Subject: What do you think of THIS Judge? Date: Wed, 02 Sep 1998 15:47:26 PDT From: "Matthew Vienneau" To: fkusumot@ix.netcom.com "Is This How A Level III Should Act?" I recently attended a PTQ, where once again events occurred that I disagreed with. I have sent a modified version of the following to the DCI (which shows up in the writing style), but have been encouraged by several others that were present to post something publicly. My particular bone of contention in this situation is the actions of the level III head judge running the tournament. As always, if someone disagrees with me, or has additional information I may have missed, I would love to hear from them at mattv99@hotmail.com. I have removed all references to the judge's actual name, as I would like to limit the tarnishing of reputation if I am found to be incorrect in some manner. People also tend to miss whatever point I'm making, so it's less dangerous without names. The head judge also ran the PTQ I went to the following weekend, which has its own tale to tell, and which follows this one. I understand that I have a history of sorts as a troublemaker and complainer when it comes to DCI judges and tournament organizers. I want you to know that I had no intention of complaining or causing trouble in any way at this tournament. I honestly believe this judge has failed at his duty much more than any other level III or higher I have ever encountered. While I may disagree with an individual action or ruling by a judge in the past, I have always felt the presence of the judge has made the tournament better off than if he was not present. In this case, the tournament was actually WORSE because of this head judge. The day before the tournament, I was informed that there would be a new head judge present due to conflicts between the tournament organizer and previous level III head judges. Rumour had the new judge as being "not so good", which worried me a little, but rumour is often incorrect. I arrive at the tournament, and find the usual "non-level III" judge organizing registration. The usual "non-level III" is an excellent organizer, but lacks the rules knowledge to become a level III at this time. As PTQ require a level III (or are much better off with one), a level III from out of town was hired to be head judge. The head judge was not involved much in registration, often the purvey of volunteers, and was not familiar with the local tournament software, so he was not able to do much before the tournament. I had a couple of ruling questions I wanted to clear up before the tournament, and instead of asking the level III judge that was playing in the tournament (who I knew much better), I thought I would give the head judge a chance to impress me or not impress me with his rules knowledge. I asked him two questions: a) if you bolt a creature and kill it, which goes to the graveyard first, the bolt or the creature; and b) if you cast living death, and an anarchist comes into play, has the living death resolved and gone to the graveyard so the anarchist's coming into play effect can return it to your hand. I was pretty sure I knew the answer, but I wanted to be sure, and I wanted to see what the head judge was like. He knew the first answer (the bolt) and did not know the second one and said he would have to look it up. I was a little disappointed but the level III happened to be standing right there so I just asked him. He confirmed, very quickly, that yes, you can get the living death back, as it resolved before coming into play effects. So far, the head judge is not horrible, but he is not an encyclopedia of rules, which (as I have stated many times) is hardly necessary anyways - as long as you can run a decent tournament, you can look up the rules. I believe the living death ruling is fairly recent, so it is sort of explainable. Later on, however, former pro player Eric Tam is telling me how he checked with the head judge on a licid ruling (involving his actual sealed deck), and the head judge ruled incorrectly. He didn't think much of the head judge's abilities after this, but he thought it was neat that he was now allowed to cheat validly all day. This should not be occurring at tournaments with level III judges. Eric did not make use of the knowledge and did not cheat. The first couple of rounds pass with no major problems. There are a few deck checks, but I only know that because I asked a volunteer if there were any. They were apparently very rare as I ended up 5-0-1 before I got deck checked, as did my opponent in the 6th (of 7) rounds. I would prefer more deck checks, especially amongst the winners, but that by itself is hardly an issue. I did notice that throughout the first three rounds or so, the majority of the rulings were being made by the "non-level III" volunteer, and some of the other wandering volunteers. This is remarkable as in previous PTQ, these people had acknowledged that they were not perfect with their rules, and would always defer to the head judge to make significant rulings. The reason this had apparently changed, is that the head judge never moved. Throughout the entire tournament, he moved from his chair only if a player appealed the ruling of one of the volunteers. At one point I casually remarked (in a semi-joking manner) that he wasn't spending much time out on the floor patrolling and looking for cheaters, and I received a rather cool response. But I figured that some people just don't like my humor. Once again, not a huge issue - perhaps just a difference of styles. Perhaps I'm spoiled by having the head judge actually wander around answering questions, and not just sitting at the front doing nothing (he didn't know how to use the software). I personally believe you can never have too many judges on the floor, and as the highest paid judge there, I would expect some sort of active judging. This became a problem as the volunteers were not all experienced at resolving judging issues. Each round we would hear new stories of how a volunteer screwed up and people would get wins they didn't deserve. And the people telling the stories were the people who got the "cheap" wins, so it was not just a lot of complaining. I presume that with the head judge on the other side of the room, looking very comfortable, the volunteer would attempt to handle the situation himself, and the rookie players, who didn't know any better, would go with whatever they ruled. An example: an experienced player cannibalizes a kezzerdrix, putting the counters on a mogg raider. His rookie opponent wants to sacrifice the mogg raider to fizzle the cannibalize. The experienced player (against his own better judgement), asks him if he really wants to do that. The novice decides to ask a judge if sacrificing the mogg raider will fizzle the cannibalize. The volunteer (volunteer "A") tells the rookie that he is not allowed to answer strategy questions, but if the rookie does something, he will tell him what happens afterwards. The rookie sacrifices all his creatures but the kezzerdrix, and then volunteer "A" tells him to remove the kezzerdrix from the game. The rookie player got screwed because the volunteer didn't understand that he wasn't asking a strategy question, but a rules question. The experienced player is stunned, but figured he did his part in warning the rookie in the first place. In the fourth round, I'm playing a friend of mine. It's the third game, and his deck just isn't performing as he wants it to. He has a calming licid in play that's slowing my attack, and I'm waiting for the chance to get rid of it. Finally, he blocks an attacker and puts it back on to my sabretooth wyvern, tapping out of white mana. In response to him moving the licid, I sacrifice the wyvern to my goblin bombardment to deal him a point of damage. He says "okay" and tells me that since the target disappeared, the effect fizzled, and the licid stays where it is. I disagree without thinking about it, as that was certainly not my intent. He explains what he means, and I realize that he's probably right, but I want to confirm with the judge (I don't work with licids often). A volunteer comes over, and I tell him that we'll probably need the head judge, as one of us will probably appeal any ruling the volunteers make (as we don't trust them). The volunteer calls for a different judge, and the "non-level III" comes over. He says his ruling would be that the licid dies, but still calls the head judge over. While waiting for the head judge, a rules guru tells us that it is well known that the licid does NOT die. The head judge shows up and rules that the licid dies. At this point, even *I* am convinced I'm totally wrong. My poor opponent is quite surprised, and begins protesting. The judge lets him explain his theory, and says "I'll go check". I enjoy a good chuckle at my friend's expense, as he may get screwed on this, but the head judge returns and gives us the correct ruling. Apparently the head judge has some trouble with licids and he's batting well under .500 on rulings in general. I go 5-0 and then draw in the 6th round with the other 5-0 at the tournament. We talk about how we're going to play whoever our final round opponent is, just because we can, and to give the 5-2 players something to hope for (I know when *I* am 5-2, I'm hoping everyone will play). But then the other 5-0 says "unless it's a friend of mine, then I'll draw so he's in the top 8". So I think about this and then I go over to the head judge and whether he is going to handle the final round of pairings, and whether they will draw or play, using the "Andon Method", or whether he has a different method he prefers. He asks what the "Andon Method" is and I explain how the head judge takes each contending player (for the top 8) aside and asks whether they wish to draw or play BEFORE the pairings are announced. He ponders for about half a second before stating that if I had mentioned it to him before the tournament started, then he may have considered it, but he's not going to bother changing to something special at this point. I attempt to convince him that a) it really is a better method and will prevent the collusion that I KNOW is about to take place, and b) it involves almost no extra work, he just has to figure out who can make the top 8 and then take them aside for a second. Once again, I am fairly brusquely brushed off. This disturbs me. It always bothers me that people with more friends have an advantage in the final rounds, and now, with the opportunity to prevent it, the judge is going to let it happen as he is apparently too lazy to bother changing it. He had not announced any particular format of choosing play or draw before the last round, and people are quite familiar with the collusion aspects of the final round, and there were no complaints (only praise) when the "Andon Method" was used by Andon in Detroit recently. So I openly talk to my friend beside me, within the head judge's hearing, about how now so-and-so can play his enemies and draw with his friends, just like he wanted to and how I'm not so thrilled with this. I then go over to the "non-level III" and mention the "Andon Method" and how the head judge had just dismissed it apparently because he didn't "feel like it". The "non-level III" says that while he disagrees with the head judge's reasons (or lack thereof) for not implementing the "Andon Method", he himself would not implement the method either, as it is not official DCI policy, and he would not want to jeopardize the tournament if someone complained and the DCI felt something was wrong. I point out that obviously the DCI doesn't mind or else Andon would get in trouble. We then laugh heartily at the idea that Andon gets treated just like any other tournament organizer. In further discussion I mention that I fully respect the "non-level III"'s position, and if the head judge had said the same thing, I would have fully accepted it. It was the head judge's unexplained rejection of the concept that disturbed me. It also disturbed me that the head judge apparently had no plan at all for handling the pairings in the final round of the swiss. At this point in time, almost EVERY major tournament has a method of handling the final round, just to prevent this sort of collusion. I find it upsetting that a level III not only seems surprised that there should be anything special done, but then when he is informed, decides not to pick any method, but rather leave it as it is. Later in the round (I'm still enjoying the hour long rest from drawing), I curious as to whether the top 8 is a Rochester draft or a booster draft. I am not eager to talk to the head judge, as he seems unhelpful, but the other volunteers all tell me that he is the one to ask. I ask him, and he tells me it's booster draft, and it always has been booster draft. I mention that I had heard it was Rochester and that Chicago was originally Rochester. He shrugs and says he doesn't know anything about that, he just knows that it's a booster draft. About ten minutes later I discover from an "almost volunteer" that it is a Rochester draft, but only the T.O. knew about it. The head judge had sent the "almost volunteer" to tell me, as soon as he had found out. And within a couple of minutes, the head judge found me himself and explained that no one had known it was Rochester until a couple of minutes ago, except the T.O.'s. I have no problem with how the head judge handled this, it was in no way his fault. I point it out for completeness - to show both good and bad. At this point, I was not considering writing anything to anyone about the tournament. While I was certainly disappointed with the head judge's style and lack of rules knowledge, it was hardly noteworthy enough to waste much effort complaining. The events of the final round and the top 8 changed that in a hurry! ______________________________________________________ The final round pairings are announced. Sure enough, just like in the old days, everyone is running around to see who is going to draw and who is going to play. If enough people play, then you can draw in, but if everyone draws, then you might have to play or risk not making it. I personally have to decide whether to play or draw, knowing that I'm in the top 8 either way. Knowing the top 8 is a Rochester, I realize that depending on the seating arrangement of the top 8, and the order of who picks when, it may be very important whether you are the #1 seed, or the #8 seed. My reasoning was that if it was very important to be the #1 or #2 seed, I would play and hope to win, if it was pretty good to be the 3rd through 5th seed, then I would draw, and if it really, really sucked to be 6th through 8th, then I would draw, just to avoid losing. So I ask the volunteers/"non-level III" judges what the seating will be for the top 8. They go to check with the head judge and with the level III in the crowd who has done this before. I also go and talk to the level III. The level III mentions he always has to work it out in his head, and quickly describes a pattern, with the important thing being that you play the person across from you first. If you win, you play the winner of the people 2 to your right and left, and only then, in the finals, do you have the chance of playing someone beside you. His diagram is as follows (please forgive whatever happens to my nice formatting): 8 3 7 4 5 2 6 1 I point out that switching 2 and 7 and switching 6 and 3 would maintain the same consistency, but be more accurate with respect to placing the "better" players beside the weaker ones. He says that is probably true, but as he is getting ready to play his match, he'll let me work out the details. I switch the 2 and 7 positions and come up with this: 8 3 2 4 5 7 6 1 Confident that the judges will screw this up, I go over and try and present to them what the level III has told me, with the addendum that I had worked out. I am curtly told by volunteer "A" to go sit down and let the judges work it out themselves. Sure enough, the judges decide that they'll go with what the level III in the crowd has told them, and use the first diagram. When informed of this, I'm also told I'm getting deck-checked (finally) so I get up and go over to discuss the seating with the head judge, as I don't have to start my match right away. As about half the people who might make the top 8 are being deck-checked, they don't have to make a decision on whether to draw or not, and get the benefit of seeing what the other half did. This is incredibly unfair. Side Note: One of the players, we'll call him "4-2", who was 4-2 and fighting to make the top 8 has since complained to me that it really bothered him that a bunch of players at the head table were allowed to openly discuss the math and the options with each other in order to work out how they could all benefit the most. "4-2", as well as others in his position, continually complained to the volunteers that what was going on at the head table was blatantly illegal and obvious collusion. The volunteers would listen, and then go up to talk to the head judge and other judges/volunteers and nothing would get done. End Side Note. I attempt to talk to the head judge about the draft seating. I point out that using his method, the 8th seed is REWARDED by being put beside players 3 and 7 while the 1st seed is PUNISHED (relatively) by being put beside players 2 and 6. Not to mention poor seed 4 who is squished between seeds 2 and 3 while his opponent (seed 5) is happily drafting between seeds 6 and 7. The head judge tells me that the judges already have discussed this amongst themselves, and that is the seating they feel is best. His decision is final - "that's the way it's going to be" I was told. I find it curious that a level III has to consult with a bunch of volunteers over the seating, and that the rules and procedures were some sort of democracy, especially when they were obviously wrong. It was not as if the head judge had said "I disagree with what you are saying, but you're missing this important point". What he essentially told me was "it doesn't matter what you say, I'm not changing my mind". I return to my seat to ponder whether to draw or not in light of this new information, and to fume at the apparent stubbornness of the head judge. I then realize that while seating is incredibly important in booster draft, in Rochester there is something even MORE important - drafting order. So I get up again and go over to the head judge and ask him if they've worked out who picks first. He says they have, and tells me that player 8 is picking first. I gag, and mention that there are two general ways to handle drafting order. The first is to let the top seed pick, but this often backfires as the top seed may have no idea what seat is better and then screw people (including himself) by accident, or he may pick based on who where is friends are sitting (or his enemies). The second is to make the 1st seed fourth in the order, as it has been worked out that the 4th spot is the best spot (followed by 5th, 3rd, 6th, 2nd, 7th, 1st, 8th). The head judge doesn't want to hear it. He tells me quite bluntly that he has made a decision and it's not going to change. So I attempt to go over his head. The Tournament Organizer and I are NOT bosom buddies. I routinely write scathing net reports about his tournaments. But he is always willing to listen. I quickly explain the situation and ask him to talk to the head judge about it. He goes over to talk to the head judge and suggests that maybe they should do it a different way. The head judge replies: "You're just asking me 'cause HE wants you to and I'm not going to change things because HE thinks I should" ...while he is pointing at me. What the hell? Apparently the head judge has some sort of problem with me already? I only met him today! And apparently because *I* am the source of the correct way to do things, he refuses to do it? I don't know if he read about me on the net and dislikes me, or just dislikes me from the brief time he's known me (it has happened before), but it is EXTREMELY unprofessional to use a personal bias to punish all eight of the top players, or in fact to use a personal bias to punish ANY player, or to do ANYTHING incorrectly. The tournament organizer takes me aside and we politely discuss the situation. I go over, in great detail (at his request), all the problems with the drafting arrangement selected by the head judge. We discuss the problem for about ten minutes as they check my deck. He explains that apparently the head judge is reluctant to accept my ideas, though perhaps if I got one of the judges or other players to say something, maybe he'll listen. He, as the T.O., does not want to make a habit of overruling his head judge, and as he does not consider himself as qualified in these matters, he will always defer to the head judge. I accept his position and understand that there doesn't seem to be anything he can do. Throughout this conversation, volunteer "A" keeps ORDERING me to return to my chair and start my match (my opponent is with me, helping me argue the case for a different seating arrangement, as he too is a reasonable person). Apparently volunteer "A" felt he had the right to interrupt my conversation concerning a rules issue with the tournament organizer. I approach one or two other players and judges/volunteers to see if they want to talk to the head judge about the drafting, but no one is willing. As nothing is apparently going to change, I eventually head back to my chair and try and decide whether to play or draw. With the new seating arrangement and drawing order it SUCKS to be the 3rd seed, and it is just as bad to be the 4th seed! Heck, even 2nd seed isn't so good. The best seed is 6th, then 1st, then 5th. So I have to reverse the strategy I outlined earlier. I notice that the 1st seed has ALREADY WON HIS FIRST GAME, and I know who has drawn and who is playing. This is relevant as I am about to make my play/draw decision having already learned who has the advantage in other matches as it is 18 minutes after the round has begun. Perhaps the head judge should have made us decide before the round started, like every other major tournament. So I'm not likely to become the 1st seed as the current 1st seed looks like he is going to win, so if I play and win, I'll be 2nd seed, which isn't so bad. If I draw, I'll likely be 4th seed, which is HORRIBLE. However if I LOSE, I'm probably 5th or 6th seed. So I decide to play, and I lose. Now, before I take all the credit, I wasn't actually trying to lose, I never TRY and lose. I wasn't that confident in my logic. I lost fair and square to multiple mulligans. But I could have, and that should NEVER be the case. And I certainly didn't mind that I had lost. Of course, when I went back to the head table for my match, with the rest of the top 8 hopefuls midway through their matches, I "let it slip" that the top 8 is not going to be seated in the conventional manner. Needless to say, they were not thrilled. As I left the area to play my opponent some place quiet, they began arguing with the head judge about how inane the seating arrangement was. Why do all the arguing myself? As I was to discover, it didn't matter as the head judge ignored them too. One would hope that this would be the end of it. But of course it isn't. From now on, the head judge never again actively involves himself in the tournament. He doesn't announce or organize the top 8, he doesn't run the draft, he doesn't oversee the matches, and he isn't required (for as long as I was present) to make any rulings. It is like he isn't there for the remainder of the tournament. He is watching the draft, however, and allows the following to occur. The top 8 is announced, but not in order. The players are seated and when we ask what the order we all finished in, we are not answered. I do not remember ever finding out who ended up where (I knew the draft seating arrangement, so I figured it out for myself), but eventually the volunteers may have told us. The seeding was never formally announced. Volunteer "A" is actually running the draft, with the "non-level III" watching to give advice and warnings. Volunteer "A" has never run a Rochester draft before. The judges and volunteers huddle together to work out how they're going to run the draft. I find it absolutely APPALLING that a certified level III judge does not know how to run a Rochester draft. I would like to recommend that as a part of the level III test, all hopefuls successfully run a Rochester and Booster type draft with a witness, just to prove they can. As with the previous group decisions, the decision on how to run a Rochester is inaccurate. "A" announces that he will lay out the booster and we will have two minutes to look at the cards. Then we will have 15 seconds each to draft a card, in the usual Rochester order. I politely object, and point out that the standard method of Rochester drafting gives about 30 seconds (it's actually 20) to look at the cards, and five seconds to pick. Volunteer "A" tells me to be quiet, as they have already decided how this draft will be run. I'm getting slightly frustrated at this point that they just can't get anything right, and rather pointedly suggest that perhaps they would want to try and do SOMETHING correctly? (or words to that effect). "A" then suggests that if I don't agree with how they're going to run the draft, then I should feel free to drop out of the top 8. Boy does THIS seem familiar. I have apparently made an unintentional habit of getting threatened with ejection. I decide that I guess I better be quiet and just accept whatever stupidity they thrust upon us. However, what the heck is going on when a volunteer, who may or may not be even a level 1 judge, is suggesting that a competitor is risking ejection? At that point, should a head judge be involved somehow? Either the competitor is behaving in such an offensive manner that it is the head judge's responsibility, or the volunteer/judge is behaving in such a manner that it is the head judge's responsibility to step in. Luckily for me, some of the other players at the table were also smarter than the judge, and they pointed out that the draft would take hours using the judge's method. Despite my resolve to keep quiet, I point out that at two minutes a pack, you've spent almost an hour minutes just staring at the cards, and at 15 seconds a pick, you spend almost 2 1/2 hours just doing the draft. So with the draft starting at nine, we wouldn't be done until almost midnight. "A" ponders this for a while, and in the face of obvious logic and mass discontent (how dramatic), he relents and decides he will, after all, do what I suggest. He then announces that the player 1 gets to pick who drafts first. HUH? They changed their minds!?! So when I asked for the information before the round, so I could accurately make a decision as to whether to draw or play, they gave me one set of information, and then, when I've made the decision based on this information, they change their minds. However earlier, they wouldn't change something because they hadn't been informed about it before the tournament began. This is kind of mind-boggling. If I had known they were going to do that, then I probably would have drawn, as with the odd seating arrangement, and a knowledgeable first seed, it was obvious (and it happened) that I would be picking 2nd, which was not where I wished to pick. If they had any sort of consistency in their decision making, even if it is to be consistently inconsistent, then I would have been able to draft from a better position. But on the other hand, I'm sort of happy that the head judge actually changed his mind on something I advocated, and thus made the draft better. I just wish that he hadn't waited until it was too late for me to do anything with the information. People colluding he won't try and stop, but someone making legal use of tournament knowledge, he'll unintentionally screw over. The draft begins, and quickly turns into a farce. Two of the drafters (not counting myself) are notorious loudmouths and troublemakers, and they quickly get out of hand. The spectators are kept back at first, but soon move in and begin whispering among themselves, within earshot. The spectators then begin TALKING TO THE COMPETITORS. Eventually, at my request, all the spectators are removed from the area. My reputation as a bitch is enhanced. The loudmouths are talking to each other and to anyone who will listen. The loudmouths are spilling their cards all over, covering their deck, making noises with the table and their cards, and rearranging their piles (so the top cards isn't the last drafted). When other people are picking their card they would make surprised noises, or snicker, or curse, or loudly sigh, or otherwise signify how they felt about that pick. They were incredibly disturbing to all those in the draft. I can't imagine what the out-of-town drafters were thinking, as they aren't used to these childish antics like the locals are. The "non-level III" is giving verbal draft warnings to everyone, including the loudmouths. Some warnings are given in error to the quieter people (not myself, I did not receive a warning), but the loudmouths continually got away with whatever they did. The "non-level III" was very reluctant to give out actual warnings and as a result the loudmouths (and myself) began to see the whole thing as a huge joke. As the draft wound down, if they got yet another verbal warning, they would say "what are you going to do, kick me out with only 3 cards left - oooooh". The draft was extremely unprofessional and very badly run. I attribute this to a lack of experience on the part of the volunteers who were told (or offered) to run it. XXX, the head judge, just sits there and does nothing. Afterwards, we're all seated in a small group on one side of the room. If I put my glasses on, I can see the cards my opponent is using to make my deck. Friends of the top 8 are watching everyone construct their decks until I request that they be asked to leave. At this point the sheer ridiculousness of the entire process has actually got me amused and light-hearted. It got so silly it was no longer a valid test of skill but a sham. As I play my quarterfinal match I openly ask my friend, who is watching, if he could perhaps just go watch one of the other matches and take some notes, in case I need them later. The "non-level III" who appreciates my feeling of ridiculousness, and has no power to change anything, nonetheless informs that I shouldn't be doing such things. We chuckle and I continue playing. I lose, and my adventures are over. I quickly get my stuff and leave before the tournament finishes. For all I know, as soon as I left XXX jumped up and started actively judging and giving correct rulings, but I doubt it. My intent in writing this (long) letter is to ask if the head judge's actions are what should be expected from a typical level III judge. WotC has a policy wherein a level III judge is required to be present, and this head judge apparently fulfils this requirement with the bare minimum of effort. He shows up and does nothing unless forced to. Perhaps it was just a bad day for the head judge, or it was a new environment and he didn't want to make waves, but I was extremely disappointed. In particular, I found it appalling that a head judge would refuse to listen to reason and actively choose the incorrect thing purely due to some bias against me. I don't know if you have a dozen other complaints against this head judge, or whether you have hundreds of comments praising his efforts, but I came out of the Pro-Tournament Qualifier feeling that this head judge had shamed all level III judges with his actions. I hope something can be done to prevent this sort of thing from happening in the future. Matthew Vienneau mattv99@hotmail.com matthew.vienneau@dstcanada.com (temporarily) --------------------------------------------------------------------- "The Adventure Continues Next Week In Rochester - To See Report Go To Current Issues"