Bearing Bad News
One of the less-exciting parts of judging is the process of issuing penalties. Well, they can be exciting, to be sure, but I, at least, am rarely excited to be delivering them. This week, I break down the penalties we hand out into several categories and offer tips on how to deliver them to players.

Cautions And Infraction-Free Violations
These situations are common, and they're not actually difficult to issue. The easiest mistake you can make is to use too harsh a tone, because these issues usually boil down to minor inconveniences. Be courteous and polite ("please" and "thank you" goes a long way here) and you'll usually get your point across.

Note that it is possible, sometimes, to carry too light a tone. You must convey that you are making an official request; if the behavior is repeated, you're going to have to consider an Unsporting Conduct — Major penalty. So when players are goofing around, laughing and playing, and go beyond appropriate bounds, you may want to make sure you're not coming across as too jovial or chummy. As a rule, I would try to present an air that is slightly opposite of the recipient's attitude: if they're laughing, I'll pull a mildly serious face. If they're upset, I'll show happy and friendly. Of course, when I'm not telling people what to do, I always strive for happy and friendly.

Tardiness Penalties
These penalties are also simple, in large part because in the majority of cases, players know that it's coming. Just make sure you hit the salient points of how to proceed: the player receiving the penalty will choose to play or draw, and the players may not sideboard. As a head judge, there's also something you can do to ease the work for your judges: don't start the round if you see someone moving to their seat. Tardiness penalties aren't meant to be gotchas; you do little to accelerate the tournament by starting a round while a player is actively trying to find their seat.

Game Losses For Deck/Decklist Errors
Like Tardiness penalties, again, we're on safe ground: the majority of players will understand what they're in for when you pull them away from their match at the beginning of round 2, or after a deck check. Like all rulings, the key here is to be clear, to find the right language to tell them what they need to know. One nice thing here is that penalties for these infractions have become progressively more lenient over the years, so if someone has an outdated notion of how you're going to handle their error, they're likely to be pleasantly surprised.

Warnings For Tournament and Game Rule Violations
Here is where we get into the meat of judging. These penalties are very common, but more often than not, players have only a vague idea what to expect. Further, their expectations are often wrong. You will deal with pre-6th Edition rules and policy "knowledge", players who have no idea what a warning is, and the occasional player who feigns ignorance or advocates an incorrect solution in the hope that they'll get off easy.

These workhorse rulings, probably more than any others discussed here, mostly just require regular practice. Identify the key details, present your ruling as clearly as possible, and be prepared to explain any particular detail in more depth as required. Avoid apologizing or disavowing responsibility for the penalty ("I'm sorry, I have no choice but to..." is a recipe for an unsatisfied customer), but do use language that conveys that you're applying a shared set of rules and procedures ("Flipping over the top card of your deck by accident happens, and I don't believe you did it on purpose, but it is a violation that we call Looking at Extra Cards. The penalty for that is a warning, and what we do to fix it is...", or "I believe that your opponent, like you, also forgot that his creature cannot attack. It is our policy not to attempt to correct life total changes that both players have agreed on, if they happened earlier in the game, so I'm going to have you play on, but I am going to issue two warnings here...").

The worst thing that you can do for yourself here is to think out loud in front of the players. When you reach the point in the ruling where you are issuing a penalty, make sure that you have gathered all relevant information; that you know what the penalty is and why you are issuing it; and that you know basically what is going to come out of your mouth after you start talking.

Finally, if it becomes clear that a player is unhappy with a ruling, it's okay to remind them that they can appeal. Letting them know this as you deliver the ruling, though, suggests that you haven't done your homework. Don't put yourself in that position.

Penalties For Slow Play
Slow play penalties are daunting for less-experienced judges, but I'm convinced they don't need to be this way. They're an important vehicle for keeping matches moving. I can clearly remember, though, that it was some time around my promotion to L2 that I became comfortable with handling these situations. I'd be watching a match, thinking that one player or the other was dragging their heels, but worried that if I said anything, the player would refuse to accept my word that they'd been taking too long.

There are an article's worth of thoughts on how to recognize different kinds of slow play and how to deal with it, but the two key ideas for me are a) watch a clock, and b) be confident. Telling a player precisely how much time they have taken for an action or series of actions is an excellent way to address the "no I wasn't!" complaint in the bud. Presenting your ruling calmly and confidently will prevent many of those complaints from issuing in the first place.

Beyond that, think about when you're going to interrupt the player to minimize disruption. If I'm giving a verbal hurry-up (usually, "we need to keep things moving here" or something similar), I'll throw that in the middle of a long think. If I'm actually going to stop and issue a warning, I'll usually wait until the player has just performed an action.

Another thing to think about, that can save you some hassle, is whether both players deserve a warning. One of the most common defenses to a charge of slow play is "my opponent is playing just as slowly!", and while this certainly isn't always the case, it certainly does happen.

Penalties For Conduct
Unsporting Conduct — Major carries a penalty of a game loss at all RELs. It's really where things start getting tricky. An upset player may see his behavior as reasonable, or even if they concede that it's penalty-worthy, they may feel that a game loss is too severe. Knowing your players can really help with approaches here: some players, particularly younger, exuberant players, respond well to a quick, public rebuke. They know that they've crossed a line; to some extent, they may have been trying to see how far they could go. Other players are moodier, and having your conversation privately will help them respect that you are not issuing the penalty hastily, but are serious about it.

If you get into an exchange with a player that becomes at all heated, it can be very helpful to involve another judge as an outside party, so that the player doesn't feel that the penalty is an escalation of a conflict (which it shouldn't be). You don't have this luxury if you're the head judge, but if you're a floor judge, I suggest something like "You need to stop [the unacceptable behavior] immediately. I'm going to issue an Unsporting Conduct penalty, but I'm going to discuss it with the head judge. He'll fill you in on the details."

A Sheldon Menery tactic here that I also like for players who are approaching a threshold for a conduct penalty is to appeal to them for assistance: "We need to find a path here that allows you to keep playing today." This ties in nicely with separating the penalty from the conflict.

Unsporting Conduct — Aggressive Behavior is a rung up the difficulty ladder. Involve the TO, don't be afraid to prioritize asking the player to leave the venue over delivering the penalty, and consider the safety and well-being of your event's participants (and staff). It's more important to convey the message that this behavior is absolutely unacceptable than it is to get a statement from the player.

Disqualifications For Cheating
There's a nice luxury that most judges reading this will have: they will not be called upon to perform a DQ anytime soon. The head judge of an event should generally be the only judge to issue one of these penalties. So my first recommendation here is a logical consequence of that: if you think that a DQ may be appropriate, you should involve the head judge at the first opportunity. This does not always mean "immediately". It is often necessary to wait until you can ask another judge to watch a match and keep things quiet before you get the head judge.

If you are delivering this penalty, you may want to alert the tournament organizer before you do so. Players will often want to confirm their fate with other authority figures, and it's nice to have the TO up to speed before they have to deal with a high-intensity customer service situation.

You will almost always want to deliver your ruling well away from spectators or players. Don't beat around the bush. State the issue, and let the player know how you've decided to handle it ("It's clear that there are many more cards in your hand and in play than there should be. Based on my investigation, I've come to the conclusion that you intentionally drew extra cards. The relevant infraction is called Manipulation of Game Materials, and it carries a penalty of disqualification." or even, "Where we're at here is that I don't believe you are telling me the truth. I am disqualifying you for lying to a tournament official.").

While you need to express conviction that you're taking the right path, it's okay to confirm that our standard is less than that of a criminal court, and that we are aware that sometimes circumstances may require us to DQ a player who is innocent. A clear explanation of the followup process is also helpful.

Sometimes, you may not find peace with an unhappy recipient of a DQ. That's okay, too, and understanding that will make the process, perversely, more likely to go well. Give them the tools that they need to tell their story, and communicate with the DCI, and let them get on with their life.

Finally, when you are dealing with players who don't understand how what they've done is problematic, you will be called upon to sell the whole philosophy of the DCI to an often intensely skeptical audience. This is one of the best challenges (and occasionally least fun) that judges get. If you do it right, it is possible to DQ a player and have him leave feeling better than when he showed up. Remind the player that a DQ is not a moral judgement, give them assistance on how to break into the world of tournament play, and attempt to frame the issue in a big-picture way. "It's not fair to the other players to allow you to keep playing in this event." is a common and useful line.