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
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!
This month’s contribution to the Self-Review Series comes from the editor’s desk. Thanks, , for letting me jump in. Self-reviews are pointless. They take too much time. They’re redundant. Part One of this series is meant to convince you otherwise. All the same, Riki and I have recently asked a number of judges why they don’t write self-reviews, and those responses are the most common. Today, I want to posit my own theory on why self-reviews are written so rarely: Self-reviews
As an educator, I constantly notice educational processes at work in the judge program. When we’re not learning how interacts with or what to do when a player doesn't discard a card to , we’re teaching players about why they receive a Warning for missing their trigger. In the realm of the ideal where judges and players alike are completely logical and absolutely confident that what the comprehensive rules literally say is literally true, these educational moments are straightforward. But