Originally posted by John Temple:

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 <

This is not actually a serious problem. The “reasonable man” test has been used in common law jurisprudence for over a century and has not, on the whole, led us astray. Yes, there is some discretion involved, but we are judges–using good judgement is what we are entrusted to do.

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.

d:^D

I'm going to jump in here and disagree with a L5. (Here's my card sir)

I think we do get to argue about whether or not Mom's reason for offense is enough to determine that something is inappropriate. In fact, I think we have to. Here's my case:

My mom is offended by images of demons. My mother in law is opposed to the idea of casting spells. I, personally, am offended by the “COEXIST” bumper stickers.

However, within the bounds of Magic and the Magic community, these are not valid reasons to prevent these things from being on tokens, playmats, or sleeves. Deciding if something is inappropriate is a judgement call made by the head judge. It is important to remember that the head judge is taking these actions on behalf of the entire magic community, as well as the local players and TO. But it requires more than just possible (or even probable) offense for something to be deemed inappropriate.

I don't understand Scott's message as “protect the feelings of the
hypothetical most easily offended Mom ever” but as “consider potential
bystanders when taking your decision”.

The way I see it, in the same way you have to consider your cultural
context, you have to consider your location and who else is sharing this
space with you: what is acceptable during an evening event in a bar may not
be appropriate in a shop during selling hours. Also, do not only take into
account the feelings of your grizzled veterans, but be open and inclusive
to bystanders and other potential newcomers.

- Emilien
Le 1 févr. 2016 09:26, “Marc DeArmond” <

I may not actually be disagreeing with Scott.

I just think it's important to point out that while we may not be determining if Mom should be offended, we do have to determine if we preemptively act because she may be offended. There are situations in which that answer needs to be “NO”.

Also, there are probably more situations where the answer should have been “YES” but no action was taken than the other way around.

One bit I'd like to add is that context matters here. If a player has an Elemental token from your link, I'd be hard-pressed to rule that token offensive when Wizards has published cards like Red-Hot Hottie. However, if the player pulls out a stack of tokens, and starts flipping through the sexy-lady mana counters and sexy-lady bird tokens and sexy-lady Ashaya before he can find that Elemental and put it into play, I'd be much more inclined to have words with him. That stack of exploitative tokens would, in my opinion, create a far more hostile environment than any one token alone.

Edited Scott Marshall (Feb. 1, 2016 02:47:55 PM)

Eli, I have to point out that Unglued dates to 1998, and Wizards has made “a few” changes in card design since then. I think I'm safe in speculating that we'll not see another card like Red-Hot Hottie…

But yes, you're right - context is critical. If your tournament is hosted in the USA's “bible belt”, you may get objections to the original Unholy Strength art. I've heard that some card images were disallowed in China (can't recall specifics). Or, “YMMV”.

d:^D

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

If your tournament is hosted in the USA's “bible belt”, you may get objections to the original Unholy Strength art.

I'm not quite sure I'm understanding what you're getting at with this example. I know that people have been/are offended by it, but I can't imagine ever asking a player to put away an Unholy Strength playmat, let alone issuing UPC: Minor for playing it, even smack-dab in the middle of the Bible Belt.

I´m thinking about similar custom proxys and custom playmats and alterations of cards… and i think we must have at least a line for all, and like we have a doc about if a word can be minor o mayor if talk about race, sex, etc… i think its easy have same line in pics about “full nudy” bodies, show tits (or boobs), etc…
About gore arts, for example, may be moved depends of zones… Maibe a cow splited can be offensive in indian (sry if sound a bit racist… it´s a simply example).

This way i think in 2 lines… 1 line must be for all 101% “don´t cross the line or walk on” and a 2nd line for other than can depends of the zone.

In this case, the wolf token was walking over the line… it´s a full nudy girl… and we can saw 1/2 ass easy…
Im fine with see asses… but not in MTG… (my point of view).

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

Eli, I have to point out that Unglued dates to 1998, and Wizards has made “a few” changes in card design since then. I think I'm safe in speculating that we'll not see another card like Red-Hot Hottie…
d:^D

Miser's correction that RHH is from Unhinged and thus 2004, but the point stands all the same :p

EDIT: Ink-Eyes, Lorwyn's Ponder, etc are other good examples.

Edited Yonatan Kamensky (Feb. 2, 2016 12:30:22 AM)

I'm really not sure there needs to be additional documentation as to what is/isn't allowed. We should be trying to ensure that Magic tournaments are safe and inclusive spaces for everyone. We need to use our judgement about this and realise that sections of the community may be offended by artwork or text used on things such as sleeves, playmats, tokens, t-shirts etc.

Scott used an example of someone's parent being offended, as an example of why we need to consider the wider community not just the people playing in a specific event.

Tagging onto what Scott said, please work WITH the player as opposed to coming at it from a scolding/inflammatory way. It's quite possible this player doesn't understand why the artwork is an issue, and we are going to have much bigger issues if the situation escalates.

If you want a more definite answer, consider probabilities. The chance that someone at your event is offended by an original art Unholy Strength is negligible. Pick some number, say 10%, and judge based on that. If you believe that the chance that someone at the event would be offended if they saw the art is question is at least 10%, don't allow it.

I have to disagree Isaac. What if your tournament consisted out of less than 10% girls, and they are offended by all the tokens because they're sexist, you would still allow it by this rule of thumb? If even one person is offended, something needs to be worked out. For that player to not use those tokens during the tournament is a minimal impact on his game, but it could mean a whole lot more for the other player.

Personally I have no problems with the first 2 examples, I can't see how the first (fully armored token) is sexist or offending (I'm actually glad to see a girl wearing a full armor instead of the usual let's just cover the breasts and we're fine armor). That wolftoken is an absolute no-go. Why? Because it's a naked girl.

The argument posted above (and also being dismissed by Scott) that Wizards published such cards themselves, is invalid. Wizards is trying to publish more cards that can not be taken as offensive:
https://bitchmedia.org/post/why-it-matters-that-magic-the-gathering-has-a-transgender-character
http://herstoryarc.com/2015/03/06/women-armor-and-magic-the-gathering/
And are trying to make MtG a more welcoming environment, regardless of your gender, race, sexuality,… And they're doing that by showing it in their art.

So the tokens… Like I said, I would allow the first 2, because I simply can't see any problem with them (unless ofcourse a player finds this offensive. Then we'll have a talk). The naked girl however can pose a problem on multiple fields: do you want kids to see this (MtG afterall can be played from the ages of 13 or even lower), how would girls react when they see these tokens on tournaments? If the art was a full naked man, would you feel offended? They're just questions you need to ask yourself.

About the example given by Joe and Huw dismissing this argument (namely ‘As a judge we don’t need to react if there are no complaints') I'm glad I don't need to explain that. I believe this art will hurt more girls than guys, and girls are more likely not to complain about this, because they think it's a normal aspect of the game (which is not, because MtG is not about objectifying women), or think the judge will judge them (pun intended) for being prudish. There is a whole lot more treshold for the person to actually complain about it, than there is for the person using these tokens.

I would always be clear towards the player with the tokens and explain clearly why they are not allowed, because most of the times those players don't see what's wrong with it.

I hope this answers a bit of your question :)

Edited Natalie Heylen (Feb. 2, 2016 06:29:37 AM)

Originally posted by Natalie Heylen:

If even one person is offended, something needs to be worked out.

I'm going to have to disagree with this point, and point back to the “reasonable person” standard

Concur. Someone came in to the judge chat the other day and objected to
opponents using the card Vandalblast against him, because the word Vandal
is offensive to his people.
On Feb 2, 2016 11:56 AM, “Olivier Jansen” <