I feel that unsporting behaviour is exploitable by competitive players who know the IPG - and use their knowledge to distract from their exploits and influence judges into penalising opponents. While I'm aware of the potential for advantage it feels clumsy in most situations to penalise with warnings or gameloss.

Unsporting conduct includes:
B. A player inappropriately demands to a judge that their opponent receive a penalty

• A player reverts from sloppy play to strict adherence at the deciding moment in a match - perhaps demanding unfavourable blocks or that a spell has definitely resolved. Consciously or unconsciously seeks to gain advantage.
  
  A player facing lethal damage suddenly realises Goblin Guide has a trigger and claims that each instance of 3x Goblin Guide should count as a GPE:Missed Trigger and cumulatively lose their opponent the game on the spot.
  
  A player repeatedly visits a judge or judges presenting a different angle for the same issue.
  

While I mostly listen and rule ‘play on’ - these behaviours must be +EV to the complaining player and -EV to the opponents over time. It could be considered rude or unsporting - I'll say again it feels clumsy to penalise and these don't quite meet the inappropriately demands threshold.

• A player repeatedly errs to their own advantage with foreign language cards at a point in the tournament with no potential for prizes - and appears angry at their opponent, somehow.
  
  A player argues that their opponent should not call a judge, perhaps citing jargon from game rules or IPG.
  
  A player asks excessive non-game related questions to their opponent in a tense match. Declines friendly requests from the opponent to stop and criticizes the opponent for manners. Almost certainly intends to put the opponent on tilt.
  

I would warn the first and second players and watch for cheating. I would sharply warn the third player and quickly upgrade to game loss EDIT - I'd also want to write a brief report in case of complaint.

On reflection it seems like players have to be really unsporting to get penalised - and in the grey area it's more tactful and appropriate to just correct it. If I believe the opponent may be intimidated or tilted by unsubstantiated complaints I might shut down the complainant more decisively - but I want to avoid penalising because that would discourage getting judge calls and be worse overall.

Thoughts welcome!

Edited David Alston (Dec. 3, 2015 12:57:51 AM)

Originally posted by David Alston:

A player reverts from sloppy play to strict adherence at the deciding moment in a match - perhaps demanding unfavourable blocks or that a spell has definitely resolved. Consciously or unconsciously seeks to gain advantage.

What penalty is being “demanded” in these situations? The player suddenly not allowing take backs doesn't seem like demanding a penalty to me

Originally posted by David Alston:

A player facing lethal damage suddenly realises Goblin Guide has a trigger and claims that each instance of 3x Goblin Guide should count as a GPE:Missed Trigger and cumulatively lose their opponent the game on the spot.

A player repeatedly visits a judge or judges presenting a different angle for the same issue.

For these it would depend how the player is going about it, asking “he's missed it three times is that a game loss” is okay pressing the issue after that starts getting problematic for the player. And the player who is constantly trying to get a favourable ruling just gets told to stop asking the same question then gets a Warning for failing to follow instructions but the act of

Originally posted by David Alston:

A player repeatedly errs to their own advantage with foreign language cards at a point in the tournament with no potential for prizes - and appears angry at their opponent, somehow.

I'm not sure what you mean here, do you mean they are constantly making mistakes with their foreign cards and seem upset their opponent is catching it or are they not giving full translations to their opponent and are angry for some reason?

Originally posted by David Alston:

A player argues that their opponent should not call a judge, perhaps citing jargon from game rules or IPG.

This one I don't think falls under USC - Minor, if the player is giving false information about the Comp Rules, IPG or MTR content then they are misrepresenting derived information and are falling foul of the Communication Policy and either are committing a CPV or Cheating

Originally posted by David Alston:

A player asks excessive non-game related questions to their opponent in a tense match. Declines friendly requests from the opponent to stop and criticizes the opponent for manners. Almost certainly intends to put the opponent on tilt.

Is please don't talk a request we can enforce?

Originally posted by David Alston:

A player asks excessive non-game related questions to their opponent in a tense match. Declines friendly requests from the opponent to stop and criticizes the opponent for manners. Almost certainly intends to put the opponent on tilt.

Do you think this behavior could reasonably be expected to create a feeling of being harassed or bullied?

Perhaps you are mixing up unsporting conduct and “not sporting” conduct, perfectly legal but not nice?? :)

Originally posted by David Alston:

A player reverts from sloppy play to strict adherence at the deciding moment in a match - perhaps demanding unfavourable blocks or that a spell has definitely resolved. Consciously or unconsciously seeks to gain advantage.

Yes, knowing precisely the rules is EV+ as a player, looking for gain advantage. And what's even more surprising, we allow and encourage it!! :)

From MTR, section 4:

The philosophy of the DCI is that a player should have an advantage due to better understanding of the rules of a game, greater awareness of the interactions in the current game state, and superior tactical planning

Originally posted by David Alston:

A player facing lethal damage suddenly realises Goblin Guide has a trigger and claims that each instance of 3x Goblin Guide should count as a GPE:Missed Trigger and cumulatively lose their opponent the game on the spot.

Well, as per IPG 1.2,

Infractions with the same root cause, or multiple instances of the same infraction that are discovered at the same time, are treated as a single infraction.

Anyway, it's perfectly legal to call a judge. After the ruling is given, you can appeal to the HJ. After HJ gives his final ruling, you can't continue arguing forever. Either you play or you'll end DQed, after several warnings.

Originally posted by David Alston:

A player repeatedly visits a judge or judges presenting a different angle for the same issue.

The player has the right to ask a judge any questions. When they get too repetitive, is the judge (and the HJ, finally) who has to finally put a stop on this. And if not, you know, classical track, Caution, USC-Minor… :)

Originally posted by David Alston:

While I mostly listen and rule ‘play on’ - these behaviours must be +EV to the complaining player and -EV to the opponents over time. It could be considered rude or unsporting - I'll say again it feels clumsy to penalise and these don't quite meet the inappropriately demands threshold.

No unsporting conduct, at least at first. Not sporting conduct is not unsporting conduct.

Originally posted by David Alston:

A player repeatedly errs to their own advantage with foreign language cards at a point in the tournament with no potential for prizes - and appears angry at their opponent, somehow.

You put together different things. No potential for prizes is irrelevant. If a player conscientiously errs to his side, you'd probably investigate for USC-Cheating. Angry at his opponent is a separate issue, and could be handled from “nothing” to “please stop it” to USC-Minor (generic anger at least, not directed or threatening).

Originally posted by David Alston:

A player argues that their opponent should not call a judge, perhaps citing jargon from game rules or IPG.

You can correct them publicly, as of course any player can call a judge for any (legitimate) reason. Jargon won't help, as no single line in the CRs or IPGs or whatever (hey, random forums or FB posts don't count!! :) ) forbids me to call a judge.

Originally posted by David Alston:

A player asks excessive non-game related questions to their opponent in a tense match. Declines friendly requests from the opponent to stop and criticizes the opponent for manners. Almost certainly intends to put the opponent on tilt.

Hey, if the opponent calls a judge, he's probably worth enough of some talk about his tilting conversation. You can ask them to stop, if you feel his chat is creating bad atmosphere or has (and probably will) turned into direct bullying or insults.

Originally posted by David Alston:

On reflection it seems like players have to be really unsporting to get penalised

They're indeed called Unsporting Conduct infractions.

If you feel that some players are about to cross the line, you can warn them before that, and if things get generally tense, nervous or people gets arguing all day, maybe you can work with the TO about a solution. Maybe the LGS has a small disgusting group of players, and the TO can ban them (temporarily or not) if it helps the atmosphere, which, after all, usually results in more customers and EV+ for the store :)

Edited Joaquín Pérez (Nov. 30, 2015 12:36:16 PM)

Originally posted by David Alston:

A player asks excessive non-game related questions to their opponent in a tense match. Declines friendly requests from the opponent to stop and criticizes the opponent for manners. Almost certainly intends to put the opponent on tilt.

I think this is the closest of your examples to USC-Minor, and to me hinges on the intent. Is the player just generally talkative, or are they trying to be annoying. I would say that any action whose primary goal is to be annoying is, almost by definition, USC-Minor.

Originally posted by Aaron Henner:

I think this is the closest of your examples to USC-Minor, and to me hinges on the intent. Is the player just generally talkative, or are they trying to be annoying. I would say that any action whose primary goal is to be annoying is, almost by definition, USC-Minor.

My question for this is, where is the line drawn for annoying behavior. If a player is talkative too much and we issue USC; how about if a player clicks his click-y pen too much, or more accurately - a player flips his cards too much. As my understanding, just being annoying isnt in and of itself a penalty. If it were, then a LOT more players would be getting USC calls.

What penalty is being “demanded” in these situations? The player suddenly not allowing take backs doesn't seem like demanding a penalty to me

Thanks Gareth and Joaquín for your comprehensive replies. You're right, it isn't that.

If Adam and Nylea have established shortcuts (MTR 4.2) and aren't strictly playing in sequence (MTR 4.3) in a way they both agree on. Adam is suddenly eager to apply MTGO type ‘rules lawyer’ timing and calls a judge to enforce an action by Nylea he claims has happened.

Adam may claim that preliminary blocks are final blocks.
Adam may claim that a spell has resolved, when Nylea acknowledged the spell on the stack with ‘OK’ and intends to counter it.
Adam may claim that a spell has targeted a wrong target based on a verbal or dexterity error.

Players may not try to use opponent's reactions to some portion of an out of
order sequence to see if he or she should modify actions or try to take additional ones. Nor may players use out of order sequencing to try to retroactively take an action they missed at the appropriate time. In general, any substantial pause at the end of a completed batch is an indication that all actions have been taken, the sequence is complete and the game has moved to the appropriate point at the end of the sequence.

Let's say that Adam argues Nylea's pause is substantial, when Nylea disagrees based on their history that match.

Yes, knowing precisely the rules is EV+ as a player, looking for gain advantage. And what's even more surprising, we allow and encourage it!! :)

From MTR, section 4:

The philosophy of the DCI is that a player should have an advantage due to better understanding of the rules of a game, greater awareness of the interactions in the current game state, and superior tactical planning

If I felt the play was assertively/clearly made I would uphold Adam's complaint and hold Nylea to the error.
If I felt the play was indistinct/non-committal I could rule that the spell was not yet cast.

If necessary I could use Communication Policy to warn either or both players.
If i suspected Adam's motives I could investigate for Cheating - Lying.
Neither USC minor or major are appropriate in this situation.

I would be unlikely to uphold a complaint by a player suddenly changing their shortcuts/out of order sequencing although I would understand why a player would argue, hoping to win.

Originally posted by Darren Horve:

My question for this is, where is the line drawn for annoying behavior.

For what I'm talking about, the line isn't for the behavior, it's for the intent of the behavior(1). What is the primary goal of a player clicking a pen a lot? Is it to satisfy a physical nervous tic? If so, then the primary goal isn't to annoy the opponent. The opponent may be annoyed, but that's separate. Am I playing with my lands in front because that's how I always play(2) and that's how I'm most comfortable? Or am I doing it for no reason other than I know you hate it?

There are probably a thousand ways in which one player might antagonize their opponents. Is the solution, as a judge, to individually mediate each action… ruling it ‘reasonable’ or ‘unreasonable’, then give directives to the player (“You can play with your lands up front, but stop asking your opponent about their taste in music”), and THEN give USC-Minor if they violate our specific directives? Or we could give a generic directive: (“Don't needlessly antagonize your opponents”). Or we could just assume that USC-Minor includes, in part, “Don't needlessly antagonize your opponents”.

(1) There is some USC-Minor behavior, like appealing prior to an initial ruling, that doesn't require ill-intent. I'm discussing a subset of USC-Minor that does
(2) I don't actually play like that

Edited Aaron Henner (Nov. 30, 2015 07:28:27 PM)

As stated in the IPG, competitive (e.g., annoying?) behavior isn't necessarily Unsporting:

Unsporting behavior is not the same as a lack of sporting behavior. There is a wide middle ground of “competitive” behavior that is certainly neither “nice” nor “sporting” but still doesn’t qualify as “unsporting.” The Head Judge is the final arbiter on what constitutes unsporting conduct.

Look carefully at the Examples cited in the Unsporting Conduct section, and ask yourself if these scenarios are a match, philosophically, for those examples. Also, I want to call attention to what I feel is a very important part of the Definition:

It may affect the comfort level of those around the individual, but determining whether this is the case is not required.

It *may* affect the comfort level - if we, as Head Judge, feel that a player's behavior is disruptive, we should explain to them why, instruct them to stop, and assess a Warning for UC-Minor (or ML for Major, if it's that extreme).

Now, that may seem to grant license to Head Judges everywhere, to decide for themselves what is or is not Unsporting … and yes, that's somewhat the intent. If I'm used to a small, tight-knit group of players who enjoy insulting each other's play skills (with “colorful” language), I would probably draw the line in a much different place than would a nun running a tournament in a parochial school. While that seems like inconsistency - and by now, you know I'm all about that (consistency) base - it's really not, because in each case, it allows the play group to play in the manner they feel most comfortable.

Hopefully, that helps you examine the various scenarios offered up here, and think about which of your play groups would be uncomfortable, or not, in each situation.

d:^D

I think USC is an interesting penalty to consider, largely because it kind of stands on its own compared to others. For most IPG violations the underlying philosophy is to preserve the integrity of the game– illegal actions that have a positive EV for the player taking them are punished more harshly than those without, fixes are aimed at restoring a disrupted game state, etc. USC is different because it doesn't matter if you did what you did because you were trying to win or gain some form of advantage. The behavior is the problem in and of itself, not simply because of its effect on the game. To put it another way, we don't care that a player drew extra cards because the physical act of the draw somehow negatively impacts the tournament experience for surrounding players; we care because it compromises the integrity of the game, and our goal is to make sure that the results of the tournament are determined by games of Magic, played by two players who are both following the same set of rules. Preserving the integrity of the game is the goal and preventing DEC (or illegal spell casting, or looking at extra cards, or etc.) is in the service of that goal.

This seems like such a basic thing that it's not worth mentioning, but I bring it up here to distinguish between those types of infractions and USC. USC harms and disrupts the event even if the game itself is being played with perfect integrity. “Angleshooting” and similar behaviors may or may not be USC, but I don't think we can really use the “is the player gaining an advantage from this behavior” test in the same way as on other penalties such as a missed trigger. Either a behavior is disruptive enough to be USC, or it's not. I think we have to be somewhat agnostic as to why someone is doing whatever “it” is.

As Scott said, we can take into account context and playgroup, but ultimately we should be thinking not “what is this player gaining from this action” but “even if this player is gaining no advantage at all, is this action ok?”

If a player is fishing for a judge call, is he trying to abuse the clock? Is he Stalling? That's an infraction on its own. Is he intentionally playing sloppy and missing triggers, misplaying cards etc? Cheating is an infraction. If he is antagonizing his opponent, then it doesn't really matter if he's doing it intentionally to put them on tilt or doing it accidentally as part of an anal-retentive or aggressive personality quirk– if you, as the judge, determine that his behavior is disruptive then you can and should USC him. Certainly explain why. If he's doing it on purpose, he needs to knock it off. If he didn't realize he was doing it, he needs to be made aware of how his behavior affects others. If it's Major then you assess that. But I just don't think it's consistent with the philosophy behind USC to try to see if the player is gaining +EV from doing it, unless you suspect a more serious offense and are investigating that (cheating, lying to a judge etc.)