As we have done for the last couple of Exemplar Waves, we took a look at some of the many interesting recognitions we had in our region this time, to put them in the spotlight, and to dig just that little bit deeper in the how and why of the actions that led to them. We’ve chosen 4 Recognitions from Wave 9 that we would like to share with you, and will give the nominees the chance to elaborate on them.
Let’s get things started with a recognition that was given to Floris De Baerdemaeker from our very own Regional Coordinator: Richard Drijvers.
Floris, the tournament report you wrote was a joy to read. It touched upon many important subjects for someone diving into the realm of Competitive REL. It is amazing to learn that this was your first tournament report. What was even more amazing is that this was your first Competitive REL event! With such a promise, I’m looking forward to what value you will be adding to our community in the foreseeable future.
We asked Floris for some extra information on the recognition (for those of you who haven’t read the report yet, now is the time to do so!), and he provided us with the following insight:
When I started writing this tournament report, I did not have the idea of a recognition in my mind. At the time, I didn’t really even know what the exemplar program was yet. Back then, I was taking my first steps on the road to L2, and I believe the report reflects that. I am of course very happy, and a bit proud, that people like Richard and Niels seem to think highly of it, but that was not my reason for writing it.
I was, and probably always will be, trying to improve myself as a judge specifically, and as a person in general. I felt writing this report was a good way to do that, because it set a clear baseline for me as I moved further into L2 territory. I could now reread this report and wonder about how and why I ever felt so stressed or insecure at issues or rulings that I now have little problem handling. It was a way for me to gauge how much progress I had made and a way for me to appreciate the work that I had already put into becoming a better judge.
To my mind, this report resonated well with people because of a few basic facts. To start, it is honest. What I wrote is how I felt and how things impacted me. Because of this, and this is the second reason I think people enjoyed the report, readers could empathise. Judges with a lot of competitive experience could read it and look back to a time when they first started judging and be reminded of things that are challenging for new judges, but have become second nature to them. Judges with little to no competitive experience on the other hand could identify with my own inexperience and wonder at that tournament.
As a final thought, I am of course happy with the recognition I received, but I am far happier, exhilarated even, with the results of this tournament report, both for me, and for the judges that it could inspire. And that, I think, is vital about the exemplar program and the judge program. We try our best, not to get some shiny cards, but to help those around us and to help ourselves to become better judges and better people.
And if you can think like that and act upon it, somebody is bound to notice.
We chose this recognition because it focuses on sharing experiences, allowing people that weren’t there to also join in the proceedings, and giving them a chance to learn from the tournament as well.
That brings us to our second recognition, also from a Regional Coordinator, but this time from Rob McKenzie, RC of USA North:
Emilien, I glance through most of the
tournament reports, but don’t post much, but I do see your posts. You make
a strong effort to mentor and improve judges all over the world through your
regular feedback and comments on tournament reports, and I appreciate that
so much. I see your detailed and thought-provoking questions on reports
regularly, and I know it has made dozens of judges that you might not ever
see in person better for the experience. Thank you so much for the effort
you put into the tournament reports forum.
To get some more insight into where this recognition came from, we’ll let Emilien take the stage himself:
As a program, we request level 2 judges and level 2 candidates to write
tournament reports. That’s for good reasons: we need to ensure that
judges with that certification are able to communicate with the
program, to share their experiences and what they learned from them, to
be open to feedback, and to demonstrate they know what a tournament is
about. We also promote tournament reports as a way to learn and share
best practices.But if we require judges to write these reports, then we need to make
sure that someone is actually reading and answering them. So I
spend some of my free time doing exactly that, usually when taking
care of one of my kids – a lot of activities don’t require active
participation and allow me to read reports and write short answers.
I’m far from being the only one helping on that front – other judges
such as Uncle Scott or Lyle Waldman are also regulars of the forum,
and Lyle just wrote a short list of advice on how to write good
reports: http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/226831/
But everyone is welcome to read reports when their time permits it and
involve themselves in the discussion, and more and more reports spark
healthy discussions on as many topics as judging is about – logistics,
investigations, rulings, dealing with difficult players or TOs, etc.Maybe I felt more inclined to go and help on reports because of my
region’s history. When I was certified for level 1, it was
already customary for judges to write reports, years before it became
encouraged in the whole program. I witnessed first hand the good it did
for our region, and wanted to promote the same thing to the whole
program.
If you have your Tournament Reports notifications on, you can’t have missed the fact that you see Emilien turning up regularly. We certainly didn’t! And it’s also obvious that more people noticed, and that the effort is much appreciated. Thanks Emilien!
As our third recognition we went with one that was given to Riccardo Mangano by Marit Norderhaug Getz from Norway, who had this to say to him:
Most judges know the importance of giving feedback after events, but I’ve never seen anyone so dedicated to it as you after GP Utrecht, and in such a great way. You stayed at the train station for as long as it took to give me a detailed review, even though it was late. Even more importantly, you gladly discussed ways for me to improve, and instead of just dismissing my excuses, you were extreme creative and patiently came up with ways for me to react better to calls that I would never have thought of on my own. You inspired me not only to become a better judge, but to get better at giving feedback as well.
As you might have guessed, we managed to get a response from Riccardo on the subject!
An aspect of providing feedback that I believe people sometimes don’t prioritise enough is having a full conversation about the feedback being provided, rather than just writing a review and leaving it at that, not including the person they are providing the feedback to in the process. Interacting with the person you are providing feedback to provides many ways to increase the quality of the feedback being provided. For example, you probably only have partial information about the situations you observed, and allowing them to explain what they did and why they did it that way can lead you both to a better understanding of what happened. Moreover, when communicating in written form, sometimes the message doesn’t get across perfectly, and perhaps it will look like a point we really wanted to emphasise looks like only a passing remark, or something we only added as a minor comment is perceived as a major point – talking to each other makes this process smoother. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, having the feedback process be a two-way conversation allows you to work together on finding ways to improve those things that might not have worked optimally, with each suggestion being discussed and elaborated into the final form that might work best – if only one person is involved in this process, then it stops at just presenting the suggestion.
Because of this, I believe that providing most of the feedback during a one-on-one debrief after the event adds a lot of value, and I always try to do this. If we are also planning to write a review, it lets us write it as a compacted conclusion of the conversation, incorporating both points of view presented in the discussion, rather than making it come from just our perspective. In Utrecht, it happened that I interacted a lot with Marit over the weekend, and I wanted to discuss my suggestions with her, but didn’t manage to do so after the tournament – luckily, we both went to the judge dinner, and after that managed to discuss it at the train station. Unfortunately for me, by the time we finished the discussion, my last direct train had already left, so in the end my journey home took much longer than I thought it would.
That shows some real dedication to getting feedback along!
Last but not least we have a recognition from Mark Dragstra for Alex De Blécourt!
You are part for some time now of the Benelux Bulletin project. Each edition, you seem to grow in the project by being more and more active. The last edition, you really stepped up. When things were moving slowly, you picked up the slack and made sure the project was moving forward. Even at the last part, your work ethics didn’t decline. Thanks for your large contribution and keep up the great work.
Alex joined us at the Benelux Blog project too, so we could immediately get some extra information, straight from the source:
I have been an editor for the Benelux Bulletin since its inception in March last year, when I was looking for a project both to practice my editing skills and to be a more active member of the judge community. Through working on it I have gotten to know a lot of great judges, and I have since joined several more projects, working with judges all over the world. I’d like to encourage everyone with a bit of spare time to find a judge project to work on, as it’s a great way to be involved in the community and there is a project for almost every skillset!
Keeping the community up to date is a great way to improve it, and the many projects that exist can surely help in doing that!
With that said, we’ve reached the end of this post, but don’t despair. A new wave of Exemplar Recognitions is coming up soon! We’re already looking forward to read about all your exemplary behaviours and to highlight some of our favourites.
See you soon,
The BeNeLux Blog Team