I think I've accidentally set up some kind of “We should penalize people for calling a judge” sentiments. That really was not my intention. I didn't claimed that we should somehow rate judge calls or even refuse them, if we think they are not appropriate. We must answer them of course. And sometimes we have to penalize the player calling for us, if he commited an infraction.

I'd like to push the discussion a little away from this “Penalty for judge call” towards to what behavior should be acceptable and what behavior should not. (Keeping in mind, that the intention of a player for any behavior is difficult to determine.)

As I mentioned before, I think that the behavior of intentionally time wasting in order to gain an advantage should not be acceptable. But it seems that the rules as of now state, that this behavior is acceptable, unless you're trying to gain advantage of the time limit.

But then there is this Example C in the Stalling Section (IPG, 4.7) that states a player appealing a ruling of a judge to gain more time to make a decision is guilty of stalling. Which seems to be contrary to the definition of stalling. (Which states, that the intention needs to take advantage of the time limit)

Originally posted by Brian Schenck:

I get tired of seeing us “higher-level judges” ignored in favor of an fficial response from Toby or Scott. What is my opinion? Chopped liver?

Well said, Brian - and that's really the point Toby was making in his recent blog.

Matt Sauers - your post, yesterday, expresses a lot of the philosophy behind the initial creation of Judging at Regular REL (JAR). There really are some very significant differences among not only players, but events those players choose to attend.

When we introduced JAR, we were effectively drawing a pretty firm line between Regular and Competitive REL events. This was intended to reflect what we believe players want from each type of event. (Of course, reality mucks things up, and the lines between the two are often blurred in many perplexing ways…)

Many of the behaviors you don't like would, I hope, also be condemned by most or even all of the players at a Friday Night Magic (for example), as well as at your kitchen table. But some of those behaviors are, in fact, tolerated at Competitive REL. (Surprisingly, they are much less common at Professional REL - possibly because they just don't work as well in that mix of players?)

Anyway, just wanted to thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Edited Scott Marshall (March 12, 2013 01:11:12 PM)

Originally posted by Aaron Huntsman:

If anyone does that in a tournament that I'm running, I'm calling it unsporting major and giving them a GL.

Unsporting Conduct - Major has three definitions. Which one are you applying here?

OK, there's a lot of misdirection and misunderstanding in these threads. Let me attempt to address a few…

First: it most certainly is NOT acceptable for a player to be wasting time. But, let's consider the initial scenario that sparked this discussion, and examine it in a bit more depth.

I already mentioned that Naomi has the responsibility to remember her triggers, and we've even changed the rules to allow her to set a reminder on top of her library to make sure she doesn't forget. She abdicated that responsibility, and let Abdul's “trick” distract her. So, she shares a large part of the responsibility.

But we seem to be missing a couple other key responsibility points. First, if a player calls a judge away from the table and asks a question that isn't relevant to the match in progress? That judge needs to instruct the player to get back to, and continue, that match.

Second, if that judge actually allows a player to “waste” five minutes, they've failed miserably, in my opinion. Granted, there are exceptional cases (aren't there always?!) - but most rules questions and discussions away from the table are handled in 20-30 seconds, and rarely more than a minute.

Last, Abdul shouldn't be able to just sit back down and say “go” after that delay. Instead, the judge should be the next one to speak: “I'm giving you N extra minutes.” This is probably the least important detail, but it was neglected in the original scenario, and worth at least a mention.

So, if Naomi and the Judge handle their responsibilities properly, this whole scenario is a non-starter.

* * *

Another key point that, in retrospect, I probably didn't handle as clearly as I should: the DQ discussions sprouting from this thread.

Yes, the Head Judge is the final arbiter of what is considered Unsporting Conduct. That's a (very nearly exact) quote from the IPG. However, that's a far cry from the implicit “I don't like that, so I'm going to DQ him.”

What the Head Judge *can* do, when his UC criteria has been met, is (a) see if it already matches the examples and philosophies stated in the the IPG, and act accordingly, or (b) inform the player that the behavior is unacceptable, and provide a direct instruction to change their behavior. A player who fails to follow that direct instruction? Well, that's (a) - it clearly matches the philosophy under UC-Major.

If we look at the rest of the UC section, we see that it's rather extreme examples of things that can lead to Disqualification: rolling dice to decide a match, bribing someone, taking a swing at someone, stealing … or Stalling, or Cheating.

If you honestly believe that this scenario is Stalling, I urge you to spend some time with other judges, discussing the philosophy of Stalling, and the many ways in which it can manifest.

And, if you believe this is Cheating, then I'll make much the same suggestion; perhaps someone else can do a better job of explaining, especially in person, than I can via this forum.

Simply said, however, Abdul is not trying to take advantage of the time limit (time extensions for judge interactions eliminate that as a Stalling technique), and he has not broken a rule so he can't be Cheating.

As a side note re: Stalling including an example of a player appealing to gain time - yeah, that actually happened. More than once, as I recall. So, we wrote it in policy; we also instruct judges: if a player appeals a Slow Play Warning, then instruct them to keep playing their game, and continue to monitor their pace of play - or ask a nearby judge to do so - while you wait for the Head Judge. So it shouldn't work, anyway, and if it does … well, no, actually, it doesn't. :)

Full Disclosure: there is no malice intended in any of this. I am only trying to guide these discussions to the most beneficial conclusion **when considering the needs of the 3000+ judges, worldwide**…

Although calling a judge in the hopes of causing a missed trigger is ethically dubious, we've pretty much established that the community would be harmed more by antagonistic relationships between players and judges than by the occasional trick play.

For those of you who can not tolerate this kind of behavior: perhaps before you leave after chatting with a player you can remind both players that they must still remember their triggers. Judges are neutral arbiters of the rules who should not interfere; however, I don't see reminding both players that triggers still need to be remembered (as long as the judge does not point out any specific triggers) as being in violation of this principle.

Thanks for your kind response, Scott. I didn't understand (that) purpose of this delineation.

It also tells me about the sort of events I prefer to attend as a judge. However, I do represent the judge community to players and I would not like my execution of that job to vary in an apparently indiscriminate fashion based on the venue or event. But maybe such variance is OK.

I assume that any action I would take outside the JAR or IPG would generally be unacceptable to discourage that player from “gaming the system” if I understand your response correctly. Would it be acceptable to inform the TO of this player and their tactics, or is that also considered poor form?

Again, I am seeking to comply with my required modicum yet still discourage the rare and occasional lack of games-person-ship.

Thanks again for your time!

Matt, you're correct - while players will do things that some of us don't like, we have to stick to Official policy.

Imagine, if Abdul showed up at my event, and asked me a question away from the table, and was ‘rewarded’ by his opponent losing concentration and making a mistake immediately after my ruling … and I was fine with it.

And then, a week or two later, he shows up at your event, and a very similar situation arises, so he again asks you a question away from the table, and again the opponent forgets something critical … and you DQ Abdul for that.

That's a pretty extreme example, to be sure (hey, it was a pretty extreme scenario, right from the start) - but it explains the importance of GLOBAL consistency, and validates that as a necessary goal.

We've worked long & hard to push for consistency, based on a solid philosophical foundation for policy, because that's best for the player community as a whole. (Let's not ignore that it's also beneficial for judges: you shouldn't be accused of bias if you're sticking to policy.)

Matt, if you notice a player doing things that you find questionable - even if they're not a breach of policy - go ahead and watch that player. It's possible that your “judge radar” is warning you of someone who not only pushes at the boundaries of policy, but occasionally - and willfully! - steps beyond those boundaries. And maybe it's just a competitive player who rubs you the wrong way.

(Amusingly, I am “guilty” of a number of “clever ploys” that you might find offensive - maybe we'll get to play Commander some day, and find out!)

Scott, thanks again for your kind response.

I do understand out home group play style may be uncommon: we do not use formats and their associated restrictions, we do not use decks where more than half the deck list can be found in a deck on line, we use Unglued and Unhinged cards (including Cheatyface!), we do not play the same deck more than once a night (meaning a fresh deck for every game, so each player keeps some 20 pr more decks built at all times) and all games are multiplayer without using any 2HG rules or conventions even in a 4-player game. Heck, we don't even use the Paris mulligan rules, we use an algorithm based on the original all-land or no-land rules from the game's origins. But this only explains how we play. The reason why we play is for fun. And if your clever ploys are fun, then I would enjoy them. If they are just mean or solely bent on winning, you'll quickly see the back of me. ;)

What I'd not want to do as a judge is to impose my concepts, ideas, and morals on other players, as this is a disservice to my fellow judges. I therefore strictly adhere to the rules, MTR and IPG as I can, but as you know there are situations that require “judgement”. I would never hand out any penalty for breaking the spirit of the rules, only their letter.

But what you didn't expound upon, and something I am certainly interested in while I have bent your ear, is _why_ our policy doesn't consider poor games-person-ship as unsportsmanlike conduct, which really seems to be the definition of the term. I am at a loss how expanding the current definitions of what is unacceptable would not be A Good Thing ™ for the game, the community, and gaming as a whole. The only answer I can come up with is that it must become extremely difficult to define – speaking as one who remains ignorant of the whole process of how policy is generated for the IPG, I feel (perhaps because of my ignorance here) that such a definition seems simpler to me, and I have never discovered a situation where every person I was gaming with were not unanimous in their acceptance or condemnation of another player's action.

So I am left to assume that the omission of such a criterion for USC is intentional and perhaps unrelated to convenience in definition. I would very much appreciate further education, instruction, history lesson, or direction to an external reference you may offer. My failure in comprehension stems from a view that poor games-person-ship is, by definition in every other game or sport, a USC offense.

I do not seek to force my concepts of fair play on others, I do seek to comply with the intent of our rules. I remain befuddled at what appears to be an egregious omission which affects the very lifeblood of the game and gaming, and I do not understand the benefit of allowing certain types of toxicity at higher levels of play where greater anonymity shields the emotional impact yet allows a human to misconstrue the very nature of another human based on limited exposure to actions.

Again I thank you for your generous contribution of time.