Recent discussions about a high-profile incident of USC-Major had me wondering something, and I'd like to start a discussion on it (and would especially love to hear the thoughts of L3s and large-event head judges):

Frequently, the head judge of a large event asks that appeals & investigations for disqualifications get brought to them (or a designated appeals judge) only, and are treated as a top priority.

Should we be adding USC-Major to this list? (i.e. Should HJs of large events ask that USC-Major situations be brought to them at as high a priority as appeals/investigations?)

I think we should. Like investigations for cheating, suspected instances of USC-Major could also lead to a DQ, and it takes an experienced judge to navigate these situations well. It's also possible that, even if no DQ is issued, the player is asked to leave the venue (this is outside of the explicit scope of policy, but does happen - especially when the comfort/safety/well-being of the victim is in danger).

Unlike cheating investigations, however, these issues often fall under the larger umbrella of “back-ups, games losses, etc., get approved by team leads/L3s/etc.” I think we can go farther in making these situations a high priority, and better ensure that we're doing everything we can to create safe and welcoming spaces.

For those of you with large-event HJ experience, I'm curious to hear your estimations of how much additional load this would add to your day (in terms of being able to handle both these calls and appeals).

I think USC-Major happens rarely enough that it's logistically feasible to always escalate to the head jugde. I also think it would drive home the point that the behavior is unacceptable: It's not just some random judge giving you some penalty, you did something that made the head judge get involved.

So yeah, I like it.

I think this is rare enough that every time it has happened at a GP I've head judged, I've been involved in the situation. It has always taken a good chunk of time to deal with, being as diplomatic as possible, and making the person understand why what they did was wrong, even if they meant no harm. The TO has often been involved as well.

I agree. I think that USC-Majors usually already involve the HJ due to the investigation angle, but now that you bring it up, I can only think of a few GP and SCG Open HJs who have explicitly mentioned it.

Agreed that this is a situation that needs to be referred to the HJ early. The responding judges still have a responsibility to deescalate the situation, of course, but even a Match Loss usually comes from the Head Judge or a judge in red. I'm honestly not sure if GP TLs are typically able to issue those.

Bringing this up during the staff meeting reminds us that its an infraction we're responsible for, just like any other, and hopefully it sparks some conversations within teams. I don't expect it would add too much load - and if it does, it's something that the Head Judge needs to be aware of anyway. Sounds like a win-win.

Edited Dan Collins (Aug. 29, 2016 04:18:14 PM)

It is my personal opinion that if you are about to give a match loss to a
player, you should always verify that with at least someone else first,
probably an L3 on the floor. I think that's good practice for Outside
Assistance as well.

CJ

Typically, a head judge will tell you that any game loss (especially now
that they are rare) should go through them or a few designated individuals,
such team leads. Regardless of the particulars, USC - Major should always
involve one of these people, just due to the severity of the penalty.

CJ, Joshua - I'm suggesting that USC-Major should always go to the HJ specifically (or someone with similar authority for “escalated” rulings - e.g. an appeals judge), rather than “just” L3s/TLs, etc.

As Dan mentions, I'm hoping that it becomes standard practice for HJs to specifically mention and request that they be handled this way (even if in practice they are typically involved without mentioning it anyway). If nothing else, it sends an important message, and encourages more vigilance.

Carlos - In your experience, is it possible that there were GPs that you HJd where you were not involved with a ML for USC-Major immediately after it had happened? e.g. If you empowered certain L3s to issue the ML, is it possible that you didn't find out about it from them until after it was already issued? (This is meant as a genuine question, not a leading question.)

IPG 1.2 covers this:

Additionally, any penalty of Game Loss or higher should be reported to the Head Judge, and it is recommended that only the Head Judge issue penalties of this nature (with the exception of Tardiness (3.1) and Deck Errors (3.5) ).

So yes, you should be involving the HJ anyway.

> As Dan mentions, I'm hoping that it becomes standard practice for HJs to specifically mention and request that they be handled this way (even if in practice they are typically involved without mentioning it anyway). If nothing else, it sends an important message, and encourages more vigilance.

I don't think it needs to become a standard practice to mention it. It's relatively rare. If we included all the stuff that “could be important if it happens” we starting getting into a large list.

A simple “anything higher than a warning that isn't DDP or Tardiness, it needs to go through me”

It's nice, simple, covers everything and doesn't clutter the limited time we have for general announcements.

At GPs where your TL is an L3 and authorized to give non Tardiness/DDP GLs, you will be going up to them, and they know to go get the HJ if you don't.

As far as making the announcement to encourage vigilance, I'm gonna point you to how well that works with slow play (hint: it doesn't) and that's much more frequent.

-Bryan

Originally posted by Mani Cavalieri:

Carlos - In your experience, is it possible that there were GPs that you HJd where you were not involved with a ML for USC-Major immediately after it had happened? e.g. If you empowered certain L3s to issue the ML, is it possible that you didn't find out about it from them until after it was already issued? (This is meant as a genuine question, not a leading question.)

I don't think this has ever happened at a GP I've been wearing the burgundy. I might not have been involved, but another burgundy has always been involved. We normally say that L3s take game losses and backups, and nothing about Match Losses nor UC-Major, so I think that being UC-Major infractions such a serious thing, judges tend to involve a burgundy ASAP. Also, handing out ML when players aren't aware that they've done a bad thing is not something someone in black wants to handle often, given that it can be rather unpleasant and will need a burgundy involved anyway.