Eastern Europe Judge Conference February 2017

CRIME AND PUNISHMENT IN MAGIC

(SERIOUS PROBLEMS IN TOURNAMENTS)

Serious ProblemsREL Description Penalty

Regular Aggressive, violent or abusive behavior Disqualification

Regular Intentionally and knowingly breaking or letting an opponent break game or tournament rules, or lying

Disqualification

Regular Theft Disqualification

Comp. Unsporting Conduct – Minor Warning

Comp. Unsporting Conduct – Major Match Loss

Comp. Unsporting Conduct – Aggressive Behavior Disqualification

Comp. Unsporting Conduct – Theft of Tournament Material

Disqualification

Comp. Unsporting Conduct – Stalling Disqualification

Comp. Unsporting Conduct – Cheating Disqualification

Which of those infractions are actual crimes?

Human behaviorAnti-social and annoyingRegulated by a commonly

accepted rule-set, which involves a form of restoration (fix) and punishment (penalty)

Aiming at safety, social well-being, rehabilitation

Actual crime & “serious problems” in Magic: the

gathering

Infractions and Criminal Law; structural analogies

Objective Elements

Actual events

(species facti)

Subjective Elements

Subject’s demographics &

past

Degree of Intent

Mental State

Judgment & Penalty

On Objective elements…

Species Facti

Judge’s own knowledge

Player StatementsVideos &

other form of proof

Witnesses

On Subjective elements…

GPE Intent (Dolus Malus)

Cheating

Insufficient

Shuffling/DL problems/Lim

ited Proced

ure Violati

on/ Communicatio

n Policy Violati

on/ Marked Cards

Intent Cheating

Slow

playIntent Stalli

ng

Applying judgment and punishment…Object

ive + Subjec

tive Eleme

nts

Applicable Rule

Fix & Penalt

y

Interpretation?

• Literal = what the text says

• Finalist = what the text aims at

• Analogical = similar situations

Interpretation types set in the IPG?IPG p. 3, General Philosophy

“Only the Head Judge is authorized to issue penalties that deviate from these guidelines. The Head Judge may not deviate from this guide’s procedures except in significant and exceptional circumstances or a situation that has no applicable philosophy for guidance.”

Literal

Finalist

Analogical

Going deeper…

Reduced Accountability (Medical condition/ very young age/ under the influence)

Defense (in favor of one’s self or a third party)Prior ProvocationState of Emergency Ignorance of the LawPlayer’s historyAgent ProvocateurAccomplishes without in-tournament benefitsGeneral Consent

Could any of the following common law notions be considered “exceptional circumstances” justifying a finalist interpretation?

IPG p. 3 GENERAL PHILOSOPHY

«Τhe purpose of a penalty is to educate the player not to make similar mistakes in the future. […] Penalties are also for the deterrence and education of every other player in the event and are also used to track player behavior over time»

… into the spirit of the law

… aka criteria for a finalist interpretation

When literal equals vague; tracing and evaluating

“indefinite legal concepts” in USC infractions“Indefinite legal concepts”: terms which involve an

interpretational analysis/opinion before becoming specific or applicable. (e.g. “immoral”, “offensive”)

Tracing “indefinite legal concepts” in USC infractions

● Unsporting contact – General“may affect the safety, competitiveness, enjoyment, or integrity of a tournament in a significantly negative fashion”

● Unsporting contact – Minor“disruptive”, “may affect the comfort level”

● Unsporting contact – Major“reasonably expected /to create a feeling /of being

harassed, bullied….”

● Unsporting contact – Aggressive behavior“acts in a threatening way”

Var.1: It is a small PPTQ of 12 people, all adult males.Var. 2: It is a larger WMCQ with a mixed crows, 4 underage and 4 female

participants among the vast majority of adult males.Var. 3: We’re in Greece.Var. 4: We’re in the USA.Var. 5: No one seems to mind this further and the tournament startsVar. 6: One of the female players addresses to you, expressing her taking

offence and nuisance.

Right before the tournament starts, as the players are gathering for pairings, player Kostas is looking at a randomly playing TV screen, where he sees a woman of his fancy exclaiming: “I’d take that piece of ass, all day” to which the majority of participants responds with vague approval and laughs. [disruptive/racial/threatening?]

Example 1

Var.1: Kostas is not acquainted with Vasilis.Var. 2: Kostas is good friends with Vasilis and Vasilis

giggles at the comment, seemingly unaffected.Var. 3: Vasilis is indeed gay and Kostas was aware of

it.

During his match against player Vasilis, Kostas, seeing his opponent countering his 3rd spell in a row, exclaims “how gay!” being heard around 3-4 other tables and another couple of bystanders. (disruptive/racial/threatening?)

Example 2

Var.1: Kostas is not acquainted with Antonis.Var. 2: Kostas is Antonis big brother and had

previously discussed the issue at home.Var. 3: Vasilis is a 12 year old boy, in his first

competitive tournament, with a custom deck. He bursts into tears.

During his match against player Antonis, Kostas comments: “Your deck is unfit for a PPTQ, why would be wasting your time with crap like this?”

Example 3

The train of thought…Effect on responder

[offended/ threatened]

Effect on environment (tournament’s social

parameters)

(Reasonable?) General social parameters*

(Reasonable?)Species Facti

Judge’s analysis and personal opinion *

Assigning behavior into infraction ->

Penalty

*Could the judge be possibly considered a viable “victim” of being offended indirectly, contrary to the players’ absolute consensus or the general social consensus?

…and how to act upon it

Conversation with the responder

Observation of participants’ reactions

(protect silent minority)

Knowing my facts of life and where I’m at*

Knowing my players

Being mature enough/think

objectively (not being stuck up)

A fair penalty

The “No-No’s” of a fair judgmentRelying solely on the responder’s opinion.

Relying solely on the judge’s opinion.Being sucked into social “pack mentality”.Being sucked into extreme political

correctness.Being self-righteous.

Thoughts/Conclusions

You know, I’ve learned something today…Consider “exceptional circumstances” but tread lightly.Be mature and objective. Consider everything and everyone.Make sure judge candidates aren’t prone to causing serious

problems themselves, similarly to how we’re making sure they aren’t cheaters. Evaluate their overall personality and philosophy*.

Be fair, clear-headed, compassionate, have fun.

Juuudge!