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.

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.

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.

Attendance

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.

Staff

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

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.

Content

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.

Testing

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.

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.

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