Layers of Communication

Imagine, for a moment, that somebody comes up to you and asks you the following question:

Suppose that I attack with my Uthden Troll and my opponent blocks with a Glory Seeker. I regenerate the Uthden Troll; we put damage on the stack, and with damage on the stack, I play Momentary Blink on my Uthden Troll and it resolves. Then, with damage still on the stack, my opponent plays Shock on my Uthden Troll, and then we let everything resolve. What happens?

Take a moment to consider what the answer is. And then, take another moment to decide how you would explain it to the person who asked. Is there is a definitive right answer to this question? Is there a definitive right explanation?

What is "Right"?
Except for those cases where something isn't well defined yet in the Comprehensive Rules (an increasingly rare case as time goes by), Magic rulings tend to take on a very black and white nature. There's a single correct answer that explains what happens, and any other answer is incorrect. This leads "naturally" to the idea that there's also a single correct explanation that leads to that answer, and any other explanation is wrong.

This is, of course, not actually true. It's all well and good that there is a single, definitively correct answer (and Magic would be a mess if there wasn't), but there is no single correct explanation. This should be obvious if you spend any time thinking about it, but oftentimes can get lost. Getting stuck in the mindset that there is only one correct explanation is one of the ruts that judges (and players) get stuck in. While it would be convenient if it were true, clinging to that idea can hamper one's effectiveness at communicating concepts.

Instead, there is a range of correct explanations, each of which can accurately explain how to arrive at the single correct answer. This presents an interesting question—what constitutes one of the "right" explanations, and what constitutes a "wrong" one? There are certainly some obvious factors that can differentiate a correct explanation from an incorrect one—it needs to be relevant to the question at hand, and it needs to be factually accurate and lead to the correct answer.

Even within those confines, however, there is a large range of explanations that are all still right. This doesn't mean that all of them are equally appropriate, however. The secret to knowing which one actually is the best one to use for the circumstances depends on the notion of communication layers.

Communication Layers
Among software engineers, altitude is often used as a metaphor for the level of detail that somebody wants to hear when they're asking for a description of a concept or of a system. For example, a twenty-thousand-foot view of a system generally refers to a high-level diagram of the various components of a system and how they relate to each other, whereas a thousand-foot view might be about the interfaces and interactions between those components, and a hundred-foot view indicates a desire for the nitty gritty of the specific processes by which those components use those interfaces.

This is one example of a communication layering system. Each of these descriptions and levels is accurate and correct and is a reasonable way to discuss the system. None of them leaves out substantial chunks of the answer in terms of breadth (which would be the case if you ignored parts of the system entirely). The difference comes in the level of detail that is given to each part of the system, and the parts that are left out at the higher levels only relate to how much depth you go into with respect to each part.

Similarly, though the details are different, there are communication layers involved with the explanation of concepts, rulings, and answers in the world of Magic. Each layer adds another level of detail to the explanation. This provides a framework to think about the flexibility that exists in explaining concepts to people.

Why This Matters
A natural question to ask, before digging further into the communication layers of Magic, is why this is even worth spending the time to think about, particularly at this level of rigorousness.

A lot of judging boils down to the ability to communicate and to educate. This should be no surprise. Much like there are several different well-known styles of learning (some people are visual learners, others are auditory learners, etc…), one's ability to pick up and retain information can also have to do with how dense and detailed that information is. Whether somebody is conscious of the best level of detail for them or not, tailoring your teachings match that depth maximizes your ability to help them learn.

Many times, it is the case that people aren't conscious of what level of depth they're looking for. The vernacular that describes these layers isn't part of the Magic vocabulary, and so people don't tend to ask their questions with any particular layer in mind. So how do we know which one is appropriate?

The answer usually has to do with the context, both of the situation (largely the amount of time available and the urgency of the question), and of the asker (and what level of detail they can deal with and can appreciate).

Here's a look at a framework for three layers that make sense in the context of Magic, and when each might be appropriate. Note that this is only one such framework, and it's up to each player or judge to develop a sense of the levels that make sense to them and to develop an intuition of when to use which ones.

Layer 1—What?
Layer 1 is very simple—it merely seeks to answer what happens and uses the direct, correct answer as the entirety of the explanation.

Example explanation: Both creatures are destroyed. Or, slightly more verbosely, the Glory Seeker is destroyed due to combat damage and the Uthden Troll is destroyed by Shock.

When this is appropriate: In most circumstances, this level should be avoided unless there's no other choice, since this explanation lacks the critical element of education. One of the most dangerous things that can happen with respect to people's understanding of the game is for them to rely on memorization of specific answers and rulings as their only source of rules knowledge, rather than understanding the underlying principles and being able to derive answers from them. This phenomenon, for example, causes the types of uproars that we see from the lack of Prerelease FAQs, which unfortunately are commonly used as a crutch for quick answers rather than as a way to better understand the fundamentals. Instead of feeding into this tendency, it's generally preferable to help people to understand principles rather than just memorize answers.

That said, there are some situations in which this is the right level to use. There certainly are some players who aren't receptive to anything more than this—particularly beginning players who are just starting to learn the game and can feel overwhelmed by having too much detail thrown at them too quickly. In these cases, even if no education happens, it's far preferable to make sure that they know the right answer than end up with the wrong one.

Additionally, in the context of a busy tournament, sometimes this is the right thing to do in order to keep the interaction brief, so that you can handle other issues on the floor and keep the match moving quickly, as part of the overall goal of serving all of the players as best as you can. In this case, however, it's important to also leave the door open for the players to follow up with you and get more detail at a later time, when things are less busy. This can be done, for example, by simply saying, "I don't have time to explain the details now, but if you find me after the round ends, I'd be happy to explain it then." This ensures that they have the opportunity to gain more learning if they wish, rather than being stuck with just the basics.

Notes: There's another reason why it can be dangerous to answer at this level. It is often the case that the process of walking through an explanation can help cement the interaction and the answer in your head, and gives you an opportunity to catch mistakes that you might have made. Expediency is a good goal, but remember that it's always more important to be right than to be fast, so make sure that you take enough time to read the cards, fully understand the question, and that you still run through the interaction in your head so that you can ensure that no mistakes are made.

Layer 2—Why?
On top of what happens, this layer adds an explanation as to why those things happen. This is the first level at which there's an attempt to explain some of the underlying concepts that lead to the answer, which can help people to learn how to come up with the right answers on their own.

Example explanation: Both creatures are destroyed. The Momentary Blink will cause a new Uthden Troll to come into play, which doesn't have any combat damage assigned to it, but which also doesn't have a regeneration shield, so the Shock will deal it lethal damage. The damage from the original Uthden Troll was already put on the stack, so the Glory Seeker will be destroyed by combat damage even though the source of the damage is no longer in play.

When this is appropriate: This is frequently the most useful layer and is the safest default to use. Explanations at this level strike a balance between being educational and not being overwhelming. Walking through the scenario helps to connect the dots between the question presented and the correct answer.

During a judge call at a tournament, some internal analysis has to happen as to whether this is possible in an expedient fashion (which is based on your level of comfort with generating these explanations quickly and explaining them clearly), or whether the situation is too complex and this would take more time than you can afford to give. This judgment can be challenging to make quickly and relies largely on instinct. The only sure way to develop this instinct is through experience. Outside the bounds of a timed event, answering questions that you get at this level is a good habit to get into, both to help you develop this instinct, and to subtly nudge players toward understanding the rules rather than just memorizing situations.

Notes: The trick to learning to be effective at this level is gaining an understanding of what the core relevant portions of the situation are and addressing exactly those—no more and no less. This can be quite challenging. In the example presented, it's certainly true that the new Uthden Troll is not considered to be in combat, but that actually isn't at all relevant to understanding the situation and it is clearly correct to leave that out. On the other hand, indicating that combat damage, once assigned, no longer depends on the presence of the source is clearly important and needs to be part of the explanation. Between the clear-cut cases, though, is a large gray area. Mentioning that the new Uthden Troll doesn't have a regeneration shield could be considered unnecessary, since it's implied by the fact that it is a new instance. At the same time, it feels like a possible confusion point, it's relevant (since the presence of a regeneration shield would change the answer), and the fact that regeneration was mentioned in the question at all suggested a desire to find out more about the details of regeneration.

Learning to do this is not easy, and it's hard to provide much advice other than to practice and see how people react to your explanations. While you're doing this, pay close attention to the questions that people follow up with. Those questions can often reveal missed areas that were important to their understanding of your explanation.

Layer 3—How?
This is the layer that the rules gurus thrive at. The one at which those studying to be advanced judges and rules experts operate. Not just what happens and why, but how to derive all of it from the comprehensive rules.

Example explanation: Both creatures are destroyed—first the Uthden Troll, then the Glory Seeker. The Momentary Blink causes the Uthden Troll to change zones twice. According to 217.1c, the resulting Uthden Troll in play is "treated as a new object." This means that the new Uthden Troll doesn't have any combat damage assigned to it, nor does it have a regeneration shield. When the Shock resolves, two damage is dealt to the Uthden Troll. As per 408.1b, the next time a player would get priority, state-based effects are checked. This check thus happens after Shock resolves, with combat damage still on the stack. At this time, the Uthden Troll has lethal damage as specified in 420.5c, and it has no regeneration shield to replace that event, so it will be destroyed. Then, combat damage will resolve, and though the original Uthden Troll that assigned damage to the Glory Seeker is no longer in play, 310.4a dictates that its damage will still be dealt. After combat damage resolves, the Glory Seeker has been dealt two damage and, as before, will be destroyed during the next state-based effects check.

When this is appropriate: With very few exceptions, there are pretty much no cases within a tournament where this is the right layer to be using when handling questions. Even if not during a time-critical ruling, the amount of time involved can frequently detract from noticing other situations that need to be handled.

Even outside of a tournament, this can be an extreme level of detail that might be detrimental to the goal of getting players to better understand the rules, so this is oftentimes reserved for discussion between judges, or between rules gurus, such that the entire purpose of the discussion is explicitly to derive the ruling from the comprehensive rules and to help understand everything from top to bottom, often as part of studying to be a more effective judge. As an example, if you find yourself submitting questions to the DCI Judge Center, the associated explanations should be written up with this level of citation and detail.

Notes: Even though this layer level feels like it's designed to trot out every last detail possible, it's definitely still possible to go overboard and to bring in irrelevant sections that can distract focus from the parts of the analysis that are actually relevant and useful. Knowledge of which sections can be considered irrelevant can come from knowledge of the person that you're discussing with (since it's much more common at this level to be talking with somebody that you know about), and can also come from paying close attention to the question and the way it's framed. For example, in the question presented, it's clear that the person asking the question either knows or is not interested in exploring the mechanics of the way that combat damage is assigned and put on the stack, so there's no need to expand on that portion of things.

Wrapping Up
It's worth noting that, just as these aren't the only possible layers that you might break things down into, these layers are also not set in stone, nor are they complete exclusive. It's possible to mix and match through an explanation, honing in deeper for parts and pulling back for others. The goal here isn't to enforce rigidity in the way that you approach explanations, it's merely to understand that there is a broad range of ways to approach them and it's useful to consciously choose your approach rather than to let them randomly happen.

All said and done, this can feel like much ado about nothing—though trumped up a little bit in formalism, the core concepts here are quite simple and intuitive. Yet, spending a little time thinking about how you tend to do things naturally, and how you might branch out and learn to become comfortable with moving higher or lower through the layers, can help you to become a more effective and flexible resource for other people.

Thanks to Karen Degi, an up-and-coming judge from Colorado, for her thoughtful feedback and suggestions for revisions.

Next week: Johanna Virtanen, with a report on the judging scene at Grand Prix Stockholm.

Next month: While it is large and the stakes are high, when you get right down to it, the Pro Tour is just another tournament that happens to have a larger and more experienced staff than usual, and working on the floor of the Pro Tour is not much different than working the floor of your local tournaments. However, the Pro Tour judging experience is something altogether different. We'll talk about ten things that you might not know about judging at the Pro Tour, but that you should know in order to maximize your experience.

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