TLTP Step 2: The practical exam.
This article is only about the Step 2 of the TLTP certification. If you want to read all the general information of the TLTP, about Step 1 – Interview, the thresholds… you will find everything you need in this article.
After passing the interview, the candidate has demonstrated theoretical knowledge and understanding of policy and interaction with judges on the floor of a Grand Prix.
The next step is a practical exam where the candidate should demonstrate ability to lead a team in real life situations.
The candidate will be scheduled to lead a team on day 2 of a GP, with a Shadow L3 in their team and a dedicated burgundy Head or Appeals judge, both focused on evaluating the candidate’s performance.
Process of the Step 2 – TLTP practice exam
A candidate who passed the Step 1 – TLTP Interview may apply for the Step 2 (which is functionally identical to the former TLC Test). The evaluation of the candidate on Day 2 of a Grand Prix will be performed by both:
An Evaluating Burgundy Judge: Can be any judge from the Grand Prix Head Judge group operating as Head Judge or Appeals Judge on the day 2 of a Grand Prix; the current list of those judges can be found on JudgeApps. Each HJ or AJ can only evaluate 1 candidate at a time as full dedication is expected for this process. In an event with multiple Head/Appeals Judges, each of them can evaluate a different candidate. Each candidate must be assigned to a specific Burgundy Judge before the start of the day.
A Shadow Level 3 Judge: Any Level 3 judge can perform this role. This Level 3 judge must be on the team the candidate is leading. The Shadow Level 3 Judge is not expected to mentor the candidate during the evaluation, but is encouraged to provide feedback and mentoring afterwards. They should not take over leading the team, nor should they show too much initiative, steer the team’s actions or give too much unsolicited feedback during the day, as to give the TLC candidate a chance to show leadership and vision on their own merits. The Shadow Level 3 Judge should not set up any specific situations, but is encouraged to involve the candidate in challenging or unusual situations that happen to occur during the event. However, they are encouraged to be candid and honest with the candidate if they ask for feedback during the process. The Shadow Level 3 Judge must intervene and take the necessary actions to prevent serious damage to the tournament; if this happens, it probably means the candidate has failed the test. For example, if the Team Leader’s plan would result in pairings being posted sub-optimally, the Shadow Level 3 Judge should let this happen and observe how the Team Leader adjusts. If the Team Leader’s plan would result in no one being assigned to post pairings while the team is on break, the Shadow Level 3 Judge should intervene.
Having an experienced judge on a team who is not behaving as such may feel artificial and disadvantageous, but this is unavoidable in a real-life testing situation. This setup is intended to be beneficial for the candidate, and the candidate is encouraged to contact the Shadow Level 3 Judge in advance, and preferably have a face-to-face meeting on Saturday of the Grand Prix. It may help to regard the Shadow Level 3 Judge as an inexperienced, passive Level 2, who will not hinder the team but won’t actively contribute either, unless asked to by the candidate.
The team led by the candidate must have a specific task the candidate has to manage properly and it should be visible by the Head Judge. Paper, End of Round and Stage are recommended teams. Deck Checks is not recommended due to the low interaction with the Head Judge. “Float” teams such as Floor and Features are not recommended because they don’t have sufficient specific tasks. Logistics is not recommended due to its complexity in Limited Events and its lack of tasks in Constructed. The Head Judge is the ultimate authority to determine which team is valid.
At the end of the Swiss portion of the event, the Shadow Level 3 Judge must fill in the appropriate section of The Team-Lead-in-Training Position feedback form and then the Evaluating Burgundy Judge fills in the other section. A ready to print version of this document is also available online.
Using this form as a guide, the Evaluating Burgundy Judge has to decide if the candidate receives the Team Leader Certification. The Evaluating Burgundy Judge is encouraged to seek advice and additional information as needed.
The Evaluating Burgundy Judge must provide feedback to the candidate regardless of whether they obtain the certification. The Shadow Level 3 Judge is encouraged to join the feedback debriefing.
The contents of the Feedback Form should be uploaded in a special TLTP review on JudgeApps; if the candidate passes the test, the Evaluating Burgundy Judge grants the TLTP to the candidate.
Evaluation
The Evaluating Burgundy Judge is the ultimate authority to evaluate each quality, and they are the ultimate authority to decide whether the TLTP is granted. The following lines are intended to provide guidance and consistency on the evaluation, but reality is much wider than anything this guide can contain and a certain amount of subjectivity can’t be avoided. A candidate is expected to perform at least adequately in all of the following qualities to pass the Team Leader Certification Test. A candidate deficient at any of the skills has failed the Team Leader Certification Test, as has a candidate who scored underdeveloped at either Task Preparation or Success with the Team Tasks. If the candidate has a score of underdeveloped in up to two out of the other mentioned skills (as evaluated by the Evaluating Burgundy and/or the Shadow Level 3), they may still pass if compensated by at least 2 scores of very good or exceptional.
Each skill is rated on a 5-point scale:
Deficient: The candidate is completely lacking in understanding and execution of the evaluated area. The candidate did, or potentially could, damage the event.
Underdeveloped: The candidate is lacking, but not to the point of causing damage to the event. The candidate is below the expected threshold for a starting Team Leader.
Adequate: The candidate completes the tasks successfully, but with room for improvement. This is the lowest passing score.
Very Good: The candidate performs at the level of a starting Team Leader by showing control and understanding of the skill. The candidate can be trusted to lead without supervision.
Exceptional: The candidate surpasses the expectations and performs at the level of an experienced Team Leader. The candidate innovates and is an example for even experienced Team Leaders.
When the candidate shows different levels of performance for a given skill throughout the day, the evaluators are encouraged to use their discretion. A minor failure does not mean the candidate has failed if the overall level was adequate or very good, a single small improvement does not make one’s achievements exceptional. When in doubt, this usually is a sign of some underdeveloped elements and this should be reflected in the evaluation.
Task preparation
The ability to anticipate and prepare the required elements of the team’s task. This includes, but is not limited to; pairing board placement asking the necessary information from the Head Judge, Tournament Organizer, coverage, etc; or informing the judges of any procedure the team is responsible for, etc. A good Team Leader has prepared a plan and is flexible enough to deal with unexpected challenges.
Note: When sending an email to the Evaluating Burgundy Judge or the Shadow Level 3 Judge, the candidate should always copy (cc) the other person into the email as well, so both evaluators are aware of all communication that happened. The Head Judge of the GP should send an email to the candidate and the Shadow Level 3 Judge prior to the event to ensure they have each other’s contact information. If the Head Judge already knows who will be the Evaluating Burgundy Judge, they are encouraged to share that information. Emails sent to the Head Judge are assumed to be forwarded to and read by the Evaluating Burgundy Judge if this is not the Head Judge.
Deficient: The candidate starts working the event without prior preparation of the tasks and needs directions to get started, has no grasp of what the tasks encompass, ignores or forgets significant aspects of the assigned tasks.
Underdeveloped: The candidate fails to share their plans prior to the event, or the candidate’s plans are unrealistic or too vague and need serious adaptations during the day, or the candidate fails to execute the plans they prepared.
Adequate: The candidate prepares a plan, shares this with the HJ or Shadow Level 3 Judge before the day of the test, and executes the plan properly.
Very Good: The candidate prepares a plan, shares this with the HJ or Shadow Level 3 Judge before the day of the test, and executes the plan properly. During the day, the candidate is flexible enough to adjust the plan as needed, because of unforeseen events or options for improvement that become apparent. The candidate is able to reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of the plan and the execution thereof.
Exceptional: The candidate performs as is expected of an experienced Day 2 Team Leader, incorporating plans for multiple possible scenarios, contributing to the success of other teams.
Success with the team task
Success with team task is the ability to successfully manage the tasks assigned to the team and the ability to adjust to unexpected events during the day. Some tasks may be quantified, such as all result slips being on the tables before the round clock hits 40 minutes; others may be more qualitative, such as finding good spots for pairing boards.
Deficient: The Shadow Level 3 Judge needs to intervene to prevent serious damage to the tournament.
Underdeveloped: The candidate’s team performs their tasks poorly, or misses some important steps on the team’s task.
Adequate: The candidate’s team performs their tasks in an acceptable way, with only a few minor errors.
Very Good: The candidate performs the team task in a way that the Evaluating Burgundy Judge will trust the candidate (without any more training or experience) to lead a team without supervision.
Exceptional: The candidate performs the team task as is expected of an experienced Day 2 Team Leader, and inspires others to use their methods in the future.
Delegation
The ability to delegate parts of assignments to appropriate team members, entrusting them with power to make decisions, while staying in control and checking how the team members are performing.
Deficient: The candidate leaves the team unattended to do a task that could have been delegated to other team members, or assigns a task to someone unable to complete it.
Underdeveloped: The candidate exhausts themself by doing a lot of minor things that could have been delegated to any of the team members, the candidate delegates a task but gives insufficient instructions, or the candidate doesn’t monitor how the delegated tasks are being executed.
Adequate: The candidate delegates some tasks but micromanages or doesn’t notice that some elements are being performed suboptimally.
Very Good: The candidate strikes the right balance of instructing, delegating, and monitoring their team members, leading to constructive cooperation and a sense of fulfillment for the team members, while the tournament integrity is maintained.
Exceptional: The candidate strikes a perfect balance of instructing, delegating, and monitoring their team members, leading to constructive cooperation and a sense of fulfillment for the team members, while the tournament integrity and efficiency are maintained.
Event overview and feedback
The ability to see the global picture of the event, detect deficiencies and suggest improvements. A good Team Leader sees more than just their own team, they see how the other teams and judges are doing and where they may need help or advice.
Deficient: The candidate provides incorrect feedback about the tournament to the Head Judge or other team leaders.
Underdeveloped: The candidate provides no relevant feedback about the tournament to the Head Judge.
Adequate: The candidate informs the Head Judge about the status of their assignments, such as when all result slips have been distributed or how many deck checks have been performed, and is able to reflect on how good this performance is given the specific circumstances of this event.
Very Good: The candidate informs the Head Judge about the current status of their assignments, the prospects for future rounds, and brings up some useful information or accurate event observation, even if, for whatever reasons, the candidate’s suggestion can’t be implemented.
Exceptional: The candidate offers actual improvements for the tournament that can be directly and practically implemented, for example, relocating pairing boards or adjusting how players find their way to the feature match area when the event hall changes.
Team Building
The ability to turn a group of people into a team where people enjoy working together, judges help each other, and all members feel safe and welcome. The Team Leader is available and approachable for the team members and enables interaction between the team members.
Deficient: The candidate focuses exclusively on the team tasks without caring about the team’s well being, or hardly speaks to their team during the day.
Underdeveloped: The candidate’s social interaction consists mostly of very basic and standard interactions such as “introduce yourselves”, or starts up a team building activity but then lets it slip completely.
Adequate: The candidate enables the team members to interact with each other. The team members enjoy the day, focusing on the positive aspects of what happened and the candidate is able to cope with minor issues.
Very Good: The candidate made the judges on their team feel engaged and involved. The judges enjoyed spending their time together and had feedback for each other. The team members enjoyed the day and felt they contributed to the event’s success
Exceptional: The candidate is a positive influence on the members of their team, as well as on other judges around them. The team members worked together with joy, everyone in the team learned something during the day, and all issues (if any) were addressed swiftly and properly.
Mentoring
The Team Leader spends time with the team members observing and discussing, providing feedback to both new and experienced judges. They are able to deliver feedback in a positive, appropriate and constructive way, verbally throughout and at the end of the day, as well as in written form after the event. Please note that the candidate is not expected to mentor or provide feedback to the Shadow Level 3 Judge.
Deficient: The candidate hardly even speaks to their team during the day and has no meaningful observations for the majority of the team members.
Underdeveloped: The candidate is only able to provide some very basic and generic advice to their team members.
Adequate: The candidate is able to provide some specific feedback to at least 1 team member and is able to support the feedback with a specific example. If there are obvious areas for improvement for a judge, the candidate is able to point them out and give constructive advice to that judge.
Very Good: The candidate is able to provide meaningful feedback to multiple team members and is able to support the feedback with specific examples, this happens both during the day and at the end of the day. The candidate will write a review for at least 1 team member.
Exceptional: Everyone on the team learned something during the day, and/or all members received useful feedback from the candidate. This led to a visible improvement over the course of the day and resulted in at least 1 impactful review.
Communication
The ability and willingness to efficiently ask for the information needed from the right person, and to deliver information to the right person. The ability to clearly suggest, describe and motivate actions, and to listen to the suggestions brought up by others. This communication needs to happen both within the team (as evaluated by the Shadow Level 3 Judge) and between teams (as evaluated by the Evaluating Burgundy Judge), as well as with the Head Judge directly.
This skill is independently evaluated by both the Shadow and the Burgundy; if either or both of them marks this skill as underdeveloped, the skill as a whole is counted as a single underdeveloped item. If one of them marks the skill as deficient, but the other as not deficient, the evaluators use their discretion to reach an agreement, where the Burgundy has the final say.
Deficient: The candidate fails to provide essential information to the Head Judge or to their team, generally limits the communication to direct instructions without any explanations, or ignores requests or suggestions provided without any explanation. The candidate doesn’t communicate with other team leads, or only reaches out to them with orders.
Underdeveloped: The candidate gives unclear or insufficient information to their team or to other team leads, fails to communicate frequently with the Head Judge, is hardly available for the team members, or acts on their own in a situation that should have required the Head Judge’s intervention.
Adequate: The candidate informs the Head Judge frequently about the status of their assigned tasks, about how the team as a whole is doing, and what the needs and feedback of the team are. The candidate provides the team members with information from the Head Judge about how the event is flowing, about changes in plans and about changes to their routine, such as breaks or the plan to post standings. The candidate reaches out to other team leads when they need help, or offers help when other teams are visibly needing it.
Very Good: The candidate is able to pass and receive all necessary information to and from team members, colleagues (team leads) and the Head Judge in an efficient and pleasant way.
Exceptional: The candidate provides information unprompted and enables communication between other parties.