Greetings from Sofia, Bulgaria (or, by the time you read this, Istanbul, Turkey)! ... judicious planning would suggest that if one had an article due near the end of a two-week vacation, that one would write that article before they left, but that would have been too smart. Which is my way of explaining in advance the brevity of this article—if anything important was unanswered or left out, please reply in the forums or send mail and I'll make sure to reply to any gaps or to cover missing parts next month.

Refining the Scale
Up until very recently, the focus behind the DCI Judge Program and the mandate of Andy Heckt, the manager of the judge program, was finding the right role for every judge in the program, and to grow the quality of each of judge within those roles. One of the testaments to the success of this program was Andy's recent promotion out of this position to bigger and better things (congratulations to him, as well as new Judge Manager Bryan Zembruski), but he didn't leave without setting a new charter for the future of the program.

That charter is growth.

Growth, however, has a number of possible undesirable side effects, the most obvious of which is the traditional tension between quality and quantity, and while the program has quite successfully attained the quality goals from the previous focus, it would be unfortunate to trade that in for the larger quantity necessary to expand the reach of the game.

So how do you grow the number of judges without sacrificing their skills?

Trainers No More
Though their number surged in the latter half of last year, chances are that most of you have never known of, let alone met, a Level 2 Trainer. The Level 2 Trainer program was originally conceived as a stepping stone for Level 2 judges working on advancing to Level 3 who weren't yet ready for all of the responsibilities, but had shown their skill at helping new judges to grow and at evaluating their skill level relative to the metrics of the DCI. This gave them the responsibility and privilege of growing new judges and certifying them for Level 1.

A funny thing happened, though, as the ranks of the Trainers grew and the Trainer program was evaluated for its effectiveness. As the program pushed to raise everyone's skills, one way this was done was through trying to push mentorship, which was thought of as the province of the higher level judges, down through all of the ranks. The net result of this was a surge in the ability of most Level 2 judges in mentoring and growing new judges—the same kinds of things that the Trainer position was intended to recognize.

As it turns out, despite the Trainer position being conceived of as a step close to Level 3, over time it became obvious that it was actually closer to the skills that Level 2 judges were exhibiting than the additional things necessary for Level 3. Put this together with the desire to grow the number of judges in the program, something that was previously bottlenecked by the number of Trainers and Level 3 judges in the system, and you end up with a radical-feeling change that just might not be as dramatic as it seems—merge the Trainer role into Level 2 proper.

Evening the Scale
There are many different ways to define the roles of the different levels and the scope that judges at each level have. One such way is in the different types of activities that judges carry out with respect to interacting with other judges and the program at whole.

Consider the following scale of activities, ranked roughly from those you'd expect from novice judges, shown on the left, to those at the highest levels of the program, shown on the right (and if you disagree with this order, that's certainly a useful discussion to have as well):

[Apologies for the size of these images... the ones Nick sent were much more readable, and way over the largest size SCG allows. With him out of the country and your editor leaving the country for a wedding, there wasn't time to redo them. -Seamus]

• Observing is watching experienced and skilled judges to find out what judging is like and how it should be approached.
• Explaining is being able to articulate the things you're doing and why you're doing them in that manner, as well as the ability to explain rules and policies to others.
• Mentoring is the art of working directly with others to help advance their skills, determining their strengths and weaknesses, leading by example, communicating with them in a constructive yet firm way, providing encouragement and support, and finding activities to help them grow.
• Evaluating is the skill of stepping back and making critical judgments as to what others are doing well, what they need to do better, and how those goals fit in the overall framework of the program. This is often more challenging than strictly mentoring them because it requires making decisions with consequences as to where people stand, being able to explain those decisions to them even when they're negative, and being able to justify those decisions.
• Leading is the way in which judges mentor not just individual judges, but entire communities, playing a central role in determining the direction in which a judge and player community grows and evolves. It also involves understanding and communicating policies as they're created and helping others to in turn understand and accept those policies.
• Debating is the ability to critically think about policies and to challenge them when appropriate, while still effectively seeing other points of view and being able to explain and defend those policies even if you don't completely agree with them.
• Defining is crafting policies and overall program agendas, taking into account feedback and finding the right balance between flexibility and assertiveness. It involves being able to take complicated systems and distill them into simple, easy-to-understand policies that still consider the nuances of those systems.

Prior to this most recent change, here's a view on how the levels generally mapped to these roles—these are obviously generalizations, and many judges of all levels will dabble in any number of these things, but these are general foci of each level (and again, think about whether you agree—any disagreement is welcome!):

The alternating purple and orange bands represent the range of roles primarily covered by each level (remember that there is some bleed across roles and that this only represents a generalized case).

Now consider the shift that happens as a result of this change:

Visualizing the change in this way not only shows the growth in mentorship across existing Level 2 judges, but also highlights another major benefit to this shift. A conversation about the differences between Level 1 and Level 2 was always a bit murky and challenging, because it was difficult to explain how a Level 2 was more than just a "better Level 1". While the real answer was more substantial than this, the fact that this was difficult showed how tough it was to define the scope of a Level 2 judge. On the other hand, the difference between Level 2 and 3 was widely considered to be huge, and the gap between the two substantial.

With this change, though, the overlaps between the various levels become more uniform and each level has a solid, easy to describe role to play. Level 2 is now the level where mentorship and evaluation of other judges takes center stage, and Level 2 becomes the primary gateway to the initial certification of judges.

The New Level 2
So, practically, what does this mean for judges who are currently Level 2, and what does it mean for Level 1 judges looking forward to what might be in their future?

• While it has been the case that mentorship skills have been on the rise for the Level 2 community at large, prior to this switch, the ability to mentor and evaluate were not strongly enforced or well-known requirements, and it has been the case in some instances that superior tournament management skills, rules knowledge, or other such skills have been the primary driver toward advancement to Level 2. Because Level 2 is being shifted to focus on the mentorship and evaluation aspects of the role, it's important to make sure that the judges at that level from this point forward reflect that shift.
• Because of this (as current Level 2 judges have been notified) a recertification for that level is required in the next few months with a Level 3 or higher judge, a process which the Level 3 and higher community is aggressively facilitating among their communities. Perhaps the most important part of this process, and one that hasn't been strongly pushed, is that every current Level 2 judge should take some time to do some self-analysis. Is this the part of the program that you're interested in, are your skills up to a level that you feel makes you ready, and is this something you want to invest the time and effort into? Mentoring and certifying judges can be a sizable commitment, which might not be right for you. It remains the case that the right thing for every judge to do is to find a level that matches the role and scope they're happy with, and to do the best job they can at that level. Judges that are strict rules gurus, or experts at making tournaments run smoothly are very valuable, and if you know that's what interests you, run with that—as always, don't feel the obligation to seek the highest numbered level you can simply because the levels are numbered.
• If you're an existing Level 1 judge and have been eyeing Level 2, take some time to talk to your local Level 3 judge about what that now means. Understand what it means to be possibly the primary contact and mentor for prospective judges, what that responsibility looks like, and how to use it to grow those judges and the whole judge program in a responsible manner. Follow along with a certification conducted by a more experienced judge to see if it matches what you think it looks like, and to find ways that you might need to grow to do a good job with it. Chances are, you've gotten glimpses of this in the past but haven't yet gotten a full look at how that process works, and with the new mandate for Level 2 judges, you'll need to know as much as you can to figure out whether the role interests you and whether you've got the right skill set.

Wrapping Up
Above all, remember that Level 2 judges will soon be the face and exemplification of the DCI Judge Program to new prospective judges worldwide. As a Level 2, remember that and take the role seriously—your skills as an ambassador for the program and what it stands for are about to become more important than ever before. For everyone else, doing what you can to help your local Level 2s live up to their new role is one of the most effective ways in which you can help the long-term growth of your judge community and the program as a whole.

Next month: The changes keep on coming … it's now been a few months since the most recent revision to the Penalty Guidelines and the Player Communication Guidelines, but the changes were once again substantial and many players and judges still haven't quite digested the latest. It might not have been that long yet, but it's time to take another dive into the latest in DCI policy philosophies.

---
Nicholas J. Fang
DCI Certified Level 3 Judge—Redmond, WA
mtgjudge@live.com
Agbaar and Ag|Work on EFnet's #mtgjudge