The following PowerPoint contains information originally provided by Bernd Buldt
.
Overview
1. Warm-Up: Three scenarios
2. Introductory remarks: Two judge personalities
3. The Educator: Profile, strengths & weaknesses
4. The Punisher: Profile, strengths & weaknesses
5. The Punicator: the “perfect judge”
6. The Punicator and her community
7. Wrap-Up: Three scenarios
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
1. Warm-Up: Three scenarios
Scenario One
Laura, who regularly plays FMN at a small store in a nearby town, plays for the first time in one of your events; it is a GPT. At the beginning of Round 1 you’re called over by Chris, one of your regular player. Chris reports that after deciding to take a mulligan, Laura drew seven cards. There is no dispute as to facts. Laura insists, however, that according to the posted “house rules” at her regular FNM location the first mulligan is always “free.” You call the store and find out that this house rule does indeed exist.
What do you think is the infraction (if any) and what the appropriate penalty (if one is applicable)?
- The infraction is “GPE–Improper Drawing at Start of Game.” Since Laura was acting in good faith, however, you give no penalty but let her know what the rules actually say. You then remedy the situation according to the IPG.
- The infraction is “GPE–Improper Drawing at Start of Game” and Laura receives a warning, no matter what “house rules” are in place at the store she usually plays at. You let her know what the rules actually say and then remedy the situation according to the IPG.
- The infraction is “Cheating–Manipulation of Game Materials” and Laura receives a DQ since she did something intentionally against the rules to gain an advantage.
- None of the above.
Scenario Two
An Urza’s Block Sealed is run as a side event at a PT. Mary, a L2 judge currently offduty, participates in the event as a player. When players get confused about some card interaction at the table right next to her, Mary leans over and provides players (who don’t know she is a judge) with a detailed and thorough explanation. Noticing that something’s going on, the HJ of the Urza’s Sealed event approaches and inquires.
If you were the HJ, what would your reaction be?
- There is no infraction on either side. You thank Mary for her help, wish all players good luck, and leave the table.
- Although no infraction occurred, you advise Mary and the players involved to call over a judge next time a rules question pops up.
- You determine that Mary was providing outside assistance and give her a ML.
- None of the above.
Scenario Three
You run a Grand Melee which draws many players you’ve never seen at the store before, among them many young players. During the first turn you watch one of the new players, maybe 12 years old, to look at his hand during the ending phase of his turn, to briefly hesitate, and then to pass the turn marker. Standing right behind him, you notice that he kept eight cards in his hand.
What do you think is the appropriate approach here?
- Considering the age of the player and his presumed inexperience, you educate him on the rules and make him discard one card from his hand. Since this is a causal, nonrated event, you don’t issue any penalty.
- The player’s behavior qualifies as “General Unwanted Behavior” according to the “Judging at Regular REL” document. You make him discard one card from his hand, give him a stern chat about what is expected at your store, and warn him that next time this will result in a DQ.
- The infraction is “Fraud–Intentionally Violating Rules” and constitutes a “Serious Problem” according to the “Judging at Regular REL” document. You DQ the player and ask him to leave the venue.
- None of the above
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
2. Introductory Remarks: Two Judge Personalities
a) While we’re on the floor, we seem to talk about rules and policies, but what we really bring to the conversation are our views informed by what beliefs and values we cherish.
- CR: not much room to deviate or to discuss
- MTR/IPG/JAR: much room to discuss and judges bring personal views, beliefs, and values to the table
- Why this can be a very gratifying experience
b) Discussions on judge-L exhibit the same pattern
- CR: not much room to deviate or to discuss
- MTR/IPG/JAR: much room to discuss and judges bring personal views, beliefs, and values from outside Magic to bear on the judging issues
- Why this can be a not so gratifying experience
c) Summarizing my experience lead me to condense it all into two stereotypes:
- The “Educator” and the “Punisher”
- Not exhaustive: Melvin, the cocky player-judge, etc.
- Disclaimer: As unscientific/controversial as most stereotypes we know from personal psychology, but still useful, I shall suggest, for its limited purpose
d) The two stereotypes serve a similar function “Timmy, Johnny, and Spike” serve for Magic R&D, ie, Understanding the player community to make a good (better) product vs. understanding the judge community to become a more valuable member of it “After numerous years, we’ve come to the conclusion that there are three basic types of Magic players. The fancy term for these categories is “psychographic profiles.” A psychographic profile separates players into categories based on their psychological make-up. What motivates that player to play? What kind of cards do they like? What kind of things encourages that player to keep on playing? … Very few players fall into one specific psychographic profile. Most players have elements that overlap numerous profiles.” (Mark Rosewater) “After fewer years and less research, I’ve come to the conclusion that there are two basic types of Magic judges based on their psychological make-up. What motivates someone to become a judge? What kind of tasks or roles does she like? What kind of things keep a judge hooked? What influences her overall attitudes and concrete decisions when policies leave her with some wiggle room?” (me)
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Disclaimer: Any resemblance to any judge living or dead is purely coincidental. No similarity to any person either living or dead is intended or should be inferred.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
3. The Educator: Profile, strengths & weaknesses
- Motto: KIFKIF (Keep it fair – keep it fun)
- Anthropology: All magic players are good kids who want to have a good time.
- Preferred posture: Squatting next to the table while giving the ruling
- Greatest accomplishment: Considerably improved turn-outs at 3 local stores
- Ethics: Female (briefly explain Carol Galligan’s “different voice” of care)
- Outlook on Life: Life is good and we’re all one big family
- Color Alliances: White-Green
- Speculations as to individual causes
Strengths (as identified during an open-ended brainstorming session)
Judge-Player Interactions:
- Stronger at REL Reg: educating, explaining, building community, not alienating players
- Good qualities to have at side events at REL Comp and Pro as well, for the reasons mentioned
- Same applies to GPTs and PTQs, since here is where most players learn how play at REL Comp, while many players at store level OP are perfectly happy with kitchen table Magic and its “rules”
Judge-Judge/TO Interactions:
- Good qualities to have for building community among judges and TOs as well
- Better for self-development since these attitudes encourage continuous interactions with other judges (more willing to learn, less likely to insist on being right)
- More charismatic? at least making fellow-judges more at ease
Weaknesses (as identified during an open-ended brainstorming session)
Judge-Player Interactions:
- Propensity to be less vigilant
- Propensity to delay events by taking too much time for educating players
- Potential to be pushed and be taking advantage of by players
- Potential of disservice by deviating and being overly accommodating
- Potential to get more easily frustrated (lot of investment with little in return)
- More likely to be overwhelmed when a situation asks for harsh penalties
Judge-Judge/TO Interactions:
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
4. The Punisher: Profile, strengths & weaknesses
- Motto: Cheaters of the world: we’ll get you!
- Anthropology: All magic players are naturally born cheaters
- Preferred posture: Watching the floor with arms crossed before the chest
- Greatest accomplishment: DQ’ed 3 players within 15min at her first tournament
- Ethics: Male (justice and rule-based)
- Outlook on Life: Life is struggle and everyone is on her own
- Color Alliances: White-Black
- Speculations as to individual causes
Strengths (as identified during an open-ended brainstorming session)
Judge-Player Interactions:
- Making experienced players more at ease b/c improved perception of fairness
- Dispensing justice and over-the-top self-confidence creates feelings of assuredness
- Less likely to delay a tournament
- Faster decisions (not necessarily better ones, though)
- Has no problems with DQ’s and other harsh penalties
Judge-Judge/TO Interactions:
- Better role model for inexperienced judges by instilling confidence
- Raising the performance bar for everyone on staff
Weaknesses (as identified during an open-ended brainstorming session)
Judge/Player Interactions:
- Potential for being perceived as intimidating by players
- Might miss the line between enforcing and punishing (magic judges are not cops cracking down)
- Might miss the line between being right and being righteous
- To such a punishing hammer everything a player does might look like an infraction nail
Judge-Judge/TO Interactions:
- Potential for being perceived as intimidating by other judges
- Less likely to listen and learn from others
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
5. The Punicator, the “perfect judge”
Is there such a thing as the “perfect” judge?
- Are we frustrating ourselves by raising the bar too high
- Fallacies that come with naïve notions of “perfect;”
- Multidimensionality and irresolvable conflicts
- The perfect judge, if she exists, probably is the judge community
The idea, reality, growth and goals
- The function ideals may have in identifying areas for growth
The Puni(sher/Edu)cator
- The Punicator as combing the strengths of both the Educator and the Punisher while avoiding their weakness by compensation (E’s strengths nullify P’s weaknesses and vice versa)
- An ideal that defines a limit point, while trying to extend and to maximize one’s toolkit as judge
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
6. The Punicator and her community
- Bias and performance
- Professional ethics vs personal ethics
- Community
- Input and feedback as remedies
- Talk, talk, talk (sapere aude & gnoti seauton)
- Role of shadowing and reviews
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
7. Wrap-Up: Three scenarios
- “Free” mulligan – Why it’s considered cheating, [0]-ruling on judge-L
- Off-duty judge and OA – Happened at Worlds 2008, where a judge wanted to DQ a fellow-judge for that “offense.” (I don’t know, though, what actually came out of it.)
- Kid at Grand Melee – Happened at GenCon 200?, where this “little kid” turned out to be a real menace later by playing an (almost) infinite turn combo deck, stalling the whole Grand Melee for hours and hours with all the turn markers piling up to his right
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Thank you!
PS: I wish to extend my sincere thanks to an incredible responsive group of judges, ranging from L0 to L4. I hope to provide the full contents in form of a judge article anytime soon.