Thinking about Thinking
A Judge Call
Norm: Judge! My opponent just tapped six lands and then attacked me and didn't say what he was spending his six mana on. That means he burns for six, right?
If that's really what happened, then yes, he burns for six. That doesn't make much sense, though; better actually find out if there's anything more to the story.
Andy: Yes, I tapped the six lands, to activate this Figure of Destiny, and then I attacked. What's the problem?
Norm: He didn't say that he was activating it, why should I have to assume that he did?
Fair point—if he didn't actually activate the Figure of Destiny, then it doesn't much matter whether that made any sense or not—still sounds like burning for six.
Andy: No, I didn't say anything, but I pointed to the Figure—it was obvious what I meant.
Reasonable—there's no reason somebody has to say something out loud as long as their actions were clear.
Norm: I didn't see him point to anything.
Figures. Sounds like a standard disagreement on what happened. Better investigate.
Andy: I did—I thought he was paying attention. It's not my fault if he wasn't keeping track of things.
Norm: I swear I was paying attention the whole time. Does it really count if he didn't make it clear what he was intending to do?
Andy: I pointed to it, how much more clear do I need to be?
OK. Nothing really to go on here … maybe other people around have some ideas.
Spectator #1: I thought I saw him point to the Figure of Destiny.
Andy: See? I did!
Ah, that should settle it. I guess Norm just wasn't paying attention.
Spectator #2: Wait, I've been watching this match for a while and every time before this that he's activated the Figure, he said it out loud.
Norm: That's right, can you blame me for assuming he didn't activate it?
Hmm.
Now What?
So far, you've gone back and forth on whether or not Andy actually activated the ability on Figure of Destiny, and there's a somewhat reasonable case to be made for each player's point of view. You've even gone one step further than that in trying to expand your investigation to include other observers in a search for further information, though that doesn't seem to have been as fruitful as you might like. There's still no clear, correct answer … and don't forget, it's been four minutes since you were called over, and time is ticking.
Stop. You haven't thought carefully enough yet.
There's one critical piece that you're missing here—you've focused so deeply on trying to determine what actually physically happened that there's an entire area you haven't followed up on—are both of these players being forthright, or is one trying to game the system for an advantage or to cover up a mistake? Or worse, is either one downright lying? And why are the spectators so divergent on their recollection of things.
So now your options open up. It seems clear that you should at least investigate the players for potential cheating, using a couple minutes to figure out whether there's an honest disagreement or whether either of them is trying to pull something. Assuming that you decide it's an honest disagreement, you could also interview the spectators to try and figure out if either of them knows either player or is trying to advantage one or another. Or you might try determining whether or not their stories match well with the players' recollections. Or try looking for other spectators, or the players from the next table over.
Don't forget, though, now it's been nine minutes, and this is one of the last tables still playing a match. And you still don't actually know what happened for sure, and thus how you should rule.
Stop. You're overthinking things.
Remember that not everything in judging is going to be black and white, and sometimes you're going to have to make a judgment call on imperfect data. This is something that's been fairly well communicated to most judges in advice on how to conduct investigations. What hasn't been as broadly communicated, though, is the art of identifying the point of diminishing returns, at which you've gotten as much data as you are likely to within a reasonable amount of time. After this point, any further investigation isn't going to give you much extra to go on, and could take an indeterminate amount of time. It's time to gather the data you have, figure out what makes sense, and trust your gut.
Some advice that I was given by David Vogin is very insightful here. To paraphrase, judges need to use their legs and their brains. Using legs at the expense of brains, or not thinking things through enough, can lead to snap judgments that turn out to be wrong due to lack of data, or problems that could have been prevented with a little more forethought. On the other hand, using brains at the expense of legs, or overthinking, can lead to analysis paralysis and prevent things from getting done at all, often at the expense of valuable tournament time.
Underthinking
Not thinking through things enough can come about in a number of ways. A common one is lack of context—assuming that the data that you currently have is all of the data available or necessary to make a decision. While it's important not to waste time digging for minimal amounts of additional data, it's also important not to give up on collecting data too soon, and to develop an instinct for areas that need to be tapped vs. those that aren't worth the time and won't have an effect. For example, in the investigation above, it's important not to forget to check for whether there was intent of fraud, to ensure that neither player is trying to cheat.
Another common cause of underthinking is a reaction to a sense of urgency. There's always time pressure in an event because there's always a round to start or a round time to watch, and it's absolutely important to keep that in mind—the less time it takes to do something right, the less other players are affected and the less the tournament will be slowed down. The key phrase, though, is, "do something right,"—expedience is not an excuse for getting something wrong, and it's a mistake to blow a call or do something inefficiently simply because it was faster.
For example, consider tournament logistics. You're working at a sealed deck event and registration has just finished. Ready to get things under way as soon as possible, the head judge has put you in charge of setting up the decklist collection and land stations. Obviously, the sooner you can get this done, the faster things can get started, so the natural instinct is to look around, find out what tables you have to work with, and to drop down your stations at the available tables that work best. Problem solved, the tournament can start. It's not until later, when deck construction ends and players start to congregate around the stations that you realize that only one of them is obvious and every player is going to that one, ignoring the other available stations, and now you have a long line for land after time has been called.
Was the urgency to start the tournament worth it if it costed time in the end due to poor land station placement? Or was it better to take a moment to think through your options and realize that maybe the tables weren't placed well, and that they should be moved to provide more even coverage. Or that players should be separated by letter groups to make for easier sorting later, speeding deck checks? Or that there weren't enough tables to set up adequate stations and more tables should be found? In the end, the hasty decision ended up costing time relative to taking the time to think things out and get them right. Furthermore, in the best case, players could have began registration while these details were sorted out, gaining the benefits of a better solution with no overall cost to tournament time at all.
Speed is a good thing. Urgency, on the other hand, can be very dangerous.
Overthinking
On the other hand, it's important not to cripple yourself by overthinking things. As we've already seen, one easy way to do this is by waiting to find an absolutely black-and-white correct solution to every situation. Rules interactions generally have an absolute correct solution, but most everything else that judges need to deal with don't. At some point, you have to remember that you're being asked to make a judgment call and that's always going to involve an amount of instinct and gut.
More generically, a lot of overthinking comes down to being afraid to get something wrong, or to not do it as well as is theoretically possible. This is not to say that you shouldn't take the time to get things right, as previously mentioned, but as Voltaire stated, "the perfect is the enemy of the good."
Another example: you're walking by a match and see something that doesn't immediately make sense. A card in play that the controlling player doesn't have enough land in play to pay for. A separate pile of face-down cards with no obvious effects in play that set aside cards face down. A player putting a creature into the graveyard for no discernable reason. A player seemingly ignoring a mandatory trigger.
Most of the time, these are happening for a good reason and there's no problem. And because of this, it's very natural to stop and take the time to try and figure out what it is you must be missing that explains what happened. Oftentimes, this will only take a second or two and then you'll figure out what you missed and everything can continue as normal. But what happens when you can't figure it out at a glance? And you look at the cards in play and in the graveyards again, looking for some way to explain what happened?
It's hard to feel like it's appropriate to intervene and ask whether or not something is right or not unless you're sure that there's something wrong. By the time you can finish convincing yourself that something may actually be wrong, though, the game may have moved way past the critical point and the cost of repairs are much higher than if you'd just asked in the first place. After all, the actual impact to the match of asking and getting the explanation that you probably missed is relatively low.
Does this mean you should ask right away for an explanation on every situation, or you shouldn't be careful about addressing players? Of course not—it's still important to make sure that you aren't interrupting matches for no reason. But if your instincts tell you something may be amiss, and you can't figure out why they're wrong, you may be overthinking if you spend too much time trying to pin down the cause. As with everything else, there's a balance.
Correctness is a good thing. Perfection, or obsession with perfection, can be very dangerous.
Wrapping Up
Ultimately, it's all about finding the right balance. Don't rush to conclusions and act out of too much desperate urgency, but also make sure that you don't think things past the point of fruitfulness. A good combination of your head and your legs will help you to become a more effective and more efficient judge.
Next month: The ultimate cheat sheet—for tournament use only. Not to be used in a testing environment. Provided "as is" with no express or implied warranty. User understands the potential risks and dangers from use of this product and assumes all liabilities. All rights reserved.
---
Nicholas J. Fang
DCI Certified Level 3 Judge—Redmond, WA
mtgjudge@live.com
Agbaar and Ag|Work on EFnet's #mtgjudge
| 
