Making Judges More

Judges have a set amount of time they can spend on Magic. It would be great if we could spend all day pondering the implications of misplayed Ponders, but such is not the world we live in. As educators of the judge community, we to have acknowledge the fact that we won’t always have the undivided attention of our audience. In fact, we might not even have an audience in the first place. How do we best coordinate our educational opportunities to maximize their effect on our fellow judges? I don’t know the final answer to this, but I do have some suggestions.

Suggestion one: know your audience.

Your audience defines what you should be talking about. Let’s give some examples. What is the better seminar topic, when your audience is mostly L0 judge candidates: “How to Report Disqualifications” or “How to Determine Power and Toughness”? Which is a better discussion topic for judges on the floor of a PTQ: “Name all of the tournament shortcuts” or “How to improve your applications to large events”?

Targeting your audience is not easy. Your audience isn’t always a well-defined group of judges. You could be attempting to write an article about Slow Play. Such a document needs to be written for a more general audience than an article about testing for Level 2. What if you are preparing a seminar for a judge conference? Do you know who will be there? What will the tenor of the conference be; is it intended as educational, for newer judges (for example, Las Vegas 2011 judge conference), or is it intended for a large group of experienced judges (Worlds 2011 judge conference)? Knowing this beforehand can help you tailor your discussion. On the other hand, if you don’t know what you’re getting into, be prepared to modify things day-of.

Suggestion two: be direct.

Nothing is worse than the infinite PowerPoint presentation, or the long rambling story with no end, or a lengthy rant about something that ends up in a completely different place than you started. You will lose your audience. Be brief.

Suggestion three: interact.

Lectures are boring. Recess is not. Make your presentations more like recess and less like a lecture. This is often easier than it may seem. Say you’re giving a presentation with the aid of a PowerPoint. Leave conclusions off of your slides entirely. Ask the audience to conclude your thoughts for you. Don’t provide examples of power and toughness reversing effects, ask the audience for them. Stop giving presentations and start having conversations.

Props are a great way to keep the attention on you and your presentation. Large print-outs of cards, decks to show shuffle techniques, some pre-marked cards: all of these are tools you can use to make your discussions more engaging. Some topics, such as Unsporting Conduct, might not be amenable to props. Instead, try roleplay. Get judges to act the part of offenders and you’ll find your audience is much more involved.

This isn’t always easy. If you’re communicating in a written format, this can be difficult to do. Using spoiler tags and making your document into a mini-quiz is a good way to force interaction. Making people click through links to proceed through sections (think of the “Choose Your Own Adventure” stories) is another way to force your audience to interact.

_____________________________________________________________

It’s our duty as educators and leaders to ensure that our messages get heard. Part of that is knowing how to say things in a way that will get through to our listeners. Good luck!

Fun bonus rules question!

I control a Mogg Flunkies and a Canyon Minotaur. During my upkeep my opponent targets my Flunkies with the first ability of his Courtly Provocateur. What are my legal attacks?

This entry was posted in Education, Judging. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Making Judges More

  1. louisf says:

    Boom! You hit the nail on the head :). We look at combat and say, “How many requirements can we fulfill while violating no restrictions (with the caveat that we can’t force people to pay costs)?” Attacking with both fulfills one requirement and violates no restrictions. We have to choose that path.

  2. Brant says:

    You must attack with both because you must satisfy all constraints that do not have costs and attacking with Canyon Minotaur does not have a cost associated with it.

Comments are closed.