There have been many articles about judging and judge-related matters recently. Most of them have been written from the player's perspective, or talked about specific situations and how they were ruled upon - or how they should have been ruled upon. In this article, I will take another approach: I'll tell you about some judges I know, who they are, what experiences they had as judges, why they became judges in the first place, and what their take on the current situation in judging is.
But first, I need to clear up some misconceptions: Nobody doubts that judges are an important part of tournament Magic. Nevertheless, it seems to me that many people have wrong impressions about the difficulty of judging. They think that judging is easy, or that good judges just have to know the rules well. For example, take what nova442 wrote on the StarCityGames message boards:
"[...] The rules of Magic are very black and white; it's not a court, where there are so many shades of gray in interpreting the law even though the law is literally black and white."
Andy Heckt is the Network Manager at Wizards of the Coast. This means that he coordinates the player needs, the judge program, and the organizers of premier events. He is Wizards' judge manager. Andy comments:
"Many players think that a judge is a rules expert and that all the answers are written down somewhere. It is far more about keeping a tournament fair and running while encouraging the fun that exists. The philosophy and intent of the rule is more important than the technical details."
Let me elaborate. While it is true that the Comprehensive Rules for Magic are very good and cover nearly all possible situations during a match that come up, answering rules questions is the easiest part of judging. Real-life Magic is not like Magic Online where the whole game is controlled by a computer, and it is not possible to make illegal plays or miscommunicate with your opponent. (That said, it's entirely possible to miscommunicate with the interface, clicking the wrong card - but that's handled automatically, either allowing a takeback or not, so players don't even consider that as something a judge might have to handle in real life - The Ferrett)
As judges, we need to remedy situations where something went wrong: First, we have to understand what went wrong. This is often is harder than it seems. Two players try to explain to you what went wrong - and both have a different viewpoint on the issue, or else they wouldn't be calling you. Often, they are arguing their point vigorously, interrupting each other. And we have to make sense of this. Chris Carbone gave many useful tips in his recent article that can help players communicate more clearly with judges.
After we have determined what has happened (or what we consider to have happened - since often it is not possible to determine it with absolute certainty), we have to fix the game state. Illegal stuff has happened - and it is our task to make this unhappen. But how do we go about this? How do we fix a game state without giving one player an advantage? Maybe cards from hidden zones were revealed. What do we do about them? These are not easy questions, and the answer is frequently situational. There are many factors to consider, and experience helps a lot.
And finally, we have to assign penalties. What is the appropriate penalty for the infraction at hand? The Penalty Guidelines list quite a few different infraction categories, giving some examples along the way. So which player will get a penalty? What category does the infraction fall into? What severity? Did we understand the philosophy behind the penalty we chose? And finally, is it really right to apply this penalty at this situation?
It becomes even more difficult when cheating - or possible cheating - is involved. Cheating is basically defined as "knowingly committing a rules infraction." Cheating is often hard to prove. As the head judge of a tournament, we have to have talks with all people involved: the player who is potentially cheating, his opponent, the judge originally handling a call, bystanders, and so forth. And then, after we've collected all the relevant data, we have to decide whether that person has really cheated. Sometimes this is easy, sometimes it is not.
For example, I had an incident at one of the PTQs I judged last year that eventually led to a disqualification (DQ). I've described this situation in-depth in my judge article about the event, but here is a short summary: A player made an illegal play (responding to a land drop), which I gave him a Warning for. At the beginning of the next round, that player told another player (who is a DCI judge) that he knew he could not do this, but tried to anyway. This seems like a clear example for cheating; nevertheless, we needed about an hour, in which several players were interviewed, until the head judge finally decided to disqualify the player. Many factors were involved in this decision, and it was certainly not made lightly.
Of course, judges also do a lot of organizational stuff at events. This is especially obvious at large events like Grand Prixs, but also true at smaller events that often have a small non-judge staff. While many of the logistics, like crowd control and distribution of product, are fairly standard, sometimes more creative solutions are called for. For example, there was a series of PTQs between Christmas and New Year's last year in which I judged. During deck registration on day 1, we noticed that there were mirrors on the ceiling that allowed players to look into their opponent's cards. What would you do?
Well, we had judges tape plastic bags to the ceiling in order to cover the mirrors.
Finally, many judges promote the game outside of tournaments. They are participating in rules or policy discussions in forums like the judge list, or EFnet's #mtgjudge channel, they write judge articles, or they answer people's rules questions in various online forums. Only a few of these work for Wizards, a distributor, a store, or a professional event organizer.
Most judges do stuff like that in their free time.
So who are these judges, and why would a person become one? I've interviewed about ten judges from all over the world, ranging from level 1 to level 5, and compiled some interesting data. Most of the judges I interviewed are in their twenties and are students. A few of them work with Magic professionally, like Johanna Knuutinnen, a level 3 judge from Finland:
"I work for a game distributor in Finland. This company is an official distributor of Magic and it's our responsibility to support organized play in our country. That's my job, I'm the DCI country coordinator for Finland. I've had this job for almost two years and I enjoy it very much."
Other judges often see interesting parallels between judging and their jobs as well. A lot of people in the field of mathematics or computer science like the parallels between logic and the Magic rules - or, to quote Lee Sharpe, a level 3 judge from Illinois: "Interpreting Magic rules is a lot like programming." Also, many judges thought that judging improved their communication and management abilities, and this helps them in their jobs.
Most of the judges I interviewed like games of any variety (which is not surprising, really), especially computer and role-playing games. Many also enjoy sports, either actively or passively. Apart from that, interests vary widely.
The reasons for becoming a judge vary widely. Many first became judges because they wanted to help their local community. Often the local Magic community was lacking quality judges and so they became involved. Doron Singer was once one of only a few judges in Israel. Today, he is a level 2 judge "trainer." This means that he is allowed to test people for level 1 - a privilege usually reserved for level 3 judges. He has this story to tell:
"I started back in '98 or so, in an online magic league called e-league. I played there a lot, and figured I'd give something back. I rose through the ranks there, and realized I'm much better at judging than I am at playing. I became known to the Israelis who also played there, gradually became a sort of "rules referee" (those were the happy three-judge system days), then started doing full-scale judging when tournaments became too large for the three-judge system to be effective.
"That went on for about a year. Then in 2000, Cyril Grillon was sent to Israel to judge the Nationals. I worked the Nationals with him (and was quite surprised by many of the things he had done), and he certified me for level 1."
While most judges feel that they are better at judging than at playing, this does not necessarily mean that they are bad players. Some judges started judging to give something back to the community, and then found that they enjoyed judging more than playing. Many people realize at some point that they have to decide between being a good judge or a good player, since they feel they can't be both... and surprisingly, some decide to be a good judge. Other people manage to balance their playing and judging interests and are both a good player and a good judge.
Often, people take the judge test because they heard that the compensation is good. Noah Weil says as much in his recent article here on StarCityGames:
"Anyone working for the compensation package is probably a pretty good judge, as is any person who understands relativistic values. They would probably be a pretty good player, too."
But is compensation really a good reason to judge? For ten hours of hard work at a PTQ, you usually get between half a box and a full box of product, depending on the TO. Now, compare that to the money you would earn at another job. Suddenly the comp doesn't look that good anymore, does it? For most judges I know, judging is a hobby, in which they invest time and money. I regularly travel to larger events to judge, sometimes paying for the travel on my own, sometimes also paying for the hotel room. The compensation is usually enough to pay for the travel (if I sold the boxes, of course), but it is a net loss. To quote Justus Roennau, a well-known level 3 judge from Germany:
"Of course I like the recognition you get as a high-level judge, and I don't mind the compensation, but these are not my primary motivations - I would keep judging even without these."
I have experienced many players - usually younger ones - who want to become judges because of the compensation, and they aren't usually good at it. They don't understand that it requires time and dedication to become a better judge - and that this time is not limited to tournaments, but that you always have to try to improve, for example by participating in rules discussions or helping your local Magic community. Most of them stop judging soon enough.
So why do other people keep on judging? There are many reasons, but they can be summarized in two words:
It's fun!
Many judges enjoy helping other people. Also, there's a feeling of being a part of a large, worldwide community; meeting other people is what drives them to large events. Johanna Knuutinnen summarizes it well: "Friends are better than foil Balances."
This feeling can be attributed in no small part to Andy Heckt. Sheldon Menery is a level 5 judge from Virginia. He is not only known as a wine aficionado and from his weekly column here on StarCityGames, but he is also the successor of Stephen D'Angelo as rulings collector. Sheldon explains:
"Andy has taken us light-years into the future, with still more ideas to implement. One of the best things we've done at professional events is to remove the cliquishness that existed before. It used to be that you were either on the inside or the outside. Today, everyone is on the inside. We function as one great team, from the least experienced Floor Judge to the Head Judge himself."
Nevertheless, the quality of judges varies. The judge program has greatly improved in the last few years according to the more experienced judges I interviewed. This led to a higher quality of judges overall. As Sheldon says:
"The judges are great. All around the world, judges are more well-versed in the game and tournament structure than they've ever been. It used to be that there were only a few rules experts, and everyone had to turn to them for answers. We're not like that any more. I'm willing to bet there are judges I've never met that could give me a run for my money on the rules.
"Of course, rules aren't the only part of judging... But we're still doing quite well. And more judges have a greater understanding of the tournament structure."
Still, improvements do need to be made. While judges at the Pro Tour are generally considered excellent by other judges, the feelings about lower-level events were mixed. It is felt that while the average judge quality is still good, it varies and there is still room for improvement. Lee Sharpe gives an example: "I think newer judges are still obsessed with penalties, not remedies."
The worst-quality judges are usually found at the store level. Says Lee:
"Local events, I think, suffer the most, but it's hard to fix that. Some L1 judges tested once at a PTQ with a L3, possibly as a store owner or employee just so the events have a higher K value or are perceived to have a higher degree of professionalism that they wouldn't have without a certified judge. Unfortunately, too many of these judges aren't that interested in judging, or don't read the judge e-mail list except for important new information."
Andy Heckt is aware of these problems. He writes:
"[The current situation of the judge program is] varied, but steady and slow. It takes time to develop judges, and the nature of collectible card games is a rotating player base. Many areas of the world are still developing organized play, and in these areas the judge program looks more like it did five years ago - while other areas have well-developed, organized play and their needs are different. [...]
"[We need] better opportunities for testing and mentoring. We need more opportunities for those who wish to judge to test for certification. We also need a better means to mentor all the judges and especially the new judges who are remote from others. We also simply need to move into the electronic age more with the program."
The program is very good at motivating judges to become better. The more you work on improving yourself, the more attention you will get, and the more chance you will get to work internationally. Also, improving yourself and visibly participating in the judge community earns you the respect of fellow judges. This is more than enough incentive for many judges, including me, to continually work on their judging abilities.
The meaning of the various judge levels were redefined, which means that judges can now better understand the requirements and goals for every level. This also means that judges can now have a goal on what level they want to reach. Some judges, especially those who mainly judge at the local level, are content with level 1. Others who are interested in working big, international events like the Pro Tour or Grand Prixs will work towards level 3. Still others, who have reached the top of the "level ladder," work to have a positive impact on the game as a whole.
It is also interesting how judges perceive the view players have of them. Most judges feel that at the local level, where players personally know them, players respect the judges - but it's more difficult for new or unknown judges to gain respect, since they're often seen as unexperienced. Also, Lee Sharpe notes that the Pro Tour, where the judge staff is usually the most experienced, also sees the most appeals.
But most judges were of the opinion that judges generally have to earn a good reputation among the players. Thomas Ralph, a level 2 judge from Ireland, notes:
"A judge earns his reputation among players, both in his local community and on the Pro Tour. Good judges are respected; bad judges aren't. (And a player's perception of a good judge generally depends on whether the judge is polite and fair, rather than efficient.)"
Sometimes, concern is voiced that players attribute penalties unfairly to the judges. For example, in Terry Soh's recent article, he complained that the Head Judge of a Grand Prix gave him a Match Loss and applied this to the last round played on day 1 instead of the first round of day 2. Due to this Match Loss, Soh did not make day 2. He fully agrees that the Match Loss was justified, but he nevertheless fails to see that he cheated himself out of day 2, not the Head Judge.
Blaming a judge for your own errors is a common symptom. Dang Ngoc Huy Dinh is a level 2 judge from Berlin, Germany, and he told me:
"[Blaming judges is] just trendy, because, I guess, someone started blaming judges in an article and got positive feedback on that. But I don't think judges are represented in a way that really reflects them, because only the negative aspects of judges are written about. Nobody cares enough to write an entire article about 'Hey, our local judge does a great job' - and even if they did, I doubt that anyone would publish it, because it's not interesting to read about a good judge. Even if the ruling wasn't a mistake, it's much easier to say 'He game lossed me because I forgot one card in my box' than 'I deserved that Game Loss, because I was too lazy to check whether I forgot anything in my box'."
Of course, this concerns some judges, who feel they're treated poorly when confronted with accusations from the players... but I think this is an area where judges just need to learn to live with it, since this is something that will never go away. Blaming other people for our own faults is just a basic part of our psyche.
I hope I have given all of you a good insight into the motivations and minds of judges. This article is supposed to help players to see judges in a different light, not just as "that guy who knows the rules" or "that gal who just gave me the game loss." If you any questions or comments, please let me know either in the forums, via e-mail, or EFnet's IRC channel #mtgjudge. My nick on the latter is jroger.
Finally, I would like to thank all the people that I interviewed for their insightful and interesting answers. In no particular order: Andy Heckt, Dang Ngoc Huy Dinh, Doron Singer, Falko Goerres, Jens Strohaeker, Johanna Knuutinnen, Justus Roennau, Lee Sharpe, Sheldon Menery, Thomas Ralph, and Thore Herzog.
| 
