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.
No comments:
Post a Comment