Disclaimer: This topic is by no means restricted to Comp+, but for the lack of a better place to discuss I'll post it here. Feel free to move the topic if there is a more suitable subforum.

I have also not found a similar thread on the forums after a brief search, but if there is, please link it to me and feel free to close this topic :D.

If you're part of the european GPs, or bigger european tournaments in general, you have probably witnessed an influx of some particular foil-tokens. I have no idea if they have moved beyond that (yet).
Some of them are probably unproblematic (like e.g. https://www.magiccardmarket.eu/Products/Singles/Tokens+for+MTG/Soldier+Token+%28White+1%2F1%29+%28Version+2%29 or https://www.magiccardmarket.eu/Products/Singles/Tokens+for+MTG/Sliver+Token+%28Colorless+1%2F1%29 ).
Others have been deemed inappropriate by most people I talked to (like e.g. https://www.magiccardmarket.eu/Products/Singles/Tokens+for+MTG/Wolf+Token+%28Green+2%2F2%29+%28Version+1%29 ).

A gallery of the tokens produced by this particular producer can be found here (for discussion-reason):
http://tokensformtg.com/gallery/tokens

Now, a few of these ‘walk the line’ on whether or not the HJ allows or disallows them, and I have seen judges go both ways on some of these.
While this (in the end) is up to the HJ, I'd like to know from you what constitutes to an unacceptable artwork (be it for tokens, playmats, or whatever else) for a magic tournament, to get a feel of the general opinion on this (I feel) still very subjective topic.
Feel free to be as vague as ‘everything that has a dog in it, because I don’t like dogs' or as specific as ‘I would specifically not allow this token/playmat… for these reasons’.

Greetings,
Philip

EDIT: Okay, for some reason not apparent to me, the links do not work if you click them. However, if you copy-paste them into your browser, they open the intended page. If anyone knows a way to fix this…

Edited Philip Ockelmann (Feb. 1, 2016 09:05:37 AM)

Just a note: I am not looking to witch-hunt this certain token-producer, I just used their tokens as an example because I seem to see them everywhere. Please try to keep the discussion frinedly and producer-indenpendant :)

Edited Philip Ockelmann (Feb. 1, 2016 08:48:10 AM)

The + in the links are turned into %2B when you click at them, that seems to be the problem. Copy and Paste works fine yeah

There is no line. This pesky culture thing means something that is not offensive at all in one place could be a major problem in another. That shift isn't a bad thing–it's a core trait of humanity. There's no reason to take that discretion away from the head judge.

The guideline for what's a problem is offensive. To me, something that makes me slightly uncomfortable, or bodies that have parts, isn't innately offensive (haven't seen the specific links). That's a cultural stance. I trust that other judges and players around me will correct me if I'm not in line with that community. That's a good thing, and is a fundamental trait of a diverse comminity.

Edited Chase Culpon (Feb. 1, 2016 08:44:21 AM)

Links now work, thanks to Jeremie!

I haven't seen these around here, but I've occasionally seen similar things. Generally I don't say anything unless another player complains, in which case I'll inform the user that his tokens/playmat/sleeves are offending some others, and ask him to change them.

I'm quite interested to hear others' opinions on this.

Joe, I think you ought to be a little more proactive in talking to players about (potentially) offensive sleeves/tokens/playmats. Just because a player has not complained, that doesn't mean nobody is offended. Quite often the person most likely to be offended is the person least likely to complain to a judge about it - they'll stay silent and just not come back to what they perceive as an unwelcoming environment.

Where that line is, is up to you as a HJ - I just wouldn't wait until somebody complains.

Philip, I look at that gallery and wonder about the mentality of who would a) produce and b) use those tokens. Most of them on page one, I would disallow, on the grounds that they are clearly sexualised, even if they don't show nudity. If in doubt, I'd rather fall on the side of caution.

As a Head Judge, your decision is not “do I find these offensive”, but rather “do I think someone might find these offensive”. When making that decision, remember that you're acting on behalf of your staff, your players, and anyone else who might wander by - including Mom and her pre-teen daughter, shopping for the teenage son's birthday; Mom sees offensive images, protects the daughter by leaving the store, and the son is never allowed to return.

We don't get to argue about whether or not Mom *should* be offended; we need to be proactive, to prevent that from being an issue.

d:^D

Edited Scott Marshall (Feb. 1, 2016 10:06:34 AM)

Is a real interesting topic.

Obvious, if a player is with one of the firsts tokens i have no problem, but i think that the last one (the wolf…) is a litte problematic, and i don't allow use that token.

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

We don't get to argue about whether or not Mom *should* be offended; we need to be proactive, to prevent that from being an issue.

With respect, I cannot agree with this. In order to carry weight, the basis for the hypothetical parent's objection must be reasonable–or at least within the realm of reason. It is conceivable, for instance, that a hyper-religious parent might enter a game store in search of what they deem to be wholesome board games, only to find themselves aghast at the sight of people playing Magic, a game which they consider to contain satanic influences. As a judge, I am not going to let this remote possibility determine whether or not tokens with occult symbols are permitted in my events, because such a basis for taking offence is irrational.

The test, therefore, is not whether *any* person would take offence, but whether any *reasonable* person would take offence.

My rule of thumb is, “Would this be okay on an actual MTG card, or something sold by major suppliers/licensees (e.g., UltraPro, Legion, SCG)?” Showing skin is okay, seductive/sultry posing is fine (think Liliana of the Veil, Enthralling Victor). Blatant boobage or the like, not fine.

The problem with that line is how do you define “Reasonable”? My
definition? Yours? Ultimately it is a judgement call by the HJ. I definite
agree with the direction you are going, not being too far one side or the
other but, using terms like “reasonable” can lead to some sticky situations
on what that actually means.

On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 11:50 AM Jack Hesse <

My line is pretty close to what Jack Hesse already posted:

“Would this be okay on an actual MTG card?”
Note that I keep an implicit “printed today” on this question, knowing that
cards printed in 1993 kept a different standard. :)

If the answer to this is anything other than “Yeah, they'd be fine with
that,” then I politely ask the player to put them away.


On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 10:55 AM, John Temple <
forum-24397-305d@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:

> The problem with that line is how do you define “Reasonable”? My
> definition? Yours? Ultimately it is a judgement call by the HJ. I definite
> agree with the direction you are going, not being too far one side or the
> other but, using terms like “reasonable” can lead to some sticky situations
> on what that actually means.
>
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 11:50 AM Jack Hesse <
>
> ——————————————————————————–
> If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this email. Or view
> and respond to this message on the web at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/157645/
>
> Disable all notifications for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/24397/
> Receive on-site notifications only for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/24397/?onsite=yes
>
> You can change your email notification settings at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/notifications/settings/
>



–
Ab ovo usque ad mala. – Horace

Originally posted by Robert Hinrichsen:

The test, therefore, is not whether *any* person would take offence, but whether any *reasonable* person would take offence.

I would be happy if this were true in all regions of the United States, as well as other countries.

It is true that a store owner can refuse service to anyone, and might choose to do so for an outspoken person with opposing viewpoints. As Head Judge, I involve the store owner (or TO for a rented venue) in such discussions, because it's *their* customers that are affected by these decisions.

d:^D

Also, I take offense at “offence”.
(just kidding)