On this topic I highly recommend the following article by Eric Shukan, “When Judges are Playing, not Judging”

http://blogs.magicjudges.org/articles/2012/12/12/when-judges-are-playing-not-judging/

I'm certainly not obliged to appeal this incorrect ruling, however, I most likely will do exactly that. It's not only because of my own sense of honor. If my opponent finds out afterwards that the ruling was wrong AND that I'm a judge, he/she might lose trust in me and in the DCI/in the judge program. I don't want that to happen.

I probably would appeal an errant ruling in my favour if I knew it was wrong, or at least tell my opponent that I think the ruling is wrong and remind them that they can appeal. I don't know if I'd remind a judge about policy if they failed to ask me if I had any prior warnings, but I might try to find them after the match and remind them then.

I remember a time I was playing in a GPT, and the judge that was ruling was a fairly new L1, and he who I was. Throughout the swiss rounds, he would occasionally look over when he had doubts to confirm his rulings, which was something I didn't want. As a player in a competitive event, I feel it's a conflict to be involved in any rulings on that tournament.

And when it came time for the Top 8, I had made it in, and the judge was seating us for our top 8 draft. He seated us incorrectly, and I noticed it. I looked around the table, and believed myself to be the only person who noticed it, for all but 1 of the other players I got the impression that this was their first competitive event.

So, after encouraging the judge to be confident in his rulings throughout the swiss rounds, I made the judgement call that it was better to let this mistake go, instead of undermining his confidence and speak to him about it after the event was over.

Now mind you, this error is much less serious than one that wins me a game or a match, if I feel a call is incorrect and it's a call of that much importance, I would probably handle it differently.

Michael, trying to convince a judge to give you a game loss tends to
make people think:
* That your a boring person more focused on having things be correct
than winning
* And that you are an honourable person and this reflects well on the
Judge Program

Saying that the Top 8 Draft seating is wrong would only change the
second one, as some will suspect you called attention to it to try and
give your self more favourable pairings.

That type of situation may be one where a few extra pre-emptive steps
are good, like chatting to the green judge well in advance of the
final rounds/draft to make sure they've glanced at the relevant
information.

On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Michael White
<forum-5811-5ba2@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:
> I remember a time I was playing in a GPT, and the judge that was ruling was
> a fairly new L1, and he who I was. Throughout the swiss rounds, he would
> occasionally look over when he had doubts to confirm his rulings, which was
> something I didn't want. As a player in a competitive event, I feel it's a
> conflict to be involved in any rulings on that tournament.
>
> And when it came time for the Top 8, I had made it in, and the judge was
> seating us for our top 8 draft. He seated us incorrectly, and I noticed it.
> I looked around the table, and believed myself to be the only person who
> noticed it, for all but 1 of the other players I got the impression that
> this was their first competitive event.
>
> So, after encouraging the judge to be confident in his rulings throughout
> the swiss rounds, I made the judgement call that it was better to let this
> mistake go, instead of undermining his confidence and speak to him about it
> after the event was over.
>
> Now mind you, this error is much less serious than one that wins me a game
> or a match, if I feel a call is incorrect and it's a call of that much
> importance, I would probably handle it differently.
>
> ——————————————————————————–
> If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this e-email. Or view
> and respond to this message on the web at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/33538/
>
>
> Disable all notifications for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/5811/
> Receive on-site notifications only for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/5811/
>
> You can change your email notification set tings at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/profiles/edit



–
Gareth Pye
Level 2 Judge, Melbourne, Australia
Australian MTG Forum: mtgau.com
gareth@cerberos.id.au - www.rockpaperdynamite.wordpress.com
“Dear God, I would like to file a bug report”

We all can agree that we are not required to appeal in this situation per the rules (Uncle Scott said so!).

I understand that there are judges who would not appeal and I can respect that. That being said I want to say that I strongly encourage all judges to appeal in this situation for 2 reasons. The first reason has been said a few times, that is the perception of judges in the community. We want players to believe that we are fair all the time, not just when judging (otherwise they will doubt where the line is drawn). Also, it is not just the perception of ourselves individually as judges, but players will extend their ideas to all judges. We have seen more than once how a single judge mistake on camera can make players flock to social media and blame ALL judges (they do it even when there isn't a mistake!).

The second reason is having players understand the rules. We do not want players to believe the rules work any differently than they do. I know most of you said that you would explain the correct ruling to your opponent after the match, but what about the spectators? Or the matches within earshot? These players will go on believing that the floor judge was correct and will tell their friends that is how the rules work because they heard it ruled that way at an event by a judge. Most of us have heard the ‘other judge’ stories, but what if not appealing a bad ruling causes some of those stories? *shudders* Like I said in the beginning I understand that some judges will not appeal in this case, but I believe we all can benefit from the correct ruling being made.

tl;dr - Please appeal if this happens to you because I believe it will be better for all of us in the long run.

Edited Erik Mulvaney (Sept. 9, 2013 08:33:47 AM)

you're worried about players learning the wrong ruling? here's an idea –
the floor judge should make the correct ruling. if he doesn't know the
ruling, he should ask another judge for help instead of just making
something up.
in regards to being fair, it's not fair to expect certain players to act
differently from other players. when playing an event (if not also judging
that event), you are no different from any other player and it's not fair
to put yourself at a disadvantage because of what you do when you aren't
playing.

In most cases, I won't appeal. If I'm playing a local GPT with not too much on the line, I'd probably appeal and get the ‘correct’ ruling. If it is at a GP I travelled 500 km for, and this ruling means I make day 2, I'd probably would not.

It would also depend on whether I was in a winning position, and the judge incorrectly gives only a warning instead of a game loss to me, or whether my opponent, in a winning position, recieves an ‘undeserved’ game loss. My error = my responsibility to get it right, my opponents error, not so much.

Winning a Magic Tournament is not only about playing the game well, but also about tournament skills. And when I play a competetive tournament, I play to win. Just as judges expect from all players. Sure, this changes after I'm out of contention and play some more matches waiting for my friends, but when I'm in contention, I'll play to win, and will take advantage of fortunous circumstances outside of my control.

Note that I very seldom play competetive events, but if I do, I'm behaving competetive.

Originally posted by Sam Sherman:

you're worried about players learning the wrong ruling? here's an idea –
the floor judge should make the correct ruling. if he doesn't know the
ruling, he should ask another judge for help instead of just making
something up.

If we lived in a perfect world where mistakes wouldn't be made, we judges wouldn't be needed in the first place =)
You need to always strive for no mistakes, yes, but you also need to have a plan for when mistakes do happen.

Originally posted by Sam Sherman:

in regards to being fair, it's not fair to expect certain players to act
differently from other players. when playing an event (if not also judging
that event), you are no different from any other player and it's not fair
to put yourself at a disadvantage because of what you do when you aren't
playing.

That is true within the rules of the game. That's why there's a passage in the IPG that says that players should not be treated differently for such reasons (having played on the PT, being a judge). Within the rules of the game and the ruling of judges we are all equal.

However, the point being made here, is that we are not just players, we are people. Our in-game actions have real-life consequences. The rules of the game see us as a player, but our opponent sees us as a person. And sometimes those conflict, and real-world factors influences choices made within the game. Yes that is not ‘fair’ as that is not how games are supposed to work, but in the end, life does not work like a game, life is not fair =)

In the end, you have to choose whether to benefit you as a player or you as a person. I know I wouldn't appeal if I deemed the potential personal gain important enough.

Edited Toby Hazes (Sept. 9, 2013 02:59:01 PM)

if your opponent sees you as a “person” rather than a “player,” he is
making a mistake. if you teach him not to trust his opponents, he will be
better off for it.

Originally posted by Sam Sherman:

if your opponent sees you as a “person” rather than a “player,” he is
making a mistake. if you teach him not to trust his opponents, he will be
better off for it.

Wait those are not related. Being seen as a ‘person’ implies nothing else but that how you behave as a player in the game will influence how you are seen a s a person in life.

Edited Toby Hazes (Sept. 9, 2013 03:34:57 PM)

Personally, I probably wouldn't appeal but I might say something to my opponent like “Hmm, that doesn't seem right. If you appeal that, you'll probably get it overturned.”

If they agree with the current ruling, they don't have to appeal, but if they need/want the advantage and/or actually want to appeal, the opening is there.

Please progress this discussion by offering new ideas or perspectives; if we just continue to argue back & forth over already-expressed opinions, I'll feel compelled to shut this down.

Part of what I was getting at with my earlier post, that I don't think anyone else has talked about, is that the morality of the action is not something we have any business debating. Each person's individual conscience will compel them in a different direction, and it is not our place to pass judgement over that. As for my earlier questions…I do not think a person's status within the program should be heavily impacted by their rules-abiding actions as a player. If there are any repercussions whatsoever for a judge's actions beyond what there would be for a player, we have now in essence created a 2nd set of rules for players that happen to be judges. This is completely contrary to the philosophies laid out in the official documents - I know somewhere it is explicitly stated that we apply the rules the same to all players.

Here's a concrete example, and some concrete thoughts.

A while back I was playing in a Competitive-enforcement Legacy event, and my opponent and I were busily jockeying for Deathrite Shaman advantage, including the typical play of “activate my Deathrite targeting that land to get mana / in response I'll activate *my* Deathrite targeting the same land”. And then my opponent went to get mana from his Deathrite to cast a spell, and we realized the land he targeted was one that should have been exiled previously, but was mistakenly left in my graveyard because we'd been more focused on trying to outdo each other.

The floor judge who took the call issued me a GRV and my opponent Failure to Maintain. This is, by the plain letter of the IPG, wrong: it should have been GRV for both of us (his Deathrite had “won” that particular battle, so it was me making a mistake around an effect he controlled).

Spoiler: I did not appeal.

There are a bunch of thoughts that come up here: of course the IPG has a good reason for the double-GRV clause, and for making sure the opponent gets an upgradeable infraction out of this kind of situation, so I'm never going to say it doesn't matter or doesn't need to be consistently enforced. And of course I'm also probably not going to say that the time the appeal would have taken outweighed the need to get the ruling right.

But I am going to say that there was a better way to correct the problem, and that was to get back to the match and then engage on it later. Having a quiet word with a team lead or the HJ, and letting that situation become a point for general discussion/education, achieves the desired result (ensuring the judge involved gets help in seeing the correct ruling, and applying policy correctly in the future) without needing to publicly embarrass or put any individual judge on the spot, and sends better messages. The judge involved in the ruling feels supported and assisted, rather than confronted and undermined, and the other player, if he sees much of it at all, sees judges treating people with trust and respect rather than trying to one-up or outdo each other on technical correctness.

Which points to one reason for our inability to really articulate a general-purpose obligation to appeal, and why this tends to be so highly context-dependent.

Of course, when playing you always have the right to appeal, and if you want or feel you need to appeal you should do so. But you can and sometimes will have multiple options available to you for achieving particular goals (like educating on a problem ruling), and you can and should feel free to consider how those options will serve the end goal when choosing amongst them, without thinking that you'll somehow be wrong or failing or cheating by not always acting as an automatic technical ruling machine. Because let's face it, you're not: you're a human being, like every other judge, and judge interactions are human interactions, a point that we'd all do well to keep in mind regardless of what role we're filling in a particular event.