Magic Judges Forum / Competitive REL / What would be considered offensive wear?

Matt Crocker · March 11, 2015 09:23:16 AM

Originally posted by James Winward-Stuart:

If a spoken statement would be USC-Minor, then surely the same statement in a written form is also USC-Minor?

I was also wondering this. The IPG's definition of USC - Minor is “A player takes action that is disruptive to the tournament or its participants.”. We have 2 ways to go:

1) Consider an action taken pre-tournament that affects the tournament (putting on an offensive shirt) under the purview of the IPG
2) Don't consider it under the purview of the IPG, letting it go

Personally I'm very much in category #1. If we're going with #2 then I firmly believe that policy is deficient in this area; we should not be tolerating players being passively disruptive any more than we do actively disruptive.

Yonatan Kamensky · March 11, 2015 09:31:22 AM

Matt, James, that's really the question at the heart of this discussion. That is, not if a particular image qualifies for USC-Minor, but if any image would.

Its also important to confine ourselves to the actual text of the IPG, and not what we believe is or should be in the spirit of the document. Under the current wording, I would rule that a t-shirt (almost) never qualifies. Of course, the IPG may be revised to include more clear language on this topic :)

Matt Crocker · March 11, 2015 09:34:46 AM

Originally posted by Yonatan Kamensky:

Its also important to confine ourselves to the actual text of the IPG, and not what we believe is or should be in the spirit of the document. Under the current wording, I would rule that a t-shirt (almost) never qualifies. Of course, the IPG may be revised to include more clear language on this topic :)

You're also not confining yourself to the actual text of the IPG. The current wording is that the player needs to take an action that causes disruption to the tournament or its participants; that's it. On the wording alone an action has been taken - the putting on of this shirt pre-tournament.

Yonatan Kamensky · March 11, 2015 09:37:26 AM

Originally posted by Matt Crocker:

The current wording is that the player needs to take an action that causes disruption to the tournament or its participants; that's it. On the wording alone an action has been taken - the putting on of this shirt pre-tournament.

Am I to understand that an action taken outside the event (“pre-tournament”) can be an infraction?

Bryan Li · March 11, 2015 09:39:30 AM

I don't think that we can say the IPG applies to anything that happens completely outside the tournament, though. Are we going to give USC-Minor to a player who's (using the D example) previously taunted an opponent for a poor play during deck testing the previous week, and now shows up to the tournament and is playing against the same person? Are we going to give USC-Minor to a player who has a reputation for being excessively vulgar and/or profane, and makes some players uncomfortable, even though he hasn't done anything this tournament?

James Winward-Stuart · March 11, 2015 09:42:13 AM

I would say that if something would be USC when spoken, it is USC when presented via another medium.

I would also say that wearing a t-shirt does constitute “taking action”. If there's a question over whether wearing something does constitute an action, then consider that we could also class it as “expressing an opinion”, which surely is one.

If we're going to demand absolute exactness to the phrasing, then I'd like to point out Example A, which reads:
A player uses excessively vulgar or profane language.
Not “says something excessively vulgar” or “speaks in a vulgar way”, just “uses language” - which would include written language.

I do agree that, either way, it would help if the IPG was clearer here.

James Winward-Stuart · March 11, 2015 09:44:30 AM

Rather than quibble over whether “wearing” is an action, and whether the pre-tournament action of putting something on counts if wearing isn't an action, let's look at the underlying philosophy here:

All participants should expect a safe and enjoyable environment at a tournament, and a participant needs to be made aware if his or her behavior is unacceptable so that this environment may be maintained.

With that to guide our decisions, it seems very clear that offensive t-shirts can be USC-Minor.

Matt Crocker · March 11, 2015 09:48:29 AM

I agree with both of James' previous posts on this and hadn't considered the “wearing as an action” stuff. I also definitely think that the philosophy is behind USC - Minor here.

Clarification in the IPG would be helpful, mind.

Rebecca Lawrence · March 11, 2015 10:06:12 AM

Originally posted by Yonatan Kamensky:

Its also important to confine ourselves to the actual text of the IPG, and not what we believe is or should be in the spirit of the document.

Okay, let's do that.

4.1. Unsporting Conduct — Minor
Definition
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.

This is verbatim the copy and paste of what the text of the IPG says. You're right, it says nothing about shirts, not even in the example cases. But with respect, to argue that just because it isn't explicitly stated means that it can't possibly be included in this infraction is poor logic. The philosophy of each infraction case is there for a reason - so we can understand the spirit and scope of the infraction and what it is meant to prevent or educate against. The examples are clearly not the only circumstances by which we issue infractions, and especially in the USC cases, they lack 100% coverage by necessity; there is simply no way to cover every possible angle of where we have to draw the line on USC Minor behavior.

Yonatan Kamensky · March 11, 2015 10:15:30 AM

Originally posted by Nathaniel Lawrence:

But with respect, to argue that just because it isn't explicitly stated means that it can't possibly be included in this infraction is poor logic.

Indeed; fortunately that was not my argument :) I've made my case more expressly in other sections of the thread, if you care to look. You are of course correct in your (EDIT: other) assertions.

Nathaniel, what conclusion would you draw?

Edited Yonatan Kamensky (March 11, 2015 10:17:57 AM)

Rebecca Lawrence · March 11, 2015 10:24:53 AM

I'm not sure I understand your question.

James Winward-Stuart · March 11, 2015 10:29:28 AM

Originally posted by Yonatan Kamensky:

Indeed; fortunately that was not my argument :) I've made my case more expressly in other sections of the thread, if you care to look. You are of course correct in your (EDIT: other) assertions.

As I understand your position from your page 1 posts, it is that displaying an image cannot constitute an action. That would only matter if you were also holding that if something isn't explicitly stated it isn't included. Otherwise, we can simply say that images aren't explicitly referred to, but are clearly intended to be included.

As I said, though, I think it would be more productive to look at the philosophy section - again the actual text from the IPG - which says that All participants should expect a safe and enjoyable environment at a tournament - something they're not going to have if offensive images are on display.

Rebecca Lawrence · March 11, 2015 10:40:19 AM

Originally posted by James Winward-Stuart:

Yonatan Kamensky
Indeed; fortunately that was not my argument :) I've made my case more expressly in other sections of the thread, if you care to look. You are of course correct in your (EDIT: other) assertions.

As I understand your position from your page 1 posts, it is that displaying an image cannot constitute an action. That would only matter if you were also holding that if something isn't explicitly stated it isn't included. Otherwise, we can simply say that images aren't explicitly referred to, but are clearly intended to be included.

As I said, though, I think it would be more productive to look at the philosophy section - again the actual text from the IPG - which says that All participants should expect a safe and enjoyable environment at a tournament - something they're not going to have if offensive images are on display.

+1

Yonatan Kamensky · March 11, 2015 10:40:21 AM

Nate, you address my argument but don't actually come to a conclusion yourself. It seems that you hold the shirt would qualify, you just don't come out and say it.

Philosophy dictates that we must address it - and certainly no one here is advocating otherwise. Even though the examples are clearly not an exclusive list, the burden of proof still rests against considering this an infraction. Although I don't hold “that if something isn't explicitly stated it isn't included” in the case of examples, I most definitely do for the definition.

Rebecca Lawrence · March 11, 2015 10:58:17 AM

My conclusion then is that imagery can be and often is just as offensive as spoken or written word - the distinction being made between them is false. Furthermore, intent of source cannot and should not be prioritized over interpretation by recipient; sexist commentary remains sexist even if the intended audience would parse it as a joke (and one may even argue that it's even more important to address these sort of rifts in understanding, as they are the sort of microaggressions that perpetuate the image of our culture as being unwelcoming).

Wearing an offensive shirt into/at a tournament is equivalent to making an offensive statement out loud or having an offensive playmat, and thus falls squarely into USC Minor territory, because it clearly has the means to impact the comfort levels of people at the event.

I'm of the mind that judges should be the first line of defense and the most actively vocal arbiters of inclusive behavior, and splitting hairs over wording like “takes an action” to determine whether something can be considered officially disruptive and not okay in tournament environments is ultimately losing sight of that mission.

Edited Rebecca Lawrence (March 11, 2015 10:58:58 AM)

Please keep the forum protocol in mind when posting.

What would be considered offensive wear?

What would be considered offensive wear?

What would be considered offensive wear?

What would be considered offensive wear?

What would be considered offensive wear?

What would be considered offensive wear?

What would be considered offensive wear?

What would be considered offensive wear?

What would be considered offensive wear?

What would be considered offensive wear?

What would be considered offensive wear?

What would be considered offensive wear?

What would be considered offensive wear?

What would be considered offensive wear?

What would be considered offensive wear?