I don't believe that he has any particular right to be offended by the word being redirected towards him. I believe that the context allows for both players to be given the same penalty of USC - Minor and to be warned that their language is inappropriate.

Had either player received a greater penalty, I'd have applied it to this match. The Bonfire has been revealed, but not cast. The game is still in progress.