Coercion definition might be a bit too strict.

[fbatista]

For Spite play and Collusion we added an "escape route":

It’s not Collusion if the action is a result of a unintentional strategical error. It’s not Spite Play if the action is a result of a unintentional strategical error.

But for Coercion it's much more complicated to admit an escape route like this, in terms of unintentionally forcing a player to take an action over thread of losing the game, however, there are some scenarios where it's possible:

• Player A has an impending win.
• Player B has no countermagic and passes priority
• Player C is thinking for a while, asks how many spells have been played, and after hearing this, player B realizes that they could potentially cast 3 instant spells that would have no effect in stopping player A, but would possibly increase storm count for a potential flusterstorm OR a potential mindbreak trap from player C.
• At this point, player B says to player C that if they want, he can cast some spells.
• Player C says that there is nothing they can do since B already passed priority (unaware that if they tap a land for mana, player B would get priority back).
• Player B informs player C that they can tap a land so they get priority Back.

By definition of Coercion, player B is "Coercing a player into performing an action over threat of losing the game to another player", since they are asking them to tap a land, otherwise they lose the game to A.

How can we fix this ? How would an "escape route" for this situation look like?

• We want to prevent regular mana bullying, but we want players to be able to provide strategic information to their opponents and influence their decisions that way, without crossing the line of forcing the opponents into an action.

---

Current policy:

Coercion: Coercing a player into performing an action over threat of losing the game to another player.

Coercion can happen in non-verbal ways too. It’s not Coercion if actions are discussed within a timing where the affect player is not yet under pressure to perform that action. When proposing intentional draws, players can discuss the terms and reveal hands, but they can’t attempt to coerce players that aren’t in accordance.

[FranciscoBarata21]

imo it should be emphasized in the rulling that the player's intentions are the most important thing and it's crucial the judge tries to understand them before deciding on any outcome.

[fbatista]

The problem is that Player B reminding player C that if they choose to do something will make the priority go back to them, although is not said in an imperative tone, because of the timing, it's being said in a moment where player C will have no other choice but to comply, given the impending win from player A.

Perhaps not using an imperative tone is the key difference maker here, and we can simply say that it's OK to use these "gentle reminders", but imho that opens the door for mana bullying to happen unchecked.

My personal belief is that we are already providing a window where you can make use of all the political tools: before passing priority. So players just remembering things afterwards and politely suggesting tk receive priority back is akin to requesting a "takeback". Doing so politely might not create the feeling of being "bullied" on the "targeted" player, but ultimately the end result will be the same...

@purplejudge given your psychology background, perhaps you want to weight in here, since we're ultimately talking about people's feelings.