Greetings judges! Welcome back to the Knowledge Pool. This week we have Silver scenario!

The blog post for this scenario is here.

You are the Head Judge of a Eternal Masters Sealed Grand Prix Trial and are watching over one of the last games in Round 1. In Armin's pre-combat main phase, he casts Rorix Bladewing. Nate exiles a Giant Tortoise from his hand and pays 1 life to cast his brand-new, pack-fresh, foil Force of Will, targetting Armin's Rorix Bladewing. Armin picks up the foil Force of Will, looks directly at Nate, smirks and says ”You are one lucky motherf****r." before carefully setting the card back down on his playmat and putting his Rorix Bladewing into his graveyard. Nate is visibly taken back at Armin's statement and then looks at you. Should you do anything?

This is an interesting one. If anything, we are looking at an USC - Minor for vulgar language. Which would be a warning.

My first reaction was to be, it depends. Was it said aggressively? Was he trying to be rude. And then I thought. No that's too subjective. Regardless of the possible interpretation it can (and in this case did) cause the opponent to feel discomfort., which is part of the philosophy of issuing USC - Minor. I would issue the warning, ask him to watch his language, and have them finish the match.

USC Minor. The language was offensive but not threatening and does not qualify for USC Major.

I would go with Russell and Jonathan here and also issue a Warning for USC Minor because of the vulgar language. However, if I had the feeling, that Nate feels threatened by Armin's behaviour (i.e. directly looking at him / the undertone of Armin's “statement”) I would consider issueing a match loss for USC major.

Edited Dennis Nolting (July 6, 2016 03:29:33 PM)

UC minor. Warning. How Nate feels does not effect the offence. There was no threat and the force of will was handled with care not anger.

I think for this to be USC the language needs to be excessive. I don't think one use of word motherf****r constitutes excessive. But this maybe cultural.

These guys might be pals and that sort of language is acceptable by both parties.

I would caution that excessive use of this language would warrant a USC Minor.

I would have ruled UC minor, Warning.

While I consider that Armin didn't intend malice when saying that word as demonstrated by the context and by him carefully handling his opponent's foil FoW, the reaction from Nate and the fact that he is looking at me seems to me to be a good indication that he has gotten uncomfortable by Armin's poor choice of words.

So I would issue the warning while carefully explaining to Armin why I issue this penalty and ask him to be more careful on his choice of words.

————————————————————————–

Here is an alternate situation I used in my analysis. If I change the following phrase in the situation this way instead :
Armin picks up the foil Force of Will, looks directly at Nate, smirks and says ”Lucky you !!“ before carefully setting the card back down on his playmat and putting his Rorix Bladewing into his graveyard.

Would the ”looking directly at Nate“ and the ”smirking" part warranted the USC-Minor ?

Edited David Lachance-Poitras (July 7, 2016 10:06:30 AM)

“Would the ”looking directly at Nate“ and the ”smirking” part have warranted the USC-Minor ?"

No? If we issued USC for that, there would be a lot of people with a lot more infractions. That's like saying you can't show emotion or engage with your opponent in anyway at the risk of them being made uncomfortable by social interaction.
Now I'm not saying people don't get uncomfortable with social interaction, I know I sometimes hate being around people in general, but we aren't going to penalise people for smiling cheekily at an opponent, even if it contains an element of smugness.

Should you act? I think so, even though NAP has not expressly or verbally asked for assistance, the eye contact is a clear cry for help. It may seem minor and frivolous, but this kind of behavior should not go unchecked.

This is USC - Major as this was directed at NAP not only referring to the player but the use of ‘you’ clearly signifies direction to someone specifically. It may not be a racial / sexual slur or even made with malicious intent, but it doesn't need to be; it has caused clear discomfort in the player it was directed at.

Pull AP aside and explain to them why this kind of behavior will not be tolerated, as well as the penalty that comes with it (ML). If the player gets upset by this explain that while it may seem trivial this is an environment where this kind of behavior does not belong.

I would refrain from giving a USC - minor or any penalty at all.

Particularly because the opponent did not ‘seem’ to show any aggression or malintent (which would conflict with the careful handling of the Force of will and the smirk in my opinion) Crude language alone (and not really offensive at that) does not equate with unsporting behaviour in my opinion.

Generally speaking I also wouldn't give a penalty for the same reasons Sean Crain mentioned. Do we want to cradle players for every slight awkwardness they might experience due to social interaction with their opponent?

@Sal Cortez, I cannot agree that AP's reaction can be upgraded to Major just because it was directed at NAP. Of course most of our social interaction will be directed at our opponents, that is the situation in which we find ourselves if we sit down at a table to play a game of magic, any game of magic. Most if not all remarks in the course of a game; crude, friendly, coarse, violent, reconciling, funny and other will be directed at our opponent.

From the IPG - 4.1, 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."

Even if Nate isn't offended, it is possible that players or spectators nearby may be. And even if no one within earshot is offended by this language, not addressing this type of language use fosters an environment where this and other profane language could fester.

Explain why this type of language is inappropriate. The infraction is a USC-Minor and the penalty is a Warning to Armin.

Hmm, well the way I've seen the difference between Minor and Major is how you say it. “That's mother-effin lucky” versus “You're a lucky mother-effer”.

While it is true that we usually don't have time to address every single time someone says something that might fall under either Minor or Major, and I would hope you have more important things to do than go looking for them, in this scenario you are standing right there and there is a clear question from NAP whether or not you are going to do something about it.

Ahh, this will be an interesting discussion. Thank you, Knowledge Pool crew, for bringing up such interesting scenario. I hope that it will help to converge the opinions on such behaviors.

Generally, USC-Minor Warnings together with Slow Play Warnings are those penalties belonging to the category where a lot of judgment is left for the judges themselves. And this intentional free space that was left in IPG by its creators has been causing a lot of discomfort to many judges.

As there are and always will be different opinions about vulgar language in MtG events, I will bring just my view.

From the description of the scenario, it looks like the phrase used by Armin was said in that common surprised way and not to threaten Nate (“You are one lucky m., I will make you pay for it outside” or something like that). The phrase was used loudly in a MtG competitive environment, in a public venue. The venue is clearly associated with Magic, Wizards of the Coast and the Grand Prix Organizer. You are seen as overseeing the communication. No matter how it could be uncomfortable for you to deliver the ruling, this is a clear USC-Minor with Warning. Any spectator or bystander could be feeling bad by hearing those words. I personally would also be offended.

Imagine a situation that a parent comes to the venue together with their kid (to show them how the highest level of Magic competition looks like) and observe the scenario. WE AS JUDGES MUST SEND THE MESSAGE THAT THIS IS NOT HOW MAGIC EVENT SANCTIONED BY WIZARDS OF THE COAST SHOULD LOOK LIKE.

You can't just let it go. You are present at the table and Nate and any possible spectators will build their view of you, DCI, TO and WotC based on YOUR (non)action.

By the way, you should also mention to Armin that any similar behavior that will be also considered USC-Minor will be a Game Loss for him. I prefer to do that in a one on one talk, only to prevent any penalty fishing from his opponents.

Judge: “hey buddy, I realize you are trying to be friendly, but can you not call your opponent that?”
Player: <genuinely embarassed> “Oh I'm sorry judge. I didn't realize.”
Judge: “let's just try to be more mindful in the future..”
Player: Ok, thanks

Problem solved.

Now you can issue USC-Minor at this point, but it's really overkill. The guy, as the scenario is set up, is not angry or malicious or trying to be a jerk. We want to correct and educate the players on proper behavior. That's the important part, and we did that. The penalty associated with USC-Minor is really there to give education “teeth” if it's needed and to reinforce the fact judges need to be listened to. The scenario, as presented, doesn't warrant any teeth. If you are jumping to the penalty over jumping to correct the situation, you are focusing on punishment over education. Players still see that you dealt with the situation, and that's what's important. If they are upset that the player didn't get a warning, they are also more focused on punishment than education…or rather believe that education can only occur through punishment.

Also remember, that just because a player got upset doesn't mean you need to issue a penalty. Consider the scenario where Abe beats Ned badly. At the end of the game Abe reaches over, holding out his hand and says “good game”. Ned screws up his face, looks Abe in the eyes and says “it wasn't a good game. And I'm not shaking that!”. Now Abe gets upset because he of Neds nasty behavior. That isn't a penalty at all. You might go have a talk with Ned to make sure he calms down, but you aren't issuing a penalty.

Using players reactions is a good sign that something needs to be corrected, but it's not a guarantee that just because a player is upset that someone needs a penalty. In that regard, you need to look at the action, not the reaction.

Armin: ”You are one lucky motherf****r.“

Me: ”Armin? Language."