Trial By Fire

The Judge Program is not robust enough to have clear operational manuals on things. There's a strong oral and observational tradition for teaching these tasks.    - Riki Hayashi

In the judge program, I've been given a lot of amazing opportunities. In almost every case, those opportunities have come as a surprise to me.  On Wednesday, SCG Open Head Judge Steven Briggs posted the schedule for the weekend. I opened it and discovered that my name appeared as a team lead.

Now to be fair, I've been working towards my Team Lead Certification (TLC), but the most recent feedback I had received is that I lacked the experience to team lead. With that in mind, I had opted to apply to a few more GPs and request Main Event assignments to get in some reps on the floor. I had mentally put the TLC in the 'later' category and moved on to other pursuits. Suddenly TLC popped back to the forefront in a most unexpected way.

I scanned the rest of the list and noted the other team leads. Jason Daniels, a guy who gave me a bit of advice that nudged me into believing I could become a judge and who has challenged me to improve every time we've worked together. John Trout, another well-known, quality local judge with a ton of experience. Josh McCurley, my judge mentor. The guy who guided me through my rocky path into the judge program and has talked me off a few ledges. He's been with me every step of this journey and I couldn't be here without him. Joe Klopchic, who spent several hours chatting with me after my last Open and gave me my first real evaluation as a judge. David Hibbs, my RC, and a person for whom I have the deepest level of respect. David's quiet strength and exceptional level of personal integrity produce a trustworthy leader whose presence shapes an event.

Clearly my name appeared on the incorrect line. I read it again. I refreshed the page. Nope. Still there. I couldn't make sense of it for a minute. Why would they make me a team lead? I looked at the other judges on the list and noted quite a few with more experience than me. Baffled, I continued scanning the document.

In an even more bizarre twist, the word printed above my name: Deck Checks. First off, I've never liked doing a deck check. My hands are awkward and clumsy, and my inexperience with the game of Magic means I rarely recognize cards by name or art. For me deckchecking is a painful, tedious process likely to produce migraine headaches. Equipped with an updated contact lens prescription, I hoped at least the headaches would not interfere with this new assignment.

I successfully avoided deckcheks for most of my early judge career, however, noting that serving on each team comprised a TLC requirement, I had resigned myself to learning deckchecks and requested a day of them at GP Louisville. That one day encompassed my entire deckchecking experience. While it was a good day, I spent it desperately trying to speed up my times and not really paying as much attention to the logistics of the team as a whole.

After the initial panic subsided, I realized that I had a lot of work to do. I reread Briggs' e-mail twice. I noted his preferences and foci and considered my next steps. His clearly detailed expectations set a tone of attention to detail and I immediately felt more comfortable knowing what would be expected of me. I set up a facebook chat group with my team and introduced myself to them. I called a judge friend and asked for some tips on deckchecks team leading. I reread the IPG sections on D/DLP and Marked Cards. I pulled out my judge notebook and jotted down a quick break schedule for my team. I messaged Briggs with a few questions about his specific preferences for deckchecks.

After my kids went to bed, I sat down to do some more serious research. I checked out the JudgeApps and facebook profiles of each of my team members. I found that I had an L2 who was getting back into big events and 3 L1s with relatively little large event experience. All seemed to be competent judges who might need some guidance on the logistical aspects of our team's role in the event as a whole. Only one of them had I previously worked with. Those observations shaped my approach to leading my team.

The next day, I called a senior judge and we talked for several hours. I had him walk me through the minutiae of deckchecks one detail at a time. From, "Do I have to ask the scorekeeper for a list of random tables or do they normally do that on their own?" to "What does 'pulling day 2 lists' mean?" Thank goodness for his patience while I asked him about how to organize lists, how many checks to do, how to pair my guys, what to say in my team meeting, and everything else. I frantically wrote seven notebook pages of really important notes like, "keep lists in box." He added the details that demonstrate finesse to my rudimentary understanding of the deckchecks process as well as generally educating me on the basic concepts. I ended that conversation feeling completely out of my league and overwhelmed. He sensed my panic and told me that when a situation comes up all I need to do is: Stop. Breathe. Ask what makes sense.  His confidence in me may have been the only confidence at that point.

That evening I messaged Josh McCurley, my longtime judge mentor and anchor. He also expressed confidence in me and added more information and tips. I had no idea that coverage would want to see decklists or that I'd also be asked to do targeted checks by various folks. I especially love that he always makes time for my neurotic questions and never tires of helping me out. I fell asleep that night with so many ideas swimming in my head.

On Friday Briggs sent out more information to the team leads. The fact that we didn't have a TL meeting added to my fears. I tried to assimilate everything I knew into a plan that made sense, but it wouldn't come together in my head. Joe and Emily Klopchic arrived in the afternoon and Joe sat down with me and went over things again. His wisdom has been invaluable to me on several occasions now. His patient manner helped calm me down a bit and his confidence in me surprised me, but it felt good to know someone of his quality believed in me.

That evening Emily and I went out to dinner. I confided my fears to her and she replied, "They didn't make you a team lead because they think you'll be perfect. They made you a team lead because they think you can handle it when things get [messed] up." Somehow those words changed my thinking. I went to bed Friday night feeling good.

During the night I slept poorly, whether it be due to nerves or excitement is debatable, but either way I couldn't seem to drift off. I also messaged with one of my team members whose bus delayed in another state. His updates made it clear that we'd be starting the day without him. My groggy 3am brain automatically shifted the pieces into place for how I could utilize his partner to help organize lists during round 1 with me while I sent the other pair on a mid-round check and then reevaluate once he arrived. I drifted back to sleep with logistics dancing in my head.

The morning brought an early start. A hot shower reduced the sharp pain from inflamed plantar fasciitis and my sore lower back. Breakfast consisted of a children's Tylenol and a Gatorade. I know, I've heard all the 'take care of yourself' mantras. I rarely use Tylenol, but I could barely walk, so I took one. The Gatorade is a part of my hydration plan for the event. With two more Gatorades tucked in my judge bag, we hit the road right on time.

We arrived in plenty of time to don our Star City blue judge shirts, greet our friends, and start the day. Joe, who is a saint, brought me some hot chocolate from Starbucks. As I prepared for judging, my routine calmed the butterflies in my stomach. I clipped on my nametag, filled my pocket with two judge pens, a notebook, a Sharpie, lip balm, and my token, and tucked in my shirt. Seeing the team around me doing likewise, a sense of calm descended on me. My team members gravitated to me and I welcomed them.

Briggs began the day with a hearty greeting. He then asked team leads who they were missing and I let him know about our stranded traveler. Following the initial announcements I met with my team and detailed our day's tasks and plans to them. They seemed eager and on top of things. Relief filled me as instinct kicked in and things fell into place. I bounced back and forth between coordinating with other team leads and communicating with my team. Hibbs, Nate Hurley, and I put together a plan to collect decklists and distribute goodies at the start of the day. I found the decklist box and prepared it for use. I checked in with scorekeeper Patrick Vorbroker. Each task I mentally ticked off my list strengthened my confidence.

As the event began, each team distributed and collected as assigned. I rounded up the decklists and my team set to work turning the piles into an organized, alphabetized system. We got that round 1 mid-round deckcheck in, but missed our goal of having all the lists done by the end of the first round. As my partner swooped round 2, I noted that O/P was the only remaining pile. After our round 2 checks, we knocked it out. Briggs advised me to check if the owners of the four missing decklists had dropped. Before I even had a chance to do so, one of my team members reported that he'd checked, and in fact all four had dropped. We threw in a targeted check, and still had time to hit the floor to help with end of round.

I sent my partner on a round 3 break, and the other pair in round 4. I also had one of them pick up Starbucks for our team. Knowing that we were down a person and one of them had driven in early in the morning, the little treat seemed the obvious choice to boost morale. (And if you know me, you will be aware of my hot chocolate addiction.) I managed to take some time off the floor in round 5 myself and used the time to meet with another judge about an unrelated project.

Our checks improved as the day went on and I saw each of my team members improving. I made some brief notes for use in later review writing. I issued a few D/DLP penalties and Briggs corrected me for how I noted them on the slips. I really appreciate him taking the time to point out an error to me and give me the opportunity to fix it during the day. It reminded me to provide real-time feedback to other judges as well.

I took a moment to sit down with Emma, the day 2 deckchecks lead to discuss the handoff. I let her know of my plan to pull the lists before leaving. In round 8 we pulled the first batch and in 9 we pulled more after our checks were completed. I noted the team behind me sorting match slips and used those to pull even more lists. Balancing the stage's requests for day 2 lists to copy with pulling proved to be an exciting challenge. My team worked through the debrief and had almost all the lists done by the time our day ended. Joe helped me pull the final few before we left. I felt good about handing off the lists with day 2 ready to go.

The day itself felt rather anti-climactic. Judges nailed their assignments, players received first class treatment, and we all had a blast. Looking back, I felt like there were several times where someone asked me to do a task, and I simply let them know the answer or that it had been completed. While I didn't really know I was supposed to do it, some combination of instinct and preparations just led me to doing things that needed done.  I looked around at the folks in blue shirts and realized that while many of them have more experience than me, I can in fact work alongside them and add value to the event.

How to Write a Tournament Report

Tournament Report encompass a wide variety of offerings. While I believe that reports are as individual as the tournaments they describe, I'm willing to share my personal formula for composing them. Please note the that voice of the writer is a crucial component in any written work.

1. Work a Tournament
Yes, I know this is obvious, but if you plan to write a tournament report afterwards, then you need to work your tournament more intentionally. Pay attention to details (and write them down!) so that when you start composing your report, they won't slip your mind. Make note of what you did, but also how you felt about it or how it impacted you. Also, make a note of what you didn't do, but wish you had. If someone says something particularly poignant, jot it down - being able to use exact words makes your writing come alive, but no one wants to be misquoted. Take the time to debrief with other judges after the event and add their reflections as well.

2. Find an Angle
If you had to summarize your day in 1 sentence, what would it be? What is the most important lesson you learned? The funniest thing that happened? The weirdest ruling? What about your day can judges learn from? What impact can your experience have on others? Pick something that stands out and write about that.

3. Tell a Story
Imagine telling a friend about your event. Start at the beginning, add details, build up to the climax, end with a conclusion. Some subplots add value, but focus on the most significant incidents. Go somewhere with what you say.

4. Curate the Details
Random facts in a vacuum are boring. Omit the irrelevant. Select only facts that will allow the reader to clearly visualize your story and support your message. Adding diagrams, dialogue, photos, or other primary sources helps bring your narrative to life.

5. End with Action
How is your report relevant to your reader? Should they try a technique or implement an idea? Can they improve on something you tried? Leave them deep in thought pondering an idea you suggested or excited to execute a new strategy at their next event.

6. Repeat
Practice makes perfect . . .
(Ok, maybe not perfect, but the more you write the better your tournament reports will become, and the more other judges can learn from them. I'm looking forward to reading your next tournament report!)

Judging with Your Spouse: Role Reversal

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.

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.

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

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!