Originally posted by Daniel De Swarte:

Use of the word gay as a pejorative is clearly USC.

Personally, I disagree. To me it falls into language we want to discourage, but use of “gay” in the pajoritive simply is not profane or vulgar. I don't see where in USC-Minor this is justified. There are tons of things that can be said that will make people uncomfortable at events. There are times I don't like the shirt my opponent is wearing because it offends me in some way. That doesn't mean that we get to hand out USC-Minor just because we don't like it.

Originally posted by Daniel De Swarte:

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 think this logic takes us down a path we don't want to follow. Using a word in the pejorative shouldn't be giving someone free license to use it against me.

Saying “This card (enter insult of choice)” is massively different than telling your opponent that “You (enter insult of choice)”. Imagine the difference at the end of a match of someone saying “Garruk is my slave” versus telling an opponent “You're my slave”. One is kind of funny, the other could end up being USC-Major. (It took some serious effort there to find a good PG example)

I don't think that the fact the term was used first by an opponent gets Amy off the hook for redirecting it at another player. She took it to far by turning it into an insult about her opponent.

Edited Marc DeArmond (July 26, 2014 08:03:00 PM)

Darren, I'm concerned that your example of “policy gone too far” is actually a textbook example of inappropriate behavior.

Originally posted by Darren Horve:

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.

Let's add some reasonable reasonable variables to this…
What if the female player was offended?
Does being in an relationship absolve the male player from being able to offend the female?

Do all the spectators know that these two are in a banterful relationship?
What if the female wasn't offended, but the mother of the two 8-year old girls playing in the store for the first time next to them is offended?


Is the infraction committed dependent on these variables? Do we poll everyone in the area around and go with the consensus? What if the female play was offended, but is embarrassed to admit it because her husband thinks that this is just “fun banter” and she doesn't want to upset him?

Long story short, the USC infractions don't just protect the person an insult is directed at, they exist to cultivate a culture that is safe and inclusive. This goes beyond “is the female in this scenario offended.”

I think the biggest struggle some judges have is not with the policy or enforcing it, but in a simple definition: What is an insult?
An insult is NOT defined by does the person it is directed at feel scorned or disrespected, but instead, is a statement that can reasonably be considered scornful or disrespectful.

So let's bring this back to the original scenario With Amy and Nolan. Would this scenario be different if Nolan was actually gay? Does the insult instead become just an accurate description of Nolan's sexual preference or is Amy's statement even more insulting? Last question: Should it matter?

Edited Bret Siakel (July 28, 2014 12:25:35 PM)

Originally posted by Bret Siakel:

So let's bring this back to the original scenario With Amy and Nolan. Would this scenario be different if Nolan was actually gay? Does the insult instead become just an accurate description of Nolan's sexual preference or is Amy's statement even more insulting? Last question: Should it matter?

I think that it's important to note that the original scenario doesn't discuss either individuals sexuality. This exists for a couple reasons. The primary one being that, as a judge, you never know. But there's questions to be asked in the investigation that will uncover if there's something more sinister going on. I'm not suggesting asking either person if they are gay, but instead asking both parties it they believe their opponent is gay.
If Noland says that he knew Amy was gay, his comments jump into USC-Major territory. I believe Amy's comment is USC-Major either way as I can't tell if it is more or less inappropriate if Noland actually is gay. I can conceivably engineer an example where both parties are gay and they're having playful banter that isn't actually offensive to either party.
However, from the original scenario, I believe Noland's intent was “this sucks” with a poor choice of words. Amy's response was a comeback, probably aimed to mock Noland's poor choice of words.

Marc- That is an interesting way to look at it. Why does that matter? What if a player called his opponent a dirty Mexican. Do you investigate to find out if the infracting player actually believes his opponent is Mexican?

I personally do not want to go through that investigation. If a player says or does something offensive and it based off of race, color, religion, national origin, age, gender, disability, or sexual orientation, the player gets a USC-Major. I don't see a reason to over complicate this.

I want to quote a section of the philosophy of USC-Major that I feel is often forgotten in these discussions.

Originally posted by USC-Major Philosophy:

Hate speech and other insults targeted at a protected class indicate a deeper issue and must be dealt with swiftly.
Even if unfounded, they may be offensive to spectators or other nearby individuals. Local areas may have additional
protected classes that fall under this category.

After thinking about this a bit, I no longer think Amy committed USC - Major.

Nolan has recently expressed his frustration inappropriately, commenting on the situation with “that's gay”. Amy is responding directly with what is said to her. Given Nolan initiated the situation with that particular slur, I don't think it's reasonable to expect the phrase “you're gay” to create a feeling of being harassed, bullied, threatened, or stalked. After Amy's reply, I don't think Nolan should feel any less safe at the tournament than he did before.

Even though Amy is directly insulting her opponent, given the rest of the situation, it doesn't feel like bullying, and it doesn't feel like harassing someone. In the end, this really is a judgement call, and will depend on context.

Amy used language inappropriately, making the environment generally unwelcoming to others. She's committed USC - Minor, and receives a warning. The rest of my answer still stands - the players should initially be separated and the situation defused while things are investigated, and educated about creating a welcoming environment.

I would treat these as separate levels of infractions.

Nolan is obviously venting his frustration, while the words can be offensive if used as an insult I do not feel that this warrants USC - Minor straight of the bat, and would probably give out a caution, informing Nolan to be more careful with his language and that the penalty will be upgraded to usc - minor if it happens again.

Regarding Amy, her words are directed at somebody and is both insulting and a personal attack, not only being likely to offend Nolan but spectators who don't like the word gay being used as an insult too. I would apply a USC - Major as well as tell Amy that insulting her opponent is inappropriate and not welcomed behaviour at any level of Magic.

This would apply regardless of whether or not Nolan is actually offended, or if the insult is unfounded regarding Nolans sexual identity as it is counted as hate speech and could potentially be offensive to spectators and surrounding players.

For the USC - Major I would give Amy a Match loss.

Welcome back everyone! I want to thank you all for such lively debate and discussion. Hopefully a great many things, and viewpoints were examined this week. I know that on a personal note I've realized a great many things and want to thank you all for that. Now on to the solution:

Amy will receive USC-Major for directing an insult based on sexual preference toward her opponent. This is a match loss, and thus ends the match immediately and Nolan is the winner. Nolan will receive USC-Minor, for his comment which could impact the comfort level of others at the event. Amy will be given a chance to apologize to Nolan and if she shows remorse then may continue playing in the event. The infraction applies to the current round, the match still in progress.

There are a few things of note here. Amy has escalated the situation to a personal attack and that is not OK. Nolan has most likely made his remark out of ignorance and while that is not acceptable language, it is not a direct attack and should not be penalized as such.

There have been a few remarks about intent and jokes. Remember that the comfort level of others is as important as the comfort of the participants in the match. While Amy and Nolan may be having fun it can not be at the expense of those around them. Customers, judges, store employees, other participants, the list goes on, all need to be made as comfortable as the people actually playing in the tournament.

Great work to Talin for a quick and accurate diagnosis of the situation! In addition Elliot provided fantastic reasoning and details to support Talin's work. Also a quick shout out to Devin Smith for the assist. Often we forget (most of the KP members are either native speakers, or are very comfortable with English), and this use of “gay” as a pejorative slipped by us. I look forward to the added level of detail this gives us (we love to improve for you!)

Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't add a thank you to Riki Hayashi. Riki's poignant and reasoned explanation of why this language, and language like it is unreasonable and unacceptable can be found here: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/topic/11401/?page=3#post-72617

Until next time stay tuned for another Knowledge Pool!

Originally posted by Benjamin McDole:

There have been a few remarks about intent and jokes. Remember that the comfort level of others is as important as the comfort of the participants in the match.

Could you elaborate a bit further on this point? I'm uncertain how we are going supposed to be applying this standard. I can accept the ruling, but it means that I don't understand the words that are written in the IPG.

Below is a crude spectrum of the interpretations I've seen - could you identify which is the closest to the actual test for USC - Major, as it relates to non-participants in the exchange?

“Could a bystander reasonably be made to feel harassed, bullied, threatened or stalked by overhearing this comment?”

“Could a bystander reasonably be made to feel uncomfortable by overhearing this comment?”

“Could a bystander possibly be made to feel uncomfortable by overhearing this comment?”

“Did someone get called a prohibited word, regardless of context?” (e.g. someone could get a ML for telling the Fishsticks Joke)

The infraction applies to the current round, the match still in progress.

I'm wondering why this is the case. Amy cast Bonfire for lethal damage, winning game 3, and then the infraction occurred. Even though the match slip hasn't been filled out, the match has been decided. There's nothing to be gained by removing Amy from the current match, since even without the penalty, Amy and Nolan would no longer be interacting. Why not apply the Match Loss to Amy's next round?

Glenn -

USC - Minor is going to fall into your point 2. As far as UC - Major that
is much more defined as it requires a statement to be directed explicitly
at an individual ie - “You're gay!” or “You [insert slur based on protected
class]”. Nobody needs to be explicitly offended or within earshot to
offend for us to apply UC - Major because of the potential these types of
infractions have to damage the community at large.

Talin -

The part of the new UC - Major policy that allows us to apply to the next
round is for those situations where an individual is not currently engaged
in a match and commits the infraction (spectators or players between
matches) so they don't have a free pass on the penalty. Amy and Nolan are
actively engaged in completing their match when the infraction was
committed so the appropriate course of action is to apply the penalty to
this round. Just because the current action would kill Nolan doesn't make
the game “complete”.

My 2 cents

My instinct says USC minor for Nolan. But since the word “gay” itself isn't a profanity depending on its context i'm not sure it meets the USC minor criteria as it wasn't directed at anyone and in the context while it is being used as a negative the word is not being used in relation to a sexuality. If he substituted the word lame, stupid or naf instead in the same context which is the intention behind how gay is being used most people wouldn't say USC minor.

By definition USC minor A player takes action that is disruptive to the tournament or its participants. It may affect the comfort level of those around the individual, but determining whether this is the case is not required.
It hasn't disrupted the tournament or a participant and the word itself isn't inherently profane depending on its context.

I must therefore rule either all uses of the word GAY are USC Major as an insult regarding sexuality or that contextually it isn't always a profanity in which case its neither so I think on reflection I might caution a player that such language could cause offence especially if directed at someone but I don't think either USC Minor or Major is appropriate.


As to Amy its the spectator that's called the judge regardless of whether it was banter between friends the philosophy of the IPG is that

Hate speech and other insults targeted at a protected class indicate a deeper issue and must be dealt with swiftly. Even if unfounded, they may be offensive to spectators or other nearby individuals.

Even if the intent of the insult was unfounded (Banter) then it has caused offence to a spectator is aimed at a protected class. Therefore it has to be USC Major.

I would interview the players to establish whether the original comment was an implied concede and if so the Penalty should be applied after the game.

Edited David Hughman (July 29, 2014 05:25:56 PM)

Good evening! I did not want public questions to go unanswered, however after this post we will be locking the thread. Please feel free to address myself, or any of the other KP members with questions and we will be happy to help out.

Rather than address individual instances (of which there are infinite variations), let's go with the simple facts of what has happened here.

Amy has directly insulted someone based on their gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, national orientation, or any number of other fundamental identity forming traits. This has no place in tournaments.

One thing to consider here, is the comfort level of all those around Amy. Spectators, judges, customers can not be made to feel equally uncomfortable, or potentially uncomfortable by her actions. Someone insulting another player based on their sexual orientation is a realistic way to make another human being uncomfortable, or feel bullied. As such it fits the definition we have set for USC-Major. Nolan on the other hand has used poor language casually and not directed toward a player. While this is not acceptable it also carries less of a risk of creating a toxic environment.

Many people have asked about the potential for two players joking amongst themselves. While I can appreciate players enjoying the event, the appearance and environment may change greatly based on their behavior seeming acceptable. If two players are using slurs at one another that creates an environment that is largely hostile for others, which we can not have. The same thing can be said for every clause in USC-Major.

To address the issue of why the penalty is applied this round instead of next: The entire idea behind being able to apply this infraction to the next round is removing the ability to use a slur with no drawback on a match being lost, or in between rounds. That clearly is not happening here, so it does not apply.