Originally posted by Lasse Kulmala:

I'm forced to give Amy a match loss and Nolan gets only a warning which I feel is very unfair considering the situation.This is behavior we want to discourage but in this situation the IPG just fails and I would issue a warning for both.

My point exactly, you can actually troll a person in hope of a flaming retaliation to win an unwinnable game…..

Without reading any answers :

I'd give Nolan an USC-Minor (Warning) for what he said and Amy an USC-Major even if her insult doesn't hurt Nolan (as stated lately it's the cause not the effect which is sanctionned).

For the fix, I'd ask carefully both sides if the bonefire had resolved. If it had, I move the Game Loss to Amy next match. If it had not, i give the Game Loss right now and Nolan win the current game.

EDIT : woups, wrong IPG version. I give Amy a Match Loss, not a Game loss

Edited Olivier Besnard (July 24, 2014 04:57:52 PM)

As I arrive at the table I would first take a look at the mental state of the players. If they're angry at each other I would be fast to seperate them and question them then. If they took there words as playful banter I don't see a reason to seperate them. However, reading the discription of their facial expressions in the scenario I would more likely seperate them.

This seems to be a USC-Minor Warning for Nolan, because he took a action that reasonably may affect the comfort of the people around him.
I would issue an USC-Major Match Loss to Amy because she said something that can be understand as sexual harrassment to Nolan.
In both cases it is not important that it was actually meant this way, but that it could be understood as this by normal people.
Another intresting question is the point to issue the match loss penalty. First we have to verify whether Nolan really resigned. If both players cooled down I would question them and the players (if possible or give them more time to cool down) and the spectator. Given this scenario I would rule the game and match as beeing completed because he put his cards down like you usally do when resigning. One could argue to apply the penalty to this match because the person who would get it was winning, so it would matter. However, I feel this becomes weird because we would have to act different if the loser commits the infraction and we want consistent rulings. So I would apply it to the next game.

Originally posted by Alex de Bruijne:

Lasse Kulmala
I'm forced to give Amy a match loss and Nolan gets only a warning which I feel is very unfair considering the situation.This is behavior we want to discourage but in this situation the IPG just fails and I would issue a warning for both.

My point exactly, you can actually troll a person in hope of a flaming retaliation to win an unwinnable game…..

My two cents:

1.) If a player (in this example Nolan) behaves like that, the opponent (Amy) should call for a judge. This will end the “Circle of Flaming” immediately, resulting in a Warning for only one player. Flaming back is not an appropriate way to deal with this situation

2.) The player itself chooses to act in a way a penalty is needed. We, as a neutral arbiter, don’t give penalties just because we are funny people or do some random Warnings/GL/DQ. A player did something wrong, we step in, apply a fix and give out a penalty if necessary. In this scenario, Amy is responsible for her own actions. There are several ways to clear the situation, and she did choose one that leads to a not so good ending. She could have also called for a judge after Nolan’s saying, but her decision was insulting Nolan, and now she has to pay the price for it.

Edit: Fixing typos.

Edited Auzmyn Oberweger (July 24, 2014 05:13:44 PM)

Originally posted by René Oberweger:

She could have also called for a judge after Nolan’s saying, but her decision was insulting Nolan, and now she has to pay the price for it.

In this, you are right.
Which once more proves the need to educate players about when to call a Judge.

I know that many of us judges (myself included) like to pursue answers in a completely analytical way, and would prefer that the rules for managing these events be laid out in their entirety. The problem is that sometimes we're asked to enter the realm of conflict mediation, and 3/4 of a page is not going to cover the best way to handle every problem (or even most problems).

That said this bit of advice doesn't appear explicitly in the IPG, but I think it needs to be given: CONTEXT MATTERS.

What the IPG does mention is that an event qualifies as USC only if there's a “reasonable expectation” that it be considered threatening and, in this case, based on sexual orientation. I don't think that the reasonable expectation exists here.

Nolan has just called a Bonfire of the Damned “gay.” I don't think that he meant that the Bonfire of the Damned liked to have sex with another Bonfire of the Damned of the same gender, nor would I find it reasonable for others to interpret it that way. It seems clear that Nolan is just a frustrated young man with a limited vocabulary who needs to work on his etiquette.

Likewise, Amy's comment was the type of mirrored response that is exceedingly typical on middle school playgrounds. Had Nolan called the Bonfire of the Damned “dumb,” “poopy,” or “incommodious” it is almost certain that that would be the label thrown back upon him. Again, I think it's unreasonable to expect that in context Amy's words would be interpreted as an attack on Nolan's sexual orientation. She could just as easily have said “I'm rubber, you're glue. It bounces off of me, and sticks to you.”

I would advocate talking with both players about the importance of civility, and explain that the language they use can be interpreted as hateful by others, even if that's not their intent. Issue a Warning for USC - Minor, make it clear that this behavior is not tolerated, and that we'll be tracking whether it happens again. For the reasons stated above, I think it would be absurd to issue USC - Major penalties given the context provided.

On 24/07/2014 00:14, Talin Salway wrote:
>
> This is very much behavior that we want to discourage at Magic events.
> The first step, when investigating, would be to bring the players away
> from the table, and away from each other, to prevent further escalation.
>
> Nolan has committed USC - Minor. His language, and attitude towards
> his opponent, could create an uncomfortable environment for others.
> That said, the behavior wasn't specifically targeted at Amy, and is
> clearly an expression of general frustration, and not something that
> harasses or bullies a single person. Nolan receives a warning.
>
> Amy's case is a little trickier. She escalated the situation,
> insulting her opponent based on sexual orientation. This falls into
> the territory of USC - Major. This infraction carries the penalty of
> Match Loss. The current match is over (With Amy winning 2-1), so the
> Match Loss will be applied to the next round.
>
> It is a bit feel-bad that Amy gets a more severe penalty than Nolan,
> for what seems like very similar behavior, which was done in response
> to inappropriate behavior. That said, she did escalate the situation,
> and made the situation more personal (“you're gay” vs “that's gay”),
> when she had the opportunity to call a judge, or call Nolan out on his
> statement appropriately.
>
>
> ——————————————————————————–
> 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/72399/
>
> Disable all notifications for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/11401/
> Receive on-site notifications only for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/11401/?onsite=yes
>
> You can change your email notification settings at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/profiles/edit
>
While I agree with what has been said gay can also not have a non sexual
meaning. Older folk may have used the word differently what a gay day
can have a good meaning according to the dictionary. The problem is
slang can change the meaning of words and where do we draw the line? We
also want players to play in a relaxed enjoyable environment not in a
place where they have to watch every word that they say for fear of
being penalised. I agree in political correctness but we have to be
careful not to take things too far. I feel in some cases a cautionary
word to cut it out would be sufficient to stop such behaviour.


Graham

I've read through several of the comments, and agree with what I've seen in that this is definitely unsporting conduct. The bigger issue is the Minor vs. Major debate. Several people have noted that Nolan could be considered to be “baiting” his opponent, and that his statement is more general frustration, while Amy's is directed towards him.
I'm inclined to go with Minor, for this reason:

4.1. Unsporting Conduct — Minor
A. A player uses excessively vulgar and profane language

In my personal opinion, considering the fact that it appears neither player had the intention of using a slur, we've got what some other people have noted is schoolyard behaviour. While USC Major states that the infraction may be committed without the offender intending malice, it seems like this should apply more when the statement is likely to cause offence. For example, if Nolan had said “well that sucks” and Amy had responded the same way, regardless of Nolan's orientation, the offence is clear. This sort of back and forth banter is quite common at competitive levels of sports and games, typically with “lesser” insults that are intended to vent anger more than cause harm.
Considering this, giving both players a warning and a stern talking to about appropriate methods to vent would be my personal remedy. Despite the fact that Nolan initiated and Amy responded, this case is more profane language than sexual hate, since words like gay are often used with no sexual connotations at all, just as “I need a bad word”. This is more of a swear than a slur.

(Sorry for the length, this is a topic that is very difficult to explain briefly)

It might be a problem of language but for me “dirty look” indicates that Amy doesn't mean it as banter. Besides we hava not only to consider the feelings of the players, but also of the other people. Therefore the excuse of the context can only be of limited use because a spectator could only here the last part (and maybe be annoyed because he is actually gay and hates to hear it beeing used as a insult)

In my opinion, Amy commited UC Major and Nolan commited UC Minor for the
reasons well stated above. I think the real question is - when do we want
to apply Match Loss? I'll make an assumption, that the match is still in
progress as nothing in the scenario makes me think otherwise. In fact, a
spectator asked players to *pause* the match while he's calling a judge. He
or she is allowed to do that at Competetive REL, so it looks like they
paused just before the resolution of the spell.

Now, while we may consider applying ML to the current match, because Amy is
actually the winning side. That may look like a good thing to do to some of
you - Nolan would get a compensation of the insult. But then, we are
encouraging players to upset their opponents when they are losing a match.
Why you ask? Well, let's look at it from player's perspective: I risk only
a warning (assuming I didn't get a UC Minor earlier that day) while I may
upset my opponent and make him/her say something far worse, giving me the
match win, that I really need to get prizes/make top8/whatever. That's not
what we want them to think. And having that in mind, I'm strongly biased to
apply the Match Loss at the beggining of the next round, as the IPG allows
that.


2014-07-24 14:15 GMT+02:00 Markus Dietrich <

Adrian, when does the IPG allow for applying the penalty next round?

Originally posted by Adrian Strzała:

Now, while we may consider applying ML to the current match, because Amy is
actually the winning side.

If you would give ML for USC-Major, you should apply that in current match. We can't make that decision based on game state.

Going back to main topic - for me its really “you must be there” situation. We don't know if Amy and Nolan are friends and this is how they talk to each other on normal basis nor we know the tone of their sentences. I would begin with question to spectator why he felt necessary to call judge, then ask both players about their feelings on that and why they said what they said. My ruling would depend a lot on their answers and it would be from just a stern conversation to USC Minor/Major.

But most important, I agree with Glenn Fisher way of thinking and Graham opinion about political correctness.

Originally posted by Bartłomiej Wieszok:

Adrian Strzała
Now, while we may consider applying ML to the current match, because Amy is
actually the winning side.

If you would give ML for USC-Major, you should apply that in current match. We can't make that decision based on game state.

Going back to main topic - for me its really “you must be there” situation. We don't know if Amy and Nolan are friends and this is how they talk to each other on normal basis nor we know the tone of their sentences. I would begin with question to spectator why he felt necessary to call judge, then ask both players about their feelings on that and why they said what they said. My ruling would depend a lot on their answers and it would be from just a stern conversation to USC Minor/Major.

But most important, I agree with Glenn Fisher way of thinking and Graham opinion about political correctness.

It shouldn't matter if they know each other outside of the match. Scenarios like this should not be tolerated in an event as they do not support the kind of atmosphere that we want to have at event.s

“If the offense occurs at the end of a match, it is acceptable for the
judge to apply the penalty to the next match
instead.”

I just meant, that some judges would like to penalize Amy in the current
match, which I would not for the reasons I've explained before. The above
statement is to make the UC Major enforceable and to prevent those unwanted
behaviors when matches end. Also in this case, the IPG clearly refers it's
up to our decision when to apply it, so I don't see applying our own
judgement very wrong. Think of it that way - are you allowed to consider
game state during a DQ investigation? You certainly do, furthermore you are
even required to do that. So now, are you allowed to consider game state to
make a very serious penalty enforceable? Maybe. I'd go with yes, but I
wonder what are the opinions of high-level judges.


2014-07-24 21:20 GMT+02:00 Bartłomiej Wieszok <

You shouldnt apply the match loss to Amy's next match. The IPG explicitly states:
"These procedures do not, and should not, take into account the game being played, the current situation that the
game is in, or who will benefit strategically from the procedure associated with a penalty"