First Instincts<\/h3>\n
You might think the first thing you should do is go get the Head Judge\u2026but not so fast! Especially at larger events, make sure you write down the table number of the original ruling, so you can bring the Head Judge back to the right spot! (There are fewer things more embarrassing than wandering the rows of a Grand Prix with a red-shirted Head Judge in tow, looking for some vaguely familiar players.)<\/p>\n
The second thing to keep in mind is the appropriate time extension. Hopefully you\u2019ve already noted the time the call began. But if not, make sure to do that now so you can give (close to) the proper time extension at the end of the final ruling. Moreover, you\u2019ll want to let the Head Judge know how long the call has been active, especially if it\u2019s taken a while to get this far. (Five minutes is a reasonable threshold for getting worried that a ruling might be taking too long.)<\/p>\n
Alone Time<\/h3>\n
As you grow more experienced, you will find yourself asking and answering these questions of yourself automatically as the ruling folds. This is a fantastic habit and skill to develop, and I strongly encourage you to do so. No matter how experienced you are, though, it\u2019s often helpful to take a moment to explicitly force yourself to think about the ruling, analyze it from a different perspective, and critically challenge your existing beliefs about what just occurred. And even if you\u2019re a superb extemporaneous communicator, sketching out what you want to tell the Head Judge can only improve things.<\/p>\n At this point, the Head Judge should be in sight. When you go up to them, your first words should be, \u201cI have an appeal.\u201d Even if they\u2019re in the middle of something else, you should (politely) interject yourself to say you have an appeal. No matter how busy the Head Judge looks, your appeal is almost certainly the most important and urgent task they need to address. Even if it\u2019s not, that\u2019s not your decision to make \u2013 it\u2019s the Head Judge\u2019s! So give them the information they need to make that analysis, and just say, \u201cI have an appeal,\u201d every time.<\/p>\n Now that you have the Head Judge\u2019s attention, what will you do with it?<\/p>\n You should start with the most important facts first. In the context of judging, two good places to begin are the kind of ruling or infraction you just issued, and the likelihood that your ruling was correct. \u201cA player didn\u2019t believe me when I told him about the new legendary rule\u201d paints a very different picture from \u201cthe players don\u2019t agree about what happened in combat this turn, but I\u2019m confident I figured it out,\u201d which is in turn quite different from \u201cthe players don\u2019t agree about what happened, and honestly, I\u2019m not sure either.\u201d <\/p>\n (As an aside for the mathematically inclined: you can think of this as Head Judges traversing a Markov chain or similar model to make decisions. The more experienced you are as a Head Judge, the more quickly you can traverse the model and make decisions, and the more rarely you have to update your model to handle totally novel situations. A huge part of growing as a judge is building, expanding, and improving upon these kinds of internal models.)<\/p>\n At this point \u2013 or possibly even as soon as you say \u201cI have an appeal\u201d \u2013 the Head Judge will probably ask you to take them to the players. This is \u201cthe walk,\u201d and it had a critical place in the appeal process. Specifically, this is when you should tell the story<\/em> of the ruling: what happened, why did it happen, and what did you do about it? Most (but perhaps not all) rulings will follow this sort of narrative arc.<\/p>\n Carrying the story analogy further, you might find it helpful to share some details about the characters involved\u2014that is, the players. Did one player seem more helpful or trustworthy than the other? Are the players arguing with each other, or are things fairly civil? Even more fundamentally, who is who? Especially if the ruling is about a complicated board state or a failure to agree on reality, using some kind of consistent vocabulary to refer to the players is critical. \u201cAP\u201d and \u201cNAP\u201d are traditional appellations, but I find myself referring to the players by the decks they\u2019re piloting. Some of this gets easier at (or close to) the table, too, where statements like \u201cthat guy in the red shirt is the active player\u201d suddenly become much more informative. <\/p>\n<\/p>Now you can begin find the (or a) Head Judge. But, as you\u2019re walking, think about what you\u2019re actually going to the Head Judge when you find them! This window \u2013 these precious moments when you\u2019re by yourself, with any players or other judges to be concerned about \u2013 is your best opportunity to reflect on what just happened. What\u2019s actually<\/em> going on in the call? Why did the player appeal? How confident are you in your ruling? What are the most important details that the Head Judge needs to know about?<\/p>\n
First Contact<\/h3>\n
<\/p>Starting your ruling this way greatly helps the Head Judge understand what kind of appeal they\u2019re about to walk into. Much like you used the time between the ruling and finding the Head Judge to think about what occurred, knowing what\u2019s going on helps the Head Judge prepare for what will happen and how they\u2019re going to handle the appeal. Most Head Judges are fairly experienced, and will often have handled similar situations the past. As a floor judge, your responsibility is giving the Head Judge the information they need to figure out what kind of situation they\u2019re in, as quickly and accurately as possible. Don’t bury the lede!<\/p>\n
Walk the Walk<\/h3>\n
<\/p>Remember, you\u2019re a judge, not a court scribe. You don\u2019t have to relay the ruling to the Head Judge in the precise order that it occurred. If players only told you about some critical detail halfway through the call, but it turned out to be crucial to the entire ruling, you should probably state that up front.<\/p>\n