Here is my rule of thumb on a badge differentiation or other markings/distinctions, if a judge can notice, a player can notice. It is as simple as that. Anything we do to mark or distinguish one judge from another can and will be noticed by players too. Out on the floor there are two roles and they already have distinction burgundy and black.
Gareth's suggestion of getting to know your team lead is an excellent one and I might suggest to go a little further and familiarize yourself with the pictures of the L3+s from Judge Apps. All L3+s have their photo available on Judge Apps when you hover over their name, as do most judges. Take a look at those and get to know their faces. Also it is tradition that the L3s introduce themselves or are at least pointed out/stand up during the morning meeting. There are plenty of opportunities to get to know at least one L3 at a GP. Of course there is always the last line of defense in that regard as well, just ask another judge. You will find an L3 pretty quickly that way too.

I think that, in the end, the best way to quickly identify an L3+ at a GP is to get to know the Team Leads that will be working near your area of the venue as early in the day as possible. They will be able to handle any backups and/or point you to the right person to handle them if they're currently busy.

This has the added benefit that you will get to chat with them a bit and therefore know more people in the program, which I always found out to be a good thing. :)

My experience tells me that the players who are likely to appeal any non-L3 ruling, are likely to appeal ANY ruling, period. (Some will even ask to appeal the appeal, if it's delivered by an Appeals Judge - i.e., anyone but the Head Judge.) I'm not worried about drawbacks of identifying L3-or-not for observant players. I do worry about inefficiencies that can delay 1000+ players (because an L3 can't be found quickly).

d:^D

While they might not have exact knowledge of our levels, grinders recognize judges that work events frequently and will mentally track the ones that they trust more.

I liked what Kim did at GP Lille last month. Instead of a huge judge meeting, she did a Friday evening judge meeting for team leaders and judges on their first GP. That allowed to have a smaller and more meaningful round of introduction.

I'm not fond of wearing anything related to level. A compromise would be to have something related to the role in the event. A mark on the badges of every team leader sounds like a reasonable option. The fact that both often overlap will help judges looking for a L3. At the same time it will not increase the level distinction issued people mentioned.

- Emilien

I must say that I agree 100% percent with Scott on this. I never saw a player picking a judge, but I faced a few occasions on recent GPs were time was lost while a judge was looking for a L3 among a group of unknown judges.

The truth is that we do have a system of levels on the program, and we do have a system for differentiating judges on tournaments (the burgundy shirt). Players already know that there is a higher instance of knowledge on tournaments (the appeal judges and the head judge), and so far we haven't faced a storm of appeals on tournaments.

If a player really cares about judge levels (enough for him to try to pick judges) he or she will simply ask by the beginning of the tournament. Also, players don't have enough “power” to try to pick a judge. What could they do? Point to a judge, or call him by his name? Appeal to all non-L3 judges rulings? Worst case scenario we will have to educate players on calling the nearest judge, not the one they likes most. And this is something we already did in the past. The history of the judge program is full of moments where we discouraged unwanted behavior by educating players.

My concert with this situation is that, in order to avoid something bad that MAY happen, we are allowing something bad to DO happen.

All the best!