All this stuff…
Go back, read John Carters reply, which is probably the best reply on this thread and came very early. No where does it mention a penalty or an infraction, and really that's what this thread has devolved into quibbling over or how much of an action a shirt is. Some images are more powerful than spoken words, some are less. It's context driven. Blanket statements are useless and anyone who spends any time thinking about it can come up with examples to refute their own points.

And at the end of the day, that is *NOT* what is important. Some are going to give a penalty, some are not. but is that what's really important in this situation? If the answer is “Yes”, you are misunderstanding your role here. You are dealing with people here, not a game state. In these situations the thought of a penalty should be an afterthought. We like to say “identify the infraction, then the fix” however with people it's really the other way around. Fix it first. Then worry about the infraction. If you see two players getting into a heated discussion your first thought should not be “is this USC Major or Minor?”
Look at the action, not the reaction. However the reaction can be a signpost to the appropriateness of the action. Not all actions are created equal, neither are all reactions. Deal with the situation.

Originally posted by Nathaniel Lawrence:

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.

Again, under no circumstances should any judge turn a blind eye. At the very least, the player should be asked to conceal or remove the image; if that fails, the player has now refused a direct request.

“Splitting hairs,” as you call it, is hardly trivial. It is fundamentally important that we apply policy as consistently as we can, and uphold the letter as well as spirit. I've seen cheating result in no infraction because there was no potential advantage to be gained (troll mode engaged, was the direct quote if I recall), and I completely agree. We can't apply policy as we believe it should be, only as it is. In time, we can revise policy, but that's a different conversation.

The question is whether we consider “wearing” to be an action, and I can see that going either way. All other things being equal, the burden of proof is on the infraction side.

I was going to write a bunch of stuff, then I realized that I already wrote a bunch of stuff:

http://mtgrikipedia.blogspot.com/2014/10/please-put-your-playmat-away.html

Originally posted by Riki Hayashi:

I was going to write a bunch of stuff, then I realized that I already wrote a bunch of stuff:

http://mtgrikipedia.blogspot.com/2014/10/please-put-your-playmat-away.html

My question for this is, what is so terrible about giving out a USC Minor - Warning? To my knowledge, a Warning harbors little consequence for those who do not repeat the behavior/error. I don't see how a mere Warning is going to be the difference between turning a person using unfortunate language into an enemy or a future ally.

I also feel that shirts and playmats are indeed an action. Consider the following sequence of events:

- The player sees the shirt/playmat and approves of the unfortunate content
- The player purchases the object in question
- The player chooses to wear the shirt/use the playmat at various Regular REL tournaments
- The player decides to wear the shirt/use the playmat at a Competitive REL event

Every single action in this sequence could easily have been broken at another juncture:

- The player could have realized the message/imagery was offensive
- The player could have chosen not to invest their hard-earned money into the shirt/playmat
- The player could have, while playing at Regular REL tournaments, noticed some people for whom the shirt/playmat would cause discomfort
- The TO, judges, or other players at any of the above events could have told the player about how their shirt/playmat creates an unsafe environment
- The player browses their closet/playmat collection, and could have chosen one of their many appropriate and non-offensive choices. Instead, they choose that shirt/playmat for use at a Competitive REL event

Clothing and playmats are a form of expression, in the same way that vehicle bumper stickers and signs are forms of expression. And contrary to stickers and home signs, even if it feels ‘passive’ at the point in time at which we can take an appropriate corrective action, it was indeed an active action at every single point in the chain, up to and including displaying the message at any number of Competitive REL events. As such, we should treat it as an active action.

Edited Alexandra Yang (March 11, 2015 11:12:06 PM)

A short summary, and then I think we've gone on long enough…

If a player has a shirt (or playmat, or hat, etc) that you or someone else finds offensive, or even if you believe it's likely that the material will offend some, educate that player and ask them to address the situation. If they don't, there's an infraction for that.

Also, please re-read John Carter's post, and Riki's linked blog post.

That is all.

d:^D