Prologue: This is a sequel to Judging with Your Spouse: A tournament report of sorts.
On October 29, my husband and I returned to the store where we first judged together. In April, we joined forces for his first time to Head Judge and my first PPTQ at all. This time we brought a lot more experience to the table (my 6th PPTQ to HJ), but it served as our first opportunity to swap roles.
We arrived early, just as before, greeted the now familiar staff, and checked the play area setup. I rounded up my husband Brian and our other floor judge, Vasilios Vetter. Brian has been mentoring Vasi and he's a regular at this store. While a second floor judge was not necessary, it provided an excellent mentoring opportunity. I always begin my events with a judge meeting, no matter how small the staff because it sets the expectations and tone for the day. I delivered my usual spiel including how to handle backups and appeals, tardiness times, and task assignments. Since Vasi covered deckcheks for me at a previous event, I assigned him to handle paper and put Brian on deckchecks. I spent a bit of time detailing my specific goals and expectations for each of them before releasing them to greet players while I conferred with the scorekeeper.
My HJ announcement to begin the event felt rehearsed and automatic, a sharp contrast from my previous experiences which had included butterflies and bumblings. Both of my floor judges preformed their respective duties with minimal guidance and I actually seemed superfluous for much of the day. Of course the day wouldn't be complete without a few interesting scenarios giving me some new stories to share.
At one point Brian picked up decks to check after the players had cut one another's decks. While that does not invalidate the deck check, it constitutes a better practice to swoop before the opponent has touched a deck to ensure that the order of the cards has not been manipulated in any way. I pointed out to Brian his suboptimal execution and that interaction constituted my first time correcting him on the floor. He started to argue with me, but then listened to what I had to say, and I could feel our working relationship evolving.
At the end of the first round, Brian called time by informing the only match still playing that the time had ended and directing them to begin turns. I explained to him that I preferred my judges to call time loudly to the entire room, even if only 1 match remains. Letting the other players hear that announcement cues the rest of them to wrap up their eating, finish games they are playing for fun, and get ready to move to the pairings board. That little heads up can save a few minutes as well as smoothing out the transition between rounds. I realize that I can be a devil for details, but it also demonstrated my emerging style as a Head Judge - little details can add value in big ways.
During round 2 I took a call at a table while Brian and Vasi checked decks. I concluded the call, which was the players asking me to help them resolve a stack with at least six things on it as they activated abilities and responded throughout the resolution. Then, Brian approached to let me know that he had issued a Game Loss for a Deck/Decklist Problem during his deck check. The penalty, a straightforward 59 cards registered, hadn't required any investigation. Although I had asked to be informed of GLs, Brian made the call to not interrupt me while with the players and handled the GL himself. He made the correct decision and I let him know that I appreciated both his handling the situation and moving the event along and his communication with me afterwards.
On a later call, he answered a player's question about a spell, but by pointing out that it had an Escalate option, he inadvertently gave away information to the opponent. Afterwards he immediately told me that he messed up and should have taken the question away from the table. I could see his embarrassment for making the mistake, but he quickly resolved to speak more carefully next time. Seeing him improve as a judge right before my eyes offered me a rare look into another judge's development.
My most memorable call occurred at a table where I watched a match. The adjacent match then asked me about a situation where a player wanted to activate a creature's ability in response to casting a spell that required sacrificing a creature. He planned to activate, then sac so that he would get both the ability and the spell. I explained that he could not do this since the sacrifice of the creature constituted part of the spell's cost and therefore the creature would not be around after that spell went on the stack, so he could no longer activate its ability. Both players expressed understanding of the situation. Then the opponent queried, "Isn't that a penalty?" I responded that is wasn't and play resumed. I especially did not want to penalize a player whose opponent seemed to be angling for a penalty to gain an advantage. While overall, the GRV would not have had much effect, I didn't want a player telling me how to handle a call.
Brian had been watching and told me that it should have been a penalty because the player had already done it. I stated that it wasn't because the player was asking about it and had not yet taken the action. After talking with him more, I realized that I had misunderstood the player and that he had in fact already activated the ability when I was called, but had reversed his actions before I observed the board state. After the match ended, I sought out each player and explained my mistake and clarified that it should have been a penalty. Both players graciously accepted the information and the nonactive player seemed especially appreciative.
The remainder of the day passed without incident. Players played, we judged, and the TO provided yummy sandwiches for lunch. With two competent floor judges, I had time to pull Vasi aside for a chat about state-based actions. I enjoyed the opportunity to do some mentoring and develop my own skills as well. The Top 8 moved quickly with no issues, and we finished with a debrief meeting. In the past I've received lots of positive feedback from my floor judges about the value in taking the time to talk after the event, so it's a step I never omit. Even at the end of a long day, the chance to provide closure and honest feedback seems to be invaluable.
On the way home, Brian and I conversed about the fact that we could see each other's mistakes and learn and grow together as judges. We can encourage one another as we mature, but we also each follow our own paths within the judge program. By allowing ourselves to be vulnerable with one another we can share not only the details of various calls or techniques, but also the feelings that come with them. It adds a new dimension to both our marriage and our judge careers when the two overlap.
Wednesday, December 14, 2016
Wednesday, November 16, 2016
Unsporting Conduct at GP Atlanta
At GP Atlanta, I had the opportunity to work on the Main Event for the first time. After doing registration and sides, my excitement at finally getting on the floor of the Main Event heightened my anticipation for the day. When I arrived, I learned that I would be helping players pick up sealed pools first, then transitioning to the floor later in the day. On one hand, it saddened me to have to wait longer, but on the other hand, being a logistics person, the opportunity to observe the new process of sealed deck construction using only preregistered pools fascinated me as well. Each player received a deckbox containing his/her six packs which had already been opened and listed on a customized deck registration sheet showing only his/her cards. The player simply constructed a deck, then indicated which cards it included on the provided list.
In addition to myself and our team lead, my team consisted of a judge from Argentina enjoying her first US event and a veteran GP L2. We met in the morning, got to know each other a bit, and prepared to work. The morning passed mostly uneventfully while we handed out pools to players. The process moved smoothly overall. The most exciting part for me came when I noted a problem with the traffic flow as players backtracked when heading towards a banner. I noted that a slight change in the banner's placement could alleviate the problem. I passed on the suggestion to my team lead, someone moved the banner, and the players stopped backtracking. Seeing feedback lead to real-time change excited me and made me feel valued, and seeing the success added to the fun.
After round three when deck construction closed, our team headed to lunch at the nearby CNN Center. As a first-timer to Atlanta, this place is awesome: a huge food court situated amid cool shops, offices, and a hotel while boasting a giant selection of food options, clean tables, and interesting scenery. Our team lead led us to a Chinese place where we received heaping plates of food, then conversed at a comfortable table. He had several prepared questions that led to some fun discussions. The structure seemed a little forced to me, but I noted that he carefully ensured everyone participated in the conversation. I really appreciated when he shared his tips on team leading, such as using policy scenarios to get judges talking.
We returned to the event to take the floor for round 5. My first call was a Game Loss for Tardiness. While it constituted a straightforward call, I realized that I had not heard an official announcement of the tardiness times. I double checked with another judge that we were at 0/10 before issuing the penalty. I likely missed that announcement since I still distributing sealed pools when the first round began, but I will know to ask for that information in the future.
My next call proved to be an interesting one. Noah called a judge and explained that Arlo had cast Harnessed Lightning targeting Noah's Empyreal Voyager. Both players agreed on that much, but then their agreement ended. Arlo claimed that he said "neg 3" while pointing at the Voyager. He then picked up the die representing his energy which had been on 5, fiddled with it, then replaced it showing 6. Noah placed the Voyager in his graveyard, then noticed the energy counter, pulled it out of the graveyard and called a judge. Noah asserted that Arlo did not say anything and he had only assumed the choice of 3. Upon seeing the die he thought that Arlo had only chosen to spend 2 energy. I picked up and slowly read Harnessed Lightning, which allowed me a moment to collect my thoughts before continuing.
While investigating, I struggled to maintain control of the situation as both players interrupted one another several times. As Noah told his version of the story, Arlo exclaimed, "That's bullshit!" I informed him that his behavior would lead to a penalty if it continued, and tried to focus on understanding each player's version of events. Arlo declared that he had clearly stated the 3 and had mishandled the die. When Noah began to speak again, Arlo interrupted with, "That's a lie!" The second time he made a lie comment, I informed him that he would be receiving a USC-Minor and asked him to let me finish the ruling. After hearing both sides, I believed that Arlo had intended to cast the spell for 3 damage, but may not have spoken loudly or clearly enough. Additionally he had not calculated his new energy total correctly. A compelling factor to me was the lack of logical reason for casting the spell for 2 - while technically legal, doing so would make no sense. In the end, I issued Arlo a GRV for the incorrect energy total, but opted not to issue FtMGS to Noah since he called a judge immediately. Arlo also received the afore mentioned USC-Minor for his disruptive behavior.
The player's outburst left me a bit shaken, but my team lead had been watching and took me aside to discuss it. He offered practical suggestions for separating the players, maintaining better control of the situation, and getting the information I needed more efficiently. His recommendations included using height to gain control while at the table or physically separating the players by moving one away from the table. He reassured me that I had come to the correct conclusion and handled the situation appropriately, while providing guidance for future incidents. I especially appreciated how he reaffirmed my abilities and left me feeling more confident than I had before.
Another judge who observed the interaction chatted with me about it afterwards. He informed me that he believed I waited too long to issue the USC and that after the "bullshit" comment would have been preferable. I, recalling my years as a junior high teacher, generally allow people to release some 'smoke' before I feel the need to react. Being a new judge, I felt unsure about how much is 'too much' and when a player's behavior crosses the line into Unsporting Conduct. After we spoke, he polled several other judges and later contacted me again to let me know that the majority agreed with when I had issued the penalty.
The remainder of the day passed without incident. We took a half-round break in round 6 and round 7 flew by. At the end of the day, we debriefed as a team, each reporting on what we learned as well as discussing an interesting policy scenario. I had an excellent first day on the main event, and although giving my first ever USC was a bit unnerving, as each judge first passes, I become a bit more confident and a bit more prepared to handle my next challenge.
In addition to myself and our team lead, my team consisted of a judge from Argentina enjoying her first US event and a veteran GP L2. We met in the morning, got to know each other a bit, and prepared to work. The morning passed mostly uneventfully while we handed out pools to players. The process moved smoothly overall. The most exciting part for me came when I noted a problem with the traffic flow as players backtracked when heading towards a banner. I noted that a slight change in the banner's placement could alleviate the problem. I passed on the suggestion to my team lead, someone moved the banner, and the players stopped backtracking. Seeing feedback lead to real-time change excited me and made me feel valued, and seeing the success added to the fun.
After round three when deck construction closed, our team headed to lunch at the nearby CNN Center. As a first-timer to Atlanta, this place is awesome: a huge food court situated amid cool shops, offices, and a hotel while boasting a giant selection of food options, clean tables, and interesting scenery. Our team lead led us to a Chinese place where we received heaping plates of food, then conversed at a comfortable table. He had several prepared questions that led to some fun discussions. The structure seemed a little forced to me, but I noted that he carefully ensured everyone participated in the conversation. I really appreciated when he shared his tips on team leading, such as using policy scenarios to get judges talking.
We returned to the event to take the floor for round 5. My first call was a Game Loss for Tardiness. While it constituted a straightforward call, I realized that I had not heard an official announcement of the tardiness times. I double checked with another judge that we were at 0/10 before issuing the penalty. I likely missed that announcement since I still distributing sealed pools when the first round began, but I will know to ask for that information in the future.
My next call proved to be an interesting one. Noah called a judge and explained that Arlo had cast Harnessed Lightning targeting Noah's Empyreal Voyager. Both players agreed on that much, but then their agreement ended. Arlo claimed that he said "neg 3" while pointing at the Voyager. He then picked up the die representing his energy which had been on 5, fiddled with it, then replaced it showing 6. Noah placed the Voyager in his graveyard, then noticed the energy counter, pulled it out of the graveyard and called a judge. Noah asserted that Arlo did not say anything and he had only assumed the choice of 3. Upon seeing the die he thought that Arlo had only chosen to spend 2 energy. I picked up and slowly read Harnessed Lightning, which allowed me a moment to collect my thoughts before continuing.
While investigating, I struggled to maintain control of the situation as both players interrupted one another several times. As Noah told his version of the story, Arlo exclaimed, "That's bullshit!" I informed him that his behavior would lead to a penalty if it continued, and tried to focus on understanding each player's version of events. Arlo declared that he had clearly stated the 3 and had mishandled the die. When Noah began to speak again, Arlo interrupted with, "That's a lie!" The second time he made a lie comment, I informed him that he would be receiving a USC-Minor and asked him to let me finish the ruling. After hearing both sides, I believed that Arlo had intended to cast the spell for 3 damage, but may not have spoken loudly or clearly enough. Additionally he had not calculated his new energy total correctly. A compelling factor to me was the lack of logical reason for casting the spell for 2 - while technically legal, doing so would make no sense. In the end, I issued Arlo a GRV for the incorrect energy total, but opted not to issue FtMGS to Noah since he called a judge immediately. Arlo also received the afore mentioned USC-Minor for his disruptive behavior.
The player's outburst left me a bit shaken, but my team lead had been watching and took me aside to discuss it. He offered practical suggestions for separating the players, maintaining better control of the situation, and getting the information I needed more efficiently. His recommendations included using height to gain control while at the table or physically separating the players by moving one away from the table. He reassured me that I had come to the correct conclusion and handled the situation appropriately, while providing guidance for future incidents. I especially appreciated how he reaffirmed my abilities and left me feeling more confident than I had before.
Another judge who observed the interaction chatted with me about it afterwards. He informed me that he believed I waited too long to issue the USC and that after the "bullshit" comment would have been preferable. I, recalling my years as a junior high teacher, generally allow people to release some 'smoke' before I feel the need to react. Being a new judge, I felt unsure about how much is 'too much' and when a player's behavior crosses the line into Unsporting Conduct. After we spoke, he polled several other judges and later contacted me again to let me know that the majority agreed with when I had issued the penalty.
The remainder of the day passed without incident. We took a half-round break in round 6 and round 7 flew by. At the end of the day, we debriefed as a team, each reporting on what we learned as well as discussing an interesting policy scenario. I had an excellent first day on the main event, and although giving my first ever USC was a bit unnerving, as each judge first passes, I become a bit more confident and a bit more prepared to handle my next challenge.
Monday, November 14, 2016
USA-South Conference Report
Note: This is a conference report. It is the same one I posted on the forums and therefore does not contain my usual personal commentary or snarky attitude.
Attendance
Staff
Content
Testing
Location
After hosting previous conferences in Dallas and Austin, for
this conference we selected the smaller city of Texarkana which sits on the
junction of Texas and Arkansas near the border of Louisiana. We chose this
location to make the conference more accessible for judges who have not had a
nearby conference recently while still maintaining proximity to both DFW and
Oklahoma City.
On our site visit to select a venue, we considered two
convention centers, a library, a community center, and the LGS. While at the
LGS, the store judge suggested the Silver
Star Smokehouse for lunch. While dining at this barbecue establishment, we
noted the large private room. Upon investigation, we discovered that its
capacity exceeded our needs and that it could be subdivided into 2 smaller
spaces as needed. Each side boasted A/V capabilities and ample seating. The restaurant
also offered a separate quiet boardroom with a large table and comfortable
chairs that would serve well as a testing room. The manager informed us that
use of the rooms would be free if our group purchased lunch from the
restaurant. We confirmed availability for our date and tentatively booked it on
the spot.
Sixty-eight judges attended the conference including nine
from Arkansas and five from Louisiana. Approximately 20 L2s attended and
approximately 45 L1s. David Hibbs (Austin, TX) and John Carter (Renton, WA) were
the L3s in attendance.
We arranged with the venue an all-you-can eat lunch option
with water and sweet tea available all day long. By charging each attendee $15 for a catered
lunch, we secured a larger, more efficient space to make the conference more
comfortable than previous events in a cramped LGS. It also eliminated the need
for a lengthy lunch recess and allowed for more natural conversations during
the meal among judges who may not have known one another.
Materials
Upon arrival, each judge received a personalized packet
containing a nametag, feedback forms, a creature token, a door prize ticket,
and a pen. The preprinted nametag listed the judge’s name and location which
facilitated judges meeting one another. Each packet included four feedback
forms that were color-coded for each presentation. The token served to divide
judges into small groups for a focus group activity later in the day. The focus
group leaders additionally had a huge version of their group’s token to identify
their role.
Each table featured a selection of candy for munching during
the conference and tea and water stations sat in each room. Creating this
comfortable environment help participants relax and engage in the event. During
each breakout session, moderators drew winners for small door prizes such as
judge notebooks, playmats, or PAX pins. Adding this fun element livened the
mood of each room.
Theme
We decided on the theme of “Your Identity as a Judge.” It
encompassed the regional need to connect with judges on a personal level and
build their excitement for the judge program. Our keynote, delivered by David
Hibbs, was entitled “The Judge Program: You Are Here.” It focused on the
structure of the program and the roles of various groups within it. This
information guided judges to understand both their current situation and
allowed them to set goals for their future development. We concluded the day by
dividing participants into small groups led by senior judges to consider
discussion questions about the day’s experiences. These activities intended to
facilitate the transfer of information learned at the conference to actual
practices for judges.
David Carroll led our staff as the Conference Organizer.
David oversaw all decisions pertaining to the event and managed the other staff
members. Additionally, he acted as the testing coordinator. Erin Leonard
handled the conference logistics as well as managing the presenters. David
Hibbs provided support, delivered the keynote, and handled some L2 testing.
Spin Rodriguez participated in the conference planning, then served handled
day-of duties including setup, registration, photographer, L1 room monitor,
check-out/foil distribution, and breakdown. Brian Leonard’s tasks included
setup, registration, information technology and A/V, L2 room monitor,
check-out/foil distribution, and breakdown.
Schedule
10:00 Opening
Remarks
10:10 Keynote Address
11:20 AMA with the ACs
12:30 Lunch
1:45 Breakout Session
12:45 Breakout Session 2
3:45 Breakout Session 3
4:45 Focus Groups
6:00 Closing Comments
10:10 Keynote Address
11:20 AMA with the ACs
12:30 Lunch
1:45 Breakout Session
12:45 Breakout Session 2
3:45 Breakout Session 3
4:45 Focus Groups
6:00 Closing Comments
We created a schedule intended to maximize time for
community building in addition to providing the attendees with presentations of
solid value. Following the keynote, we offered a panel called “Ask Me Anything
with the Area Captains.” Participants could interact with regional leaders and
served to break the ice and get people talking before lunch. A quick group
picture followed while the restaurant finished setting up our meal. The
afternoon consisted of three breakout sessions targeted for L1s or L2s, and
testing took place during this time as well. A staff member moderated each room
to introduce the presenters, ensure that we ran on time, and help with
technical issues. In the final session, participants broke into small groups to
discuss the conference’s content and its impact on their future as judges. Each
group’s composition mixed veterans with newer judges and pulled from
geographically diverse areas. These groups both introduced new people and
helped participants set goals for their own personal development. After the
focus groups, attendees exchanged their completed feedback forms for foils at
the check-out table.
Our keynote, panel, and focus group activities were designed
to build community and provide participants a general guide to the judge
program. The breakout sessions delved into specifics. In the L1 room, we
offered presentations on the judge Code of Conduct, deck checks, and LGS
relations. For L2s we scheduled self-care at events, inspiring and motivating a
team, and Premiere TO relations. Each room’s selections included locally
relevant content and interactive elements.
David Hibbs and John Carter tested and promoted five L2
candidates. David Carroll certified a new L1. One judge asked to take an L2P at
the event, and David Carroll discussed the results with him.
Conclusion
The greatest successes of this conference proved to be the location
and the preparation. The new connections forged among judges in our region
outweighed the logistical difficulties. The time we invested in creating
nametags, packets, and color-coded feedback forms translated into measurable
results at the event, evidenced by the smooth check-in and check-out processes.
The ability to provide presenters real-time feedback also constituted a bonus.
Our hard working staff contributed to our success.
The biggest improvement we could make would be in the
content of the presentations. We went principally with those who volunteered
instead of recruiting presenters for specific topics of interest. Additionally,
having both the focus groups and the area captain panel lowered the number of
presentations we had time to include, however for the specific location and
purpose of this conference, those choices were appropriate. For a more urban
conference, selecting only one would work better.
While this conference brought some logistical challenges
with its remote location and unusual venue, it provided an excellent
opportunity to reach out to an underserved part of our region and create
lasting connections among judges.
All photos courtesy of Spin Rodriguez.
All photos courtesy of Spin Rodriguez.
Monday, November 7, 2016
Lessons from Levine
During the course of a Grand Prix weekend, any individual floor judge is unlikely to have a lot of meaningful interactions with the Head Judge, however at GP Dallas/Fort Worth, several situations led me to work directly with Head Judge Eric Levine.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A player called me asking for a time extension due to being legally blind. The player appeared to be playing without any other accommodations. I had taken a call from this player in a previous round and had noted a time extension on the match slip, but had not further inquired. A quick investigation revealed that at the beginning of each round, he called a judge and requested an extension, which the judge granted. Unsure of how to handle the situation, I asked the player to wait a moment while I asked the Head Judge about the appropriate time extension.
Eric responded by saying that while we make reasonable accommodations for players with disabilities, we could not offer blanket time extensions each round. The potential impact on the tournament of those extensions is too large. He took the time to explain his reasoning to me carefully, then asked if I was comfortable explaining that to the player. My trepidation stemmed from the fact that the player had received them each previous round, but I appreciated Eric's confidence in me as well as his taking my comfort level into account. I agreed to handle the explanation and to my surprise Eric remained nearby while I did so. He ensured that I had the support I needed for what could have been a contentious player interaction, but he allowed me to complete the call I had taken, building both my credibility with the player and my confidence.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Saturday I served on Steven Briggs' pairings team. He assigned me the task of waiting next to the printer and catching the sheets as they printed, then handing each letter range to a waiting judge for posting. To accomplish this task, I stood on the edge of the stage facing a sea of judges at the beginning of each round. As we awaited round 4's pairings, L3 John Carter, the logistics team lead, hopped up onto the stage and yelled at the assembled judges about putting match slips in their pockets at the end of rounds. His explosive outburst left the assembled staff and the players behind them shocked, to say the least. My unique perspective from the corner of the stage showed me expressions of bewilderment, anger, fear, confusion, and remorse. Eric calmly walked up behind Carter mid-tirade. As Carter sensed his presence, he stopped and Eric quietly said, "Carter, we need to talk." A quirky grin on Carter's face followed by a "Yep!" demonstrated that Carter knew he had overstepped his bounds. He quickly followed Eric off the back of the stage.
Eric's handling of the incident demonstrated several things about his leadership. He observed, and quickly assessed the situation. His first priority was to get the event back on track. Next, he trusted his people. When he left with Carter, he didn't feel the need to issue instructions to his team leads or make an announcement to the staff as a whole. He simply handled the incident and let everyone else continue doing their jobs. Finally, he criticized in private. I don't actually know what was said, but since Carter issued a public apology before the next round, I'll assume that Eric didn't condone Carter's initial approach. Overall, Eric was clearly in control of the situation, but used a low-key manner to diffuse the tension and move things along.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
While sweeping for slips, I took a call from two obviously agitated players. Alex was searching a library and showed me that the openings of the sleeves did not all face in the same direction. After a few quick questions I learned the library belonged to Neal and Alex had cast Pithing Needle. I took the deck and looked through it noting that there did not seem to be a pattern to the upside down cards and it appeared that the deck had been mash-shuffled. Alex continued to hint that he thought Neal was cheating, that Neal had done it on purpose, etc. Neal, clearly annoyed at Alex, snapped back after several of Alex's comments. Seeing the obvious tension at the table and knowing the round would end in a moment, when Alex said that I should get the Head Judge, I agreed.
Despite the fact that I hadn't finished delivering a ruling, the situation was escalating fast, time was short, and it looked like I would be getting Eric one way or another. Luckily, another judge walked by sweeping for slips and I quickly stopped her and asked her to watch the table. On my way to fetch Eric, I dropped off the match slips she and I had collected with another judge who took them to the stage. Eric saw me approaching purposefully and he immediately joined me on the walk back to the table. I explained the situation as we went, and he chastised me for not completing my ruling.
At the table he looked at the library in question, then turned to the players. He explained to them that their behavior towards me had been inappropriate and that he had found the exact same thing that I had. He quickly corrected the cards in the library and instructed the players to resume playing. Alex demanded to finish searching the library.
By this point, time in the round had ended. Their match slip showed the players already had a previous time extension. Alex took his pen and lifepad and began writing notes about Neal's deck. He rudely asked Eric how much extra time they would receive. Eric let him know that he would not have enough time to write the entire contents of the library and encouraged him to move the match along. As play resumed, Alex and Neal continued to snipe at one another making pointed comments about minute details. Alex, clearly angling, queried, "How much of a time extension do we get for this?" Eric pulled out his phone, set a timer, dropped it on the table next to Alex and stated flatly, "You have 5 minutes." Alex looked to Eric and sneered, "Can we get a table judge for the rest of the match?" Eric and stood a bit taller looked right at him, and put his hands on his hips saying, "I'm not going anywhere." I could feel the switch flip and that Eric had reached his nonsense-limit. He didn't need yelling or threats to convey his displeasure, his presence spoke for itself. Neal mostly quieted down to continue the match, but Alex grumbled a bit more. Eric's proximity seemed to quell things enough that the match could proceed. After five minutes and five painfully long turns a member of the EOR team grabbed the slip and took off.
Eric and I walked back to the stage together at a good clip. He looked at me and said, "You were right to come and get me when you did." Surprised, I turned and he continued, "That wasn't going to stop." On some level I had sensed that at the table, but to hear the HJ validate my decision made me stand a little taller.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
During round 9, I wondered if we should do something to prepare the pairings boards for the following day. With this being my first time on a pairings team, I was unsure of all the tasks for which our team was responsible, so I asked Briggs. He directed me to ask Eric. Eric thought about my query for a moment, then he asked the other pairings team lead to join us. Our trio relocated the pairings boards and prepared them to post the next day's player lists which would be printed after round 9.
What struck me about Eric in this interaction is that he wasn't afraid to get his hands dirty; he grabbed a board and began dragging it into position. He balanced his role as a HJ with the concept that we're all responsible for the needs of the event. An appeal claimed him for a bit, but he later returned to verify that our task had been completed. Seeing him work alongside us reminded me that while each person has a specific role, at the end of the day, the we're all on the same team and share the same goals.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Towards the end of the weekend I approached Eric to thank him for being so accessible. I noted that his presence on the floor had made finding a burgundy shirt fast and easy. He thanked me for the feedback, then pointed out that Appeals Judge Jeff Morrow had been the source of their accessibility and asked me to let Jeff know that I appreciated it. He balanced accepting my feedback and giving credit to the proper person.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To close out the event Eric gathered us all for a final debrief. He thanked us for our work and reminded us to share feedback with judges with whom we had worked. Later, while looking at my notes, I realized that the person for whom I had the most feedback was Eric himself, so I followed his directive and wrote him a review.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A player called me asking for a time extension due to being legally blind. The player appeared to be playing without any other accommodations. I had taken a call from this player in a previous round and had noted a time extension on the match slip, but had not further inquired. A quick investigation revealed that at the beginning of each round, he called a judge and requested an extension, which the judge granted. Unsure of how to handle the situation, I asked the player to wait a moment while I asked the Head Judge about the appropriate time extension.
Eric responded by saying that while we make reasonable accommodations for players with disabilities, we could not offer blanket time extensions each round. The potential impact on the tournament of those extensions is too large. He took the time to explain his reasoning to me carefully, then asked if I was comfortable explaining that to the player. My trepidation stemmed from the fact that the player had received them each previous round, but I appreciated Eric's confidence in me as well as his taking my comfort level into account. I agreed to handle the explanation and to my surprise Eric remained nearby while I did so. He ensured that I had the support I needed for what could have been a contentious player interaction, but he allowed me to complete the call I had taken, building both my credibility with the player and my confidence.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Saturday I served on Steven Briggs' pairings team. He assigned me the task of waiting next to the printer and catching the sheets as they printed, then handing each letter range to a waiting judge for posting. To accomplish this task, I stood on the edge of the stage facing a sea of judges at the beginning of each round. As we awaited round 4's pairings, L3 John Carter, the logistics team lead, hopped up onto the stage and yelled at the assembled judges about putting match slips in their pockets at the end of rounds. His explosive outburst left the assembled staff and the players behind them shocked, to say the least. My unique perspective from the corner of the stage showed me expressions of bewilderment, anger, fear, confusion, and remorse. Eric calmly walked up behind Carter mid-tirade. As Carter sensed his presence, he stopped and Eric quietly said, "Carter, we need to talk." A quirky grin on Carter's face followed by a "Yep!" demonstrated that Carter knew he had overstepped his bounds. He quickly followed Eric off the back of the stage.
Eric's handling of the incident demonstrated several things about his leadership. He observed, and quickly assessed the situation. His first priority was to get the event back on track. Next, he trusted his people. When he left with Carter, he didn't feel the need to issue instructions to his team leads or make an announcement to the staff as a whole. He simply handled the incident and let everyone else continue doing their jobs. Finally, he criticized in private. I don't actually know what was said, but since Carter issued a public apology before the next round, I'll assume that Eric didn't condone Carter's initial approach. Overall, Eric was clearly in control of the situation, but used a low-key manner to diffuse the tension and move things along.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
While sweeping for slips, I took a call from two obviously agitated players. Alex was searching a library and showed me that the openings of the sleeves did not all face in the same direction. After a few quick questions I learned the library belonged to Neal and Alex had cast Pithing Needle. I took the deck and looked through it noting that there did not seem to be a pattern to the upside down cards and it appeared that the deck had been mash-shuffled. Alex continued to hint that he thought Neal was cheating, that Neal had done it on purpose, etc. Neal, clearly annoyed at Alex, snapped back after several of Alex's comments. Seeing the obvious tension at the table and knowing the round would end in a moment, when Alex said that I should get the Head Judge, I agreed.
Despite the fact that I hadn't finished delivering a ruling, the situation was escalating fast, time was short, and it looked like I would be getting Eric one way or another. Luckily, another judge walked by sweeping for slips and I quickly stopped her and asked her to watch the table. On my way to fetch Eric, I dropped off the match slips she and I had collected with another judge who took them to the stage. Eric saw me approaching purposefully and he immediately joined me on the walk back to the table. I explained the situation as we went, and he chastised me for not completing my ruling.At the table he looked at the library in question, then turned to the players. He explained to them that their behavior towards me had been inappropriate and that he had found the exact same thing that I had. He quickly corrected the cards in the library and instructed the players to resume playing. Alex demanded to finish searching the library.
By this point, time in the round had ended. Their match slip showed the players already had a previous time extension. Alex took his pen and lifepad and began writing notes about Neal's deck. He rudely asked Eric how much extra time they would receive. Eric let him know that he would not have enough time to write the entire contents of the library and encouraged him to move the match along. As play resumed, Alex and Neal continued to snipe at one another making pointed comments about minute details. Alex, clearly angling, queried, "How much of a time extension do we get for this?" Eric pulled out his phone, set a timer, dropped it on the table next to Alex and stated flatly, "You have 5 minutes." Alex looked to Eric and sneered, "Can we get a table judge for the rest of the match?" Eric and stood a bit taller looked right at him, and put his hands on his hips saying, "I'm not going anywhere." I could feel the switch flip and that Eric had reached his nonsense-limit. He didn't need yelling or threats to convey his displeasure, his presence spoke for itself. Neal mostly quieted down to continue the match, but Alex grumbled a bit more. Eric's proximity seemed to quell things enough that the match could proceed. After five minutes and five painfully long turns a member of the EOR team grabbed the slip and took off.
Eric and I walked back to the stage together at a good clip. He looked at me and said, "You were right to come and get me when you did." Surprised, I turned and he continued, "That wasn't going to stop." On some level I had sensed that at the table, but to hear the HJ validate my decision made me stand a little taller.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
During round 9, I wondered if we should do something to prepare the pairings boards for the following day. With this being my first time on a pairings team, I was unsure of all the tasks for which our team was responsible, so I asked Briggs. He directed me to ask Eric. Eric thought about my query for a moment, then he asked the other pairings team lead to join us. Our trio relocated the pairings boards and prepared them to post the next day's player lists which would be printed after round 9.What struck me about Eric in this interaction is that he wasn't afraid to get his hands dirty; he grabbed a board and began dragging it into position. He balanced his role as a HJ with the concept that we're all responsible for the needs of the event. An appeal claimed him for a bit, but he later returned to verify that our task had been completed. Seeing him work alongside us reminded me that while each person has a specific role, at the end of the day, the we're all on the same team and share the same goals.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Towards the end of the weekend I approached Eric to thank him for being so accessible. I noted that his presence on the floor had made finding a burgundy shirt fast and easy. He thanked me for the feedback, then pointed out that Appeals Judge Jeff Morrow had been the source of their accessibility and asked me to let Jeff know that I appreciated it. He balanced accepting my feedback and giving credit to the proper person.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sunday, September 25, 2016
Five
She played her first sanctioned Magic event today. She's only ever played at home before, with her family. She's been in a few shops and knows a few local players, but not very well. She was nervous, but excited. She played 2 Headed-Giant. She went 2-1.
Her story is that of so many players. Starting at the kitchen table with a brother, a friend, or a classmate. Playing a bit here and there when the opportunity presents itself. Not really knowing the rules, but learning by following what the other players do. Making misplays, having fun, not worrying too much about the outcome. Occasionally going in a shop to hang out with a friend or buy some cards, but never staying long.
Then, one day, it happens: the transition to organized play. Walking into a store and up to the counter to sign up for the first time constitutes a monumental step for some players. I watched her tremble a little as she handed over the credit card, and she looked a little confused when she received her prerelease pack, but overall she handled it well.
Then she walked to the play area where several players sat at a table chatting. She carefully selected a seat at the end of the table, near enough to hear the conversation, but not quite in the middle of the action. A player greeted me and I introduced her to the guys. While she seemed unsure, they all readily said hello and accepted her as a player.
Her partner arrived for the 2HG event and he joined her at the table. She handed him his pack and he pulled out her deckbox. They immediately set to discussing strategy. Then the TO came and officially started the event. Luckily her partner, a seasoned veteran, led her through the deckbuilding process. She managed to make her way through the event with the guidance of her partner and her opponents.
Seeing how well the community received her makes me proud to be a Magic judge. Players didn't question her gender, her age, or her experience, they just played Magic with her. When she didn't want to shake hands or fist bump (she's not a physical person), they didn't question her. They just accepted her for who she is and how she is and welcomed her into the community.
I'm proud to say that today, my daughter's 5th birthday, she is officially a card carrying member of the DCI and the Magic community as a whole.
Big thanks to everyone at Collected TCU for welcoming her today!
Her story is that of so many players. Starting at the kitchen table with a brother, a friend, or a classmate. Playing a bit here and there when the opportunity presents itself. Not really knowing the rules, but learning by following what the other players do. Making misplays, having fun, not worrying too much about the outcome. Occasionally going in a shop to hang out with a friend or buy some cards, but never staying long.
Then, one day, it happens: the transition to organized play. Walking into a store and up to the counter to sign up for the first time constitutes a monumental step for some players. I watched her tremble a little as she handed over the credit card, and she looked a little confused when she received her prerelease pack, but overall she handled it well.
Then she walked to the play area where several players sat at a table chatting. She carefully selected a seat at the end of the table, near enough to hear the conversation, but not quite in the middle of the action. A player greeted me and I introduced her to the guys. While she seemed unsure, they all readily said hello and accepted her as a player.
Her partner arrived for the 2HG event and he joined her at the table. She handed him his pack and he pulled out her deckbox. They immediately set to discussing strategy. Then the TO came and officially started the event. Luckily her partner, a seasoned veteran, led her through the deckbuilding process. She managed to make her way through the event with the guidance of her partner and her opponents.
Seeing how well the community received her makes me proud to be a Magic judge. Players didn't question her gender, her age, or her experience, they just played Magic with her. When she didn't want to shake hands or fist bump (she's not a physical person), they didn't question her. They just accepted her for who she is and how she is and welcomed her into the community.
I'm proud to say that today, my daughter's 5th birthday, she is officially a card carrying member of the DCI and the Magic community as a whole.
Big thanks to everyone at Collected TCU for welcoming her today!
Friday, September 23, 2016
Token
At least that's what the dictionary says it is.
In Magic, a token is a marker used to represent a permanent. The spell or ability that created the token may set values of the token.
In Portland, I received a token. I'd like to tell you about it . . .
On April 16th of this year I worked my first day as a Magic judge. After a very long day working on the floor, registration, then prize wall, I sat alone taking late registrations for the Super Sunday Series, when Head Judge Sean Catanese took the time to introduce himself to me as he left the building. That moment constituted a turning point in my judge career. On the heels of a less than pleasant encounter where someone had belittled me and in my exhausted state, I struggled with my decision to become a judge. I felt like perhaps I had taken the wrong road, or that no one would ever really accept me as a judge since I was a newer player, and female too. When Sean stopped to welcome me, it changed my perspective. A man in a burgundy shirt had acknowledged me and legitimized my position as a member of the program with the simple words, "Welcome to the family!"
The next day I stood a little taller in my black judge shirt and I smiled at a few more judges hoping that they would smile back. The judge community is filled with awesome people, and by that evening I was enjoying drinks and drafting with a bunch of new friends. Little did I know that I birthed a few traditions that night and made memories that will last a lifetime. (You can read more about Albuquerque here.)
Since then I have labored to improve my craft. If you know my personality at all, you know that I strive to reach the elite tiers of any endeavor I undertake. I like to "do the thing," whatever it may be, at the highest level. I fast tracked my way to L2 just 3 months later despite my awkward beginnings as a judge. I located a mentor who could teach me the rules, and committed to weekly late night study sessions. I traveled to another GP as well as working an SCG Open, some local events, and a 1K in Austin where I tested at the HJ's home afterwards. I also threw myself into the judge community writing tournament reports, planning a regional judge conference, and working with our Area Captain on local judge meet-ups. I sought mentors who could teach me the intricacies of policy and philosophy as I broadened my views and worked more outside my region.
The culmination of my efforts came when Cascade Games asked me to serve as the Registration Lead for GP Portland. Ok, so I might have mentioned a few ideas for improving the registration process after Albuquerque. And I might have demonstrated my assertive leadership skills at Dreamhack. And I might have been completely shocked when not only did I not receive a reprimand for being presumptuous, but I was offered the opportunity to apply my skills to an actual event.
Saturday proved to be another long but amazing day working with my awesome registration team. Those folks worked so hard that I treated them to Starbucks, twice! I wish I could have done more because their efforts made a crazy day manageable and fun. Despite the stresses of a large event with multiple demands to balance, I felt proud that I could lead my team effectively, communicate with my supervisors, and generally make things happen. While I'll skip the details that only a true logistics nerd (ok, yes, me) would love, I will says that I was able to manage my staff through trading/sharing with another team lead, I devised solutions to complicated problems by allowing others to shine in areas of expertise, and I never lost that personal connection with the people on my team.
Sometime on Saturday I found myself on the stage with Sean Catanese, who I had not spoken to since that day in Albuquerque. Since I knew this was his final GP to Head Judge, I wanted to take the opportunity to thank him for welcoming me on my first day as on the floor. Our brief chat ended with an interruption, but the interaction made me happy after being able to thank him in person.
Back at the hotel that night, my feet hurt too bad to even move. Luckily my Starbucks-deliveing roommate was willing to order us a pizza and go pick up some beer. Also luckily, I managed to stay awake long enough to consume a slice before falling asleep.
Once again, Sean had used a simple interaction to convey a message of great depth. He recognized my contributions to the judge program, affirmed my role as a judge, and boosted my confidence, all in a 2-3 minute conversation. The beauty and talent in his leadership both impressed me and inspired me to look for ways to do the same for other judges.
Now that token resides in my pocket when I'm on the floor. Each time I feel its weight or brush it with my hand it serves as a reminder to encourage other judges. I'm sure that one day, the time will come to pass that precious token along to a judge who needs it more than me, but in the meantime, I it will remind me to continue sharing Sean's message that 'you are valued' with judges that I encounter.
Monday, September 19, 2016
Exemplar
Today I received an amazing surprise! I received an exemplar nomination from someone I have never met. Upon doing a bit of research I realized that we have never worked an event together, have no mutual friends that I know of, and don't even live in the same country. To say I was shocked would be an understatement.
Why, then would this person nominate me?
For writing "Judge Reports."
While I don't necessary consider tournament report writing exemplary because most judges have written one at one time or another, I do consider it something I'm passionate about. I love judging; I love writing; and I love writing about judging. Even more than that, I love knowing that my writing about judging has had a positive impact on someone else.
While the main goal of this blog is for me to have a place to put my thoughts as I organize them and process my experiences, I have opted to make it public so that others can share those experiences as well. Maybe we have things in common? Maybe we approach things completely differently? Maybe something I wrote will help you out at your next event? Maybe we'll have a discussion later about something you read?
The idea that my simple prose contributes positively to the judge community really excites me. Judges love helping each other - me included! And being able to do it through a channel that I'm passionate about is even better!
So in short, a huge thanks to everyone who reads my blog and my JudgeApps forum posts. I appreciate you letting me be a part of your judge journey and I'm glad that you are a part of mine.
Also want to give a special shout out to the Exemplar Team. You guys do great and often thankless work implementing this program and you are appreciated too!
Note: While receiving this nomination was cool, now that it's been done, it need not be repeated.
Wednesday, August 24, 2016
Q&A with the HJ
On August 6th I worked my first "mid-sized event." We had 203 players and 8 judges. So I've worked some GPs with huge staffs and tons of sides, and I've judged small GPTs and PPTQs, but this was my first 'medium' experience. I've pondered some of the issues a Head Judge faces at this type of event and have come up with the following reflections.
The day's start inspired hopes for great things. We started on time and the SK brought doughnuts and kolaches! He then demonstrated putting a kolache in the pocket of his judge shirt for easy access later making our whole team laugh. Such a great group of guys!
Finding a way to cover all the event's needs without the manpower to create true teams comprises one of the Head Judge's challenges. Our HJ opted to use the Taskmaster System. I had never encountered this system previously, and to be honest, I didn't like it. He assigned a judge to be in charge of each task, and that judge's responsibility included getting the task done by locating available judges to do it. While simply asking others to help made sense, in reality few were available and willing when the need arose. Since most of our team had little experience working together, we lacked both the personal chemistry and the understanding of one another’s roles to effectively employ this method. It felt awkward and unorganized to me.
An example: In my role as slips taskmaster, I needed to ensure the distribution of match slips at the start of each round. The SKs printed these a few minutes after each round began. At previous events, my SKs had used multi-print to produce slips with the pairings, so my expectation of earlier slips often led to me hanging around the paper cutter awaiting my slips. I likely could have waited until pairings posted, and then head to the judge station, however I did not want to appear late or unavailable when the time came to complete my task. Also, the HJ had asked another judge to take the slips off the printer and hand them to me. Neither of us really understood this request, and we joked about it each round as he handed them to me. As far as actually passing them out: Some rounds, three judges grabbed slips. Some rounds no one was ready, so I handled them solo. When I asked the HJ to pass out slips, he griped, and I wondered if I’d done something wrong.
My frustrations built throughout the day, but after some serious debriefing with the HJ, I have a much better understanding of this system. He carefully explained the reasoning behind each of his decisions as well as where he felt like he could improve his implementation of the process. After that conversation I am eager to try it again. Moral of the story: If you don't understand something, don't be afraid to ask. Sometimes veteran HJs don't realize that a new person will need a more detailed explanation.
Backup? Amir and Niko call me to the table during combat. The board state clearly shows declared attackers, however both players insist that an activated Gideon should have a +1/+1 counter on it from Nissa's second ability. My initial thought was, 'easy fix, here's your counter,' but I knew that such a partial fix is not supported by policy. The idea of a backup came to me next - just go back, add the counter, and then redeclare the attackers. I asked the players to wait, and sought the HJ's approval. When I explained what I wanted to do, he quickly authorized me to do it. I returned to the table and explained the fix to both players, who happily started to back things up on the board. I stopped them so that we could walk back through it step-by-step when they began telling me all the things that had happened at the beginning of combat including flipping a morphed Den Protector and sacrificing a creature to an Evolutionary Leap. I instantly realized that this backup signaled an imminent disaster. I returned to the HJ and relayed that due to additional information from the players I no longer wished to perform the backup. He again supported my decision. I informed the players that too much had happened to back up, so the board state would remain as it was. I did issue a GRV and a FtMGS for the missed counter and the game resumed. The moral of the story: No matter how much you may want to 'fix' the game state, sometimes that's not possible. And my judge lesson: Ask better questions before reaching a conclusion.
My first appeal. Nick called me to the table and stated that he was controlling Avery's turn due to Emrakul's ability. He wanted to cast a Spell Queller and use its triggered ability to target itself. I picked up the Spell Queller and read it just to be sure of how the ability's wording read, then I explained that he would not be able to do that. Since it is a triggered ability, it would not trigger until after the Spell Queller resolves and enters the battlefield, thus at that time Spell Queller would no longer be a spell on the stack and therefore not a legal target for the triggered ability. It seemed to me to be a relatively straightforward call, so my surprise must have been evident when Nick politely appealed. I marched with purpose to the HJ, who busily conversed with another judge. I remembered my training and opted to interrupt since appeals are time sensitive. When I approached he said, "You look like you have an appeal." I replied affirmatively and explained the situation as we walked to the table. The HJ introduced himself to the players and confirmed my ruling, which they readily accepted. The whole thing felt rather anticlimactic to me. An appeal of a straightforward ruling with no issues and happy players. Well, I guess that's how it's supposed to go.
Randomizing the last round. As we approached the end of the Swiss rounds, I overheard the TO ask the SK if she knew how to randomize the final round of Swiss. My ears perked up as this made no sense to me. Wouldn't randomizing the last round effectively destroy the standings? Afraid to ask, I watched and waited as the round began. Since my role cutting slips kept me at the scorer's table, I observed as a judge went through the pairings and marked relevant matches, and then assigned judges to watch those tables. I finally realized that the pairings were not adjusted, just the seatings. Clearly intended to reduce the impact of players watching one another to see who plays and who draws, it seemed to add confusion to the situation as well. I can't say I particularly liked the idea, but I can understand its purpose, and I'll keep an open mind when I see it again.
Questionable call. As Amos and Nathan entered game 3, Nathan realized that he only had 59 cards and called a judge. After noting that they had matching sleeves, I quickly located the card in Amos's deck. Realizing that this situation called for a D/DLP penalty, but qualified for a downgrade, I approached the HJ to ask for the downgrade. The HJ approved it, but instructed me to give both players Warnings. It felt off to me because Nathan had not yet presented his deck when I was called, but since the HJ told me to do so, I did. The players were not pleased. After handling the situation with the players, I returned to the HJ and asked him to further explain his ruling to me since I didn't understand. He stated that his option reduced the likelihood of Amos waiting until he knew Nathan was missing a card to call a judge, thus trying to gain an advantage from the situation. It still felt off to me, so after chatting some more and talking to other judges, the HJ said that he probably should have ruled it differently. Also I should have been clearer about the fact that Nathan had not yet presented his deck when he called a judge. Lesson: If you believe that an error is occurring, speak up. Second lesson: Ask the HJ if you don't understand his decision. The ensuing discussion is really enlightening.
Group debrief. At the end of the day I sat down with the HJ for a debrief. I really appreciate him taking the time to talk with me about the event, even while the Top 8 played. He offered me a few simple pieces of advice such as moving faster, saying that I did well and he really didn't have much for me. Then one of the most senior judges from the event joined us and gave me his evaluation. Next the TO who is also a judge came by and said, "Can I get in on this?" Inwardly I laughed at the panel-style debrief and felt a little bit overwhelmed but also so grateful that so many judges want to help me improve. After a few minutes, just the TO and I were left alone and we talked a long time, with a few interruptions. Being our first time working together, we had a lot more than just the event to discuss, and we skimmed the surface of quite a few topics. My mind filled with so much more that I longed to cover, but our time ran out and we both needed to get home. While I left once again frustrated, I felt like I had a lot to think about.
In the week that followed this event, the HJ and I chatted a lot over the internet. In fact, we combed through the minutia and he answered every single question I asked. I learned so much about tournament operations and how things are done at a mid-sized event. While it comprised a bit of a tough day for me, I loved every minute of being on the floor and working with my fellow judges. I'd like to send an extra special thanks to my Head Judge for staffing me, teaching me, debriefing me, and as always having confidence in me. I look forward to my next event with him!
The day's start inspired hopes for great things. We started on time and the SK brought doughnuts and kolaches! He then demonstrated putting a kolache in the pocket of his judge shirt for easy access later making our whole team laugh. Such a great group of guys!
Finding a way to cover all the event's needs without the manpower to create true teams comprises one of the Head Judge's challenges. Our HJ opted to use the Taskmaster System. I had never encountered this system previously, and to be honest, I didn't like it. He assigned a judge to be in charge of each task, and that judge's responsibility included getting the task done by locating available judges to do it. While simply asking others to help made sense, in reality few were available and willing when the need arose. Since most of our team had little experience working together, we lacked both the personal chemistry and the understanding of one another’s roles to effectively employ this method. It felt awkward and unorganized to me.
An example: In my role as slips taskmaster, I needed to ensure the distribution of match slips at the start of each round. The SKs printed these a few minutes after each round began. At previous events, my SKs had used multi-print to produce slips with the pairings, so my expectation of earlier slips often led to me hanging around the paper cutter awaiting my slips. I likely could have waited until pairings posted, and then head to the judge station, however I did not want to appear late or unavailable when the time came to complete my task. Also, the HJ had asked another judge to take the slips off the printer and hand them to me. Neither of us really understood this request, and we joked about it each round as he handed them to me. As far as actually passing them out: Some rounds, three judges grabbed slips. Some rounds no one was ready, so I handled them solo. When I asked the HJ to pass out slips, he griped, and I wondered if I’d done something wrong.
My frustrations built throughout the day, but after some serious debriefing with the HJ, I have a much better understanding of this system. He carefully explained the reasoning behind each of his decisions as well as where he felt like he could improve his implementation of the process. After that conversation I am eager to try it again. Moral of the story: If you don't understand something, don't be afraid to ask. Sometimes veteran HJs don't realize that a new person will need a more detailed explanation.
Backup? Amir and Niko call me to the table during combat. The board state clearly shows declared attackers, however both players insist that an activated Gideon should have a +1/+1 counter on it from Nissa's second ability. My initial thought was, 'easy fix, here's your counter,' but I knew that such a partial fix is not supported by policy. The idea of a backup came to me next - just go back, add the counter, and then redeclare the attackers. I asked the players to wait, and sought the HJ's approval. When I explained what I wanted to do, he quickly authorized me to do it. I returned to the table and explained the fix to both players, who happily started to back things up on the board. I stopped them so that we could walk back through it step-by-step when they began telling me all the things that had happened at the beginning of combat including flipping a morphed Den Protector and sacrificing a creature to an Evolutionary Leap. I instantly realized that this backup signaled an imminent disaster. I returned to the HJ and relayed that due to additional information from the players I no longer wished to perform the backup. He again supported my decision. I informed the players that too much had happened to back up, so the board state would remain as it was. I did issue a GRV and a FtMGS for the missed counter and the game resumed. The moral of the story: No matter how much you may want to 'fix' the game state, sometimes that's not possible. And my judge lesson: Ask better questions before reaching a conclusion.
My first appeal. Nick called me to the table and stated that he was controlling Avery's turn due to Emrakul's ability. He wanted to cast a Spell Queller and use its triggered ability to target itself. I picked up the Spell Queller and read it just to be sure of how the ability's wording read, then I explained that he would not be able to do that. Since it is a triggered ability, it would not trigger until after the Spell Queller resolves and enters the battlefield, thus at that time Spell Queller would no longer be a spell on the stack and therefore not a legal target for the triggered ability. It seemed to me to be a relatively straightforward call, so my surprise must have been evident when Nick politely appealed. I marched with purpose to the HJ, who busily conversed with another judge. I remembered my training and opted to interrupt since appeals are time sensitive. When I approached he said, "You look like you have an appeal." I replied affirmatively and explained the situation as we walked to the table. The HJ introduced himself to the players and confirmed my ruling, which they readily accepted. The whole thing felt rather anticlimactic to me. An appeal of a straightforward ruling with no issues and happy players. Well, I guess that's how it's supposed to go.
Randomizing the last round. As we approached the end of the Swiss rounds, I overheard the TO ask the SK if she knew how to randomize the final round of Swiss. My ears perked up as this made no sense to me. Wouldn't randomizing the last round effectively destroy the standings? Afraid to ask, I watched and waited as the round began. Since my role cutting slips kept me at the scorer's table, I observed as a judge went through the pairings and marked relevant matches, and then assigned judges to watch those tables. I finally realized that the pairings were not adjusted, just the seatings. Clearly intended to reduce the impact of players watching one another to see who plays and who draws, it seemed to add confusion to the situation as well. I can't say I particularly liked the idea, but I can understand its purpose, and I'll keep an open mind when I see it again.
Questionable call. As Amos and Nathan entered game 3, Nathan realized that he only had 59 cards and called a judge. After noting that they had matching sleeves, I quickly located the card in Amos's deck. Realizing that this situation called for a D/DLP penalty, but qualified for a downgrade, I approached the HJ to ask for the downgrade. The HJ approved it, but instructed me to give both players Warnings. It felt off to me because Nathan had not yet presented his deck when I was called, but since the HJ told me to do so, I did. The players were not pleased. After handling the situation with the players, I returned to the HJ and asked him to further explain his ruling to me since I didn't understand. He stated that his option reduced the likelihood of Amos waiting until he knew Nathan was missing a card to call a judge, thus trying to gain an advantage from the situation. It still felt off to me, so after chatting some more and talking to other judges, the HJ said that he probably should have ruled it differently. Also I should have been clearer about the fact that Nathan had not yet presented his deck when he called a judge. Lesson: If you believe that an error is occurring, speak up. Second lesson: Ask the HJ if you don't understand his decision. The ensuing discussion is really enlightening.
Group debrief. At the end of the day I sat down with the HJ for a debrief. I really appreciate him taking the time to talk with me about the event, even while the Top 8 played. He offered me a few simple pieces of advice such as moving faster, saying that I did well and he really didn't have much for me. Then one of the most senior judges from the event joined us and gave me his evaluation. Next the TO who is also a judge came by and said, "Can I get in on this?" Inwardly I laughed at the panel-style debrief and felt a little bit overwhelmed but also so grateful that so many judges want to help me improve. After a few minutes, just the TO and I were left alone and we talked a long time, with a few interruptions. Being our first time working together, we had a lot more than just the event to discuss, and we skimmed the surface of quite a few topics. My mind filled with so much more that I longed to cover, but our time ran out and we both needed to get home. While I left once again frustrated, I felt like I had a lot to think about.
In the week that followed this event, the HJ and I chatted a lot over the internet. In fact, we combed through the minutia and he answered every single question I asked. I learned so much about tournament operations and how things are done at a mid-sized event. While it comprised a bit of a tough day for me, I loved every minute of being on the floor and working with my fellow judges. I'd like to send an extra special thanks to my Head Judge for staffing me, teaching me, debriefing me, and as always having confidence in me. I look forward to my next event with him!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)