{"id":993,"date":"2017-06-20T11:00:15","date_gmt":"2017-06-20T15:00:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/feedback\/?p=993"},"modified":"2017-09-23T19:31:09","modified_gmt":"2017-09-23T23:31:09","slug":"investigating-my-failed-panel","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/feedback\/2017\/06\/20\/investigating-my-failed-panel\/","title":{"rendered":"Investigating My Failed Panel"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"
\nAt the end of Saturday at SCG Baltimore, I reviewed my notebook in amazement at the number of complex calls I had taken. Calls that made me wonder about the motivations of players who shuffled an opponent\u2019s library when counting how many cards remained in the library. Played an Oath of Nissa<\/a> through their own Chalice of the Void<\/a> on 1. Used a Polluted Delta<\/a> to find a Mountain<\/a>. Twice.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n

The event felt like a series of one investigation after another. Where did they all come from? In GP Richmond a few weeks earlier, calls seemed much simpler. Were the players in Baltimore just sloppier? Cheatier?<\/span><\/p>\n

I actually think the difference between the two events had more to do with me. I\u2019d changed. And the change had a lot to do with some of the most important feedback I have ever received. <\/span><\/p>\n

Between Grand Prix Richmond and SCG Baltimore, I paneled for L3 at Pro Tour Amonkhet. My panel tested my investigations with two separate role-playing scenarios. During those scenarios I demonstrated a major deficiency in my investigations skills and subsequently failed the panel. <\/span><\/p>\n

At the end of my panel, we reviewed my investigations. My panelists pointed out tangible things I failed to consider: significant advantage, nervous behavior, evasive answers to questions, as well as strategies I could have used to better understand player motivation. I left that conversation with a much clearer idea of how to spot cheating and a set of strategies I was ready to implement. <\/span><\/p>\n

Despite the excellent feedback I received, failing the panel hurt. I worried that this failure would change how people viewed me as a judge. The failure was too significant for me to hide from it or hope it would go away quietly. In those first moments after the panel, the failure felt enormous, heavy, and insurmountable. But two things helped me step back and regain perspective on the experience. <\/span><\/p>\n

First, the panel finished in time for me to return to the floor to judge the final round of the Pro Tour. And I was still the same judge that I had been before that panel\u2014I could still contribute to making that event run well. I could still answer calls with confidence and diplomacy. <\/span><\/p>\n

Second, after asking me the inevitable question \u201cDid you pass?\u201d, my judge friends commiserated with me. Then we returned the event and life as usual. I hadn\u2019t suddenly become a pariah or an embarrassment. That one failure didn\u2019t erase our previous shared experiences and successes.<\/p>\n

The support of my friends allowed me to process my frustration and disappointment with a focus on the future rather than the past. Yes, I had demonstrated a major deficiency in investigations at the time of that panel. But that didn\u2019t mean I needed to allow it to <\/span>remain<\/span><\/i> a major deficiency moving forward. I had been looking forward to head judging an SCG Classic in Baltimore as a new L3. And I realized that letting the panel failure define me would do a disservice to that event as well as my fellow judges. <\/span><\/p>\n

So I worked on improving my investigations mindset. I prepared to apply what my panel judges had shown me about myself. I\u2019ve always tended to trust my instinct and fix a situation quickly\u2014without fully exploring how the players might have gotten themselves into the situation. You know how we often \u201cassume you\u2019ve ruled out cheating\u201d when we discuss policy? I do that. I <\/span>assume<\/span><\/i>. Without <\/span>asking <\/span><\/i>the questions that actually rule cheating out. <\/span><\/p>\n

On Saturday morning in Baltimore, I was more nervous than usual. I was hoping to take at least one call that would allow me to practice my new awareness of investigations. Here\u2019s my first call from Round 1: <\/span><\/p>\n

My opponent cracked a Polluted Delta<\/a> at the end of last turn, searched up a Mountain<\/a>, and then used Lightning Bolt<\/a> on my Birds of Paradise<\/a>. Now it\u2019s my turn. I resolve an Anafenza, Kin-Tree Spirit<\/a> and prepare to pass the turn. At the end of my turn, my opponent also cast and resolved Thought Scour<\/a>, targeting himself. After Thought Scour resolved, we noticed that he had fetched the Mountain with the Polluted Delta. What should we do?\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I almost laughed at the situation. I wasn\u2019t expecting an investigation so soon! And I finished the call knowing that I hadn\u2019t just assumed. The questions I asked made me confident in my ruling. <\/span><\/p>\n

I used to tell people that I just hadn\u2019t encountered many \u201cinvestigative\u201d calls as a judge. As I reviewed my notebook after that weekend, I realized that wasn\u2019t the case at all. Investigations had popped up everywhere; I just wasn\u2019t noticing them. Feedback helped me confront that weakness. And the judges around me reminded me that failure doesn\u2019t have to define me. I am defining who I am\u2014one event, one call, and one response to feedback at a time. <\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

At the end of Saturday at SCG Baltimore, I reviewed my notebook in amazement at the number of complex calls I had taken. Calls that made me wonder about the motivations of players who shuffled an opponent\u2019s library when counting how many cards remained in the library. Played an through their own on 1. Used […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":275,"featured_media":997,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[51,41,118],"tags":[23,52,46],"language":[78],"class_list":["post-993","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-erik-aliff","category-evaluation","category-failure","tag-edited-by-angela-aliff","tag-erik-aliff","tag-evaluation","language-en"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/feedback\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/993","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/feedback\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/feedback\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/feedback\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/275"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/feedback\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=993"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/feedback\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/993\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1003,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/feedback\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/993\/revisions\/1003"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/feedback\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/997"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/feedback\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=993"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/feedback\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=993"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/feedback\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=993"},{"taxonomy":"language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.magicjudges.org\/feedback\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/language?post=993"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}