So I posted this to Rules and Scott gave a great answer, but also an answer that there were no real rules that guide it. Martha Lufkin suggested I throw it here for some good old judge discussion. So here it is again for us to parse through and see what we think.

At a PTQ Anton casts a Slaughter Games naming Thragtusk, he looks at Nadine's hand and removes a Thragtusk then goes through her hand and library to do the same. After this he places Slaughter Games in the graveyard to signify it has finished resolving. Nadine noting that Slaughter Games is in the graveyard picks up her hand and places it face down in front of her.

When does Anton lose the ability to take notes? If he asks Nadine can he write those down can she say no at this point? What happens is Anton reaches across the table and flips the face down hand over without asking Nadine?

Summary: When resolving a spell that reveals the hand at competitive, how do we signify the person is done taking notes etc? Is the spell going to the graveyard and thus resolved enough? What is the person revealing the hand responsible for?

______
Personally, I think Scott's assessment of out-of-order sequencing principle is sound. If I was called about the hand flipping without permission, my gut says I would be issuing Unsporting-Minor.

An add on, what if he did something else between the spell and the note taking? Like targeting a creature with a spell?

(Thanks Scott for your answer in the other thread and Martha for your great PM!)

Edited Stephen Hagan (June 5, 2013 12:13:07 PM)

There are a lot of possible things, either said or done, by either player that could signify that either of them have moved past the resolution of the spell. If the AP does either of the following: “ok, done”, or takes any new action (casts a new spell, moves to the next phase) I would rule that the spell has been fully resolved and the AP no longer has any right to view the hand. If the NaP asks if the AP is done and gets a confirmation I would say that too signifies that the spell has fully resolved.

I think there are a lot more scenarios that could happen that I would rule that the AP still has viewing rights of the hand. If after searching the hand the AP set it down to search the library and the NaP then picks up their hand, or in the process of writing down notes the AP returns the players hand back to them but doesn’t verbally acknowledge that they are done looking at it, or a variety of cases where it could be implied that the AP is done but nothing is ever communicated. In almost all of those cases I would rule that the AP can still request to view the hand. Where this gets into “gray area” is if some significant amount of time has passed since the implied resolution of the spell but before the next game action and then the AP asks to see the hand again. I would feel that it fall into a “you have to be there” type judgment call, but I would lean toward not allowing the AP to view the hand again at that point.

The AP loses privileges to view the hand when they have either communicated that they are done looking at it, or when the game progresses. In the specific example you cited about the AP reaching over and flipping the hand to be visible, I would agree that a USC – minor feels appropriate. Even if the AP is allowed to view the cards, this is behavior that we strongly want to discourage. There is no infraction for the NaP since they have not done anything wrong. I would then explain to the players that with better communication such as asking if the player is done looking at the hand, or by informing the other player that you are not done yet when returning their hand to them you can easily avoid any problems.

Originally posted by Again, with the IPG quotes:

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.
Examples
A. A player uses excessively vulgar and profane language.
B. A player inappropriately demands to a judge that her opponent receive a penalty.
C. A player appeals to the Head Judge before waiting for the floor judge to issue a ruling.
D. A player taunts his opponent for making a bad play.
E. A player leaves excessive trash in the play area after leaving the table.
Philosophy
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

I would counter that Anton grabbing Nadine's cards and flipping them over is not a good fit in UC-Minor; instead, it's behavior that we don't want to see repeated. There are better ways to indicate that you're not done looking…

It depends if Anton was presenting “a will” to write down cards from Nadine's hand.

Originally posted by 4.3 Out-of-Order Sequencing:

Due to the complexity of accurately representing a game of Magic, it is acceptable for players to engage in a block of actions that, while technically in an incorrect order, arrive at a legal and clearly understood game state once they are complete.
All actions taken must be legal if they were executed in the correct order, and any opponent can ask the player to do the actions in the correct sequence so that he or she can respond at the appropriate time (at which point players will not be held to any still-pending actions).
An out-of-order sequence must not result in a player prematurely gaining information which could reasonably affect decisions made later in that sequence.
In general, any substantial pause at the end of a completed batch is an indication that all actions have been taken, the sequence is complete and the game has moved to the appropriate point at the end of the sequence.

If Anton will put a card to a graveyard, then immediately take his pen to write down cards from her hand, it will be out-of-order sequencing for me. He will take no adcantage from writing down her hand after looking at her library. I will rather say, that he will miss an opportunity to write down how much more same cards as each card in her hand she has in her library.
On the other hand, writing down name of cards from sb's hand is not an action performed “inside magic game”, it's more like “outside magic game”, but is still legal and notes can be done due to MTR. So I will apply extensive interpretation and say, that writing down name of card's is a normal action taken by players after having an possibility to look at their's opponent's hand.
About second question, If he asks Nadine can he write those down can she say no at this point?, Nadine can always reveal private information she posses to other players (at this example her hand), so if she will be willing to show again Anton her hand she can, and Anton of course can write down name of cards. It will be even fair-play bahaviour by Nadine, that she will take Anton the possibility to do it. Players should be polite to each other, be fair-play. We, as judges, if we see that action should just not intervene, while this may be misscomunication made by players, but they have just fixed it by yourselves. Maybe after a match is done we should just find Nadine and take a moment to say her, that we praise such actions and she should conduct fair-play always. Once in future it will come back to her ;)
The third question was completely covered by Scott, so I have nothing more to add, that I aggre with it.