Welcome to another terrific week of the Knowledge Pool!

This week's topic is Silver, which means L0s and L1s should be given the first crack at it. L2s, please wait until Thursday to add your opinions.

http://blogs.magicjudges.org/knowledgepool/?p=990

****WARNING: POTENTIAL TRAUMA TRIGGER LANGUAGE****

You're Head Judge of a PTQ. One of the players - who also happens to be a judge that you know - comes up to you and says “Hey, Freddy is over there telling everyone how he ‘bent over and raped’ his last opponent. I don't know about you, but I find that really offensive.”
Before you can say a word, Jorge, one of your event judges says “Really? Again?!? I just warned him about that last round!”
You confirm that Jorge did register an Unsporting Conduct - Minor for Freddy in the previous round.

What do you do (and, did Jorge get the initial penalty correct)?

Edited Josh Stansfield (Feb. 6, 2014 12:23:18 AM)

Yes, the first penalty was correct. It falls under the guidelines for example A., use of vulgar and profane language.

After and investigation into the second incident, I'm assuming we'll find that the player did conduct themselves in the manner described. I think the solution would be to penalize him with Unsporting Conduct - Major for failure to follow a Tournament Officials direction. He'd receive a game loss and another chance to straighten up his act.

I would hope at this point that the problem would be solved. Behavior such as this has the potential to make many players uncomfortable.

I believe the first penalty is correct, assuming that the language used does not fall under the following for Unsporting Conduct - Major.

Insults another person based on his or her race, color, religion, national origin, age, gender, disability, or
sexual orientation.

I would confirm with Jorge whether he means he gave out an official Warning only or if he also directed the player not to say that again. Assuming that the player did conduct himself in that manner, he would get either another Unsporting Conduct - Minor if Jorge did not officially instruct him not to say that phrase or ones like it, or an Unsporting Conduct - Major if Jorge did instruct him thus. Either way, the penalty is a game loss, presumably to be applied to his next game, as the player appears to have finished his current game with his opponent.

I'd agree that the first penalty is probably correct but I'd want to investigate a little to see if this was perhaps an insult based on the opponent's gender of sexual orientation. This investigation could provide a reason that the previous infraction should be UC-Major.

Assuming I don't believe the first charge should have been UC-Major, I feel that this should be another UC-Minor with an upgrade for game loss. I see the argument for UC-Major under the “Fails to follow a direct instruction from a tournament official.” but it seems to me that if you've handed someone a warning you should follow the upgrade path for that warning rather than switch to UC-Major. The intent for UC-Major seems to be:

Some violations of tournament rules will not meet the criteria for any specific infraction. Many minor offenses that a player can commit, even intentionally, are not covered by a specific infraction should be handled initially with a Caution. If repeated, the judge is expected to directly instruct the player not to repeat the offense, and further offenses are treated as Unsporting Conduct — Major for failing to follow the direct instruction of a tournament official.
IPG 1.3

If every time a warning was given and then the offense is repeated granted a UC-Major we wouldn't need upgrade paths for subsequent violations. Freddy's case (a name that doesn't start with A or N, I'm confused) looks like he gets a UC-Minor with the upgrade to game loss.

USC - Minor, penalty upgraded to GL for a repeated infraction, to be applied to game 1 of the next round. I would inform Freddy and his opponent that they will go directly to game 2 and could not sideboard before that game. Freddy decides who plays first in that game.

Jorge got the initial ruling and penalty right, as the initial infraction did not justify the more severe GL penalty. It's a judgement call, but I don't think this behaviour matches any of the more severe USC infractions, but was just generally offensive and inappropriate.

I would also inform the venue's staff, as the player may be in violation of the venue's own floor rules as well.

Edit: I'm assuming this happens between rounds. If not, then the GL applies to the current game, or the next game in the match if the players are between games.

Edited Ernst Jan Plugge (Feb. 5, 2014 09:32:49 PM)

If it needs a trigger warning, it's probably not USC-minor. USC-aggressive behaviour requires violence or threats of violence against an individual, so no fit there. USC-major allows “aggressive or violent behaviour not directed at another person”. I don't think I need to explain why rape is aggressive and violent, and I think that USC-major fits. Depending on what he said the first time, the first penalty was possibly incorrect, but it was already issued so too late to fix it. The current infraction is USC-major both for his conduct and for failing to follow a direct instruction, the penalty is a Game Loss applied to his next round. The player will be instructed not to use such language in the venue, not to threaten or describe aggressive or violent behaviour, especially against specific people, and that a repeat offense would result in a disqualification and ejection from the venue.

I don't see this as a choice between Major and Minor, but rather between Major and Aggressive Behaviour. Minor exists for comments like “that was a stupid play” or other such language. Aggressive Behaviour would be for a direct comment “I am going to X you” or a specific threat “I am going to beat up that Judge later for giving me that penalty”. This situation, assuming the first offense was roughly the same as what was described here, may not be specifically called out, but falls into the same category as racial, gender, or minority harassment. For comparison, many conventions have a zero volrrance policy that would eject this player after a first offense. The entire USC category says the HJ is the final arbiter on what constitutes USC, and based on this, I would be issuing a GL the first time, and disqualifying them the second time.

Edited Dan Collins (Feb. 6, 2014 03:59:40 PM)

USC-Major talks about aggressive behavior, not aggressive language, and I think there's a difference between the two. I think, absent other aggravating factors, this lands pretty solidly under “excessively vulgar or profane language”. (Though it's easy to imagine more aggressive behavior accompanying the language, it's not stated in the scenario)

I'm making the assumption here that by “I gave him a warning earlier”, the other judge actually means filed a warning. That should be confirmed with them before proceeding. I'd also need to know if he gave a direct instruction to avoid that language, or just gave him a warning. (I'm assuming just a warning here)

I'd go talk to the player, and do a little investigation. Assuming the behavior is confirmed, I'd ask if they've received a warning previously. The intention is to get to an open ended question like “what were you told before?”, to get a sense of why they think the behavior is appropriate. If a DQ is appropriate for their answer, so be it though. But this helps me tell if we're dealing with an education issue, someone not paying attention to their language, or someone directly “rebelling”.

If they give the expected answers, we reinforce the education that the language is inappropriate, and give them another USC-Minor warning, along with the upgrade of “Game Loss” for their next match. I'd also clearly indicate that this is a direct instruction from a tournament official to stop the language, and that failing to follow that instruction will be handled as USC-Major.

As uncomfortable as I am with escalating outside the IPG's normal path, I think it's warranted given the impact that language actually has on people (the post says trigger warning for a reason). It's not really JUST foul language, but I don't think that's widely understood enough to immediately escalate to a DQ either.

Chris, if you do issue a USC-Minor, GL, and warn that further infractions will be handled as failure to follow a direct instruction, and (2 rounds later, or in day 2, or whatever), what is the followup? I find it weird that you suggest USC-Major but simultaneously talk about sticking to the official upgrade path, since I would almost certainly want a third office to be a DQ, and handling the third offense as a different infraction seems like it contradicts that.

****WARNING: POTENTIAL TRAUMA TRIGGER LANGUAGE**** for this reply.

The reason I do not believe this is USC-Major or worse is that the language is not directly targeted to the player he defeated. He is not threatening to rape him. He is only describing the result of his previous match in totally inappropriate and offensive language. Assuming we have all the relevant context in the original post he is also not insulting him based on sexual orientation or something like that.

Now, if he sits down for his next round and tells his opponent “I am SO going to rape you”, the DQ hammer will fall hard and fast because then he is actually directly threatening another player and the IPG is very clear about that.

Something for you to ponder and discuss…

Is issuing an infraction and penalty, say GRV and Warning, and saying “Be
more careful” or “Don't do this again” a ‘Direct Instruction’?

Originally posted by George FitzGerald:

Something for you to ponder and discuss…

Is issuing an infraction and penalty, say GRV and Warning, and saying “Be
more careful” or “Don't do this again” a ‘Direct Instruction’?

The way I see it, “failing to follow a direct instruction” has more to do with the willful disregard of an instruction given by a Judge. Saying “be more careful” or “don't do that” as part of a GRV doesn't suddenly become an instruction that will DQ a player later if he makes another mistake (the mistake element is important - if the player makes the same GRV on purpose, hoping he won't get caught, then its obviously Cheating).

Freddy was given a Warning for his talk earlier (the original post does specify there was a USC Minor registered) and was told that his behavior was inappropriate and that he should stop. He willfully disregarded that instruction.

Dan, the reason I call it out explicitly is that it's not clear to me the first judge actually said “Don't use that language”. ie, a warning isn't a direct instruction. The scenario didn't include it, so I assumed it wasn't part of it.

George. I don't think saying “be more careful” is a direct instruction (it's direct, but not specific). I do think “Don't do this again” is one.

The only reason I mention calling it out explicitly in this case is because I'm hoping to impress some seriousness on the player in the hope the behavior is stopped. I'm trying to stop behavior, not just set him up for a future penalty, though if the behavior continues the groundwork laid cleanly.

2 rounds later? I follow my plan. If the original judge had been more clear, we'd be one step further along that plan. (as a side note, since we're on repeat behavior already, I'd circulate it among the judges so he doesn't sneak in another freebie with a new person. And I'd have let the first judge know he should have been more direct the first time around)

Day 2? This isn't a Game Play Error, so the IPG doesn't mention anything about resets. If he shows up again, everything from the previous day sticks with him.

Agree, “be more careful” doesn't sound like a direct instruction to me, but “don't do it again” does. “Be more careful” is a generic caution that applies to almost any infraction. And to the game in general, for that matter.

If I want an instruction to count for this rule, I'd make it explicit by saying something like “I'm instructing you to…” and adding a remark that failing to follow the instruction will lead to at least a GL.

Originally posted by Ernst Jan Plugge:

Agree, “be more careful” doesn't sound like a direct instruction to me, but “don't do it again” does. “Be more careful” is a generic caution that applies to almost any infraction.

My issue with drawing the line here is that someone given something a Missed Trigger warning and could be told “Don't forget your detrimental triggers.” If the same issue comes up and it's still not determined cheating I'm still not inclined to give the UC-Major for failing to follow direct instruction. They get another Missed Trigger warning and are on their way to a GL due to missed trigger warnings.

I really feel the UC-Major for failing to follow direct instruction is reserved for things that fall outside of other infractions, rather than repeated infractions. Maybe in misinterpreting the hierarchy of the IPG here but that's what it seems to imply to me.

Edited Marc DeArmond (Feb. 6, 2014 11:41:42 PM)

When giving a direct instruction in the sense of the IPG, I tell the player exactly that - “I give you the direct instruction to do/not do this/that - failiure to follow this instruction (is considered USC-Major and) carries a severe penalty.”.

“Please don't forget your trigger”, or “please read your cards, and if in doubt, call a judge before potentially breaking game rules” I wouldn't consider direct instructions - otherwise, just about every penalty would have the upgrade path ‘First Infraction’ -> ‘USC Major’, as we usually tell players to play more carefully whenever we hand out an infraction and a penalty…