Trials of a GPT

As a new-ish Magic judge, I've had lots of 'firsts' in the recent weeks. This past weekend, my latest first was 'Head Judging my first Competitive REL event solo.' (Yes, that sounds like one of those oddly specific sports statistics like 'batting average by right handed pitchers on a Tuesday in May.') What it actually means simplifies to this: it was the first time that I was the only judge at a Comp REL event. My previous Comp experiences I have always had the support of other judges around in case I needed someone to consult on a ruling. Being alone at an event is a bit scary as well as a huge responsibility. While I have plenty of mentors to contact and Slack to ask, neither of those solutions are instantaneous and neither allows for an in-depth exchange in a timely manner. My only 'partner in crime' for this event was my TO.

Our first mistake occurred a month before the event. We scheduled it on the same weekend as a large popular street festival. Luckily, the anticipated parking difficulties were less of a problem than we expected. I also went out and talked to the Boy Scouts selling parking in the lot next door and reminded them that our parking is reserved for customers only. They readily agreed to redirect festival-goers into their $10/space parking lot. (Yes, add this to the list of things I have done in a judge shirt!)

We heavily advertised the event since we know that GPTs are not a hugely popular format right now. They fill a nice niche for players who are looking for a chance to play competitively, but do not expect to win a PPTQ. We offered a pizza night the preceding Friday to get our players excited about the event as well.

The day of the event I opted to wear my 'formal' judge attire - the black button down shirt and black slacks - instead of the regional polo and jeans that I normally wear for FNM. I chose that outfit to increase the level of professionalism I exuded and stress the difference between a casual event and a competitive one. This distinction especially mattered to me since many of our local players have not only played with and against me, but many of them helped me learn to play as well. And let's be honest, how much respect does a judge really command without the look?

When I arrived at 11am, two players already waited outside the store. Two more arrived soon after. Since registration (and the store) weren't scheduled to open until 11:30, I greeted the players and let them know that the TO was en route. They seemed like a fun bunch, and I recognized a couple of them from previous events. At 11:20, the TO and I entered the store and started setting up. The players followed us inside and made themselves at home. They seemed to be old friends of the TO and laughed and joked loudly as I got things in place.

The TO fired up our Magic computer and set up the payment processing system while I rearranged the table numbers from our usual FNM setup. We chose the play area closest to the pairings board TV monitor we planned to use and set up space for the usual Pathfinder group at the back of the store, so that the two groups would not disturb one another.

By noon three more players had arrived, a boyfriend/girlfriend that are familiar players in the local scene, and one of our store regulars. I handled the seven registrations and set up the event in WER. I knew another of our players planned to attend, and the thought of having eight players sounded wonderful. Three rounds and done!

Then about ten minutes before start time, the TO brings me a scrap of paper with a name and DCI number. He informs me that this player called to say he's on his way and to go ahead and register him. I cannot seem to locate the player by name or DCI number despite trying multiple searches in WER. The TO simply inputs the name and number and enrolls the player anyway.

Then my local guy shows up at the same time as the player who called. I register my local and take payment from both of them. After double checking the MTR, I explain to TO that we will now be playing 5 rounds of swiss and then a cut to the Top 4. So much for a quick event!

Meanwhile the players seem to be having fun. All but the couple have gathered to chat while filling out decklists and it feels like a 'party' atmosphere in the room.

I pair the first round and get the pairings ready to post. I decide against assigning seats for the player meeting since it's a small crowd and they are happily settled at the first 2 tables anyway. I muddle my way through my 'Head Judge Announcement,' saying things I've heard other judges say many times, but it still sounds strange coming out of my mouth. I collect the decklists and tuck them into my clipboard as I am talking.

One of the players asks if they will be required to sit at assigned tables. Since I know one of my locals requires a fixed seat for a medical issue and I can see that a couple of the players may have trouble fitting into all of the seats, it seems to be a logical request. All of the players also seem comfortable with one another and all 9 are regular competitors in the local scene, although not all from the same stores. I respond by asking the players to use the first 2 tables and play 2 matches at each one, but that they can choose their own seats. They all seem happy with this arrangement.

As I conclude the announcement I realize that I forgot to use my notes . . . oh well, I covered everything, but maybe not in the clearest order. Things to improve for next time!

I post the round 1 pairings and the players eagerly get started. I watch some Magic, making note of who plays slowly, who seems to be newer, and other such things. Overall round 1 goes smoothly. Towards the end of the round, I take a moment to count and alphabetize the decklists. Since there are only 9, it's an easy task. None of them stand out in any way, so I opt to do a random table deckcheck at the start of round 2. In an attempt to minimize the time taken, I ask the TO to check a deck with me. He is not a certified Magic judge, but he has judged Regular REL stuff as well as other games. I assume that he can check off cards on a list. I also know that since there are 9 players, only 1 deckcheck is required to achieve the suggested 10%. This allows me to ask him to check a deck knowing that it may or may not be done with precision, but if he finds an issue, I can then investigate further.

At the start of Round 2, I prepare the pairings, print the slips, and use WER to select the random table. I don't want to miss the swoop, so I pull the decklists as I post the pairings and set them on our deckcheck counter. The TO then walks up with the decks. While I didn't ask him to pick them up, I note that he is trying to be helpful. We quickly go to work checking. He uses the traditional method, I use Polish. I realize that I should have talked to him about this beforehand, but know that adding the 3 minutes for shuffling will still be faster than me checking both decks myself. He finishes his deck in about 6 minutes, stuffs it back in the box, and returns it to the player while instructing him to shuffle. I think to myself that I should have been much more explicit about what I expected of him in this process. I finish my deck at the 8 minute mark. Not great time, but with the TO's interruptions, it's ok. I return the deck, let the players know that there were no issues and give them a 9 minute time extension. The players shuffle, present their decks, and begin their game. One of them turns to me and says, "Good thing you gave us time to shuffle, I hadn't even taken my deck out of the box when TO picked it up." I wanted so badly to facepalm right then . . .

Upon later reflection, I set myself up there by not being clear with TO about what I needed him to do as a part of this deck check. Since we have completed it with no issues, I decide to consider it done and not worry about it. Had there been a problem, I would not have assessed a penalty given the complete situation. For future events, I made a mental note that I need to do a better job of communicating with my staff.

Round 2 proceeds with no problems, but 1 match goes to time and ends 1-0-1. I note that one of those players also had a 1-1-1 draw at the end of turns in Round 1. While I had not observed slow play when I had been at their table, I do make a mental note to watch more closely for it.

A player asks for standings before Round 3, so I put them up on the screen while I prepare pairings and slips. After posting the pairings, my 2 players at 6 points decide to draw. They sign the slip 0-0-3 and one heads out to the street festival.

Near the end of the round only one match is still going. Several other players and I are watching Natalie and Andy's game when she asks me to come away from the table and answer a question for her. Andy controls a Void Winnower, a few other creatures, and has 1 card in hand (Ulamog). Natalie's board state is much stronger, but she is handcuffed by the void Winnower. Natalie and I walk away and she shows me an Altered Ego and asks, "If I cast this, can he not cast even cost spells?" After a brief discussion she explains that she wants to cast it for X=3, thus giving it an odd Converted Mana Cost. I explain to her that yes, it will copy Void Winnower's rules text. I also tell her that yes, she can cast it using an odd value for X. She then says, "Will it do what I think it will do?" with a huge grin on her face. I tell her that I don't know what she thinks it will do, but I nod slightly. I follow her back to the table expecting her opponent to protest. She casts it, copying the Void Winnower. Her opponent then tosses down the Ulamog in mock anger and all the players start laughing. It was the play of the day by far!

Round 4 opens with standings again and play begins uneventfully. I walk among the tables watching Magic when I observe this interaction: Allen casts a creature with a triggered ETB effect. Ned says, "In response I Ultimate Price your creature." Allen picks up the creature and moves to place it in the graveyard. I intervene and explain that casting a spell in response means that you are casting while the previous spell is still on the stack and has not yet resolved. Therefore, the creature is not yet on the battlefield and cannot be the target of Ultimate Price. I then incorrectly issued Ned a GPE-GRV Warning for casting the spell illegally. I should have just backed up to the point before he cast the spell, which would have only untapped his lands and changed nothing else. Then Ned says, "Ok. I want to let the creature resolve and then Ultimate Price it." Allen places the creature in the graveyard while Ned is retapping the lands and placing the Ultimate Price in his graveyard. I tell Allen that the creature will still resolve and enter the battlefield before it goes to the graveyard. Allen then asks, "So I get the trigger?" I say yes and walk them through the interaction since they both seem confused. I decide against issuing any penalties to Allen since Ned's incorrect and confused actions seem to be the root cause of the issue.

At the end of the round, one of the players tells me she wants to drop, so I drop her from the event. Then I pair the next round and pop the standings up on the screen. The players immediately erupt with cries of a problem. First of all, a player had marked the drop space on his slip and I had forgotten to drop him. Easy fix! Then they all insisted that a particular player had 3 too many match points, but everyone else's were correct. That seemed impossible. Someone suggested that he might have the bye for round 5 and I remembered vaguely that I had paired the round before pulling up the standings, but the player said, "No, I had the bye in Round 4. I wouldn't have it again." Turns out, he did have it again. So after dropping the player who dropped and adjusting for the bye, we had correct standings.

When we finally start round 5 my top two players decide to Intentional Draw into the Top 4. As the others begin the round, the player who called in his registration over the phone approaches me. He says, "My name's incorrect on the pairings sheet and I just noticed that my DCI number is wrong too." I ask him to write down his correct information for me, then he leaves to enjoy the street festival for the round. I consult TO, who apologizes for giving me incorrect information from the phone call. We then spend the remainder of the round deleting all the results from the event in WER, adding the correct player, dropping the doppelganger with the wrong DCI number, and re-entering the entire event including manually re-pairing each round. We finish with about 20 minutes remaining in the round.

Great news! The two matches are both concluding. I announce the Top 4 while 15 minute remain in round 5. Unfortunately one player has not returned from the street fair. The other players try to call/text him, but no one has his number. The other three remaining competitors say that they're not going to the GP so they don't mind conceding the byes to him if he is going, however they want to wait for him to return to discuss prize splitting. I tell them that play will start as soon as the previous round ends, with or without him, and they are all fine with that. He walks in as the clock hits 0:00. After a quick chat, the players decide to split the prize packs four ways, but two of them want to play for the title. The #2 and #3 seeds inform me that they would like to concede. I hand them each their prize packs, then place the 1st and 2nd place prize packs on the table for the top two to compete for. They quickly redistribute the packs into four equal piles and each take one.

I took a minute to update WER with this information as the two remaining players began their finals match. I munched on a slice of cold pizza and then joined the players at the table. The game proceeds slowly with both players building sizable board states. Neither is playing particularly slowly, they are just decks that ned time to develop. Then one player casts The Great Aurora. After it resolves, about 5 turns later, his opponent casts The Great Aurora as well. Both are also playing Seasons Past. It's a fascinating game to watch, but it's painfully slow for either player to make any progress toward winning.

A group of customers enters the store from the street festival. They ask about the game, so I try to explain it to them. I use a few cards and show them the basics. They try to watch the finals match, but quickly grow bored and leave. One of the players looks at me laughing and says, "This is probably the worst most boring game ever to show a new player." I agree.

After 90 minutes, Game 1 ends. The store closes. TO and I sit with the players watching Game 2. Yay untimed finals! Luckily the same player wins Game 2 and everyone is happy to go home!

Looking back on the event, we certainly messed up a lot of things. I cringed my way through debriefing this one with my judge mentor, but he followed each issue with the question, "What did you learn from it?" By reframing my mistakes as areas for improvement I realized that while the event may have been rough, I will be a much better judge for future events.

Things I learned:

• Before scheduling an event, check not only the store calendar, but the community calendar too.
• Be early - the players will be.
• Take time to ensure registration data (name/DCI) is accurate. It's a lot faster than fixing it later.
• Use your notes for the HJ announcement.
• If you ask a non-judge to help, be very specific about what you need them to do.
• Check the slips for drops when entering results.
• Post standings before you pair the next round.
• When you make a mistake as a judge, it's ok to fix it, and let the players know.
• Every mistake is an opportunity to improve for next time.

Note: This event took place on May 22, 2016.  It just took me a few weeks to get the blog finished and posted.

Perspectives

When learning to do something new, I like to learn it right. Sometimes that's easy - read the rules and follow them. However, many things are an art and require actual practice to develop skill in applying those rules correctly and consistently. The Magic judge program includes thousands of individuals all over the world in a wide variety of situations all applying the same set of standards to a diverse set of players. Even judges who are highly skilled often come to different conclusions or have variance in their application of fixes.

Last weekend at Grand Prix Columbus I had the opportunity to serve on a staff of talented judges and witness the art of judging first hand. Let me give you a few examples of the things I saw . . .

Note: Players' names are fictional. Active player is the player whose name begins with an A. The nonactive player's name begins with an N.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Andrew cast Green Sun's Zenith, searched for a creature and put it onto the battlefield, then passed turn. On his next turn his Sylvan Library trigger resolved and he chose to put two cards back on top of his library. Next he went to declare attackers and noticed the Green Sun's Zenith still sitting on the battlefield. He called a judge who determined that it was accidentally left there instead of being shuffled back into his library. The fix that made sense at that point was to shuffle it back into the random portion of the library (thus not shuffling the 2 cards placed on top by the Sylvan Library). After the call, the judges involved discussed that they could have also opted to move Green Sun's Zenith to the graveyard. While neither is specifically supported by policy, the shuffle fix produces a closer approximation of the actual correct game state.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

While watching a Top 8 match in a Friday afternoon grinder between Al and Ned, Al complains that Ned is playing slowly. I watch Ned who has 2 cards in hand as he flips them back and forth apparently thinking. A quick scan of the game reveals that he has only enough mana available to cast 1 of them. The board state is cluttered, but not necessarily complicated. I note that there are approximately 10 minutes left in the round. After Ned makes his play casting 1 of the creatures I say, "I will need you to play faster." Al plays quickly and on Ned's next turn he once again fiddles with his cards, rearranges his lands, and after I prompt him to play faster finally plays both cards. On Ned's next turn he draws a plains which he looks at, puts down, picks up, puts down, picks up . . . I counted to 15 in my head and then interrupted to give the Slow Play Warning.

While writing on the slip, I overhear the next turn. Al draws for turn then plays a Silvergill Adept revealing a Cursecatcher. He says, "Draw?" and Ned says, "ok." Al draws a card. Next he casts another Silvergill Adept (the card he just drew) again revealing the Cursecatcher. He says, "Draw?" and Ned says, "Ok." Then Ned says, "Ooops he shouldn't have drawn those cards JUDGE!" I look at the game and Ned points to his Spirit of the Labyrinth.

After considering the situation I determined that it should be a GPE-GRV for Al and a GPE-FtMGS for Ned. However I was unsure on whether or not to back up. Al only had 2 cards in hand, the Cursecatcher (known to all) and the card drawn off the last Silvergill Adept. I opted to confer with another judge before proceeding. I let the players know, then I located a nearby L2 and asked him to assist me. He came to the table and spoke to the players walking through the situation. While he was doing that, another judge asked me a question and momentarily distracted me. Then L2 asked me to step away from the table with him. We agreed on the call, but he said that he was not comfortable with the backup either.

He wanted to confer with our L3 team lead so we sought him out. L3 appeared to have his hands full with several issues, but he finished what he was doing and listened as L2 and I explained our situation. L3 then told us that it should be ruled a HCE for Al and still FtMGS for Ned. Using the HCE fix Al would reveal the unknown card from his deck and Ned would select it to be shuffled back into Al's library. He then asked if I was comfortable delivering the ruling and when I said I was he sent me back to the table to handle the situation.

Later that evening at Eric Levine's policy seminar on Hidden Card Errors, I became sure that this was in fact not an HCE. I explained the situation to Eric, who agreed that is should have been a GRV.

The next day I sought out L3 and asked him about it. As we went over the story again the disparity became clear. He did not realize that Ned had confirmed Al's draws. In our haste to explain the situation to him, L2 and I had not articulated that point well and that led to the odd ruling.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

During the main event in a round 4 match, Abe said "Move to cleanup step." Nell said "Ok." Abe had 8 cards in hand, so he discarded a Force of Will. Nell stopped him saying, "Whoa, hang on. Before you discard, activate Stoneforge Mystic and Aether Vial." Abe called for a judge, who ruled that Nell had not agreed to move past his priority in end step. The Head Judge who heard the appeal agreed that saying 'ok' is simply an acknowledgment of the proposal, not an acceptance of it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

While working the Chris Rush Memorial Sealed side event, our event's L2 took a judge call from the main event. When he returned, I asked him what happened and he told the following story: Starting Game 2 a player presented a 60 card deck to his opponent, but had 16 cards in his sideboard due to the fact that he normally runs 61 in his main board. He noticed before drawing his opening hand and called a judge on himself. At this point L2 asked me if I knew the ruling. I said it's a Game loss, but there is a downgrade to a Warning option. He said that's correct, so he consulted a Head Judge of the main event. In this case, the HJ decided to issue the GL. L2 and I discussed it a bit more and neither of us could understand why the HJ made the decision not to downgrade. Seeing that HJ was nearby and available, I sent L2 over to ask him. The answer: "I probably should have downgraded."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Sunday a player in the main event had a Windswept Heath in play. He said, "Fetch" while picking it up and touching it to his graveyard. Then, realizing that he was at 1 life, said, "Oh wait, nevermind." His opponent called a judge. The floor judge ruled that he did in fact fetch and was required to do so and lose the game. Unfortunately, I didn't hear the result of the appeal.


My takeaway from the weekend was that no matter how exact we think the rules are, there will always be situations that require using our judgment - we are judges after all. Being a strong judge doesn't mean never being wrong, it means understanding the rules, applying them to the best of our ability, and being willing to trust ourselves to handle the tough situations as best we can. We each add unique experiences and ideals to the program and those can be seen in the choices and rulings we make. The convergence of those perspectives constitutes the body of judge wisdom we all draw upon.

What Judges Do

Iron sharpens iron, So one man sharpens another.
-Proverbs 27:17 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

Last night I had a long chat with a good judge friend. I went to bed with my mind simmering and full of ideas. I awoke still ruminating on the things he said. Even now, I cannot clear my mind of his comments, or focus on another piece of writing. The ideas are too fresh, and too poignant. 

So after dinner, family time, and DDR, he got right down to business by asking about my recent L2P exam. We went to the computer and walked through each question whether I answered correctly or not. He explained my mistakes, corrected my misunderstandings, and showed me strategies for working things out. What he did not do was offer underserved praise or sugar-coat my mistakes. When we finished, I felt defeated yet stronger than I had been before. My weaknesses had been exposed, but I possessed the tools to correct them. 

We then left the computer and headed for the living room where he motioned me to sit on the couch while he pulled something from his bag. Around this time in the evening we often play Magic, so I was hoping for legacy decks. Instead he sat down and opened his small black judge notebook. "We still haven't talked about your review." Now clearly I was confused again because I thought a review was a dry document keyed into a clunky interface by a judge after an event.

His 'review' involved a lengthy conversation. He asked me about the weekend, walked me through several situations he observed, and took into account my self-observations. We talked about my roles each day, who I worked with, what I learned from each person, and how I could apply those techniques. He followed up on several things that he had noted asking how I had resolved situations later. He even sought my feedback on his performance. Interestingly, I think he was evaluating my ability to evaluate other judges. The level of depth surprised me in both his notes and his questions. He knew how to help me see my own strengths and weaknesses.

Our conversation then turned to my upcoming L2 exam. He asked about my preparations, my next events, and my testing plans. He didn't let me get away with muddled answers and he probed for details when I didn't readily admit them. For most of the conversation, he pressed hard for me to select a test date and make it happen. As we wrapped things up, he added that readiness is a mental state and not to let him push me into testing before I'm ready. By the way he said it, I suspect that he thinks I'm ready, but the readiness from within is the only thing that matters. That solidified a judge lesson: Trust Yourself.

I'm currently re-reading Ender's Game (a personal favorite!), and the line that came to mind is "There is no authority but excellence." In the judge program competence abounds and a great many judges run quality events, but true excellence born of an intolerance for anything less occurs only sporadically. I respect this particular judge not only for his excellence, but for the excellence he brings out in me. I strive to do a better job because he knows I can. I also know that no matter how I preform I'll be called upon to answer for it later, and I'd much rather have the conversation that follows doing well.

Like so many judge interactions, there is no judgment - just honest evaluation. As my mind drifts back over times with my judge friends, lots more stories come to mind:

• Getting daggered in Slack while preparing for my L1.
• Driving 10 hours to Albuquerque while Brian and Antonio loudly debated judge scenarios in the back seat.
• Jim showing me how to prepare sealed product for distribution on my first day on the floor.
• Countless hours on hangouts with Josh as he answers my never-ending questions.
• Staying up past midnight going through Judge Box scenarios with Adena.
• Phone calls with Carter to discuss the philosophies behind the rules.
• Sitting in the airport with Brian, Zac, Tasha, and a bunch of players sharing our best judge calls of the weekend while waiting on a delayed flight home from Columbus.

The only obvious conclusion here is that judges like helping each other get better. Unlike so many places in life where people compete to hold one another down and getting to the top is exclusive, the judge program is the opposite. Judges sharpen one another - it's what they do.