Why dont judges stop it when its first noticed, make a statement that noticed 'x' happen amd issue a warning or whatever. Then next time it happens, DQ.
That is indeed a reasonable question Ranger. By analogy let me refer you back to Ranger School and Honor Code Violations. Honor Code involved evaluation of both the act and intent. Agreed? If your RI observed a violation with you committing an act with intent that would be different that merely an accidental mistake? Silly analogy:Making a mistake cleaning your bolt carrier would be treating differently than say hiding a clean bolt carrier in a baggie in your ruck and getting caught opening that baggie during a weapon cleaning reassembly. Clearly the act itself (getting caught with the hidden the clean bolt carrier) conveys bad intent. Well its not always that cut and dry. Sometimes intent is harder to determine and prove. Judgment and experience with the individual become important. Can we agree that someone in Regiment 6 years would be held to a more stringent standard for discipline than someone with 6 months?
OK. Now lets shift to Pokemon. I would refer you to the current edition of the Organized Play Penalty Guidelines. First question: have you read this document? If not, I think it will address your questions and concerns. Most of the document is written to address unintentional violations. Indeed many penalties are cautionary and the process is intended to be a positive learning experience to lead to a better understanding of the rules. In those circumstances, judges do exactly what you suggest in your comment I quoted. This is especially the case at lower level tournaments (League Challenges, City Championships). Higher level tournaments will have stricter application of penalties (Tier 1 vs. Tier 2 event). Additionally, the guidelines require consideration of the age and experience level of the players involved. A newer, younger player may be held to a different standard than an older, experienced player especially someone with several seasons including competing at US Nationals and World Championship levels. Finally, judges are to consider prior violation experience of the player (ie. repeat/habitual offender). The details for how these standards are applied are contained in the guidelines.
Here's the thing: with the incident at hand we have been informed that the determination was made that the player actions were intentional. This fast-forwards you through the Penalty Guidelines document to the Unsporting Conduct section (which has been posted and re-quoted in this thread). Once you are operating in that section, the flexibility is far reduced and the Guidelines prescribe a DQ for both Tier 1 and Tier 2.
Because the incident was reported to involve an act requiring determination of intent, it becomes necessary to observe the action and consult with others. Our understanding from the information given is this was not a cut 'n dry action (caught with a card up my sleeve like the bolt carrier example above). These cases require informed human judgment and the guidelines specifically call for the involvement of, and careful consideration by the Head Judge (not some rookie new judge).
Because the specifics of the deliberations cannot be divulged by staff and were only partially communicated by Gino (including a lot of information from Gino that had nothing to do with the DQ incident) I can see how readers may be left to form a variety of conclusions. That said, the standards that are used including the process to apply them is very public.
