This thread is for discussing the article Dealing with Difficult Players by Evan Cherry.

I just wanted to note here that I really enjoyed the article and loved each of the examples as a fantastic and humorous way to portray the issues we're likely to encounter. We all know these example player types and it's great to have a little guide for dealing with each of them.

One concern I have is with the nature of labeling these people as a “type”. While I don't think it was the intent of the article to do so, I'd hate to see judges labeling their high impact players as one of these types. Part of this comes from education training I've had dealing with special ed students and using People First language. People First language tells us to identify an individual first as a person (or student, or player) and second as one with a particular issue (anger issues, excessive talking). Reshaping the language so that we are talking about "players who do “ instead of ”players that are “ helps us remain aware that it is the behavior, rather than the person, that is the problem. This is like labeling a student as a ”disruptive student“ or a ”bad student“ rather than a ”student who struggles with self control“ or a ”student who hasn't done their homework".

If you're interested in People First language you can read a quick summary of it on Wikipedia HERE.

Edited Marc DeArmond (Nov. 26, 2014 07:13:25 PM)

Great article, Evan, I really enjoyed it! It's great to have a few template sentences on hand. Learning these by heart makes dealing with difficult situations much easier for people who are easily derailed by disruptive behaviour, if only because they are not used to it.

One neat way to engage a person who likes to talk a lot (at least at Regular REL events) is to delegate simple tasks to them, especially if they have mentioned an interest in becoming a judge.

@Marc DeArmond the Wiki article URL is missing a letter, here is the fixed address: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People-first_language

Marc: Thanks for your response. Your points are appreciated and seem less directed at the article and more at the take-home that judges might get. I can get behind that.

I do not condone labeling players with these groups. I hope that judges will appreciate the humor and take from this article the guidance on communicating with these people rather than the witty/not witty sub-header I used to group them.

Originally posted by Marc DeArmond:

We all know these example player types

Sure. That was the intent of the humor, and I imagine readers will be able to zero in on where a player's behavior falls. You should always consider people, and respectfully interacting with them as people is the underlying message of the article. I hope no one misses that.

Sorry if it's a bit off-topic, but I'm afraid I'm myself some sort of

The Know-it-All Rules Lawyer

They know about the rules. They know they know more about the rules. They know they know more about the rules than you. You’re likely to get appealed and have to deal with an argument if it doesn’t go their way. They may want your name to report you later.

Player: “My opponent bounced a creature with Force Away before untapping his creatures to the Jeskai Ascendancy trigger. The trigger should resolve on the stack before the spell!”


He is right (assuming CompREL) and his opponent shouldn't be able to untap his creatures. That's a GPE-MT, without penalty as it's non detrimental. Am I wrong??

I mean, we have all suffered the more frequent don't-know-anything-even-basic-rules-but-pretend-and-shout-they-know-it-all rules lawyer. It tends to grow in LGS without any judges, btw :)

Originally posted by Joaquín Pérez:

He is right (assuming CompREL) and his opponent shouldn't be able to untap his creatures. That's a GPE-MT, without penalty as it's non detrimental. Am I wrong??

He's quote/unquote “right” about the sequencing, but if a player says “Bounce my guy. Untap my guys and they get +1/+1”, would you rule that trigger missed?

I think it's clearly OoOS, and I would be hesitant to rules lawyer a player out of the physical action of picking the creature up and untapping each creature in one motion.

Yeah, no problem with that. OoOS applies fine. It depends on how he resolves the bouncer, the classic “Resolve??” “Ok”, etc. Don't want to off-topic more a thread for the discussion of your, needless to say, excellent article ;) Sorry for the inconvenience!! :)

I throughly enjoyed this. Sometimes when browsing Articles on here I often find myself being distracted while reading, however the wit and humor put into this kept me engaged through out its entirety. As for the actual content of it I found it extremely helpful but would like to know your opinion on when a judge should take the next step at a Regular event? And how much tone and environment should be taken into consideration.

This is a brilliant article - I believe it is also applicable to all aspects of life, so I recommend getting as many people to read as possible - even if they're not judges or magic players! There should be a lesson in it for any person.

Walker: the answer at Regular is always and especially “it depends. ”

You want to set the tone to be fair for the culture of that particular place, within reason of what you would definitely enforce everywhere (like serious problems, harassment, etc). Some stores you may not bat an eye when they're quoting the Magic South Park episode. Others that's not appropriate and you would address it earlier.

If it's causing problems, it's time to get involved. “If it's disputing the event” was repeated in the article for emphasis. :)