Judge Quality

[ShadowCard]

Judging is not something that people should do lightly. If you're going to judge you better make sure that you are gonna make each call perfectly (even if that means consulting with another judge, either at the event or on the phone, or looking up a ruling in the compendium or some other resource). Of course not everyone is going to be perfect 100% of the time, but you need to walk into the event feeling like that's an easy possibility for you to do.

I'll go ahead and disagree with this. Yes, frame of mind is important. A judge walking into an event thinking "I can do this, I know the standard rulings and am able to walk my way through the more complex ones" is going to have a better time dealing with rulings than one who walks into an event thinking "I don't know any of these rulings, I hope no one asks me anything."
I would say it is more important that a judge is willing to double check his ruling when challenged or if he is unable to explain it against the player's rational. Perfection is not required, but the willingness to check yourself and admit and fix an error in a ruling is.

Can you not appeal to the Head Judge if you disagree with a ruling?

In my example at the side event, there was only the one judge.

 

[Jaeger]

IMO there is only 2 people to blame for an incorrect ruling, yourself or the head judge. You should know your rulings and if they answer it wrong, appeal to the head judge...

 

[Ditto]

There are a lot of different types of Judges. Some of them are in it for the reward, sad but true. Some of them are in it because they got bored of 'normal' playing. And then there are some like me that have been playing since Base Set (Minus a brief hiatus) and truly love the game. Saying 14-17 year olds should judge because they're more passionate about the game is flawed logic. I love this game. I love how it gets complicated and how games can and often do come down to a single card well played.

I don't think the poster of 14-17 year old judges is meaning that ONLY 14-17 year olds should judge, but merely saying that they typically make good judges because (like yourself) they care about the game and want to make sure things are done right.

Whether I agree with the poster or not is up for grabs, but I believe that is at least what the poster meant.

When I am designated HJ, whenever an appeal is made to me, I ask the floor judge that originally responded what has occured and what he/she feels is the correct fix as cited in the penalty guidelines. I then go to the table, tell both players that they will have a chance to say their side and start with the player that requested the judge (unless the judge saw an issue 1st). Once I have heard from all, asked Q's that I feel are needed to get all the info I can, I then step away to review the situation with the judge, consult the guidelines and any other resource, compedium included, and then make the call.

Are we perfect? No. That is like asking if the players ever screw up? Sure they do, otherwise, we wouldn't need Judges to fix their gaffes. As others have stated, an appeal to the HJ is your best recourse on site. Griping later online doesnt change the call. If you still believe an error was made, email OP and tell them. [email protected]

Keith

That first paragraph is a great guideline to follow if you're a judge and wondering how to handle situations.

I don't think the OP was really griping too much about a specific situation that happened, but rather, using it as an example of how we need to fix the general problem of having bad judges.

I'll go ahead and disagree with this. Yes, frame of mind is important. A judge walking into an event thinking "I can do this, I know the standard rulings and am able to walk my way through the more complex ones" is going to have a better time dealing with rulings than one who walks into an event thinking "I don't know any of these rulings, I hope no one asks me anything."
I would say it is more important that a judge is willing to double check his ruling when challenged or if he is unable to explain it against the player's rational. Perfection is not required, but the willingness to check yourself and admit and fix an error in a ruling is.

I feel I may have made myself unclear. Being confident in your ruling knowledge =/= being too stubborn to double check.

A judge should always be willing to double check their ruling. I double check even the smallest rulings, even if it's just reading the cards again even though it's a call that's been made 100 times before.

I was stressing the perfection, not as a frame of mind about the rules, but as a frame of mind about a judges job. Judges need to realize that they have a serious job, and it's not just fluffy cloud rainbow time for them to do nothing and get compensated for it. They are in charge of players futures, and they need to take that seriously.

 

[Twosips]

I actually had a good experience with a judge at Nats. We called him over he read both cards in question, made the ruling, explained the ruling, asked if both players agreed. We did and moved on. I assume if one of us hadn't he was prepared to consult another judge otherwise, why ask?

A possibly simple improvement to the dilemma is to have 2 judges consult on every call automatically. I don't notice that many simultaneous need for judges that this couldn't be done.

But there is already a protection in place and that is appealing to the head judge. Of course in the side events, I don't think they are set up like that. The side events are laid back fun type events and people shouldn't get too hung up on winning and losing these side events.

 

[SteveP]

I actually had a good experience with a judge at Nats. We called him over he read both cards in question, made the ruling, explained the ruling, asked if both players agreed....

Personally, I never ask the players if they "agree" with the ruling, but I do ask them if they "understand" the ruling.

If a judge has passed the Professor Exam, that says tons. Likewise, those who attended the judge/professor training/discussion at US Nats should probably get a certificate or something.

Optimally, it would be nice if you could look at a judge's resume (ie., how often and at what levels did he judge, how long he's judged, what training and/or exams he's completed). Without a judging certification level, a resume is the next best thing.

 

[ShadowCard]

I was stressing the perfection, not as a frame of mind about the rules, but as a frame of mind about a judges job.

Ah. Okay then :thumb:

I actually had a good experience with a judge at Nats. We called him over he read both cards in question, made the ruling, explained the ruling, asked if both players agreed. We did and moved on. I assume if one of us hadn't he was prepared to consult another judge otherwise, why ask?

I believe this is in the "Judge's manual."

But there is already a protection in place and that is appealing to the head judge. Of course in the side events, I don't think they are set up like that. The side events are laid back fun type events and people shouldn't get too hung up on winning and losing these side events.

That should not be an excuse for erroneous rulings occurring.

 

[SD PokeMom]

Every judge.. every single one... should be willing to consult to confirm a ruling.
No one is infallible. Being willing to confirm your own ruling by consulting resources and other judges is critical.

The correlary to this is that the judge should be willing to revise/reverse their ruling if that is what the resources show is correct.

I do both of these.

as do i.

as much as players don't want judges to make mistakes, WE don't want to either; i'd dare say most of us at the large events (us nats, worlds) err on the side of caution and consult with each other on nearly every ruling *just to make sure*.

we're judges, we're human, and sometimes we make mistakes; we're prone to the same fatigue and brainfreezes players are at these big events. i know i go into every tourney wanting to do the very best job possible; i'd say others do so as well.

and judges asking each other to confirm we're right should NOT equal 'doesn't know the ruling' in a player's mind! imo the worst thing a judge can do is think s/he 'knows it all'. that's the direct route to a missed call!

i'd also dare say that no judge has the floor rules/pen guides/judge manual/compendium 'memorized'. i know i don't...but i certainly make sure those resources are on site and available for quick reference...and use them when the situation arises.

jmho
'mom

 

[AyameHikaru]

I don't think the poster of 14-17 year old judges is meaning that ONLY 14-17 year olds should judge, but merely saying that they typically make good judges because (like yourself) they care about the game and want to make sure things are done right.

Whether I agree with the poster or not is up for grabs, but I believe that is at least what the poster meant.

Ah, my apologies. I did know that's what the poster meant, I didn't make myself clear. ^^; I think that it would be difficult if they lowered the judging age, though. They'd have to have some sort of lesser judge category, I think, like "judge-in-training" or something like that. Make it a rule that they can't judge any age division higher than their own, because quite frankly I don't think a 30 yr old Master is going to want to take orders from someone who isn't even legal to drive. I'm not saying it's a bad idea to lower the minimum age, but it would definitely have to be done carefully.

@SD Pokemom: I completely agree with what you say. I think that some judges (particularly new ones) are afraid to refer to the HJ or other judges for fear of appearing stupid and losing respect. However, making a bad call because you didn't ask the HJ loses you a lot more respect in the end, I think.

 

[secretsof2113]

As a judge who does work on the National level, I'm the same way. I almost always consult someone else on my judging team, even if it's just for a confirmation. I had Gallade vs Azelf LA ruling come up during nats, and told the players what I felt was the correct ruling. I was honest with them and told them it had never come up with me around before, so I was going to ask another judge on my team to be sure I was correct. I'd rather be 100% certain on a ruling, then mess it up.


Even the experienced judges aren't perfect. We're prone to brain freezes and farts sometimes. But for most of us, it's the passion for the game that we have, that keeps us judging.

 

[Trican]

I wonder how feasible it would be for TCPi to provide the Kindles with the Compendium/Ruling Docs on it at premier level events. Sort of like a group set not given to individuals for the service(though would continue to make an awesome reward for judges in the cup.)

I have only judged for this game at one BR so far, but I have judged for other games and would just make the following comment:

Judges don't make calls in a malicious way, if they did they wouldn't stay judges very long. Judges will try to do their best, and they will try to make a proper warning. As much as it is the judge's responsibility to know the rulings the players should also know "tricky rulings" for their deck to give reason to appeal to a higher judge. If your deck takes advantage of some obscure ruling then you should be able to cite the "why" that makes it work.

Good ole Paragraph 5 Subsection 12.

 

[Biggie]

If you are looking for judges (or any human for that matter) that will never make mistakes, please let me know when you find them. Judges in courts of law all the way up to the Supreme Court have made bad calls or felt the need to adjust their stances on rulings after it was shown that there was a reason to do so. Let’s focus on some realistic expectations. :wink:

I walked the floor at Nats every day but Sunday and I can tell you that not one of the judges I saw working were taking their role lightly and we all understand that there is always room for improvement. Each and every year we look at what we can do better and this year will be no exception. We are making progress in getting our judges on the same page, working with Team Compendium and our judges on setting up Judging Seminars at our events, and looking into even more ways to help our judges have all the tools they need on hand.
That said this stuff won’t happen overnight and no matter how hard they try, judges will fall victim to their humanity and make mistakes now and then.

As players, you have a role and stake in the outcome of our efforts as well.
If you feel that you have feedback that can help us better our program, tell us about it.
If you have feedback for your judge, let them know what your needs are.
If you feel that a judge is detrimental to your area, we need to know about it so that we can look ino the situation and come to our own conclusions. (And no, simply ruling against you a few times is not going to be the kind of thing we are talking about here.)

At the end of the day players and judges are all on the same team. The players want to have a good time, and the judges want to make sure that can happen by keeping things fair and consistent.
Instead of mocking a judge who changed a ruling because you corrected them, perhaps you should appreciate the fact that they were willing to admit that they were wrong. In return, the judges will not mock you for needing them to correct you from time to time.

Instead of declaring a judge mentally incompetent because you don't agree with a ruling they have made, make a point of discussing it with them when it's appropriate. In return the judges will take the time to explain their rulings without making any assumptions about your intelligence.

Instead of jumping to conclusions based on 2nd and 3rd hand versions of how/why a penalty was issued, remind yourself that you weren’t there to get the whole story, and discuss your concern with the judge the next time you get a chance to get their side of the story. In return the judges will not make rulings against you based on stories from people who did not witness your match.

An us vs them attitude is not going to help anyone. Work with your judges instead of lashing out at them or working against them and I am certain that things can only get better.:thumb:

 

[secretsof2113]

I wonder how feasible it would be for TCPi to provide the Kindles with the Compendium/Ruling Docs on it at premier level events. Sort of like a group set not given to individuals for the service(though would continue to make an awesome reward for judges in the cup.)


Good ole Paragraph 5 Subsection 12.

We actually had a rules list on our clipboards during the event. Sometimes they can be a pain to flip through though. Having a way to search for a section would ultimately be better.

 

[SD PokeMom]

though i love my kindle, search on it is still rather slower than on a laptop/netbook, and very likely than it is flipping through a paper copy (assuming one is a quick reader/scanner and knows which section they're looking for).

the docs are already available to anyone who wants them in pdf format which can be uploaded to your own computer, e-reader device or printed. asking OP to supply them preloaded in kindles is frankly not needed, nor cost-effective imho.

jmho
'mom

 

[Prime]

Hi, how may I help you?

You don't like the inconsistencies of judges' rulings, and you don't appreciate when judges give bad rulings that sometimes cost a player a game, or even possibly a larger prize? Is this correct?

Well, first let me apologize for your grievances. We care a lot about the quality of the game, and understand how important it is for all judges to be consistent in their rulings and in their interactions with the players. We are constantly striving to improve our range of skills involved in judging and help make each and every tournament you participate in a smoother and more fun event.

Please remember, that with every ruling that is given by a judge, you as a player have the right to ask to speak to the lead or head judge of the age group or event. Please realize that once the head judge has ruled on the matter, that his or her word is final. If you have any further complaints or concerns, you are welcome to direct them to those in charge of Pokemon Organized Play. Do not worry; every concern or complaint is read very closely and given equal attention.

The last thing to say, and it is important to point out, is that judges are humans too, and all humans err. I know it can be frustrating when an judge's error affects you or someone you know personally, but I ask you to please understand that judges don't try to make mistakes no more than players do in their games. Both sides practice and try to refine their skills before a tournament, and yet both sides will eventually make a mistake here or there. If a mistake happens, please take advantage of the various opportunities you are given as a player to communicate to a higher authority.

Do you have any questions?

Thank you!

 

[meganium45]

As for younger age judges, the youngest judge I had on a staff this year was...

11 years old.

He was a superior member of my judging staff, and I treated him with the same respect and responsibility I do with any of my judges. Warning on down, he can give them, prize penalty or up, consult the HJ, and be prepared to tell the HJ what you think the penalty is, and describe the situation to them.

This kid was NAILS during the Battle Road season, judging for me at 3 events. Did some people scoff at the idea of an 11 year old judge. Maybe at first. When you declare that your 11 year old judge is the Number One Rated player in the World...he gets some street cred. Immediately.

I don't judge a judge by his age. We have had successful 13 year old judges in my area. We have a very successful 40+ year old judge in my area (not me, only 38 :tongue. There are many more qualities that I look for in a judge than simply the age.

1. Does this judge work to preserve the integrity of the event?
2. Is this judge approachable, and does he make the players feel comfortable?
3. Does this judge report problems and potential problems up the chain of command?

You want to judge for me? Make sure you work on 1...2 and 3.

Any judge questioned by a player on a ruling who does not offer to confirm the ruling, not going to last long in my stable.

Judges (self included) can always improve.

Judging quality can therefore always improve.

Vince

 

[Trican]

though i love my kindle, search on it is still rather slower than on a laptop/netbook, and very likely than it is flipping through a paper copy (assuming one is a quick reader/scanner and knows which section they're looking for).

the docs are already available to anyone who wants them in pdf format which can be uploaded to your own computer, e-reader device or printed. asking OP to supply them preloaded in kindles is frankly not needed, nor cost-effective imho.

jmho
'mom

That I didn't realize. When I was a professor for WotC we were given a hard copy of the compendium and ruling documents to have at hand. These were printed on decent quality paper and placed inside a DCI or Pokemon printed binder(I forget) which was nice to have and easy to bring along. I haven't attempted to print all pages of the current compendium, but I imagine it totals in the 100s which would be a pain to personally print, but if its the easiest way to have a set of rulings well I likely know what I'll do when I refill ink.

I would say just providing paper copies of ruling would be as effective. I think at the point the judge's clipboard has rulings on it, and have other judges to consult with all that can be done is done.

I'll agree with the statements and my opinion; players are just as responsible for knowing unique rulings as a judge. Working my way up I think I'd be asked to know different things from a Battle Roads > States > Regionals > Nationals > Worlds. Experience is a teacher, and one person's experience might be that they need to know five rulings versus one specific ruling.

Part of the reason imo that judges increase in number from local to broad events is to combine their knowledge. To me the best judge is the one that will say "Ya know, I really don't know. Let me go ask Bill he is pretty good about that sort of thing."

 

[prodigal_fanboy]

The issue I think that would arise with younger players as judges it that a great deal of emotional maturity and nerves are needed to handle the job. I don't think I could judge Juniors, ever. I wouldn't know what to do when one of them broke down on me, if that happened. Furthermore, I could learn (but don't know) the penalties, although I know a strong bit about rewinds (whoops, haha!). When you're suggesting 14-17 year old players as ideal judges, remember that there is more to judging than card-on-card interactions.

That said, if people would stick up for themselves more (and HJs would be willing to double check, but let's not go there), this wouldn't be as big of an issue. If you are right and you keep a cool head and the HJ has a cool head (as they should) then everything will be fine.

 

[Cyrus]

I had some frustrations with the way things went - specifically an incident in T128 where I lost on time, asked for a time extension, and was denied said extension by both the judge (Prime) and the HJ (lawman) despite my opponent not only receiving a slow play warning from Mr. Meches, but him admitting that he did in fact play slow. You can't really do anything either, since judging proactively determined the time my opponent used to be unequal.

The rationale? It wasn't written on the slip at the time, so it didn't make the match eligible for a time extension. I was kind of shocked that this kind of thing would actually happen, especially when a staff claims that it doesn't tolerate unfair slow play...Why, it even said so on that sheet each player received on Friday!

When it's established that an unfairness occurred in a match, you don't cop out to "well this is the technicality we're going to screw you over on" - you remedy it.

 

[Leaf]

I'm not saying that every single judge should make every single call correctly, obviously that is impossible. But when you get a lot of players complaining about how a lot of judges make the wrong calls consistently, or don't take necessary steps to perform their duties correctly, then you have a problem.

Also, I know a lot of you are just saying "Well, you can consult the head judge!"

Well, just as an example, my friend was playing in the mutant draft at nationals, and his opponent argued a ruling, and called the judge over. The judge agreed with my friend, but his opponent appealed to the head judge, who got the ruling wrong. Obviously there wasn't a lot at stake, but it does prove that head judges are not always better than regular judges.

Also, I would like to state that the original intention of this thread was not to bash judges, but to come up with a solution to make judging better overall, because it obviously needs improvement.

 

[The_Lurb]

Ah, my apologies. I did know that's what the poster meant, I didn't make myself clear. ^^; I think that it would be difficult if they lowered the judging age, though. They'd have to have some sort of lesser judge category, I think, like "judge-in-training" or something like that. Make it a rule that they can't judge any age division higher than their own, because quite frankly I don't think a 30 yr old Master is going to want to take orders from someone who isn't even legal to drive. I'm not saying it's a bad idea to lower the minimum age, but it would definitely have to be done carefully.

What a load of crap. I could name 10+ people right now under 18 (one of them is 10) that could do a much, much better job then many judges I've encountered. If older people can't deal with the fact that younger people can also be correct then they can just get over it. I don't say they can just go to the HJ because I also believe that younger people should be allowed to do that. If the younger person was not the HJ there's nothing stopping you from whining about a likely correct ruling to someone else just because they're older. Learning the penalty guidelines is not difficult. I feel I have a decent knowledge of them even though I have never once looked at the official list. I don't even pay attention to these things, this is just from overhearing it at an event. Prodigal does bring up a good point with the emotional part of judging but that likely just takes a little practice to learn how to be stern or how to say the correct consoling thing to a crying junior.

I know judges can't be perfect but there's a problem when a judge at Nationals (main event) doesn't know that Unown G was errata'd to only prevent effects from your opponent's attacks. Now the lady was extremely nice and it was quickly resolved but there's not much of an excuse for not knowing such a simple thing especially at an event like Nationals.

So what I think is that the age of a judge, even for say worlds, should be lowered to 11 and the standards for judges should be raised quite a bit. Every judge should be required to pass the professor exam and take some set amount of events to just stick by a judge that has already gone through both of these. This would be to just observe, learn and say what they think is correct for the situation with no actual rulings coming from said judge in training (I guess I did agree with something you said, but this should be for all judges =P.) After they complete these tasks they can go onto actually judge. If incorrect ruling are made at Regs-Worlds the judge that made this ruling should be penalized somehow. Even if it's just sitting out the next event for judging.

I also find it amazing how insane the support is for judges in comparison to the players. A person could make $200 in one weekend by just judging two cities assuming the support is one box which seems common. While I'm fine with that, when you get a judge who constantly screws up but is basically getting paid for it I do get miffed. A player has to play flawlessly at a Regionals to earn one box while a judge can screw up at a cities and earn the same thing. Doesn't seem fair to me.