With the recent changeover from Judge Academy to Judge Foundry and the International Judge Program, both new certifying bodies have taken the opportunity to update the level structure. What was old is new again, five levels became three became five, and now we have a bit of a transitional period where the levels don’t make a ton of sense.

Well, the new five level system makes sense. What I mean is, a lot of people’s levels no longer make sense, and need some updating.

The level getting the most discussion and attention so far, in my experience, is the new L3. I’ve been spending most of my available judge time since the announcement of JF helping folks study for the test, giving the test, going over the test … there are a lot of people who were L2 in the old days and now (understandably, reasonably) want to be L3s!

Why have levels at all?

The purpose of levels is to communicate a baseline, minimum expectation of someone’s capabilities. They’re a recognized floor of competence. They say “the person who has been certified for this level will be, at a minimum, able to do these things for the event.” This can be very helpful for sorting things out at an event. For example, suppose I’m the head judge for an event that begins tomorrow, and I suddenly learn that one of my team leads has called out sick. The TO shows me a list of names and levels and asks me who I want to promote. I could just choose someone I already know and have worked with before, but that can be problematic for a variety of reasons. With levels, I can instead take someone I haven’t had the chance to work with before and be reasonably sure of what I’m getting.

It can also help the tournament organizer decide who to staff. TOs don’t want to staff the same people again and again; some turnover is both desirable and inevitable. Without levels, the TO is taking a real gamble staffing anyone they aren’t familiar with for any but the lowest positions. If we live in a world where levels hold meaning and can be trusted, it helps the organizer staff new faces – which is good for everyone.

The other big payoff of having a level system, in my opinion, is that it makes judges better. Having a measurable goal to work towards can make judges want to study more, spend more time talking over policy than they otherwise would have, and so on. Certainly not every judge is motivated by this – many great judges spend plenty of time talking rules and policy without thinking about levels at all. But some people will spend some amount of time working on self-improvement so they can work towards a level promotion, and without the promise of a level they would have spent that time doing something else instead.

The Problem With The Old L2

L2 was widely agreed to be too wide a range of skill and experience in the before days. A judge who was L1 yesterday and honestly, maybe still should be, but they got a little lucky on their test? They could be an L2. Someone who had been around at events for years, was frequently acting as a head judge for large competitive events, and who was mistaken for an L3 regularly? They might also be an L2. That was just too wide a gap in potential skills for the level to carry much meaning. The label was not doing a good job of living up to the promise of levels.

The New Levels

To address the problem of L2 being a huge range of capabilities, the new certifying orgs have moved back to five levels.

Speaking broadly, here’s how they compare:

Old L1 – New L1: this is someone who has just started their judging career. These folks are running FNMs at their LGSs, they’re helping out at larger events, they might be HJing smaller Regular REL events of their own at larger conventions.

Old L2 – New L2: No big changes yet. L2s are certified for competitive events. They’re frequently running LGS RCQs or floor judges for larger competitive events.

Old “Strong L2” – New L3: The first real change. The new L3 is what we used to call “a strong L2.” These judges are experienced enough they can be a team lead for competitive events in the 1-200 player range. They’re the floor judges who make their team leads’ lives easier. They’re experienced L2s who you’d hate to have to decline for your event.

Old “Great L2” or “New L3” – New L4: The L2 superstars and the recently promoted L3s. These judges are folks you would trust to HJ an important tournament with a substantial number of judges under them, or be a team lead on even larger events, managing larger teams of judges.

Old L3 – New L5: The most experienced and capable judges*. Folks who might be staffed for the Pro Tour, or will be Head Judge for the largest and most important events.

 

Understandably, L3 has been the busiest level so far. For anyone going for L1 or L2, nothing much changed. And for L4 and L5, getting promoted reflects real time investment and expertise crafted after years – a small minority of judges ever seriously consider these levels. But for L3, we suddenly have a lot of experienced L2s who want their level to reflect their capabilities. This is where the majority of judges who want a level change are going to be, at least for a while.

 

The Checklist

I made a checklist that can help aspiring L3s track their progress. Anyone should be able to copy-paste this into their own doc or make a copy or whatever, and then it will be easy to share with their mentors, and eventually, the L4+ who is going to do their interview.

These checklist requirements are fairly minimal. The general idea behind them is that a judge is familiar enough with all the jobs of a multi-day event to be an asset and not need everything explained to them. L3s are supposed to be competent enough to not just follow orders, but know what needs to be done and think for themselves, and be looking for opportunities to contribute. For example, if I’m the team lead for Paper, I don’t expect I’ll have to explain to an L3 why we need to take down the paper pairings before we get busy with EOR. Instead, I expect an L3 will glance at the pairings boards now and again and take the initiative to take down the pairings at a reasonable time, even if they were not specifically tasked with doing so.

As Judge Foundry does in its article, I would encourage aspiring L3s to not think of promotion to L3 as something to be speedrun, or the checklist as just some boxes to be checked. That attitude is likely to lead to a judge who has met the written requirements, but is clearly not yet ready for promotion.

 

 

The Test

The test for L3 covers only policy, not rules. It is not easy. I think the judge community, myself very much included, has gotten a little lax on studying. We’ve all been guilty of getting a little too dependent on our cell phones. Yes, it’s good to look something up if you aren’t sure on a call, to make sure you’re delivering a 100% correct ruling. But I think I agree with JF that in general, folks should have to check their phones a little less often.

Judge Foundry, in an effort to correct that, has made tests closed book. Your proctor will take your phone when they give you the test.

 

Here are some tips for passing the test:

• Study! Really. Study.
• Read everything carefully.
• Your proctor can answer questions. If you don’t understand what a question is asking, if you think there’s a typo, if you think the correct answer isn’t listed – point it out to your proctor. It is possible they will say they can’t help you, but it’s possible they’ll be able to clarify what is going on.
• Read carefully, know the differences between the answers. Many of the possible answers will look quite similar – don’t just jump at the first one that looks right as you skim it.
• Don’t take the test for granted. If you take it and the whole thing feels super easy, you should slow down and reread to make sure you aren’t missing anything (or else take a look at the requirements for L4)
• Study before you take the test. Some great L2s have taken the test and failed.
• You have the information you need to answer the questions. If you’re thinking something like “I need to investigate,” or “Well, what did the judge tell the player?” and so on, that’s not information you need.
• Read carefully, know what the question is asking you. Don’t answer “what is the best fix?” if it is asking you “what are the possible fixes?” or vice versa.
• No, but really – study.

 

 

 

*and also me, somehow