Hello Friends!
Since we have had L2 Testers in the region we have had a process for ensuring fair treatment of all L2 candidates in our region and organizing the efforts of the L3 and L2 Testers in regards to L2 testing within the region. This article will detail why that process exists and what it looks like.
Back when Jarrod was the RC, he and I discussed the L3 verification committee at length since he was part of the Pre-Event Interview group and it is always good to know what the other parts of the L3 process are doing. During this conversation I brought up the idea of modeling our L2 advancement efforts after the Verification Committee for L3. This would include a pre-event interview form and some kind of voting system amongst those able to test L2s which at the time was only Jarrod Williams, David Rappaport, and Myself.
The earliest version of this looked like a Google Doc that we would share amongst ourselves used for adding comments about certain parts of the application that needed to be addressed in the interview or were possibly a blocking issue. Eventually with the addition of L2 Testers this method became less sustainable and we introduced a voting system in addition to the providing comments. The voting portion makes it so that no one person can block someone for L2 (with the exception of the RC).
Why do we have a process?
With the history out of the way, why does this process exist? The leadership of the region (RC and L3s at the time) wanted a manageable way to approach L2 testing in the region, a way for multiple eyes to look over a candidate’s pre-test requirements, and to provide a more consistent goal post for L2 testing within the region.
It is important to remember that all of these positions are volunteer based and that the time put into L2 testing is on an L3 or L2 Testers free time. This makes a manageable process incredibly important so as not to waste either the candidates time or the L3/L2 Tester groups time.
Having multiple people look over a candidate’s pre-test requirements helps to bring those responsible for L2 testing to a more consistent standard. It also opens up healthy dialog about why a requirement exists and what we believe the standard should be regionally versus programmatically. All of that comes together to provide a more consistent goal post for L2 testing within our region.
What is that process?
A minimum of Two Weeks prior to the desired testing date the candidate submits their pre-test requirements to the pre-interview form which can be found here. (https://blogs.magicjudges.org/greatlakes/level-2-pre-event-interview/)
The pre-test requirements can be found here. (https://blogs.magicjudges.org/o/judge-levels/#level-2)
The RC creates a Google Doc from the information provided and shares with the L3 and L2 Testers within the region.
The L3 and L2 Testers have a week to review the information and leave comments. During this process this group looks at each pre-test requirement with a critical eye and provide feedback about how anything submitted could be improved, how it should be addressed in the interview, or if it should be a blocking item.
After leaving comments, the L3 and L2 Testers will each vote on the candidate’s pre-interview. To be approved for testing a pre-interview needs to have at least 3 ‘Yes’ votes based on their comments. If a L3 or L2 Tester votes ‘No’ they leave feedback about what needs to be improved to change their vote to a ‘Yes’.
Finally the candidate is contacted by the RC with the results of the voting. Either the candidate is informed they are moving to the next step and scheduling of when and where they will test begins or they are informed of what items are holding them back. When a candidate is informed they will be held back they are given a clear action plan on how to move forward with testing along with some resources on how to improve.
Common Errors
The biggest errors experienced when submitting an L2 pre-event interview are reviews and the recommendation. Each of these items are usually corrected on the second submission however I want to give some tips on how to pass the first go around.
For reviews, be specific. What happened? Why was it good/needs improving? What can be done to improve/stay the course? Asking yourself these questions while writing a review can really help to level up your reviews. Another great resource is an article by Justin Turner, Habits of Highly Effective Reviewers. (https://wiki.magicjudges.org/en/w/Habits_of_Highly_Effective_Reviewers)
For recommendations, follow the guidelines outlined here. (https://blogs.magicjudges.org/o/judge-levels/level-2-recommendation-template-review/) Beyond that provide some details about how the candidate did at the tournament. What did they do that was good? What did they do that could be improved? Did they run the tournament at an acceptable level for a new Level 2? Finally, Why do you think they should be a Level 2? Answering these questions will greatly help not only the candidates but the tester as well!
Closing Thoughts
I hope this helps with understand how L2 testing works within the Great Lakes region. As always if you have any questions, comments, or concerns you can reach me at john.temple3@gmail.com