![\"\"](\"http:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/brooksbabbles\/files\/2024\/03\/mason-tweet.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nA bit later, I saw a similar gripe from a player at another event:<\/p>\n
At one point in my judge career I also did top8 checks between the end of the Swiss rounds and the start of the Top8. I’d collect all the decks, put a sticky note with every name on each deckbox to keep track of whose was whose, and do a full check – making the players wait all the while. It wasn’t written in any documents that this was the right way to do things, it was the way I had been told. It was tribal knowledge.<\/p>\n Then, at some point, I was shown the error of my ways, and I thought everyone else had been too. I thought every judge understood that this wasn’t the best practice. But as some recent conversations and tweets have reminded me, if that were ever true (it wasn’t), it no longer is.<\/p>\n While it can be easy or tempting for folks “in the know” to take an easy jab at folks who aren’t up on the latest news, I try to be a little more constructive. Everyone started somewhere – there was a point when any of us didn’t know what we know now. The only bad positions would be refusing to learn a better way when presented with one, or seeing someone else’s ignorance as a chance to be rude instead of a chance to mentor. The comic XKCD put it well, a few years back:<\/p>\n So, let’s revisit some processes, reexamine some ways of doing things that may be a bit out of date, and get into why checks before the Top8 is Not Great.<\/p>\n The Problem With Courtesy Checks<\/strong><\/p>\n Checking the Top8 decks before the Top8 starts is frequently referred to as “courtesy checks.” This is because doing them for players is, well, a courtesy. Players are expected to have submitted a legal decklist at the beginning of the day, and to present a deck that matches that list at the beginning of their first game of any match – whether it’s Round 1 or the Finals. If we ask for the players’ decks when they finish the Swiss rounds and give them a going over before beginning the Quarterfinals, we’re going to end up with a couple of potential options – none of them good.<\/p>\n Option One is that everything matches the lists and all is well. We give the decks back and get the players playing Magic. Everything is the same as it would have been if we hadn’t done anything at all, except the event has been delayed long enough for the players to get bored and start Tweeting (never a good thing).<\/p>\n Option Two is that we find a problem. A player has forgotten to desideboard or something along those lines, and we have to fix things up before the Quarterfinals can begin. Once again, two possible paths lie before us.<\/p>\n Option Two A: We tell the player and get things fixed. Quarterfinals can begin with everyone having a correct, legal deck. This is where the “courtesy” checks get their name – we’ve done the players the courtesy of helping them out a bit when really it was their responsibility to fix their deck, not ours. General consensus is that it’s better to get the players playing Magic, and if an issue pops up, sort it out then – the same as we would during the Swiss rounds.<\/p>\n Option Two B: We\u00a0don’t<\/em> tell the players. We just hand the decks back and let them start shuffling, and when they present their decks, we\u00a0pounce<\/em>. “Haha, you fool,” we tell the players. “You thought that just because the judge looked at your deck and handed it back without saying there was a problem that that meant there was no problem! Here’s your Game Loss!”<\/p>\n I hope it is obvious how catastrophic Option Two B is. One of the central, foundational tenets of judging is that we are there to help the players, not out to get them. It’s natural for the players to expect to be told if there was a problem with their deck, and if they aren’t told, to assume all is well. So if we find a problem and wait to mention it until we can issue a penalty, it’s working directly against that foundational ideal. It will make players feel they can not trust judges and that judges are looking for excuses to bring the hammer down. Not Great, Bob<\/a>.<\/p>\n Given that there’s no great option presented if we do the deckchecks after Swiss, we’re better off simply not doing them. Get in the deckchecks you can during the Swiss matches and then start your Top8s and keep the players playing Magic.<\/p>\n Counterarguments<\/strong><\/p>\n But Wait, some might say – in Option Two A, why not issue the appropriate penalty? We can finish the Swiss, do our deckchecks, issue any penalties appropriate, and then get on to the Magic, no?<\/p>\n Here’s the problem with that: when players are not in an active match, it doesn’t matter what their deck looks like. If a player in a Modern event wants to finish their round and shuffle a Charizard, a Black Lotus, a Blazing Shoal, and a ham sandwich into their deck, that’s not a problem until they start their next match. So long as they fix their deck by the next time they present the deck it’s all good.<\/p>\n The IPG has some relevant words for us, here:<\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n<\/a><\/p>\n