In a perfect world, feedback would would be freely given and freely received. Reviewers would be open and honest about what they had to say, and those being reviewed would open their minds to what others were saying, even if it wasn't necessarily what they want to hear. Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world, and it's a lot harder to provide feedback in a way that makes someone want to listen than it is to just write a review. As a reviewer, you need to figure out how to get your reader
I sit down to write a self review. I’ve been told that it’s good for me, it gives me a benchmark, it helps me gain perspective on my own opinion, it makes me better for the self review. I’ve got a blank page in front of me. That’s not helping. I go and check the qualities - yup. Can confirm, there’s stuff I’m bad at. Page is still blank. Writing a self review can be daunting. In the judge program, the term “Self Review” has connotations connecting it to the L3 process
We’ve all experienced communication breakdowns. Sometimes there are technical factors, like bad reception or ambient noise. Sometimes there is a problem with effectiveness; the communicator is doing a poor job of selecting words. And sometimes there are semantic problems, those times when the intended message doesn’t match the received message. In day-to-day life, semantic problems in communication can cause some damage. Especially when they elicit identity triggers. Last week, used a personal
Several factors can cause us to reject instantaneously the feedback we receive. Sometimes the feedback strikes us as off-base, incorrect, or uniformed, causing a truth trigger. Other times we think their opinions or preconceptions of us are unfairly coloring their observations, causing a relationship trigger. And then there are times where what you are told violates a core belief you have about yourself. We call our reaction to this an identity trigger. What the other person is saying feels fundamentally
(Article d’origine publié le 9 mai 2017 par Erin Leonard, traduit par Morgane Costaire) Si l’on se demande comment fournir un retour efficace après un événement, les articles sont nombreux. Il n’en est pas de même lorsqu’il s’agit de recevoir ce retour. Les arbitres font beaucoup d’efforts pour fournir un feedback de qualité au travers des reviews, des nominations exemplar ou lors d’une simple conversation. Qu’en faisons-nous après l’avoir reçu ? Parfois nous pouvons
This week, The Feedback Loop continues its celebration of 100 posts with your thoughts on feedback. Many thanks to the dozens of judges from around the world who contributed! If you missed the deadline, it's not too late to join us. Share up to 100 words about feedback in the comments below!
Welcome to The Feedback Loop's 100th post! In celebration of this milestone, we as the blog staff have each written 100 words about feedback and a brief introduction to our involvement in the judge program. Join us next week for a continuation of the celebration with contributions from you, our readers!
However, all it really takes to have meaningful feedback is to have a conversation with someone else about a way one of you could improve. This person could be a player, a tournament organizer, or even a judge who was nowhere near your event. Let’s dig into some of these ideas, and how you can leverage them in your community.
Earlier this year I was the Head Judge of the SCG Modern Classic in Richmond, Virginia. During round one, I was out walking the floor and decided that I would take a call near me. As I delivered my ruling, I thought to myself: “I’m in this shirt for a reason. I know this ruling; I know that I’m correct.” Spoilers: I was wrong. After walking away from the call, I was approached by one of my floor judges, . He asked me about the ruling and whether I was correct. I was still pretty
Changing your perception of feedback isn’t something that happens because you read an article. It happens because you make a positive choice for the future in how you wish to leave your mark on the program.