Level Two - Lesson 12
Master Event Document - Penalties
Also available are archives of live broadcasts, where the Program Director goes over the lesson, answers any questions that folks may have and sometimes goes on tangets about other elements of judging. You can find the playlist of broadcasts on youtube.
Click for Translation
While proper translation and localization are among our long-term goals, we are currently offering Google Translate on the page. Please keep in mind that the translation is automatic, which means that specific game terms, names of cards or mechanics, or technical language used to describe the game may not translate well. As with the documents for the game itself, the English page is the authoritative document in case of any confusion or discrepancy.Join the discussion in our Discord and talk with other judges about what you learned, and ask any questions you may have!
Hello there!
Welcome back to the level two lessons for the Star Wars™: Unlimited Judge Program!
As always, I’m your host Jonah, and this lesson will cover the various penalties in the Master Event Document. Again, we’re not going to be talking about infractions, which cause players to receive penalties, but continuing to keep a broad and foundational look at how we issue penalties.
We’re going to discuss penalty points, warnings, game losses, match losses and disqualifications.
As always with policy, this is an area that is continually being refined, and will grow and evolve as play also continues to evolve. This does make it a bit of a challenge to both learn and teach, so this is likely a lesson that will similarly evolve over time.
Overview
Penalties come in a variety of formats - they’re the most punitive elements of our arsenal, and it’s important to be aware of the impact that they can have on players. For Judges, we know that a warning isn’t a condemnation of a player, and that it’s not a big deal, but for a player, it feels much more significant.
As the penalties we issue get sterner, players feel more and more judged.
Penalty Points
All infractions come with penalty points. These points are fundamental to the escalation system of the SWU policy.
For the vast majority of cases, players make innocent mistakes, and we’re able to correct them and move on. We don’t want to punish innocent players, and so we don’t issue a game loss or a more severe penalty - we just issue a warning, fix the game, and move on from there.
However, if the penalty for those infractions remains a warning and fixing the game, malicious actors don’t have any disincentive from trying to get away with it again and again. Consequently, there’s a system by which penalties are upgraded to sterner results.
All infractions result in between one and eight penalty points, and a player who receives ten points, by policy, is disqualified. It’s important to note that it’s very possible that this player is not cheating, and has only made innocent mistakes, and that as Head Judge, you have the ability to deviate from policy.
Most gameplay disruptions start at one penalty point, and increment to two points when they repeat the infraction or commit a more severe infraction. Similarly, there are infractions that either escalate or begin at four or eight penalty points.
Tracking Penalties
Beyond these penalties, there are also “tracking penalties” which are zero point penalties, and consequently never escalate to automatic disqualification. These are used primarily in reciprocal penalties - for example, when one player commits an infraction and their opponent doesn’t call attention to it immediately.
We don’t want to harshly penalize players for being less aware of their opponent’s action than their opponent themselves, but we do want to be aware of it, to see if it’s a habit of letting their opponent make mistakes that are advantageous for the player.
We also want to ensure that it is not reasonable for a player to intentionally commit errors with the hope of earning their opponent an infraction that results in a serious penalty.
If there are systems that can be gamed in such a way, some bad actors may take advantage of them. It is for that reason, that we use tracking penalties.
Tracking penalties can be used somewhat liberally - because they don’t escalate, they are simply notes to your future self or to other judges on staff for that particular event.
Issuing Penalty Points
When you’re issuing a penalty that doesn’t have a direct impact on the match - ie just penalty points, but not a game loss or match loss, you don’t need to mention the details of the escalation process or even the penalty points you’re issuing.
As mentioned above, players can respond negatively to a warning, and getting into the technical details of how many penalty points you’re issuing, what their next infraction may result in, and how close they are to a disqualification will only serve to unnerve the player and reduce the quality of their experience.
The language I tend to use is “you’re receiving a warning for a card manipulation error because drew three cards during regroup. This isn’t anything to worry about unless you make a habit of drawing three cards when you’re supposed to draw two.”
This clearly tells the player what their infraction was, so they can theoretically tell a judge if they’re asked if they’ve received any penalties previously in the event (although they will forget), the specific action at hand, and that it’s not something to worry about. If the situation is more tense, I leave out the more relaxed attitude, but do include that it isn’t anything to worry about unless the player develops a habit.
If the player is close to having their penalty points escalate to a disqualification, at that point I take a moment to pull the player aside and have a clear and precise conversation. I let them know in a bit more detail what their situation is “each infraction you’ve committed today has result in penalty points - you currently have eight. Another infraction of this type will result in two additional penalty points. At ten penalty points, you will be disqualified. Neither of us wants that to happen, so please be particularly careful with how you exhaust your resources. However, any infraction can result in penalty points, so be attentive to how you play.”
Again, this provides the player the information they need to be able to play with an appropriate level of care, and let’s them know what actions are the most relevant to their match. The language should be carefully crafted, because we are their allies and don’t want to issue game losses to players, much less disqualify players.
Point Adjustments
As Head Judge of an event, you have a lot of flexibility in how many points are issued for infractions, and you can adjust the points issued based on your judgment.
It is strongly recommended that points are reduced for non-behavior related infractions at casual-tier events and that points are increased for behavior-related infractions that occur on stream.
Game Loss
Sometimes, although exceedingly rarely, a game is irrecoverable and a game loss must be issued, because we are unable to get close to restoring a natural game state.
In some cases, we use game losses where the game itself hasn’t been directly impacted. This is most frequently in the case of tardiness or a deck/decklist error.
Tardiness can have an immediate impact on tournament progression - a player arriving multiple minutes late to their match is likely to delay the tournament for all participants. Even though arriving late to a match is easy to do and simple to fix, it is important to strongly incentivize players to be at their table when the round begins, to minimize time extensions issued.
Deck and decklist problems fall into a somewhat similar category. Decklist errors only occur once during a tournament, and so there isn’t a route for them to escalate. Similarly, deck errors other than failure to desideboard also generally only occur once during a tournament for a given player, so they also don’t naturally escalate.
Furthermore, these errors can provide significant advantage if committed intentionally, and are relatively difficult to catch, as it’s based on generally private information. Players aren’t privy to their opponent’s deck or decklist, and consequently, it’s very hard for players to catch deck and decklist errors that their opponents commit, as opposed to gameplay errors, which are objective and happen directly in front of the player.
Because they don’t have a natural upgrade path and they are harder for players to identify, we have stronger baseline penalties for these errors than many other gameplay disruptions and tournament errors, starting with game losses.
This game loss is accounted for as part of the match result. If it is game one, players proceed to game two, with the player receiving the loss getting the choice of starting with the initiative.
If it is game two, and the player lost game one, the match is now over. If they won, they proceed to game three.
If a player is receiving a game loss before any game actions have been taken (likely due to a deck check or tardiness), players are not allowed to sideboard before game two.
If both players receive game losses simultaneously (again, often due to deck checks or tardiness), the game losses offset, and players must still play their full best-of-three match, not a best-of-one.
Match Loss
Match losses are relatively rare, as they require that an entire match be disrupted to the point where it can’t be completed.
The most common case is a player absence. Frequently, players will forget to drop from an event, and no-show their next round pairings. When a player is absent from their match, they receive a match loss and are dropped from the event.
The other two scenarios where it Match Losses can apply fall under unsporting conduct.
The first can be forms of extreme outside assistance, where a player seeks out and receives information that makes it so that the match integrity is lost - this is usually if a player seeks access to decklist information for their opponent’s deck - information that can change how the entire match is played, and information that the player is not entitled to.
The other, and more severe version, is when one player’s behavior makes it so that their opponent cannot be reasonably expected to play against them. This could be a player who is hostile and insulting to their opponent, but that doesn’t cross the line into major unsporting conduct. Even if the player has unintentionally insulted their opponent, and they show remorse, their opponent may not be comfortable playing a match against the player receiving the infraction. Because the player’s actions has resulted in an unplayable match, a match loss may be warranted. However, most of the time when a player has been offended in such a way that the match integrity is ruined, it is likely Major Unsporting Conduct, and consequently the offense would result in a disqualification.
Disqualification
We finally get to the most significant penalty.
Disqualification should be reserved for only the most severe infractions.
Players should only be disqualified for cheating or for major forms of unsporting conduct, including crimes, such as theft and assault. Disqualifying a player is a signficant action, and should be undertaken with the utmost seriousness.
Players who are disqualified from an event are removed from the tournament, and are no longer allowed to participate in the tournament. This decision is a judge decision.
The Tournament Organizer, who is in charge of the venue, can choose to further eject the player from the venue and/or disallow the player from registering in other tournaments that weekend. This is the tournament organizer's decision. We will continue to have lessons on disqualification and best practices, but I want to hit on a few key details.
A player who is disqualified from a tournament is not eligible for any prizes they have not yet received, but is allowed to keep any prizes or product they have already been given.
A player who is disqualified from a tournament should be reported to FFG, along with their statement and the statements of the relevant parties.
A player can be disqualified after the fact, but should still be informed of their disqualification and be given the opportunity to submit a statement.
Significant Penalties
Any penalty other than a warning should go through the Head Judge. Floor judges should absolutely never issue disqualifications, and should only issue game losses and match losses in cases of tardiness and absences, which are exceptionally objectively measured penalties.
It’s important to remain consistent, and because of the severity of these penalties, we want to ensure that the player receives the full attention of the Head Judge, and so that the Head Judge is informed in case the player appeals or is upset. Having the Head Judge on hand means that they can immediately begin to de-escalate the situation and they don’t need to be brought up to speed.
Furthermore, Head Judges are frequently the most experienced judge on staff, and giving these situations the appropriate respect is important to maintaining a healthy relationship with players.
Next week we’ll be back discussing gameplay disruptions and diving into the first examples we have of infractions we’ll be issuing. It’s only a first look, but understanding gameplay disruptions and internalizing them is a key step to helping create a better player experience. If you’re watching this on YouTube, and you want more level two lessons in your feed, go ahead and subscribe. Join us Tuesdays and Fridays on twitch.tv/swu_judges for live broadcasts covering the content of these lessons as they are released, and join the Star Wars: Unlimited Judge Program Discord to join the community in discussion of this and much, much more.
As always, good luck, and have fun.