A Guide for new Regional Judges

From Judge Wiki

Find other articles in the Judge Article Index.

Author	George Michelogiannakis
Date Published	2009-12-31
Original Site	Judge Wiki
Link	This article is only available on the wiki; see below.
Language	English
Tags	Mentoring, Testing, Professionalism
Recommended for Level	3
Notes	See judge levels for up-to-date information on judge level requirements.
Abstract	This article is aimed at freshly promoted Level 3s and gives advice about mentoring, shadowing other judges, giving them feedback and tips for testing candidates to Level 1 and Level 2.

Introduction

Congratulations! You passed your level 3 exam! The day finally came when you were recommended for advancement and all you efforts were rewarded. You now belong to a select group of judges who are trusted by the DCI to manage whole regions, recommend judges for levels 1 and 2, head judge national tournaments, and perform other responsible duties. You serve as an example and inspiration. Feel the pressure yet? You will. With great power comes great responsibility and this applies neatly here. As a level 3 your priority has shifted from improving yourself to improving others. Therefore people will depend on you and you should try to be the mentor and leader that you wanted to have as a level 0-2. The role of a level 3 differs both inside and outside of tournaments. Level 3s are expected to perform certain functions. However, often new level 3s are not oriented sufficiently regarding those functions and find themselves asked to perform tasks for the first time that they were never taught. This happened to me at GP Rimini 2004. Having been a level 3 for 2 months I was asked to evaluate a level 2 team leader towards level 3. Up until that point I was only used to receiving feedback and giving feedback to floor judges. However, the head judge and the other judges in the team expected that I would do the job without problems, so I had to find the way. This guide aims to help fresh out-of-the-box level 3s who find themselves in similar situations. It presents some functions level 3s perform and provides directions, hints or pointers accordingly. However, it’s impossible for this guide to be exhaustive. Thus, be prepared to use your judgment and the skills that brought you here.

Presence outside of tournaments

Level 3 judges are regional leaders. They are expected to develop and manage their judge community (this includes the tournament organizers!), but also their player community. Since you made level 3 you already have a good idea of what the role of the leader is. There are, however, a few things to keep in mind. To begin with, bear in mind that from now on your words have an increased weight because “the level 3 said so”. People will often regard your opinion as DCI philosophy. You, in a way, speak the DCI. Therefore, please be sure before providing input or making a ruling. Also, when expressing a personal opinion, state it explicitly. Finally, if you discover that you made a mistake, explain to the parties involved what your mistake was and what the correct answer or procedure is. This ensures that they won’t expect the improper response from other judges. For players, you are the person to talk to for judging-related matters. Those may be random questions, situations that happened in other tournaments, or an introduction to the judge program. For the second case, bear in mind that the player is probably not aware of DCI philosophy, has a biased point of view or does not have all the facts. You can in most cases answer simple rules questions, but if you come up with a different answer make clear to the player that you might be mistaken as well. For non-rules questions (judgment calls) an “I was not there” answer usually does the trick. You may also want to explain the DCI philosophy that backs up the ruling, if it does not sound like a deviation or mistake was involved. In those two last cases, the best course of action would be to contact the judge, educate him accordingly, and then have him contact the player if appropriate. Doubting that judge in front of the player would be publicly bad-mouthing another -probably lower level- judge. That is a significant hit to that judge's credibility.

Being approachable and available is the key. You should try to make people comfortable with talking to you. This can be accomplished by maintaining the proper attitude in person, maintaining a presence in the internet, providing contact information, and other ways. We do not want possible future judges to be deterred because they were uncomfortable with talking to you. Moreover, we want existing judges not to hesitate to use you as a resource. For the latter, be prepared to provide your phone number and answer calls from judges at tournaments.

If you are managing a large region and the amount of people attempting to contact you is large, it’s best for everyone if you create a hierarchy. The DCI allows level 2s to test level 1 candidates. Therefore your focus should be more on preparing and testing level 2s that are capable of testing level 1s. However, people working towards level 1 can also train with an experienced level 1 and people for level 2 with an experienced level 2. When these people are almost ready they will likely contact you to test. It is your responsibility either to meet and test them or bring them in touch with other capable judges closer to them. Moreover, judges other than you can take up the role, perhaps in rotation, of replying to player forums about judging or rules related matters. Finally, feel free to delegate tasks. As a level 3, your focus is to improve others. You must therefore provide other judges opportunities and challenges that will allow them to demonstrate various skills. That means that you should consider stepping down, even if only temporarily, from being the visible community leader in favor of a serious up-and-coming level 3 candidate. You need to be sure, however, that this will not impact the community negatively. Since you will act as a resource to L3 candidates as well, and part of their training is leading, you should let them have the opportunity to lead, just like you did before you took your test.

Inside tournaments

Stepping down also applies in tournament roles. For example, head judging a PTQ is not nearly as useful to you as to a level 2 following the path towards level 3. You must be able to coordinate all opportunities your region can provide among the capable judges for each one, according to their level, experience and target skills to improve. It is a good idea to do the job yourself every once in a while though, to set the example and act as a role model. This section will discuss evaluating judges in various roles. Of course, the skills discussed also apply to you when you are in those roles. Regardless of your specific role however, try to be creative according to circumstances. For example, a great educational service you can provide to the judges in an overstaffed tournament is holding a seminar. This benefits both the judges at the seminar and the ones on the floor, because they can now get some floor judging action. This requires you to be able to quickly come up and elaborate on a topic drawn from your experience. You should have no problem doing this once you have done it 1-2 times. You should also be flexible in your role. Since level 3s can fill so many gaps and tournament needs change dynamically, you might find yourself managing side events on day 2 after running a seminar, even though you were simply floor judging on day 1. Finally, try to have the greater picture of the tournament and anticipate problems at all times. The head judge is just one person and is counting on whatever help he can receive from his expert judges.

Shadowing or observing

So what should you be doing? For the players, you will usually be a floor judge, unless another role is available and to your liking such as that of a scorekeeper. In any case, you should be actively shadowing or observing the judge or judges that need feedback. If there are many such judges you may have to prioritize and concentrate on some judges at other tournaments. It’s better to give good feedback to one judge than mediocre feedback to two judges. You should also ask other experienced judges to keep an eye on the judges you are interested in.

Depending on the staff demand of the tournament you may not be able to shadow as tightly as you would like. However, even observing every once in a while from a distance serves the same purpose and can achieve the same results. Throughout this document, “shadowing” refers to whatever observation you are able to perform.

As a shadow, your role is to observe. Try to truly be in the shadows (hence the name), letting the judge act without feeling pressure. It's not your time to shine, it's his. During the course of the tournament do not step in, unless you see that the tournament’s integrity is being damaged or excessive delays are being or will be caused. If that happens, talk privately with the judge in a friendly and mild manner and let him know of your suggestions. One extra challenge is that players will know you and may ask you to confirm rulings or procedures, even as they are being made. Use all your diplomacy skills in these situations to reassure the player, but most importantly let the judge do his work. If you think the judge is about to make a mistake, gently ask to talk to him away from the table. Read "Shadowing" by Chris Richter for more information on shadowing. After the tournament it is time to provide feedback and enter a review. Read the "Reviews that work" by Mike King article for insight on this.

Evaluating floor judge skills

So what should you observe? We are going to cover some important skills and observation methods for the rest of this section. However, try to use you own experience. During your preparation for level 3 you had plenty to work on and identified (or was told of) several skills that needed work. It is highly probable that other judges share at least some of these issues.

Let's begin with some important floor judge skills. The responding floor judge should be in charge from when he starts walking towards the table until the ruling is handed out and applied. Notice his body language and the confidence it radiates, before he even starts talking. When talking with the players, he should have them, as well as any overly eager spectators, under control. He should moderate the conversation and provide ample opportunity for the players to speak. After the investigation, which should not take an excessive amount of time, the ruling must be handed out in a confident and professional manner. The judge should explain the reasoning behind the ruling so as to support it and educate players.

Notice that you don't need to be within hearing range to sample any of the above. You just need to observe the judge's body language and actions. Even the last sentence can be drawn from player reactions as well as gestures from the judge. This allows you to be further away from the table.

So does content matter? It does and you can try to be close enough to hear if possible, but it's OK if you are not able to. The most useful information this can provide is on how the judge handles tough situations and applies policy. However, you can, and should, probe the judge in this area by quizzing him at random times. Be creative in your questions and make sure you press hard on consistency! You can also ask rules questions to assess the judge’s rules knowledge, but since this already measured on the written test, it should be low priority for you.

Floor judges should also be approachable. They should welcome judges speaking to them to exchange experiences, but they should also proactively seek out input and feedback. For handling players, they should possess diplomatic skills to represent the DCI and stand by policy, no matter how pressing players can get. Finally, I like to see judges who are not sure about the ruling they are about to hand out to double-check in the interest of integrity and consistency.

Evaluating team leaders

Evaluating a team leader at a large nationals or Grand Prix is crucial to identify and train future level 3s. If you are assigned to a level 2’s team, the same boundaries exist as shadowing a level 2 floor judge. However, you now have leading and organizing skills to evaluate, with leading being what most trainees are challenged by.

Watch how the team leader manages and distributes the team's tasks. Many new team leaders tend to do everything by themselves and miss out on delegation. The team leader should not occupy him with any duties that take up more than a few minutes. For example, if the team is to assign a judge to the feature matches every round, that person should not be the team leader. This ensures that the team leader remains available to his team and the head judge.

Does he provide the team with clear instructions? A good way to measure this is by questioning yourself if you know what you and the other judges should currently be doing, as well as in the near future. Does he give you very detailed instructions leaving no room for your own initiative (micromanaging)? This refers to the leader's managing style. New team leaders will probably use whatever comes natural to them since they had not yet had the time to experiment. Try to educate the leader regarding the different managing styles and choosing the optimal one according to the team's experience and the tournament. At a chaotic large GP with an inexperienced team, the leader should micromanage the team to make sure every task will be carried out. At a calm tournament the leader should leave plenty of room for initiative to let the judges breathe and show their strengths and weaknesses.

However, to make sure the team accomplishes its tasks, the leader should preemptively keep an eye on the judges. When the judges are performing the deck check, the leader should be there at least when the deck check time limit approaches. A common error in new team leaders is that they act as floor judges when they have no specific task. When a team leader is idling, he should not be watching matches but the team members instead. This way he can watch them making rulings and working the floor so as to provide them with feedback at the end of the day.

Apart from simply watching the team members, the leader should keep in contact with the members individually. This refers to the team leader chatting with each judge at random times on the floor. The team leader can ask the judge what his local community is like, what goals he has set and also quiz him to get a grasp of his rules and policy knowledge as well as how he would handle situations. This helps the judges feel close to the team leader.

The team leader should also make the judges feel like a team and encourage them to talk to each other independently. This is mostly accomplished by holding regular team meetings during the day, apart from the team briefing and debriefing. In those meetings the leader should be in charge. He should bring up educational topics and convey any necessary information to the team. It's important to moderate the conversation as needed to make sure every judge gets to speak, no matter how shy they are, as well as keep the conversation meaningful and timely.

A challenging aspect of leadership is inspiration – making others proud of being members of the team and motivated to do their best, without actually pressuring them though. Even some level 3 judges need work in this area and therefore any level 2 that possesses this skill should be regarded as an exception. To a big extend this is something that comes with practice, as long as the level 2 has a clear understanding of what being a leader is.

A few experienced judges like to deliberately not follow instructions well or float away from the team's designated floor area, as a way to see how the team leader handles judges who don't complete their tasks. I do not like this practice because it puts the team leader in an awkward spot since he knows you are more experienced, you are evaluating him and may also suspect you are doing this on purpose. The team leader will work with many judges who make such mistakes anyway, so use this method rarely and with outmost caution. This method could be proven useful in order to get a specific result however, such as making a head judge realize that he must be able to say “no” to anyone or making a team leader step in to moderate the conversation. For example you could constantly be asking for more judges from the main event to achieve the first result, and trying to steer the conversation during a team meeting away for the second.

Evaluating head judges

Evaluating a head judge at a demanding PTQ or GPT is pretty much the same, although slightly extended. A head judge may be faced with any sort of weird or tough call you can think of (even scorekeeping issues), therefore he must be able to apply policy, display confidence and act in at least a reasonable amount of time. He must be able to understand the tradeoff between spending more time to investigate and the degree of certainty when issuing a ruling. As the face of the tournament the head judge also needs to be professional and diplomatic. Every now and then a DQ investigation will come up which is a great opportunity for the head judge to display all the above. Again, try to shadow whenever possible.

The head judge must always have an overview of the tournament. He must try to predict any kind of problem that may come up and take steps to prevent it. This improves with experience but try to see how vigilant and on the watch the head judge is for such problems, as well as how well he learns from problems he failed to predict.

Remember the importance of announcements – in some cases a dying art. The head judge should take the time at key points during the tournament to remind players about important procedures and to help them avoid common mistakes. Also, this is a way of informing them of tournament procedures, such as when top8 starts, as well as recent policy or rules changes. These announcements should be short and to the point to avoid losing players’ attention. They must be made in a clear voice and by speaking slower than normal. The tone of voice should not be constant but it should emphasize the important words. I also find that writing such information on the pairing boards is worthwhile. Finally, check the PA system (if any) to make sure it is heard adequately throughout the venue.

Finally, managing floor judges is very similar to a managing a team as a team leader. Same principles apply. If the tournament is large enough to have teams of judges with a team leader in each, then the “head judge’s team” is the team leaders. However, team leaders should usually have a greater degree of independence. They should have all resources and instructions to be able to function independently, since the head judge may be occupied at any time for an undefined period of time. Communicating frequently with the team leaders is important, as they are able to transfer to the head judge any problems or inefficiencies the head judge may not be able to notice.

Evaluating expert judges

Expert judges (be it of your level or higher) also benefit from your feedback on their performance. They often concentrate on “the big picture”, that they miss something about their own performance. They also do many things by habit. It is always good to poke and probe at these habits to see if there are better ways to do them. Be sure to question the “why” of procedures they use at big events. This forces the expert judge to evaluate and motivate his decisions providing a great learning process for both of you.

Judge certification

Judge certification is one of the most important functions of a level 3. You are empowered to recommend judges for advancement to levels 1 and 2, and that is a great responsibility towards the judge certification program. Do not forget though that you should also be able to evaluate and train people towards level 3. For insight on the difference between levels 2 and 3, read "From L2 to L3". That article was written before level 2s were empowered to test level 1s, but this does not change what we look for in a level 3. It does give you more options for mentoring though. Since that candidate will already be testing level 1s, shadowing during the test is a great way to provide feedback on it. The roles can also be reversed so the candidate observes a more experienced approach.

I will begin by explaining the testing mechanics, and then offering some insight on level 1 and 2 testing.

Certification logistics

You are able to generate written level 1 and 2 tests in the DCI judge center. You do that through the “exams” section and then the appropriate buttons in the self-explanatory screens that follow. Generated tests contain a random selection of 50 questions from that level's pool. Each question accounts for 2% and no partial credit is given in questions with multiple answers. When the test is generated, print it for the candidate as well as an answer key (for you). You may also have the candidate take the test sitting in front of the computer instead. We do not set a time limit to the written test to avoid stressing the candidate. Remember to destroy the paper documents when the whole process is over.

There are two types of written tests: personalized and generalized. The former are generated for a specific candidate. When the exam is done, you must enter the answers as provided by the candidate by clicking on that test and then on the appropriate link. The questions in that test are marked in the database so that future personalized tests for that candidate will not contain the same questions. Generalized tests are not generated for a specific candidate, thus future tests the candidate takes may have some questions in common. Also the generalized test itself may have questions already viewed by the candidate. You should therefore always use personalized tests if at all possible.

The next step is to actually administer the exam. From a logistic point of view, the exam consists of a two-part interview divided by the written test. Before handing out the written exam you want to collect information about the candidate and probe him on his skills. At this time you should also screen the candidate's rules and policy knowledge. You should avoid testing the candidate the first time you meet him (the exception being mass certification – see below). Ask to work with the candidate until you feel you have a confident image of him. Often just asking the candidate to judge with you shows their commitment.

At the end of this process you should have a clear view of the candidate. Proceed with giving the candidate the written test if you consider him ready for the next level and you expect that he will pass the written test. It is acceptable to have a small degree of uncertainty regarding his rules knowledge. This will go away with experience as your evaluation skills against the written test expectations improve. We should be not handing out tests, which are confidential documents, to candidates who are unlikely to pass. This is the role of the online practice tests.

Do not neglect to ask other judges for feedback on your candidate, regardless of whether you consider your view on him solid or not. Your peers will be happy to assist you with evaluating judges or candidates (and you should be willing to do the same). Their feedback is invaluable as it will either confirm your opinion, or open your eyes to aspects of the candidate you had not noticed.

After scoring the written test, continue the interview by revisiting the questions the candidate answered incorrectly. I prefer keeping the candidate's attention by announcing the result after visiting the wrong questions, but you might have to adjust depending on the candidate's stress level. Promoting someone who scored below the passing minimum is unusual and undesirable, but possible. Proceed with this in exceptional cases or when other circumstances exist as well, but bear in mind that the minimum scores already include a margin for ”moments of stupidity” (e.g. missing a word in the question).

The last step is to create an interview review through the “create” tab in the reviews section. Before navigating to enter the review content you are asked to enter the written test's ID (a unique number assigned to each written test), the score percentage and the level that you recommend the candidate should be certified at. That will almost always be his old level plus one if he passed, or his old level if he failed. Interview reviews should always be entered if the candidate was given the written exam.

The body of an interview review is identical to that of an evaluation review. Therefore, same principles apply. Once you enter the review the level change will apply as soon as the review gets approved. That may or may not be automatic. In any case, your part is over. If asking to promote a candidate with a score below the passing minimum, be sure to clearly explain the extenuating circumstances. Important When it comes to testing a candidate for a level, you must have a clear view of what you expect from a fresh judge of that level. It's easy to fall into the trap of perfection: training someone for long and testing them only when they would otherwise be experienced judges of that level. Remember that we should not expect candidates to be perfect. There should be a margin for improvement inside the level. If we make it too hard and tiring for people to get into the program or get promoted, there's a good chance they will give up and the program will lose prospective judges.

Testing level 1s

While there is no policy document defining in detail what a level 1 is and what exactly to look for, there are guidelines established by experienced judges and the DCI. To get a good picture, you must study the requirements for level 1 certification, "making a good level 1 judge" by Frank Wareman, and other such articles in the DCI article archive. As always, use any more experienced testers as resources. For the rest of this section, I will try to add my 2 cents.

Level 1 candidates should enjoy judging and want to improve. They have a long road ahead of them and being enthusiastic will allow them to follow it. This doesn't mean that they must judge 3-4 times a month. If they maintain a minimum activity, pressing them may make them quit. Many people start off splitting their time evenly between judging and playing and later on devote more time to judging. If we expect them to pretty much quit on playing initially they will lose interest. Moreover, remember that a level 1 is a local judge focused in his local store. Level 1s work with and sometimes for, a retailer who often will actively look for a local judge. Their focus is not on larger-area events such as PTQs. However, they usually do judge in them.

Look further into the candidate’s motivations towards judging and evaluate them. Simply being promoted from the rules advisor program is not enough. In the same way, product and compensation can be a motivation but it has to be combined by some desire to help tournaments, players and generally do a good job. Only judging for the product without another care is dangerous. Some people will do it for helping out their local communities, which is a type of people we should help as much as possible.

Level 1s must have some self-motivation to look for tournaments to judge. You can easily test that by having the candidate take the first steps and choose which tournaments to judge as part of the training. You can apply a very first filter by giving people who come and talk to you about level 1 your email asking them to write back so you can arrange training or testing. It is surprising how many people fail to do that.

Level 1s should also have a good attitude towards players. They should want to help players, not be on the look for opportunities to punish them. Players should respect them and regard them as a source of help. Also, since fresh level 1s are going to encounter many situations they do not know the right answer to, they should not be over-confident but know when to double-check instead.

Level 1s should be a part of the local community. Try to find out what the candidate does locally. Sometimes they are trying to organize, are already organizing, or simply are players. All of that can be fine. However, they should have played or at least seen in action an event larger than FNM.

Finally, level 1s should possess satisfactory rules knowledge. This means that they should be able to deal with easy and moderate questions presented to them. They should not remember rulings, but rules which they use to produce rulings. Level 1s should also have a good understanding of policy and the PG. Again, details may be missed but they still must be able to deal with the common tournament situations. It is too early at this point to ask that the candidate understands the philosophy.

When a person approaches you expressing interest towards level 1, remember to do a small 1-2 question pre-screening before sending him away with homework. The candidate may be more ready than you expect. Other than that, I like to point out that we are looking for people who are actively interested in judging, and that judging can be fun!

Testing level 2s

A level 2 judge is reliable on the floor. He is able to handle many situations at a table and apply policy. He must understand that following policy is important. He should be able to handle players even if they start crossing the line. He should explain his rulings adequately, with player education in mind. He must understand the role of a judge at a tournament and apply it to himself and his interaction with players.

Level 2s are titled area judges for a reason. They are expected to operate at a larger scope than level 1s. This can include nearby cities, but it almost always includes PTQs, GPTs and city prereleases depending on the local (country, state) market. They should have some contact with their area outside of tournaments. For most level 2s this means being asked for help by judges and players. While they should have presence in their communities, they are not expected to possess the leadership skills level 3s do.

The role level 2s are assigned at area-level tournaments varies. Many regions have few level 2s who they use as head judges for their many PTQs. Other areas have few PTQs and a whole lot of level 2s. In any case, level 2s are expected to head judge even if only their store prereleases. Therefore, they should possess all necessary skills to adequately run an approximately 50 player tournament. This means that they must manage and cooperate with floor judges. It also means that they should be oriented regarding a DQ investigation from start to end. This may be only in theory if the candidate hasn't been lucky enough to experience the thrill.

Moreover, level 2s are expected to mentor and test level 1 candidates. In practice this means that they must be able to guide a person who asked them about judging all the way to certifying them. For level 2s to be able to do that, they must first understand what a level 1 is, and what we should expect from one. In practice, this means that level 2s must understand everything described in this section on testing level 1s. Testing logistics should not be part of the evaluation, but should be something to teach them after they become level 2s.

Level 2s must be able to teach level 1 candidates, so they must possess some mentoring skills. Do not confuse this with the mentoring skill level you were asked to demonstrate in your path to level 3. The amount required is simply talking with a candidate to teach him the basics and observing him on the floor. They should later be able to evaluate that candidate towards the skills required for level 1, but most importantly be able to explain to them what they must improve on and how. The most efficient way of testing a level 2 candidate in this is to direct to him a level 1 candidate and observe the level 2 candidate’s performance. You can also probe during the interview regarding how to evaluate level 1 candidates and past experience in doing so. Give them scenarios and ask them what they would do and how. This is very important if for any reason it is impossible for you to observe the judge’s mentoring skills in action. In the end, you must believe that the candidate has all the skills and desire to certify capable level 1s.

Finally, the rules and policy knowledge required for level 2s is high, and this shows from the 80% passing minimum. Many candidates do not meet that, so be sure to screen right. As a final remark, recommending a judge for level 2 means that you consider them capable of floor judging a Pro Tour soon. Level 2 is an important level, not just an enhanced or experienced level 1. Therefore, take whatever actions will make you feel confident about this. Another useful read for level 2 preparation is "working towards level 2"] by Graham White.

Mass certification

Mass certification occurs at Pro Tours and Grand Prix where a level 3+ is available to test people who walk-in. It is a necessary evil. It is “evil” because the exam's quality (and thus credibility) is negatively impacted by time issues and the fact that it's the only case where the examiner and the candidate have not met before. It is “necessary” because there are still regions which offer little to no testing opportunities and therefore people must travel to PTs and GPs for it. Many great judges (including myself!) got certified this way. Candidates from regions with an active level 3+ should only be tested if they have a real good reason for not contacting that level 3+.

Let’s discuss level 1 testing for a start. The majority of people who walk to you expressing interest for level 1 are far from ready. Thus, it is important that you screen the candidates before proceeding. This can be just a short series of basic questions such as state-based effects, turn structure, etc. They will show you if the candidate has studied the rules or not. They should also gauge the candidate’s commitment at the event as well as at home. If they just want to be “entertained”, you shouldn’t waste time on them.

If the candidate seems informed, it's time to start the pre-written interview. This is the same as already presented for a level 1, with the exception that you have not met the candidate before therefore you have to rely solely on the interview to probe the skills you want. This will make the interview longer and more demanding, but you can achieve your goal. Try to present interesting questions to the candidate and see how he would deal with them. You reach many conclusions about his knowledge and attitude this way. Moreover, his enthusiasm towards judging will probably be apparent early.

If the candidate has no judging experience, try to arrange that he judges for 3-5 hours at the side events. All certified judges should have some judging experience. Finally, if you are facing a large volume of incoming candidates, you may need to apply extreme measures. You can interview them all together as a group. A group interview has all the candidates seating together answering your questions in a random order. This has the advantage that the unprepared candidates immediately understand they are not ready by comparing themselves to the prepared ones. The disadvantage is obviously that it takes longer and it is more tiring for everyone. Remember that it's perfectly within your power to turn people away if they came in too late to give you enough time to adequately interview them.

We have moved away from testing level 2 candidates at mass certification. This is mostly because level 2 includes skills not easily detected during an interview. Candidates should be aware of the judge program and make time to work with a level 3 judge to qualify for an exam. If one is not available, they should make the effort to contact the judge manager ahead of time or apply to a Grand Prix or Pro Tour asking to be tested for level 2. If they do and get accepted, they will be scheduled to work at the event and therefore feedback on their performance will be available. The interview however is still usually more demanding due to amount of skills you know little about and therefore should probe. Candidates who simply show up are not ideal in many ways.

Decertification

As a level 3 you are empowered to recommend people for level 1 and 2. This does not only mean advancement. You have the power to recommend that a level 1 or 2 judge be certified to a lower (or no) level. This should only be done in extreme cases. Since inactive judges have their levels expire anyway, there is no reason for you to intervene. Moreover, decertification should only be considered as an option if attempts to put the judge back in the program and correct his errors have failed. For example, if you see that a level 1's behavior is inappropriate, talk to him first letting him know that this is serious. Consider demoting him only if he persists.

If you feel that a judge is best not certified at his current level, contact the judge manager with a brief description. With his approval, enter an interview review with the new level lower than the current level. If the level was already lowered by the judge manager, enter an evaluation review. In any case, we want the judge to know precisely the reason for losing his level and the way he can get back on track and be considered for it again. I believe that grossly incompetent or misbehaving levels 1s and 2s make players lose faith in the judge program, and we should therefore be vigilant about it.

Conclusions

When you were working towards level 3 perhaps you thought that it was “the goal”, a god-like status that you want to reach and then relax for the rest of your judging career. Perhaps this guide made you suspect the truth: level 3 is just the beginning of a fun roller coaster ride. Lots of challenges await you and lots of opportunities to prove yourself, extend your skills and have fun.

But it does require patience. You have a long way ahead of you. Your first steps are to master the functions of a level 3 outlined in this guide. This will surely take you some time so try to relax and make the best out of it. When the time comes, you will be presented with challenges that will keep your interest in the program intact.

By now you might be a little stressed with this information overload. I will therefore attempt to give this guide a happy ending. Since level 3s do so much mentoring and testing outside of tournaments, they are compensated by the DCI with one tournament pack box and one booster pack box at every expansion, excluding summer releases. You can even get this product on MTG online instead! Just ask John.

So in conclusion: welcome. You are here to stay, as are the rest of us. You will enjoy judging as a level 3, -again- as do the rest of us. Level 3+s are much more a community than level 1+s, therefore please share your questions and experience. You will be added to a level 3+ mailing list which illustrates this point. Remember though that the contents of that mailing list are to be kept private.

For any questions or comments please let me know at mixelogj13@yahoo.co.uk. I hope I helped introducing you to your future.

I would like to thank Adam Cetnerowski for his ideas, significant contributions and corrections to this article.