Not sure if this is ok, but I feel we need a sounding board based on the statement that was posted.

This statement has already been grabbed on Twitter. The comment that went along with it indicates that it was sent in an email, so I’m not sure if JH has seen it on the website or not.

Be that as it may, between this and the doxing of the L2+, I’m starting to wonder just how safe we are as judges.

Maybe I’m just worrying too much about nothing, but I feel like the overall good name of the program is being dragged through the mud because of situations that happened many years ago by individuals that may or may not have been judges at the time.

What steps, if any, can we take as a program to prevent all of this from happening?

Hi Will,

I believe that we do not have many instruments at hand to effectively fight trolls of Jeremy's caliber.

I only suggest to stay calm and keep trusting each other. Evethough, it appears that one of us - a Judge Apps user - went through the list of users and provided the information to Jeremy (who himself does not have an account here, AFAIK).

One thing is sure, we should approach the situation with a clear mind, learn from it and apply the findings into making the community even stronger. The following has come up my mind when I saw Jeremy's latest video + tweet + the judge list myself a few days ago:

1) Should Judge Apps have a kind of User Agreement? At this moment, there is nothing like that when a new user signs up of the account.

2) We already have a general guideline how to act towards minors. Should we strengthen it and make it more visible to present that we actively care for that topic?

3) Should we somehow modify the certification process to “screen” the history of the candidates?

4) Should I proactively provide my TOs with an evidence that I am “normal” (i.e. have a clean non-criminal history)? Will this be required some day as a prerequisite by premium TOs?

I think we’re just as safe as we’ve ever been, if not more given the changes in Judge program structure over the years.

Sure it’s annoying when personal info gets released like that, but I can’t imagine anything much coming from it.

Similarly, the rest of the article. Someone with a large chip on their shoulder started spreading rumours and suspicions - it happens. Engaging with such people only serves to make them appear legitimate. Unfortunately, the internet being what it is, there’s an audience for everyone and everything, good and bad. Which necessitated a statement.

But I don’t think there’s anything that you or I or anyone needs to do differently. Just carry on being awesome at your local events, and encouraging people in your community to do the same.

As we say in Ireland - sure it’ll be grand :)

Originally posted by Milan Majerčík:

1) Should Judge Apps have a kind of User Agreement? At this moment, there is nothing like that when a new user signs up of the account.

Yes. In December, Dan Collins and I outlined our ideas for what these policies might look like. I'm currently in the process of soliciting a lawyer to help craft the actual documents and ensure everything is on the up-and-up. (As you might guess from the timeline mentioned, this project is something we've wanted to do for quite a while, so it was totally independent of any of the incidents mentioned in the article.)

(I'm the current lead developer for JudgeApps, and Dan is one of our admins.)

I don't know anything about the present situation but with respect to Milan's point 4, I would like to voice my view that I think that lacking a criminal history should not be a prerequisite to being a judge.

I'll offer my view on Milan's 4 questions, plus a few other thoughts.

1) Should Judge Apps have a kind of User Agreement?

Yep, we probably should, and - sadly - should have long ago. There's no shame in building such a large community of, largely, trusting and trustworthy people; it's a shame that someone abused the trust we once had in them. I'm glad to hear that this is not only in the works, but has been for a while.

2) Should we strengthen it and make it more visible…

I'll leave this to others (the Program Coordinators?) to decide, and act on.

3) Should we somehow modify the certification process to “screen” … candidates?

No, we (the Judge Program) shouldn't return to our more exclusive days; we fought a long, hard, uphill battle to move past a lot of early missteps, and create an inclusive, welcoming, enriching community. We do need to remain vigilant, and resolve any unfortunate situations that arise - and we do that! - but, for a myriad of reasons, the Judge Program probably won't (can't?) implement effective background checks, at least not soon.

4) Should I proactively provide my TOs with an evidence that I am “normal”?

I suspect this will become more common, at least for the short term, but it will be driven by TOs. Many US employers already require background checks and/or drug screenings as a condition of employment - but they incur the costs, not the prospective employees. Some TOs have already implemented such requirements (and not because of this recent brou-ha-ha).

I also want to stress that the person who extracted the data published by Hambly was no longer active as a judge, and now has no access at all to Judge Apps. Further, his access did not include e-mail addresses; please don't “destroy” the ability to inform you of important things by removing or corrupting your e-mail address!

Will, I obviously can't know how this will all turn out, but I do agree with Mark - if anything, this will serve to improve the Judge Program, because - as we've done for many years - we learn from experience. I don't think your worst fears will be realized.

Petr, I think that many prospective “employers” - i.e., TOs - disagree with you, and that's their right. What sort of past offenses might be a concern will vary by TO, and anyone with "skeletons in their closet" may encounter some difficulties - or not, I can't predict. What I can predict: I will not join you in this stance.

d:^D

Scott, I only voiced the weakest possible version of the stance: “A person should not be prevented by the Judge program or Wizards of the Coast from reaching Level 1 via a certification by a Level 2 judge and a willing TO simply because of the fact that at some point in their history, they have committed any criminal offense that hasn't yet been erased from the country registry.”

From what you said, you actually joined in this stance :D.

Originally posted by Petr Hudeček:

Scott, I only voiced the weakest possible version of the stance: “A person should not be prevented by the Judge program or Wizards of the Coast from reaching Level 1 via a certification by a Level 2 judge and a willing TO simply because of the fact that at some point in their history, they have committed any criminal offense that hasn't yet been erased from the country registry.”

From what you said, you actually joined in this stance :D.

I agree with Petr on this. There is a level of triviality to be taken into account, for example someone who five years ago got into a drunken brawl and was cited for it probably doesn't need to be blocked from becoming a judge.

Completely separately, it is worth noting that in many countries, getting “a background check”, however locally defined, is not at all as straightforward, or cheap, as in the USA. Privacy laws in many European countries mean that checks require that the person being checked be taking up an employment in one of a specific list of roles (e.g. teaching, medical, care provider) or be working for a regulated entity (e.g. law firm, bank). So even if someone is 100% ready, willing, and able to participate in a “background check”, it may not even be possible.

Originally posted by Thomas Ralph:

for example someone who five years ago got into a drunken brawl and was cited for it probably doesn't need to be blocked from becoming a judge.

Where do we put the line? Are we thinking about replacing the current legal system and deciding how bad a specific action is and how long a person should pay for it before becoming a judge? Isn't it the function of national states? Are we instituting also courts as Judge Program?

We agree to a code of conduct when becoming judges and should respect it starting from then. Actions can be taken if the code is not respected by judges. We also have a talk with judge candidates before certifying them, and eventually, ask for references. Do you think we should take any further action here? I think it would be out of the scope of the program.

Just a note - Scott's reply above has been posted to Twitter. Somebody is still leaking information to Jeremy, so assume anything you say here is nothing that you wouldn't say in public.

This is a good policy in general.

Originally posted by Huw Morris:

Just a note - Scott's reply above has been posted to Twitter. Somebody is still leaking information to Jeremy, so assume anything you say here is nothing that you wouldn't say in public.

I'd be shocked if he doesn't just have full access to the account of whoever is helping him. Assume he's got access to the full site at will. He says he has a video coming about the site later today.

Pedophiles are bad, people with violent back grounds are bad. We should do everything we can to rid them from the community.

It would be really good if we could keep to the topic at hand - the article and it's content.

Originally posted by Scott Marshall:

I also want to stress that the person who extracted the data published by Hambly was no longer active as a judge, and now has no access at all to Judge Apps.

Hi Scott, I am wondering how that person was identified. Anyone with access to the Judge search page (https://apps.magicjudges.org/judges/) can create a full list of judges just by using a simple script.

Originally posted by Thomas Ralph:

Completely separately, it is worth noting that in many countries, getting “a background check”, however locally defined, is not at all as straightforward, or cheap, as in the USA. Privacy laws in many European countries mean that checks require that the person being checked be taking up an employment in one of a specific list of roles (e.g. teaching, medical, care provider) or be working for a regulated entity (e.g. law firm, bank). So even if someone is 100% ready, willing, and able to participate in a “background check”, it may not even be possible.

It is true that the possibility for a person to obtain their criminal records vary wildly across the globe. Still, would it make sense for TOs to apply such “screening” wherever possible? If I understand it correctly, CFB will be using at least the basic publicly available check for every US-based staff member on their events (that means every GP this year at least). I can't speak for premium TOs, but I can imagine that a similar practice is to become more common even for other countries. It is only matter of what tool/database is available in which country. The question is how far the right of TOs to remove whoever they “do not like” from their venues/events can go (this is also impacted by local laws).

I also share the stance that the Judge Program is not empowered to “discriminate” anyone just based on their history. We would need define transparent and clear criteria, however such criteria may not be applicable worldwide. Although some judges are also professional lawyers, this would require a tremendous amount of work to make it applicable and usable.

By the way, regarding the possible financial impact of running background checks for judges, Jeremy Humbly himself presented a possible solution - crowdfunding.

Originally posted by SALVADOR CORTEZ:

Pedophiles are bad, people with violent back grounds are bad. We should do everything we can to rid them from the community.

Salvador, while I understand your stance that we should expel convicted criminals from the community, I believe that you have to be very careful when crafting and applying such policy. Nothing is black and white. Where do you put the line?

For example, I personally do not like the public meaning of the word “pedophile” as a person who commited a sexual offence against a minor. Originally, by medical point of view, pedophilia is a paraphilia / sexual deviation or a sexual orientation (experts' view is not uniform). By saying “pedophiles are bad”, you consider only the convicted criminals with such record (also note that the definitions vary per jurisdictions worldwide), or do you also mean anyone who is considered as a person diagnosed with such paraphilia?

Please note that, statistically, vast majority of sexual offenses against minors is commited by people are not pedophiles by the medical definition.

Also note that many “true” pedophiles are people who will never do anything which is in their fantasies and hate themselves for what they are (and what they could not have influenced). They are locked in their invisible prisons with no chance to fight the stigma which was imposed on them by the society. You can compare their mind state to for example homosexuals in Great Britain when it was prohibited by law (for example, do you know the life story of Alan Turing?).