-Joe Wiesenberg, Feedbag #2: Tips of New Judges, The Feedback Loop
This past weekend I attended Dreamhack in Austin and worked as a part of the judge staff running Magic events. In this role I ended up learning many things, but the most poignant lessons involved mentoring.
On Friday a local judge, Spin Rodriguez, took and passed his L1 test. As a judge who had been certified for less than a month, I hardly qualified as a mentor; however in that month I had handled some very busy and complex FNMs, floor judged a PPTQ, attended a regional judge conference, and worked a Grand Prix. I was also studying for my L2 exam and working with several judges who had mentored me. So as strange as it seemed, I was able to pass along a few things I learned and hopefully make his introduction to the judge program a little bit smoother.
Our staff also included John Carter, an L3 from Seattle. Carter, as he prefers to be addressed, has worked for Wizards, head judged Grands Prix, invented new formats, and much more. The opportunity to work closely with a Hall of Fame judge is pretty rare, therefore I was excited (and a bit nervous) for the opportunity.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Saturday, Carter told me to study state-based actions that he wanted to talk about them on Sunday. So Saturday night, after working the floor all day and getting to bed around midnight, I pulled out my phone and read (and re-read) the SBA section. I quizzed myself and recited the rules out loud so that I would be completely prepared.
The next morning the staff reported 2 hours before our first event started, so Carter called me and Spin over and sat us in chairs facing him. While I felt a little bit like a nervous middle schooler at a parent teacher conference, I also felt good about my knowledge and ready for the usual judge-style grilling. Then Carter turns to me as says, "Since you are working on your L2, part of your role will be mentoring new judges. I want to hear you work with Spin on SBAs." Wait! What! That's not the questions I studied for! I felt a wave of terror course through my body and I briefly contemplated hiding under a nearby skirted table. I wanted to scream, 'you were supposed to be the one asking the questions! I only studied the answers!' Internally my fear, frustration, and anxiety threatened to overwhelm me, but I knew that the judge program relies on individuals who can preform under pressure so I suppressed the panic, took a deep breath, and turned to Spin. I started to walk him through the basic concepts of SBAs roughly following how the CR is written. I paid careful attention to his answers attempting to get a gauge on his understanding. It quickly became clear that Spin had a good grasp of SBAs and how they functioned, but his explanations lacked the detail and precision that higher level judges often demand. I felt like I handled the situation well with Carter interjecting as needed to ask the really good questions like, "Why are SBAs checked at those times?" Once we had completed a review of the basic SBA rules, then Carter hit me with, "Can you explain the philosophy behind state-based actions?" Again, not in the CR! Luckily with a bit of quick thought I correctly articulated the 'janitor' concept. I was quite shocked when Carter confirmed my correctness, and breathed a sigh of relief. Even as our discussion wrapped up my heart continued to race.
My takeaway from the conversation centered not on the mechanics of state-based actions, but on the importance of understanding the philosophy behind them. That subtle shift in my study tactics has proven to be the difference between frustration over the minute details and a deeper understanding of the concepts at hand.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Friday I seated my first ever (in my short judging career) draft. I received my list of players, counted and stacked my product, checked our assigned table number, collected my players and walked them over. I carefully seated each player going around in a circle, went through my zone draft spiel, then watched as they popped the first pack and began passing. After collecting trash and supervising all 3 packs, I left them alone to build their decks. Carter called me over to where he was working and informed me that we usually seat drafts in a clockwise fashion. (Note about me: I struggle with spatial concepts like left/right, clockwise/counterclockwise, etc.) I must have looked really lost, because he detailed that clockwise means it goes around in a circle like a clock. I still had no idea what he was talking about. I didn't want to appear stupid, but he had inadvertently found a real challenge for me. I struggled to wrap my mind around what he was saying. A flicker of understanding finally emerged and I questioned him about where I might find that information. He explained that many things, such as how to seat a draft, aren't actually written, but instead are best practices passed down from one judge to another.
One one hand, how frustrating! The things I need to learn aren't available to me in a form that I can consume without assistance. I hate appearing poorly in front of judges I am working with and I like to do everything 'right.' Not knowing what to do (and not being able to look it up) makes that pretty much impossible! On the other hand, I really enjoy working with my judge mentors. The lessons that they pass down to me each carry more than just information, they provide a framework for understanding the intangibles of judging. So after getting over being annoyed, I appreciated Carter helping me out with how to seat a draft.
On Sunday, I seated another draft. I stood behind each chair announced the player's name, then moved clockwise around the table seating each one. I felt pretty proud of myself as I took my place at the end of the table, standing between players 4 and 5. (The rest of that draft turned out to be a disaster. Read about it here.) Later that evening, Carter asked me about how I seated them. I explained what I had done and he added that it's customary to seat player 1 next to the judge and then go around the table such that players 4 and 5 are at the far end. *sigh* So much to learn. I again thanked him for his assistance and made a mental note to be more observant of these details when I work with other judges.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sunday morning, I was selected to Head Judge a Competitive REL event for the first time in my judging career. Spin acted as my floor judge. Before the event I reminded him that since this is Comp REL, we don't intervene unless we plan to issue a penalty or the players are playing in a way which is unclear. Due to the number of very new players we had been working with in our Regular REL events, this would constitute a drastic change from how we had been judging throughout the weekend.
In the middle of the first round Spin asks me to step away from the table with him. He explains that a creature with vigilance is attacking each turn and being tapped each time. I ask him what he did about it, and he replied, "Nothing. You said not to intervene except to give a penalty." I explained that it's a Game Rules Violation and should carry a penalty of a Warning. "Oh. I didn't think a warning was a penalty." I quickly realized that as a new L1 his understanding of the IPG had not yet developed very much. While telling him that a Warning is a formal penalty that is issued and recorded, we were interrupted by a player in another match calling for a judge.
We went to the table together and the player explained that he had accidentally seen the 2nd card in his library while drawing a card. Both players agreed that the card sitting on top of the library was the card that he should draw and that the second card had been inadvertently seen. I followed the steps in my head: infraction, penalty, fix. I told the player, a grinder type who demonstrated familiarity with the situation, he would get a GPE-LEC penalty. I then walked him through the fix by placing the top card in his hand, and shuffling the unknown portion of his library. Both players agreed that no cards were legally known, so he shuffled the entire thing and presented it for the opponent to cut. I picked up their match slip, flipped it over to the back and demonstrated to Spin how to record a penalty.
Then Spin and I left the table together. The interruption had provided an excellent opportunity for him to see issuing a penalty from the judge perspective. We went to the table where the vigilance creature had been tapping to attack, but unfortunately it was no longer on the battlefield.
The incident overall taught me that I needed to be more careful talking to newer judges. Details like that a Warning is an actual penalty, not just a simple verbal thing require a much better explanation from me. Thinking about it, the word warning carries a pretty clear meaning in the English language and it carries a different and much more specific meaning in the IPG. Since Spin's previous experience was solely at Regular REL events, he wouldn't have known that. I realized that learning to be a good mentor might be as important of a skill as delivering a correct ruling.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The weekend ended as all good judging weekends should, with me and Spin in a bar having a drink and debriefing. We talked about rules, and the draft, and events we hope to work together at in the future. It reminded me of sitting in a bar in Albuquerque a few weeks ago with Carter when he asked me if I had any feedback about that weekend. That conversation began a wonderful friendship and mentorship and I hoped that this conversation would as well. Spin and I have plans for a game of Judge tower when he's in town in a few weeks!
 |
| Carter and I |
No comments:
Post a Comment