Written by Alfonso Bueno
\nLevel 3, Spain<\/p><\/div>
Written by Julio Sosa
\nLevel 3, Argentina<\/p><\/div>
\n
Written by Bryan Prillaman
\nLevel 3, Florida (USA)<\/p><\/div>
Written by Sean Catanese
\nLevel 3, Washington (USA)<\/p><\/div><\/p>\n
Earlier this year the redefinition of the Judge Program named New New World Order, this redefinition affected in different degrees all levels in the Judge Program.<\/p>\n
The most significant changes for Level 2s were related to the certification and maintenance process<\/a>, the Team Leader Certification<\/a> and the L2 Tester Certification<\/a>. Those articles did our best to cover every single detail and potential question, but we know this is impossible, so we organized a survey on every region to ask doubts about this, merged similar questions, and answered them.<\/p>\n If you made a question that is not answered here or you have a question you never asked before, please, ask me<\/a>.<\/p>\n On that survey we also asked for suggestions about future development of the Level 2, we\u2019re still in the process to analyze all of them. They were many and each of them requires a careful consideration. We hope to get back to you on those earlier in 2017.<\/p>\n It\u2019s a best practice to conduct the interview prior to administering the test. But for the sake of covering this possibility, let\u2019s propose a situation where all of these things happen:<\/span><\/p>\n In this case, the candidate has failed to advance. The judge administering the test should be clear about the outcome of the advancement attempt in the review they enter in the Judge Center and notify their Regional Coordinator for potential follow-up in case the candidate is erroneously advanced within the system. This should be a highly unusual circumstance.<\/span><\/p>\n The test score is not hold for future testing attempts, the candidate will need to take the test again.<\/p>\n Yes. Regional Coordinators are empowered to do this. If you believe this is appropriate for you, <\/span>contact your Regional Coordinator<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n No.<\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s up to the individual Regional Coordinator based on their workload and availability.<\/span><\/p>\n Diplomacy with players is the skill in managing players, handling rules, and give instructions so that there is little or no ill will. An example is informing a player they have a Game Lost for Deck \/ Decklist Problem in a way that they understand the ruling, the need of the penalty and learn from it.<\/span><\/p>\n Investigation is the ability to detect suspicious situations, search inquiry for ascertaining facts, detailed examination of the game state and the infraction strategical consequences. An example is when a judge is called over for a spell paid with the wrong mana (Game Rule Violation) and he realizes casting that spell at that point is the only way the offending player has to win the game and make Top 8, then asking the appropriate questions to get enough evidence to disqualify the player.<\/span><\/p>\n Requirements will be verified during the month of January. For 2016 there is not maintenance exams created yet, in this year this requirement won\u2019t apply.<\/span><\/p>\n The natural year you certify you are not subject to maintenance, from that year on you\u2019ll need to meet the maintenance requirements every year.<\/span><\/p>\n We\u2019re creating a Level 2 Update Exam, we hope to be able to provide more information in the near future.<\/span><\/p>\n One of the abilities of an Level 2 is to create Level 1s. Creating a Level 1 isn\u2019t just giving a test and seeing if they pass. There is an evaluation and an interview. The review allows us to see that you have some evaluation skills. Also as Head Judge of PPTQs, you may have other judges working with you. We want to see that you can provide meaningful feedback to those judges that you will be working with. And finally, we want you to prove that you can and have logged into Judge Center and used it.<\/span><\/p>\n Yes, the quality of the review is evaluated for that purpose. A superficial review only shows that you know the mechanics of writing a review, not the thought process behind it.<\/span><\/p>\n Failing the rules test will trigger a conversation with your Regional Coordinator. The outcome of that conversation determines your path forward. That may include demotion in order to align your level back to your demonstrated rules knowledge or it may include a plan to address this deficiency at your Regional Coordinator\u2019s discretion. <\/span><\/p>\n Interviews like this would be a significant administrative burden, especially for Regional Coordinators. We expect every Level 2 to maintain the quality they demonstrated when testing for Level 2. Any dramatic decrease on quality or major problem will be addressed by the Regional Coordinator as appropriate for the specific situation.<\/span><\/p>\n Talk to local Tournament Organizers and other judges about opportunities to keep your skills sharp. You could present to Tournament Organizers the idea that having extra Level 2s in their area can be a bonus giving them more flexibility in scheduling, and more backup plans if another judge is unavailable for an event. You could also talk to other judges to see if they\u2019re happy with the number of events they\u2019re working at, if they feel under pressure then giving you some more opportunities could keep the pressure off them in the future.<\/span><\/p>\n We\u2019re still working on the details of this test<\/span>. We may require taking the tests twice a year, when it gets updated after a documents update, but this will be checked once the year is over during January to allow a wider timeframe to take the test.<\/span><\/p>\n No, but as noted above a failure to meet the maintenance requirements does not result in an automatic demotion, it results in a conversation with the Regional Coordinator. The outcome of that conversation determines a judge\u2019s path forward.<\/span><\/p>\n We want to find a balance between maintaining a good quality level amongst the Level 2s and the workload maintaining the level becomes. When we test someone for Level 2 we must check this candidate has all necessary skills. Instead, when checking for maintenance we know the judge already has those skills and we only need to check the judge is up to date.<\/span><\/p>\n These types of situations are as unique as judges themselves, and as such specific advice can’t be given to a general question. We recommend forming a good working relationship with your local Tournament Organizers, and develop a plan to create those judging opportunities.<\/span><\/p>\n Yes. Most Level 2 judges are not staffed for a Grand Prix in a given year.<\/span><\/p>\n PPTQs.\u00a0<\/span>http:\/\/magic.wizards.com\/en\/protour\/preliminaryqualifiers<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n Opportunities vary widely by region, community, and organizer preferences, feel free to contact your Regional Coordinator or local leaders about learning opportunities available in your region. In the Level 1 & Level 2 Sphere we have started working on international formation projects, but unfortunately it\u2019s too soon to say anything useful about this. Stay tuned, we\u2019ll be publishing about them as soon as we can.<\/span><\/p>\n No. The Team Lead Capability check is still good for the Level 3 testing process. However we recommend you test for the Team Lead Certification, as the extra experience will be beneficial for you and once you have the Team Lead Certification you are eligible to be Team Leader on day 2 of Grand Prix without been subject to evaluation.<\/span><\/p>\n Excellency is very wide and subjective. And may vary a lot from one Grand Prix to the next, based on the specific circumstances of the event. We\u2019re planning a revision of the Team Lead Certification in February (6 months after it\u2019s release) we\u2019ll try to be more specific in that update. <\/span><\/p>\n Leading a team on Sunday is very different from leading a team on Saturday. For Saturday, the tasks are more complex, the teams are often larger, and the consequences of failure are more significant. Level 3s have proven their capability and expertise in a broader range of skills and in more depth than a Level 2 who achieves the Team Lead Certification, and that makes a difference for this assignment.<\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s up to each region\u2019s Regional Coordinator based on their perception of the need and how they wish to manage the administration of the process within their region.<\/span><\/p>\n No.<\/span><\/p>\n The Team Lead Certification and Level 2 Tester Certifications serve very different purposes. Level 2 Team Leads need to be able to instantly apply rules knowledge on the floor of a large event, while Level 2 Testers have less immediate demands on their knowledge and have the luxury to look things up in the course of mentoring.<\/span><\/p>\n Not at this time. If you have a specific idea or need which is program-wide, <\/span>let the sphere leader, Alfonso Bueno, know<\/span><\/a>. <\/span><\/p>\n The process to become a Level 3 is much harder than the certifications and includes evaluation in other qualities not checked in either certification.<\/span><\/p>\n A Level 3 judge can do some things that a Level 2 Tester and Team Lead cannot do, such as lead a team on Saturday of a Grand Prix, serve on the Judge Conduct Committee, and apply for Advanced Roles such as Grand Prix Head Judge, Program Coordinator, and Regional Coordinator. Level 3 is also a certification looking at all of the qualities of a Level 3 judge rather than just focusing on particular areas, like the certifications.<\/span><\/p>\n The passing score represents an acknowledgment of a variety of factors. The desired level of rules and policy knowledge that Level 2 judges should demonstrate in their various roles, the length of the exam, the presentation of questions in a written format, the testing environment, etc. While Level 2 judges often work alone at PPTQs on the floor of high profile events, such as Grand Prix, this is the minimum score that balances these factors and satisfies the necessary rules and policy knowledge to act as Level 2.<\/p>\n Working with a judge gives you a completely different insight into that judge than passively observing them during the 10 minutes per round that you aren’t playing Magic. After becoming Level 2 this judge will likely work some PPTQs without any support and we need to make sure the candidate is ready for it. In the case the candidate is not ready the Level 2 judge can inform him and start mentoring the him during the event, as a player you won\u2019t be able.<\/span><\/p>\n ‘Exceptional circumstances\u201c are not the same as \u201ddifficult circumstances\u201c. In general, we want Level 2s that can recognize a problem, create a plan of action to resolve that problem, execute that plan, and get the desired results. Not getting along with the only Tournament Organizer in your area is not an \u2018exceptional circumstance\u2019. This is typically reserved for situations when the judge lives in an extremely remote area where there are no other judges.<\/span><\/p>\n Describing what qualifies as \u2018exceptional circumstances\u2019 in more detail can create more problems than it helps. We don\u2019t want to try and list all the ways this might occur. Regional Coordinators are trusted to understand and apply this appropriately.<\/span><\/p>\n One of the abilities of an Level 2 is to create Level 1s. Creating a Level 1 isn\u2019t just giving a test and seeing if they pass. There is an evaluation and an interview. The review allows us to see that you have some evaluation skills. Also as Head Judge of PPTQs, you may have other judges working with you. We want to see that you can provide meaningful feedback to those judges that you will be working with. And finally, we want you to prove that you can and have logged into Judge Center, and used it.<\/span><\/p>\n Yes, the quality of the review is evaluated for that purpose. A superficial review only shows that you know the mechanics of writing a review, not the thought process behind it.<\/span><\/p>\n The goals of these requirements are checking the candidates are able to produce useful content and share their knowledge in written form, as well as producing useful content to benefit the community.<\/span><\/p>\n An article, conference report or tournament report doesn’t have to be on JudgeApps. But ideally they have be posted in a public place where people can read it and get value from it as well as evaluate your ability to write intelligently about a topic or event. A profile on Judge of the Week is not sufficient. A forum post on a JudgeApps thread or Facebook post will typically not sufficiently cover one of the required topics. It’s not impossible to achieve, but you are creating unnecessary barriers that you have to overcome, and so it is not recommended.<\/span><\/p>\n In school when given an assignment, the students would ask \u201chow long does it need to be?\u201d the teach would answer \u201clong enough\u201d – the same answer applies here. Content is more important than the quantity of words. We\u2019re looking for more than just a recount of the number of players and rounds, and that nothing interesting happened. There needs to be content that other judges can learn from, or use to give <\/span>you<\/b> feedback.<\/span><\/p>\n The candidate capacity to determine what is useful and positive for the community is part of what is evaluated by this pre-test requirement.<\/span><\/p>\n It is checked, and the tester decides if it is sufficient as part of the pre-test work.<\/span><\/p>\n Some level of activity in tournaments is needed to set a basic understanding of your familiarity with interpreting and applying rules and policy. Rules and policy shift enough that more recent events are a better indicator. Judging a lot in a short period and then stopping judging for a long time afterwards will make you lose many abilities a Level 2 must have.<\/span><\/p>\n The main purpose of the levels system is for organizers to be able to staff their events. Level 2 is a certification of competency at Competitive REL, and an organizer should be able to expect any Level 2 to run a PPTQ for them. For in-store events we don\u2019t expect organizers looking for judges to know any difference between judges other than their level.<\/span><\/p>\n The recommendation review requirement encompasses the \u201cdo I trust this person to run a PPTQ\u201d goal. It should only be given if you do believe a person is capable of running a PPTQ. Furthermore, the Level 2 Tester should not test a person that they feel is incapable of running a PPTQ. All the requirements that exist to become a Level 2 are designed to answer the question: \u201cCan this person Head Judge a PPTQ?\u201d So yes, becoming Level 2 should be sufficient.<\/span><\/p>\n The Level 2 candidate is expected to provide evidence they have accomplished all the requirements to the Level 2 Tester. Screenshots of reviews in Judge Center and links to forum posts is sufficient.<\/span><\/p>\n Name tags are created for new Level 2s on a periodic basis. Then they\u2019re distributed to Regional Coordinators, who distribute them within their regions as they\u2019re able. Judge shirts are provided at Grand Prix. Some regions have ways of creating their own name tags and\/or judge shirts. <\/span>Contact your Regional Coordinator<\/span><\/a> or area captain to understand how this works in your region.<\/span><\/p>\nThe process<\/span><\/h1>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Level maintenance<\/span><\/h1>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Judging opportunities<\/span><\/h1>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Level 2 Certifications<\/span><\/h1>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Level Requirements <\/span><\/h1>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Other questions<\/span><\/h1>\n
\n
\n