Judges are neutral arbiters and enforcers of policy and rules. A judge shouldn’t intervene in a game unless they believe a rules violation has occurred, a player with a concern or question requests assistance, or the judge wishes to prevent a situation from escalating. Judges don’t stop play errors from occurring, but instead deal with errors that have occurred, penalize those who violate rules or policy, and promote fair play and sporting conduct by example and diplomacy. Judges may intervene to prevent or preempt errors occurring outside of a game. Knowledge of a player’s history or skill does not alter an infraction, but it may be taken into account during an investigation.
裁判是中立的裁决者，也是政策与规则的执法者。
This is probably the single most important concept in the document. Whenever there is an issue, judges should evaluate the situation without bias and in accordance to the rules and policy documents. It should be inconceivable that a judge ruled in favor of a player because they are friends or because somehow the judge likes one player more than the other. Being impartial is a fundamental concept in the Magic Judge Code of Conduct. Judges are viewed with respect, in large part, because they are neutral and because they enforce the policy equally. It should also be unimaginable that a judge creates rules or rulings without policy guidance.
这可能是这份文件中最重要的概念。每当问题发生时，裁判应当毫无偏袒地评估情况，并依照规则和方针文件进行处理。我们无法想象一位裁判在做出判断时会偏向某位牌手，只是因为他们是朋友或者裁判更喜欢这位牌手。公正是《万智牌裁判行为守则》中规定的裁判行为基础。正因为裁判总是能公正的执行政策，所以大家才会对裁判怀有敬意。裁判在没有方针指导下自行创造规则或做出判决也是无法想象的。
通常情况下，裁判不应干预游戏的进行，但在此数类情况下，裁判应及时介入：裁判认为已有人违反规则，抱有顾虑或疑问的牌手请求协助，或裁判希望防止局势恶化。
Judges are there for the players. Our services are needed when a rule has been violated, a player has some need, or there is a delicate situation like an argument and it’s necessary to calm the players down. When their assistance is not needed, judges should not interfere with matches. That means no comments about game actions, no risk of giving advice, and no disruption of the player’s concentration. Let players play. Keep in mind this doesn't mean you have to be a robot. You can still chat with players, and joke around with them, just don't interrupt their games.
裁判的存在是为了服务牌手们。当有规则被违反，有牌手需要帮助或有特殊情况发生（比如产生了争吵，需要安抚牌手），裁判就该出动了。当不需要裁判的时候，裁判不应该干扰比赛。也就是说不评论牌手的游戏行动，不给出建议，不打断牌手的思考。让牌手玩自己的。但是注意这并不是让你成为一个规则自动答复机。你依然可以跟牌手闲聊、开玩笑，只是不要打断他们的对局。
裁判并不会阻止游戏失误的发生，而是会去解决已发生之失误，处罚违反规则和政策的牌手，并以身体力行和交际手腕来宣导公平的比赛和运动道德。
Like in many other sports, judges don’t prevent mistakes. However, when a game infraction happens, judges step in and apply the necessary corrections and penalties. Players cannot depend on a judge to prevent their illegal actions from occurring, because judges can’t foresee the future and game actions happen quickly. In the vast majority of cases, fixing an infraction after it happens restores the correct flow of the game. This policy also holds when watching a match at the end of round or during a Top 8.
正如在很多其他体育项目中一样，裁判并不防止游戏错误的出现。然而，只要当违规发生，裁判就会介入，进行需要的修正及判罚。牌手无法依靠裁判来防止自己做出非法游戏动作，因为裁判无法预知未来而且游戏动作通常进行的很快。在绝大部分情况下，在违规出现之后进行修正，可以让游戏正常的进行下去。在每轮结束时或者八强的盯桌时同样需要遵守这一条。
It’s also important that judges set a good example of behavior. At an event, your attitude is an advertisement for the behaviors you want to see at events. Your attitude and actions have a pronounced impact on the tone of the event. Your role is largely a customer service role, and that requires a high degree of diplomacy.
裁判做出良好的行为举止的表率也是很重要的。在比赛中，你的态度会为你希望在比赛中看到的举止广而告之。你的行为和态度对赛事的氛围有着非常显著的影响。你的角色在很大程度上是客户服务的角色，而这需要较高水平的交际手腕。
为避免或预防游戏之外的失误发生，裁判可以介入。
While it’s next to impossible to see that a game infraction is about to happen, sometimes it’s possible to see that an outside-of-game infraction that is about to happen. In these cases, judges should step in and prevent infractions from happening. The “may” in the sentence is not “the judge is allowed to make a choice” but more “The IPG/MTR allows judges to do step in.” This underscores the importance of customer service and makes it very clear that judges do not have the choice of whether to intervene and prevent these types of errors. Outside of a game, judges should always intervene to prevent infractions, but we accept that they sometimes won’t notice that an infraction is about to happen. Here are a few examples:
虽然发现一个游戏内的违规事件的征兆是几乎不可能的，但是有时可以看出游戏外违规事件的征兆。在这种情况下，裁判应该上前阻止这个违规的发生。IPG原文中这句话中的“可以”并不是指“裁判可以选择是否阻止”，而是“IPG/MTR允许才裁判上前阻止”。这强调了服务牌手的重要性，同时明确的说明裁判并不能选择是否要在此时干预并防止此类违规。在游戏外，裁判应该阻止这些违规的出现，但是我们承认有的时候裁判并不能意识到这种违规的征兆。下面是几个例子：
• A judge sees that a player is shuffling their deck after the end of game one, sees that there is a previously exiled creature on the table, and realizes that the player forgot to return it to their deck; the judge steps in and tell the player that they’re forgetting to shuffle a card.
• 一位裁判看到牌手在第一局与第二局之间洗牌，然而有一张被放逐的生物牌还在桌子上，意识到那位牌手忘记了把它洗进去。裁判上前告诉那位牌手他忘了把那张生物牌洗回去。
• In a Sealed Deck tournament, a player gives a decklist to a judge, and the judge notices that the player forgot to write down their basic lands; the judge asks the player to record the basic lands they're playing.
• 在一场现开比赛中，一位牌手将他的套牌登记表交给裁判，裁判发现该牌手忘了填他基本地的使用量；裁判让该牌手将他的地牌的数量写上。
• Just before the beginning of a round, a player goes to the judge station and hands in a card (like Pacifism) that belongs to their previous opponent; the judges makes an effort to find where the owner of that card is playing this round, so that they can return it before the game starts with an illegal deck.
• 在一轮比赛马上要开始的时候，一位牌手到主席台处把一张属于他上局对手的牌（比如《和平主义》）交给裁判。裁判尽力寻找那张牌的拥有者并把牌还给他，以防他用一套不合法的套牌进行下轮比赛。
• Before the event, a judge sees a questionable card alter. The judge reminds the player that the Head Judge needs to approve all card alters prior to the event.
• 在比赛之前，一位裁判看到牌手用了可能有问题的艺术加工牌。他提醒那位牌手他需要在比赛之前先获得主审的允许来使用这些牌。
对某牌手过去作为与游戏技巧的认知不会影响违规的认定，但在调查过程中或会将这些方面考虑在内。
We don't change the infraction based on how good the player is perceived to be. A Game Rule Violation is a Warning regardless of if the player is new or a grizzled Pro. Once you determine what the infraction was, you apply the penalties without any preconceived biases. You don’t make penalties harsher because the player should ‘know better’. A player who has a reputation for being shady has their GRVs fixed the same way as an L3 Judge playing in the event. Once the infraction is recognized, who the player is has no bearing. However, in determining what infraction was made, a player's history may influence the investigation. For example, a new player misunderstanding how trample works is much more believable than an experienced player, with whom you have discussed trample before on multiple occasions. It's still possible for legitimate errors to be made, but the questions asked in the investigation will be influenced by this knowledge.
我们不应根据牌手的能力或对牌手的印象来改变判罚。当你确定了违规所属的类别，你的处罚应该不掺杂任何先入为主的偏见。不应该因为牌手本应“了解地更多”而进行更严厉的处罚。一位声名狼藉的牌手和一位参加比赛的3级裁判犯下违反游戏规则后进行的修正应当遵循相同的方式。一旦明确了违规是什么，牌手是谁并不会有任何影响。然而，在确定究竟是什么违规的时候，牌手的身份可能会影响调查。例如，一位跟你数次讨论过践踏的老玩家和一位新手都说他自己误解了践踏的规则，显然后者的可信度要高一些。这依然有可能是老牌手犯下的一个正常的错误，但是这些前期的判断将影响你在调查的时候的提问。
The purpose of a penalty is to educate the player not to make similar mistakes in the future. This is done through both an explanation of where the rules or policies were violated and a penalty to reinforce the education. Penalties are also for the deterrence and education of every other player in the event and are also used to track player behavior over time.
处罚的目的是为了避免牌手在往后犯下类似的失误。
Penalties don’t exist to give sadistic judges the ability to inflict pain on defenseless players. Penalties exist to reduce the chance the error will happen again. A player who receives a penalty for an action is less likely to make the same error in the future. Generally they are meant to be something tangible to reinforce the lesson “I lost a game once for this mistake, and I don’t want to lose another game for something I can easily avoid, I will count to 60 every time I write a decklist”. The primary purpose of a penalty is not tracking; although that is a convenient and useful byproduct, the purpose is education.
处罚的存在并不是为了让虐待狂裁判去伤害毫无防备的牌手，处罚的存在是为了减少错误再次出现的几率。牌手受到了处罚之后他再次犯下同样错误的可能会减少。通常这意味着给他们上了印象深刻的一课“我因为这个失误而获得一盘负，我不想再因为这个可以轻松避免的问题再输一盘。我以后交牌表之前会数一下到没到60张”。处罚的目的并不是持续记录一位牌手的比赛行为（虽然那是个方便的副产物），处罚的目的在于教育。
为达成此目标，必须向该牌手解释所违反之规则或政策，使处罚有其教育意义。
So in the sentence above we are stressing the importance of education. A penalty alone can't do that. You also have to explain (briefly) what the player did wrong. Otherwise, they might not fully understand what went wrong.
所以这句话我们强调了教育的重要性。仅仅是处罚牌手并不能做到这点，你同时要清楚地向他解释他哪儿做错了。否则，他可能不能完全理解自己错在哪儿。
处罚的效果也包括教育比赛中其他牌手并造成警惕，且会用来持续记录牌手的行为。
We should also note that you don’t have to receive a penalty to recognize that you don’t want to receive one. Hearing about a friend getting a penalty for an action helps reinforce that you don’t want one either. We learn from our friend's mistakes as well as from our own.
我们也要记住，有时并不用以获得判罚为代价来认识错误。如果一位朋友因为一个处罚输掉了一场重要的比赛，我们肯定不希望自己不小心干了同样的事情而受到处罚。对我们朋友的处罚同样能使我们防止自己犯错误。
There is a (private) archive of all the penalties, just like the (public) archive of all match results. This archive becomes useful in the case of one player committing a high number of the same infraction. If a player receives a warning for “Looking at extra cards – They revealed their opponent’s cards while shuffling their opponent’s deck before the beginning of the match” for twenty times in twenty consecutive tournaments, well, wouldn’t you believe that their doing it on purpose and they are doing it only once just because they knows that “the first time is just a warning.”
正如有一个档案（公开的）保存着所有的比赛结果一样，同样有一个档案（非公开的）保存着所有的判罚记录。当一位牌手重复出现了同一个违规的时候，这个档案会非常有用。当一个牌手在20个连续的比赛中受到了20次“额外看牌——在比赛前洗牌时，看到了对手的牌库”的处罚，难道你不认为是因为他知道这样做“第一次只是警告”所以故意这样做的么？
If a minor violation is quickly handled by the players to their mutual satisfaction, a judge does not need to intervene. If the players are playing in a way that is clear to both players, but might cause confusion to an external observer, judges are encouraged to request that the players make the situation clear, but not assess an infraction or issue any penalty. In both these situations, the judge should ensure that the game progresses normally. More significant violations are addressed by first identifying what infraction applies, then proceeding with the corresponding instructions.
如果违反规则的情况较为轻微，且牌手已以双方均满意的方式进行了快速处理，则裁判无需干预。
Judges should be seen as a benefit to the players, and there are many minor/tiny mistakes that players make and correct themselves over the course of a match without the need for a judge. If the error is tiny, and the players fix it themselves, and are both happy, then the judge does not need to insert themselves into their game. If you see an error, you can wait a second to see if the players fix it themselves, and if they do, you can continue watching Magic.
裁判应当被牌手视为提供帮助的来源。在对局中有很多轻微的错误，牌手犯下这些错误后会自行修正，而无需裁判修正。如果错误很轻微，且牌手自行修正并都对结果满意，则裁判无需介入游戏来干预。如果你发现了一个失误，你可以稍等一下，看牌手会不会自行修正。如果牌手这样做了，你便可以继续观战而无需干预。
如果游戏的进行方式虽对双方牌手足够明晰，但在旁观者看来或会混淆不清，则建议裁判去要求牌手让情况更加清楚，而不要给予任何处罚。
Players take certain shortcuts, or use beads to represent odd things, or use the wrong tokens for creatures. These things might be clear to them, but not clear to observers (including judges). If the players understand what's going on, and everything is fine, don't issue a penalty. Just ask them to play in a way that's clearer. Often we get spectators coming to us with problems that aren't really problems. For this reason we must push the players to not only be clear with each other but also to ensure that their actions are clear to anyone who is watching their game.
牌手可能会采用一些简化流程、使用意义不明的物体来表示某些东西、或使用错误的衍生物等。这些做法也许对于双方牌手均很清楚，但对旁观者（包括裁判）可能就不那么清楚了。如果双方牌手均清楚发生了什么，双方也都能接受，则不要给予判罚，但可以请求牌手用更为清楚的方式进行游戏。我们经常会遇到旁观者叫来裁判报告问题，但最后发现实际上并不是问题，而是理解错误。因此我们必须促使牌手不仅要对对手表达清楚，也要对旁观他们游戏的其他人表达清楚。
在上述两种情况中，裁判应确保游戏正常进行。
If the players fix a tiny error themselves or are playing in a way that is clear to them, but not clear to bystanders, stick around and watch and make sure nothing odd is happening like a player is taking advantage of the confusion, or the error doesn't compound itself.
如果牌手自行修正了一个轻微错误，或使用只有牌手双方知道但对旁观者混淆不清的表达方式，裁判应该在桌前稍作停留，并确认没有更严重的事情发生。（诸如牌手利用混淆不清的表达获利、或同样的错误接连不断发生）
对于较为严重之违反规则情况而言，裁判应先确定适用何种违规，然后再根据相应的处理方式进行处理。
This sentence pulls double-duty. It's a reminder that we do infract in cases larger than “tiny” and that we do not start with the penalty and work backwards to the infraction. We identify what actions occurred, what the infraction is, and then determine the penalty. We do not give people Game Losses because their error seems worth a Game Loss.
这句话确定了两项责任。首先，我们需要对任何比“轻微”违规严重的情况进行判罚；其次，我们不能先确定判罚是什么，再回头找适用的违规。我们应当先判定牌手做了哪些行动，导致了什么违规，再确定判罚。我们不能因为某个错误看起来应该一盘负就给一盘负。
Only the Head Judge is authorized to issue penalties that deviate from these guidelines. The Head Judge may not deviate from this guide’s procedures except in significant and exceptional circumstances or a situation that has no applicable philosophy for guidance. Significant and exceptional circumstances are rare—a table collapses, a booster contains cards from a different set, etc. The Rules Enforcement Level, round of the tournament, age or experience-level of the player, desire to educate the player, and certification level of the judge are NOT exceptional circumstances. If another judge feels deviation is appropriate, they must consult with the Head Judge.
只有主审才有权力不依此方针来作处罚。
When there are multiple judges, the Head Judge is the judge in charge of the entire tournament; the only one who has the authority to determine if a specific penalty doesn’t apply well to the current situation. Head Judges are usually the most experienced judges available, and when they decide to deviate it’s usually for a good reason.
当多个裁判共同执法时，主审是负责整个比赛的裁判；他是唯一有权利来决定是否需要进行不依照方针的特殊判罚的人。主审通常由经验最丰富的裁判来担任，他在决定不依照方针行事的时候通常都有充分的理由。
除非在重大且特殊的状况中，或是没有可供运用的指导原则，否则主审都不该背离此方针的处理流程。
Of course, although the Head Judge has the authority to deviate any time they want, they are also expected to know when it is appropriate to deviate. The main reason for deviation is when a specific situation doesn’t fit well in the categories listed in the twenty pages of the IPG. The only case where a deviation is justifiable is when the situation is both significant and exceptional.
当然，虽然主审虽然任何时候都有不依照方针处理的权利，他同样也应该知道什么时候适合自行决定处罚。不依照方针的常见原因是出现了某些没有被包含在这份IPG中的特殊情况。只有在出现了重大且特殊的状况时，不依照方针才是公正的处理方法。
重大且特殊的状况很少见～桌子垮掉、补充包内含其他系列的牌等等。
Here you have a couple of examples of “exceptional circumstances”. In these cases, we use common sense and we try to find the “best solution” with the players. Both of the examples above are both significant and exceptional. Make sure your situation is both before you consider deviating. If you find yourself considering a deviation, give it a serious second thought.
在这里你可以看到几个“重大且特殊的状况”的例子。在这些情况下，我们使用我们的常识去跟牌手一起努力找到最佳解决方案。上面的这两个例子都重大且特殊，在你不依照方针处理之前请确保你遇到的状况也是重大且特殊的。如果你想要考虑偏离方针，请认真地再次考虑一遍。
执法严格度、比赛的回合、牌手的经验高低和年龄、特别想教育该牌手，以及裁判的等级，均不算是特殊状况。
Some of these situations might make it seem like it's OK to deviate, but it's not. You are to enforce policy regardless of whether it's the last round, regardless of if the call is at table 1 or table 101. The opponents might be an exceptionally young age, but that age difference is not significant in terms of policy. The player might be new, and not know that rolling a die to determine a winner is prohibited; that player is still going to be disqualified regardless of whether you think it is 'fair' or not. And finally, being a Level 3 judge does not bestow upon that judge the right to deviate. In truth, they are held to a stricter standard, as lower level judges are watching and learning from their actions.
一些情况下，不依照方针行事看上去是合理的，但其实不是。你应该严格的依照方针执行，不管这是不是最后一轮，不管这是1号桌还是101号桌。对手可能是非常年轻的孩子，但是年龄对于执行方针并没有什么影响。牌手可能是刚刚接触万智牌的新人，他并不知道扔骰子决定胜负是被禁止的，他仍然会被取消资格，不管你觉得这是否“公平”。另外，成为一个L3裁判并不会给你更多不依方针行事的权利。事实上，他们会更加严格的遵守标准，因为低级的裁判都以他们为榜样在学习。
如果其他裁判认为有理由不遵循罚则方针，则必须请示主审。
Just because the Head Judge is the only one that's allowed to deviate doesn't mean a floor judge can't suggest it to the Head Judge. However, as a floor judge, you must never deviate.
只有主审有不依方针行事的权利并不意味着一个巡场裁判不能建议主审如此做。然而，作为一个巡场裁判，你永远不能不依方针行事。
Judges are human and make mistakes. When a judge makes a mistake, they should acknowledge the mistake, apologize to the players, and fix it if it is not too late. If a member of the tournament staff gives a player erroneous information that causes them to commit a violation, the Head Judge is authorized to downgrade the penalty. For example, a player asks a judge whether a card is legal for a format and is told yes. When that player’s deck is found to be illegal because of these cards, the Head Judge applies the normal procedure for fixing the decklist, but may downgrade the penalty to a Warning because of the direct error of the judge. If a player clearly acts on erroneous information provided by a judge during the game, the Head Judge may consider a backup to the point of the action taken, even if that action did not lead to a violation.
裁判也是常人，也会犯下错误。若裁判确实出现了失误，他应承认错误，向牌手致歉，且如果发现尚属及时，还应该进行修正。
Despite all efforts to train Golden Retrievers, we judges are still only human.
尽管我们已经非常努力的在训练狗狗来进行工作，但是我们裁判仍然都是人类。
For now.
至少现在为止还是这样。
Humans make mistakes. It’s a fact of life. No one can be 100% correct all the time, and it is unrealistic to expect otherwise. However, when you do make a mistake, you need to take ownership of it and fix it if you can. Players cannot be allowed to continue thinking that something a judge incorrectly told them is correct. In all cases though, you need to apologize to the players for your error. Sometimes it’s best to do this right away, sometimes it’s less disruptive to do it after the match is over. But apologize to both players as soon as it is possible, and correct the situation. Players are typically very understanding, even when they were on the receiving end of an incorrect call.
人总是会犯错，这是人生中一定会出现的。没有人可以总是保证自己100%的正确，同时对于他人来说也是个不切实际的期望。然而，当你犯了错误，你需要负起责任尽最大努力去修正他。不可以让牌手认为裁判说的错误信息是对的。在任何情况下，你需要因为你犯的错误向牌手道歉。有时需要立刻这么做，但是有的时候在比赛结束之后再这么做可能更好。但是立刻向双方牌手道歉，并且修正这个错误，通常情况下牌手们总是会表示理解，即使他们是直接接收到了你错误判罚的人。
如果牌手是因比赛工作人员提供的错误信息而犯下违规，主审有权将罚则降级。
We expect players to trust their tournament officials, and players need to be able to act on the instructions/information we provide them. It is unfair to penalize them for trusting the people they are supposed to be able to trust. However, this downgrade decision still rests with the Head Judge. For this clause we need two things 1) the judge to provide erroneous information and 2) a violation be the direct result from the faulty information.
我们希望牌手们能够信任他们比赛的裁判，牌手也需要依照我们给出的指示或者信息来行动。因为信任他们应该信任的人而导致自己受到处罚是不公平的。然而这个降级的决定权仍然在主审的手里。这个条款的执行需要两个条件：（1）裁判提供了错误信息；（2）违规是收到错误信息的直接结果。
举例来说，某牌手询问裁判某张牌是否在该赛制中合法时，裁判回答他说“是”；此后当该牌手的套牌因为这张牌之故被判为非法套牌时，主审应依照正常的规程来修正套牌登记表，但由于是裁判的失误直接导致了此违规行为的发生，他可以将罚则降级为“警告”。如果牌手明显是根据裁判提供的错误信息而在游戏中行动，在主审可以考虑倒回至实际行动前之时点，即便相关行动并未违规也可如此操作。
Other examples might include:
其他的例子包括：
• Downgrading a Game Rule Violation Warning to no penalty if a judge tells a player that they can untap two untapped lands with Teferi, Hero of Dominaria.
• 将违反游戏规则的“警告”降级为无判罚，因为裁判告诉一位牌手他可以用多明纳里亚英雄泰菲力重置两个未横置的地。
• Downgrading a Deck/Decklist Problem Game Loss to a Warning if a judge has previously told the player that registering “Jace” on their decklist is fine.
• 将套牌/牌表问题的“一盘负”降级为“警告”，因为裁判告诉牌手在牌表上写“杰斯”没有问题。
如果牌手明显是根据裁判提供的错误信息而在游戏中行动，在主审可以考虑倒回至实际行动前之时点，即便相关行动并未违规也可如此操作。
We expect players to trust the information provided by their tournament officials, as detailed already. Normally a backup could only be considered if an infraction had been committed, but in the same way that it is unfair to penalize a player for trusting the information provided, it is also unfair for a player to have made a decision based upon that information even if it doesn’t result in an infraction.
正如上文所述，我们期望牌手信任比赛工作人员提供的信息。通常而言，只有在发生违规时才能考虑是否进行倒回。但是正如牌手信任这些信息而导致受到判罚对他们是不公平的，即使没有造成违规，牌手根据这些信息导致作出游戏决定也同样是不公平的。