{"id":125,"date":"2015-10-08T23:24:49","date_gmt":"2015-10-08T20:24:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/rules\/?page_id=125"},"modified":"2019-04-02T10:41:16","modified_gmt":"2019-04-02T07:41:16","slug":"ipg4-1","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/rules\/ipg4-1\/","title":{"rendered":"IPG 4.1 Unsporting Conduct \u2014 Minor"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Definition<\/h2>\n

A player takes action that is disruptive to the tournament or its participants.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n
<\/p>\n

Penalty<\/strong><\/p>\n

Warning<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n

<\/p>\n

Actions can be \u201cdisruptive\u201d in multiple ways. We can\u2019t write an exhaustive list of everything disruptive because every place in the world where Magic is played has its own rules for civil life. Note that we said \u201cdisruptive\u201d, not \u201coffensive\u201d, although offensive statements are almost always disruptive. The IPG makes no effort to determine if a player is \u201coffended\u201d as that leads to inconsistent rulings and opens up the potential for players to \u201cgame the system\u201d by pretending to be more offended than they really are. <\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

The IPG is applied in the same way for all problems of this type, but each judge must determine what is acceptable or not from their own experience and judgment. <\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

Participants have the responsibility to not ruin the enjoyable atmosphere of the tournament, so as judges we must take care to educate players. \u00a0If Magic is to be a game where people have fun with each other, we must prevent behaviors that damage this. Our goal is to educate the players to be respectful in the tournament and to signal that certain behaviors are not acceptable. While \u201cminor\u201d may be in the title of the infraction, it is still a formal infraction and has an upgrade path. Do not confuse \u201cminor\u201d with how seriously we are to treat the issue. However, you also need to be cautious to not over-apply what is disruptive by taking the most extreme definition.<\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

A player failing to follow a judge’s direct instruction is also disruptive; perhaps to the tournament or to the Judges themselves. When a judge tells a player to do something, it is for the good of the event or to enforce a specific policy concern or tournament rule. We don’t tell players to change their behavior for the fun of it, or to exercise our authority because we can. Keep in mind there is a reasonable limit to what you can instruct a player to do. We don’t tell them “Go stand in the rain for 20 min”, but we will tell them “Quit shuffling in your lap.” <\/span><\/em><\/p>\n

Finally, if the disruptive behavior is neither<\/span>\u00a0Unsporting Conduct \u2014 Major<\/a> nor Aggressive Behavior<\/a>, then it is Unsporting Conduct \u2014 Minor.<\/em><\/div><\/p>\n

It may affect the comfort level of those around the individual, but determining whether this is the case is not required.<\/p>\n

This sentence is included in the IPG because judges can\u2019t have personal knowledge of all participants in the venue; it is not important to find out if there actually is a person that is actually being disturbed by the disruptive action for the penalty to apply, and we don\u2019t have to look for such a person. However, the converse is actually true as well. Some people can be offended or upset by items below a reasonable threshold for this infraction. For example, in a sealed event, a player may be upset by the unaltered artwork on Triumph of Ferocity; this does not mean the player using the card should get a warning, or even have to change the card. \u00a0Additionally, you can always construct a fictitious person that would be discomforted by any action. Avoid using this method when determining if an action should be infracted, and instead rely on what is reasonable.<\/span><\/em><\/div>\n

Examples<\/h2>\n