Regarding an article a Spanish known player wrote about calling a judge, a huge discussion has started between the player's community in Spain.
This player's behavior is to call a judge on every infraction his opponents commit in order to make them have the Penalty. This is for example, asking your opponent if you can block after he attacks with the Goblin Guide, and after he lets you block and you block, call a judge to notice that he missed the Guide trigger.
Or, asking to your opponent if you can discard for the end of the turn (Having 8 cards in hand), discarding and calling a judge when your opponent tries to Lightning bolt you there in order to make him have a Warning for GRV.

Regarding this, many players have been talking about it saying that it's really unsporting and the people usually resolve it between them, etc. , and other player's say that they support what the article say.

And i would like to generate a discussion, because is the way many player's play on tournaments.

Would you put all of those penalties and upgrade them if it's the third?
If a player notices an infraction he or his opponent committed, and they try to fix it by themselves, as it's really usual between players in events, do you think they are committing USC-Cheating?

1st) “camping” on calling a judge sounds like USC-cheating, or at least half of the definition.
2nd) Educate both players that the last step is cleanup. I would NEVER issue a GRV, but I would be issuing a USC-Minor to our player in question.
3rd) We want players to call judges, not fix game states themselves.

Edited Jeff S Higgins (June 11, 2014 06:40:41 PM)

Originally posted by Jeffrey Higgins:

2nd) Educate both players that the last step is cleanup. I would NEVER issue a GRV, but I would be issuing a USC-Minor to our player in question.
3rd) We want players to call judges, not fix game states themselves.

Do you realize your 2) and 3) are directly contradictory? You want a player to call a judge, but you'll give a player a USC infraction for calling a judge. This is not a USC Minor infraction.

I guess they are, although my understanding of the discard example is the player is being unsporting in his request for a penalty.

Calling a judge with the knowledge and intent that your opponent will get a penalty is not USC.

“B. A player inappropriately demands to a judge that her opponent receive a penalty.” doesn't sound like it fits here.

Okay, thanks.

I've had this happen a few times.
The way I handled it was sticking a judge right by the player with a clipboard. The judge recorded every “silly” call the player made, as well as answered them. In two cases, when the player became aware that we were recording his judge calls, they stopped the behavior.
In the other case, just the tracking didnt work, so I had a chat with the player, and I had a nice list of silly calls to reference. I politely told the player if he notices a real infraction, he is more than welcome to call a judge that is what we are there for. However, Magic is a game of skill, and through out-thinking and outplaying your opponent is what gives you a strategic advantage. My judges are not there to be your strategic advantage. Play the game, not the IPG. Are we clear? Legitimate calls - good. Fishing - bad. I dont think either one of use would like to have this conversation again, right?

That also stopped the behavior.

I want to clarify what I meant by “silly” calls in my previous reply
Judge, my opponent drew for turn then untapped his lands.
Judge, my opponent resolved rampant growth putting it in the GY then searched for a land.
Judge, my opponent isnt tapping his lands 90 degrees.
Judge, my opponent looked at his hand before announcing that we would be on the play.
Judge, my opponent tapped some of his lands, then went to untap them. they should stay tapped.

Bryan, any consideration to having the clipboard judge start paying
attention to the Player's GRVs? I'm fairly confident that most players
will not play technically perfect Magic and, if they insist that their
games be monitored with eagle-eyed precision for rules violations, it's
only fair that we correct theirs as well.

I would generally prefer if we not get the reputation of being vengeful judges who target players for game losses and hover over a match like that. Even if that's not the intent that would rapidly be the rumor of what happened.

I want to weigh in on the scenario where you ask your opponent if you can discard for the turn now, your opponent states that you can and your opponent then looks at what you discarded and then tries to cast a spell before he or she untaps. There is definitely a potential for advantage and it is definitely against the rules.

It does not sound unreasonable to ask “does my opponent receive an infraction?” or argue that you believe that he or she should receive an infraction. I see no reason within policy why someone shouldn't receive an infraction here. Nor do I think that “you don't get a chance to cast spells if you let your opponent discard down to 7” is hard to learn or counter-intuitive.

Originally posted by Sergio García:

This player's behavior is to call a judge on every infraction his opponents commit …

This action seems to be directly supported by the MTR per 1.10:

Magic Tournament Rules 1.10
Players are responsible for…
◾ Bringing to a judge’s attention any rules or policy infraction they notice in their matches.

and MTR 4.1:

Magic Tournament Rules 4.1
The philosophy of the DCI is that a player should have an advantage due to better understanding of the rules of a game, greater awareness of the interactions in the current game state, and superior tactical planning. Players are under no obligation to assist their opponents in playing the game.

The above information you provided seems to describe a fair but aggressive player. Playing a Lightning Bolt *after* the start of the Cleanup step, for example: that's not a legitimate play and it's right to be called for that. (Consider if Amanda gets bolted after discarding but had a counterspell in hand that would have thus gotten her down to the maximum hand size.)

Originally posted by Sergio García:

… in order to make them have the Penalty.

This is the only part that seems to merit deeper consideration. Are you saying this player is asking the judges to enforce MTR/CR, or that this player is demanding unfair/undue penalities?

Generally I agree with Bryan and Benjamin here.

Edited Zach Robinson (June 11, 2014 10:40:14 PM)

Originally posted by Benjamin McDole:

I would generally prefer if we not get the reputation of being vengeful judges who target players for game losses and hover over a match like that. Even if that's not the intent that would rapidly be the rumor of what happened.

I agree with Ben, and I would like to add that in my opinion players don't call us enough. The message we want to send is “Judges are a resource, please use us. Better call us by mistake than make the mistake of not calling us.” Anything that blurs or contradicts this message is counter-productive.

Players who try to abuse judge calls to get an advantage are a tiny minority. They could and should be handle by case by case basis. If you have the feeling that a player is trying to “win by judge”, you can have an educational chat with him.
You can also tell him that you noticed what he is trying to do, and explain him that you'll not give penalties to his opponent for things that aren't infractions (like OOS), or for mistakes in which he shares a responsibility.
You can also talk him about the grey zone, and how he's currently walking the small line that separate non-sporting conduct from unsporting conduct or cheating, and that he should be really aware that never stepping on the bad side of the line is a perilous game
You can educate him on how his behavior is perceived by the community, and how it will hurt him in the long term, by having less forgiving opponents, less people willing to share cards and techs with him, to test with him when he'll be qualified, or vote for him for the Hall of Fame (please select examples relevant to his aspiring level of play).
You can explain him on the fact that his energy and time would be more productively spent in trying to outplay his opponent in the game rather than trying to win by judges.

But in the end, it's his right to call a judge when he notices his opponents broke game rules, and when doing so, he should be treated as everybody else.

In the case I told about, none of the calls were silly calls, the only fact is that in the mind of the player, was to put his opponent on a situation where he receives a warning, I mean, the mindset of the player was, I will ask for block so if he lets me he will get a warning. (He was not advancing on the game state faster to get his opponent miss the trigger). But the fact is that in the “real” magic of a tournament, people fix situations by themselves in more than the 75% of the situations, when is easy to fix and they call judges for the hard ones. For example:

Antonio cast a Damnation tapping 3 Plains 1 Swamp, but got enough Swamps, Nadia realizes immediately and instead of calling a judge tells Antonio and he fixes it to pay the correct mana and they continue playing.

or:

At the beginning of Antonio's Upkeep, Nadia forgets to tell Antonio to draw with a Dictate of Kruphix, and when she realizes on the Main Phase, she just tells him and he draws at that point.

Assuming in both cases, that the infractor knew that if at the point they saw the infraction, if they call a judge, they will receive a penalty, and they decided to resolve it by themselves will you consider they are making USC-Cheating?

Edited Sergio García (June 12, 2014 01:43:46 AM)

Hells No!

The only time when fixing things by themselves comes close to cheating, and when I start investigating, is when the fix is a bad one: for example:
You play Searing Blaze on me and my creature with protection from red, well that's not possible so you play it on yourself and your own creature! (I seriously saw this happen 3 times at my first GP).

When things smell fishy it might be cheating, but a fix that we apply as well is fine.