[[:IPG:1.1|1.1. 各式处罚之定义]] | [[:IPG|返回IPG目录]] | [[:IPG:1.3|1.3. 随机化牌库]]
====== 1.2 Applying Penalties 应用处罚 ======
**Penalties are included with the tournament report so that a permanent record can be kept in the DCI Penalty Database. Additionally, any penalty of Game Loss or higher should be reported to the Head Judge, and it is recommended that only the Head Judge issue penalties of this nature (with the exception of Tardiness (3.1) and Decklist Problems (3.4)).**\\ 
++所有处罚都必须记录在比赛报告当中，以在DCI处罚数据库中留下永久记录。|\\ 
Penalties need to be entered into the system. For both tracking within the event and for whatever purpose Wizards of the Coast uses them for once they go into the black hole. Mostly this sentence is just here as a gentle reminder to actually enter the penalties for the event into WER.\\ 
所有判罚都需要录入到系统中。这样做的原因是为了持续记录牌手在比赛中的行为，以及为了威世智可能因故会使用这些信息。下面的这些话基本都是提醒你将你赛事中的判罚录入到WER中。\\ ++
++此外，任何级别高于“一盘负”处罚（含“一盘负”）都必须回报给主审，并建议仅由主审来作这类的判罚（迟到（3.1）和套牌登记表问题（3.4）此两项违规除外）。|\\ 
Game Losses are a “big deal” and difficult to correct if they are issued by mistake. As a result, it is recommended that the Head Judge (HJ) be consulted prior to giving any Game Loss (GL) or Match Loss. As for Disqualifications, only the Head Judge can give those. The reason Tardiness and Decklist Problems get an exception is because there is actually very little judgment involved in a Tardiness Game Loss (and they are extremely common), and the same holds true for Decklist Problems. However, if the judge is on a team, it is recommended that they go through their Team Lead. At some events, the Head Judge may modify this policy. A common modification at Grand Prix events is that an Level 3 can issue game losses instead of having to consult the Head Judge. At Mythic Championship Qualifiers or StarCityGames Open events it is not uncommon for Team Leaders to have the authority to issue Game Losses.\\ 
一盘负是个比较大的判罚，而且如果判错了很难修正。所以我们建议你在给出一盘负或一局负之前请先去咨询主审。同时，只有主审能给出取消资格的判罚。迟到和套牌登记表问题是两个例外，因为相对于其他一盘负的问题而言，判断这两个情况不需要很多信息，并且这些判罚也非常普遍。然而，如果裁判是成小组工作的，那么建议通过小组的组长来向主审反映。在某些比赛中，主审可以更改这条规定。常见的变更是在一场GP比赛中，L3裁判可以代替主审给出一盘负的判罚。在一些MCQ或SCG的比赛中，组长可以给一盘负的情况也并不少见。\\ ++

**Being enrolled in the tournament is not a requirement to receive a penalty. Although these guidelines refer to players, other people in the venue, such as spectators, staff, or judges may be enrolled into (and dropped from) the tournament in order to receive a penalty. Penalties are still issued even if a player drops from the tournament before it would take effect.**\\ 
++并非只有参赛牌手才可能会得到处罚。此处罚方针虽然只提及牌手，但是赛场内的其他人，例如观众、工作人员或是裁判皆可能会被加入比赛（并立即退赛）以得到处罚。即使牌手在罚则生效之前选择退出比赛，该牌手依然会受到相应的处罚。|\\ 
The main purpose of this sentence is to explicitly answer the question, “What do I do if a person not enrolled in my event is doing these things?” There are no distinctions made between tournament attendees when it comes to any kind of penalties. If you commit an infractions and are not enrolled in the event, you will be added to the event in the Reporter Software and given the appropriate penalty. If a spectator is acting aggressively, then that is something that needs to be tracked. You can do something ban-worthy at an event you aren’t enrolled in. If a spectator is giving outside assistance for example, we need to keep track of it.\\ 
这句话的主要目的是告诉大家：“如果有人并不是我这场比赛中的参赛者，却犯下了这些违规，我该怎么办？”当谈及判罚时，我们并不区别对待任何比赛的参与者。如果你在没有参赛的情况下犯下了违规，你将被通过比赛报告软件加入比赛、并给予相应的判罚。如果有一个旁观者言行冒犯他人，这便属于一件需要被记录在案的事情。你甚至可以在没有参赛的情况下犯下值得被禁赛的事情。例如，一个旁观者给予他人外来协助，我们就应该将其记录在案。\\ 
The next question is, “How do I get their DCI number if they won’t give it to me?” Ask around. Someone will know who the offender is. Be sure to include their unwillingness to provide their DCI number in the infraction notes when you enter the penalty into the system. Even if a player drops from the tournament we still keep track of the infraction and penalty.\\ 
下一个问题便是：“如果他们不告诉我DCI号码，我该如何知道呢？” 请四处打听一下。总会有人知道犯事者是谁。请务必在录入判罚时，在系统的“判罚注释”一栏注明该牌手不愿意提供其DCI号码的行为。即使牌手从比赛中退赛，我们仍然能追踪他的违规和判罚。\\ ++

**Any time a penalty is issued, the judge must explain the infraction, the procedure for fixing the situation, and the penalty to all players involved. If the Head Judge chooses to deviate from the Infraction Procedure Guide, the Head Judge is expected to explain the standard penalty and the reason for deviation.**\\ 
++作出任何处罚时，裁判都必须对涉及该违规的牌手们解释修正状况的流程，以及其处罚。|\\ 
If a judge is going to give a penalty to a player, they should take the time to explain what the infraction is, and what the fix is. The Judge should politely and professionally answer any reasonable questions the players might ask. Players called you for help - so be helpful. Make sure the players understand what you are telling them to do. Sometimes they won't understand ‘why’; in those cases, make an attempt to explain, but if the explanation is taking too long, tell the players to continue and remind them they can speak to you after the match.\\ 
裁判在给牌手处罚时，他应该花时间向牌手解释他的违规是什么，以及修正是什么。裁判应当礼貌并专业的回答任何该牌手可能提出的合理问题。牌手呼叫裁判以寻求帮助，所以请专业的帮助他们。确保那位牌手听懂了你说的。有时候他们还是不明白“为什么”，在这种情况下，你应该尝试为他们解释，但是如果解释花费了太长的时间，告诉那位牌手先继续比赛等到对局结束后再跟他继续说明。\\ ++
++如果主审选择不遵循违规处理方针，则主审应解释标准的罚则，以及不遵循的理由。|\\ 
As the IPG said earlier, only the Head Judge can deviate. If the Head Judge does, it must be explained to the players what the standard penalty is, and why the deviation is being made. This does two things. First, it requires the Head Judge to be able to defend their deviation. If you as Head Judge can’t explain it, odds are good you need to re-think your position. Second, the Head Judge should not be teaching players that “this is how it's done all the time”. The Head Judge is making an exception, this once, and making that clear to the players, and any other judges that might be watching and learning from the interaction.\\ 
正如IPG前面说过的那样，只有主审可以不依照方针做出判罚。如果主审这么做了，他必须向该牌手说明原来应有的判罚是什么，然后为何现在这个情况没有按照原有判罚来做。这样做是因为两点。第一，主审需要能够说明不依照方针的原因。如果你作为主审无法解释原因，那么你最好重新考虑一下你的决定。第二，主审不应告诉牌手“任何时候都会这样处理”。只有这一次，主审不依方针做出了判罚，并且跟牌手解释清楚，同时让旁观的裁判观看并从中学习。\\ ++

**Some infractions include remedies to handle the offense beyond the base penalty. These procedures exist to protect officials from accusations of unfairness, bias, or favoritism. If a judge makes a ruling that is consistent with quoted text, then the complaints of a player shift from accusation of unfairness by the judge to accusations of unfair policy. Deviations from these procedures may raise accusations against the judge from the player(s) involved, or from those who hear about it. These procedures do not, and should not, take into account the game being played, the current situation that the game is in, or who will benefit strategically from the procedure associated with a penalty. While it is tempting to try to “fix” game situations, the danger of missing a subtle detail or showing favoritism to a player (even unintentionally) makes it a bad idea.**\\ 
++有些罚则会在基本的处罚之外，包括额外叙述修正此犯规的流程的叙述。这些流程是用以保护工作人员免于不公正、偏见或是偏袒的指控。如果裁判的规则解释和引用的内容一致，而牌手还有所抱怨，则“指控该裁判不公”此事会转变成“指控方针不公”。裁判若不遵循这些流程，可能会引来相关牌手或是旁观者对裁判的指控。|\\ 
Some penalties come with an additional fix/remedy. These are typically listed after the Philosophy section in their description. Use them; don’t ignore them. They are there to help fix the games as much as is possible. They need to be applied consistently across all events. Not only does it enforce the consistency judges want at the competitive level, it protects them as well. If they are following the document, a player can’t (reasonably) claim that they’re out to get them, or that the judge changed the rules to favor the opponent. When judges deviate, they open themselves up to rumors: “Abe got a downgrade for extra cards in their deckbox, but I didn’t because the judge always lets Abe get away with things.” The short story is: don’t deviate. Don’t end up the subject of some forum rant.\\ 
一些判罚附带了额外的修正及补救措施。它们一般是列在这些判罚的原则部分后面，不要忘记使用它们。它们能够尽最大可能的修复游戏状态，也需要在各种比赛中始终如一的执行。这不仅能够保持竞争级赛事的判罚的一致性，还能保护裁判。如果裁判严格遵循方针，牌手就不能（合理的）控诉裁判对他们不公，或者裁判更改规则以让他们的对手获利。如果裁判不依照方针行事，牌手可能就会开始私下说：“牌手甲在他盒子里放了跟比赛无关的牌吃了一个警告，但是我放了就一盘负，这都是因为裁判偏袒牌手甲。”简单来说：依照方针行事，就不会成为喷子们在网上群起而攻之的对象。\\ ++
++这些流程不会也不该考虑游戏进行过的部份、游戏目前的状况，或是谁会因此流程与所连带的处罚而得到策略上的好处。|\\ 
Often judges question this line. When we are called to a table, don’t we have to take into account the current game state? Yes and No. We as judges are allowed to take game state into account when determining if an infraction occurred. It helps us know what questions to ask. For example, if investigating someone for Stalling, then the current match record is extremely important. However, once we determine the infraction, we no longer consider those factors when it comes to applying the fix. When enforcing the additional fix, it doesn’t matter if that fix decides the game or if it allows a player to benefit strategically from an error. Any time there is an error, someone is going to gain some information from it. We do not ask judges to make assessments of exactly what that will be, as this definitely cannot be done with any consistency.\\ 
经常会有裁判对这一条有疑问：当我们被叫到桌前，我们不用考虑游戏状态么？答案是：有时候用，有时候不用。我们在判断是否违规、违规是什么的时候可以将游戏状态列入考虑。这能够帮助我们明白应该问牌手什么问题。例如，调查某人是否拖延时，当前对局的状态就非常重要。然而，当你确定了违规是什么，修正问题时就不再考虑这些因素。当你进行修正时，一位牌手是否能从判罚中获得利益就并不重要了。每当一个错误发生时，总会有一位牌手从中获取某些额外信息。我们不要求裁判详细评估谁因为错误获利，因为这样做显然无法保证判罚的一致性。\\ ++
++此流程只是试图要“修复”游戏的状况，遗漏一个小细节或是表现出对某牌手的偏袒（即使不是有意的），都不是好主意。|\\ 
Judges should stick to the fixes prescribed. They have been tested thoroughly and tend to work in all but the most extreme of corner cases. By trying to create your own “fix”, you run the risk of not fixing everything properly and giving one player too much of an advantage. This is especially important for judges who are used to FNM, where they are allowed to be more “creative” with their fixes.\\ 
裁判应该坚持依照方针进行修正。这些方针已经被充分的测试，除非出现极其罕见的边缘情形，它们可以应用于几乎所有的情况。如果你尝试用自己的方式去修复问题，你就冒了没有合适地修正、或者给一方过多的优势的风险。对于习惯了FNM的执法风格的裁判们更应该重视这个问题，因为一般级别在修正问题时给了裁判更多的“创造空间”。\\ ++

**If an error leads to multiple related infractions, only issue one with the most severe penalty.**\\ 
++如果一个错误导致了多个相关联的违规，仅作出其中最严重的处罚。|\\ 
This covers the case where judges come up to a table and find multiple errors. In many cases the errors are separate; like doing a deck check and finding marked cards and a 59 card deck. While those might both be found at the same time, they do not have the same root cause. However, sometimes multiple errors share the same root cause - such as players thinking heroic triggers off abilities, and repeatedly using equipment to trigger Heroic. In that case, the root cause is the same, making it one infraction. If they did this three times, treat it as a single infraction for the purposes of fixing it and upgrades.\\ 
这条适用于当裁判被叫到桌前时发现了许多问题的情况。有时这些问题是相互无关的。比如套牌检查时，一套牌里同时出现了59张牌和有记号的牌的问题。虽然这些问题被同时发现，但它们的起因不一样。然而，有时多个问题可能有着相同的起因。比如牌手认为勇行可以被异能触发，于是反复启动武具的佩戴异能来触发勇行。在此情况下，由于多个问题的起因是相同的，就应当把它们当做同一个违规来处理。即使该牌手这样做了三次，也当做是一次违规来处理、修正和升级。\\ 
If the infractions are different infractions, yet have the same root cause, apply all appropriate fixes, despite giving the single infraction. Keep in mind that legally drawing a card off an illegally cast spell is **not** two infractions.\\ 
如果这些违规是不同的违规，但具有相同的起因，进行所有适用的修正，但只给出一个判罚。记住因为不合法施放的咒语正确结算而抓了牌，并**不算是**两个违规。\\ ++
<WRAP center round box 60%>
[[:IPG:1.1|1.1. 各式处罚之定义]] | [[:IPG|返回IPG目录]] | [[:IPG:1.3|1.3. 随机化牌库]]
</WRAP>

{{page>:规则和文档索引&nofooter}}