Program Construction and Philosophy

This is the seventh installment in a series focused on tying the L3 qualities to actions/behaviors you can find at all levels in the judge program. 

One of the major steps of the L3 advancement process is the creation and occasional revisiting of a detailed self-review. This review specifically must address strengths and weaknesses in the 9 identified qualities of an L3 judge.

As I have been spending some time contemplating these qualities, I realized each individual quality is worth a discussion here. One topic I’ve mentioned previously is the idea that a level does not define you as a judge (though it certainly does have implications on the amount of work/testing you’ve gone through). It strikes me that many judges, therefore, may not have taken the time to think about and review their strengths and weaknesses at each of these qualities until they are contemplating going for L3.

These qualities are not reserved for L3s or L3 candidates. On the contrary, many of these are characteristics of judges I see regularly, and from those who have likely not yet even thought seriously about the L3 advancement process. These qualities, therefore, serve as a nice framework for a series of blog posts. I hope to bring a discussion of how each quality may apply or be seen at a local (L1) or area level (L2), not just at the regional level (L3).

Program Construction and Philosophy

Level 3 Judges can describe the roles of Level 1, 2, and 3 judges and the qualities that make good judges at those levels. They have expectations for judges at each level that are consistent with the philosophies of the Judge Program. They are aware of and understand recent developments and changes within the program. A deficient judge has expectations and views of the Judge Program’s structure that are incorrect or inconsistent with the program’s philosophies. The judge may have expectations for other judges that are significantly out of step for one or more of the judge levels. The judge may be unaware of or misapplying recent developments in the Judge Program. An exemplary judge is one who, in addition to understanding the structure and philosophy of the Judge Program, is also able to offer constructive opinions on how to improve the program going forward. His or her views reflect an understanding of the current needs of the program and areas where deficiencies or areas for improvement may be worth exploring.

This quality is one of the more difficult ones to show excellence in. It’s not impossible by any means, but particularly at L1 or L2, getting opportunities to demonstrate skill here is fairly rare. The main examples of judges showing this quality (or lack thereof) comes in forum discussions. For example, there has been a lot of forum conversation/debate around GPTs and their utilization by the judge community. The discussions that take place when such changes arise can clarify one’s understanding of the role of each judge level. Other areas to see demonstrations of this quality can be found in regional communication channels such as Slack or Facebook groups. Forums have the benefit of being widely visible, but sometimes you can find evidence of excellence (and room for improvement) within your region in these channels as well.

That last sentence in the description– “…reflect an understanding of the current needs of the program…“–is very important. Instead of just reacting, the ability to form opinions and brainstorm solutions to problems is a great way to demonstrate skill in this quality. Take the time to go through the mental exercises and imagine what the end results of your proposed solutions may be. This gives you more credibility, and really, more empathy from others than if you simply find fault with current program structure. Even more importantly, if you are able to identify problems around your area, and propose solutions to those problems, well, you have done a large portion of the work in starting to fix the issues you’ve identified.

In order to try and get a feel for how we can witness excellence in this skill at each level, let’s start by taking a look at what the program defines each level as.

Level 1 – Regular REL In-Store Judge

A Level 1 judge has demonstrated sufficient knowledge of the Comprehensive Rules and Regular REL policies to run a small store-level event such as an FNM.

Level 1 judges are not tested on more complex sections of the rules, or on Competitive REL policies. Some Level 1 judges may be capable of floor judging a Competitive REL event unsupervised, but this is not a default expectation of the role, and those judges should be encouraged to certify for Level 2.

A common disconnect I often see from seasoned L1 judges is that last line, specifically “this is not a default expectation of the role.” Even though there are many highly skilled L1 judges who are capable of judging Comp REL events, this does not mean that that situation is the expectation. I personally prefer to think of this in the geographic model. L1 judges are store judges. That doesn’t preclude them from judging within a more widespread range, but it isn’t the expectation of the role.

An exceptional L1 will stand out as a leader of Magic events at their store, and represents the Magic brand and judging as a whole as an ambassador to new and established casual players. This part is, surprisingly, often overlooked. L1 judges are bulk of the program, and they have opportunity to interact with and influence players significantly more frequently than judges at L2 and L3 (generally).

L2 – Competitive REL Judge

A Level 2 judge has been certified to run events at Competitive REL. They are responsible for PPTQs and represent the bulk of judges on the floor of a Grand Prix and other large-scale tournaments. They are expected to mentor and test Level 1 candidates. They may get the certifications to mentor and test Level 2 judges, and to team lead at day 2 of a Grand Prix.

The requirements for this level reflect the expectation of greater diplomacy and involvement for someone who will often be moving from location to location, judging for multiple Tournament Organizers and sharing their knowledge of rules and tournament practices with other judges. They may also choose to become involved in global projects as they learn more about the Judge Program.

L2 judges mainly have the responsibility of HJing pPTQs. This generally will require them to maintain relationships with multiple TOs/stores, and this requires diplomacy and a willingness to travel and cover a wider geographical range than L1s are expected to. With the recent changes under NNWO, travel and working with multiple stores isn’t a requirement anymore, but it is still a common reality for L2 judges. Judge mentoring and development is an expectation for L2s, and moving around a wider area facilitates this goal. On top of this, understanding the role of an L1 is crucial to evaluating a judge candidate’s readiness to test for that level.

L3 – Premier Judge

Premier judges are experts in the field and the leaders of Premier Organized Play. They are the leaders on the floor of Grand Prix events, run many other Premier Events, and share their expertise and knowledge with other judges. They are involved with the global Judge Program; participating in and/or leading program projects that interest them is an expectation of the role. They mentor and test Level 1 and Level 2 candidates.

Becoming Level 3 is a demanding process that requires the candidate to demonstrate exceptional commitment, skill, knowledge, and diplomacy. It is a substantial achievement and the highest recognized level of judge.

I have included this mostly just to round out our descriptions. The role here is mainly to be event leaders at Premier-level events. This includes Team Leading at GPs, HJing RPTQs, and various other leadership roles in those Premiere events. L3s are looked to as regional leaders, and are more significantly involved in working on judge projects and program initiatives.

Examples from Exemplar

This quality is somewhat difficult to find examples for, simply because the language used to describe the quality varies greatly, and on top of that, it isn’t easily observed most of the time. This is especially true for L1s, because having an understanding of program construction and role expectations is pretty far beyond the realm of most judge interactions that L1s may have. The forums are a good exception to this, and you can often find quality examples of judges with sound understanding, but that is not often reflected in Exemplar nominations.

Another wrinkle to this is that those with strong skill in this quality tend to be quality mentors, and that is often reflected in nominations that fall more in that quality than in program construction. That said, I dug back into some older waves to highlight a couple, just so you all can see it isn’t entirely an ignored quality when it comes to Exemplar.

From Rob McKenzie to Chris Schafer (L2) – Chris, you did a fantastic job at SCG Milwaukee. I was very impressed by our discussions over the course of the weekend – you demonstrated a strong knowledge of program construction and philosophy, and did a great job of mentoring Tom at his first Open – he is going to take the stuff you ran him through back to run better PPTQs.

From CJ Crooks to Paul Johnson (L2) – I want to highlight your continuous (non-traditional) mentorship style. You were constantly looking to improve everyone around you (even with the threat of death) in tasks that weren’t necessarily judge related. You used your vocational skills to help others during GP Sydney to better their speaking skills and body language. During the following conference, you came in more prepared than any other presenter from your region. Part of that presentation highlighted your community work on the South Island. Through that we were able to discuss program construction philosophy. It’s often difficult for judges to adapt to program changes and I feel you were extremely open to changing your viewpoint. I look forward to seeing your continued contributions in the region.