I was wondering if the JAR should be updated when GPT now is run default at Regular REL?

I wouldn't mind if the first paragraph (?) could be edited something like this:

Before:

Most Magic™ players play for fun and see a tournament as a social event. Regular REL (Rules Enforcement
Level) encourages a welcoming atmosphere and friendly competition. As judges, we should be friendly and
involved, sometimes playing in events ourselves. Like players, we are encouraged to help at appropriate
times, such as during deck construction or between matches. Judges are the last word when a dispute or
question arises, and we should be as impartial and diplomatic as possible.

After:

Most Magic™ players play for fun and see a tournament as a social event. Regular REL (Rules Enforcement Level) encourages a welcoming atmosphere and friendly competition. As judges, we should be friendly and involved, sometimes playing in events ourselves. At GPT's that are run at Regular REL, the Head Judge is prohibited from participating in the event, and is recommended to not engage in side-activites to not lose focus in the event. Like players, we are encouraged to help at appropriate times, such as during deck construction or between matches. Judges are the last word when a dispute or question arises, and we should be as impartial and diplomatic as possible.

Any thoughts about this, or do you feel that the JAR is good enough at it is?

Edited Lars Harald Nordli (July 21, 2016 04:50:45 AM)

The original wording already covers it - it says “sometimes playing in events ourselves”. So sometimes judges shouldn't play in events ourselves. And if there's a good reason to not play in the event, the same reason is probably why we shouldn't be playing other events.

Another line is also relevant here: “It is important that players know that when help is needed or something goes wrong, calling a judge is the best course of action”. It's the best course of action, because the judge is there to help. If the judge isn't there to help then it's a problem.

I don't think the JAR needs to be amended here.

Some afterthougths: Not all judges are using Apps. Could it be the slightest possibility for confusion for the said judges as the JAR stands today if they have not been involved in our discussion? Could they believe it is just like any other Regular REL tournament except that they can not participate in the event?

I imagine the chance is minimal. The change to Regular is brand new. Judges will still be approaching these events like they used to. i.e. like “PPTQ minus decklists minus deckcheck” rather than “FNM plus a little more seriousness”. I don't think most judge's mindset will be “sweet, I can now play Commander games while the GPT runs”. And even if it happens (big if), the judges will learn whether it works or not. And if it's not working, they will learn very quickly ;)

What Mark said. Despite your personal preferences and experiences, I don't think “If I'm judging Regular, I will play the event or need something else to occupy my time” is the default mindset for every other judge in the world. Some people judge because they don't particularly want to play tournaments!

This might seem like a monumental change, but I don't think it is. If it turns out I'm wrong and there is a problem, whether it's mass confusion or a plague of locusts…we'll fix it. But let's not panic yet.

Another thing to note, is that the MTR still lists GPTs as Premier events, and that tournament officials are not permitted to play in Premier events (with exceptions, GPTs not among them).

If you think “should I pay attention to the tournament I'm judging?” and the answer is “no” and the reason is because the 2 page policy document that provides guidance on how to handle player errors and when to DQ doesn't specifically say you should, the problem isn't the document.

I realize that last comment is probably a bit too snarky so I'll try to make up for it with a more detailed explanation. The JAR document is a quick and easy reference guide that someone who has never run a magic event in their life can understand and be able to apply in a game. Sometimes the intended audience of the JAR don't even know how to play magic! This requires it to be short and to the point and focus on what to do when a player has a problem. This policy crafters have to thoroughly scrutinize how much information to put in to ensure it is focused on solving problems and gives broadly applicable advice. Your suggestion is problematic in two main ways. One, the phrasing “side activities” could be interpreted to say a store owner running an event can't sell sleeves and cards while the event is running. Two, it doesn't address a common misunderstanding or mandatory requirements (like DQing people and why). It's certainly not meant to be a definitive and exhaustive source of what any participant can and can't do. Consider that your suggestion also doesn't appear in any competitive REL documentation, yet this concern somehow doesn't carry over. Consider that the JAR says you have to DQ players for theft, but doesn't say you have to DQ judges. Clearly that doesn't mean theft is only illegal if you are a player.

While it's certainly true that there's downtime in store events, consider the perception of a store owner walking away to service customers versus the judge hired specifically to run the tournament walking away to go play a different game or event. One is clearly more justifiable, the store owner has to service customers. When you've been retained by a TO, unless your agreement includes some work outside the scope of the event, it's safe to assume you're working while the event is running. The store owner scenario leads sometimes to inconvenience, but also to understanding when they see a customer being helped. Your scenario the store owner sees you blatantly disengaged from the task he hired you to do and the players see that lack of respect as well both to them and their tournament and to the store owner who is a critical piece of their local gaming community. It's important to think things through a few times attempting to understand why your change hasn't been made.

Thanks Justin, constructive feedback like this makes me want to contribute to the Judge Program more! :)

I see playing in an event I'm running as okay, and even a positive way to be involved in my play community, given 2 conditions:

1) Can I easily see every match from your seat?
2) Am I okay instantly conceding your match if I'm the last table playing in the round?

Dividing your attention will always have a cost, yet there are some benefits. Being in the player seat lets you have much more perspective and attention to a smaller area, and is better for building relationships. For smaller events, evening out the player count and preventing a Round 1 bye may have value. Still, no matter how small the event, you will miss opportunities for interaction because you were busy playing Magic. Maybe that's okay. It's a judgement call :)

(In deference to Justin, obviously make sure there are no issues of expectations from the TO or player base)

Edited Yonatan Kamensky (July 21, 2016 10:49:31 PM)

Originally posted by Yonatan Kamensky:

Am I okay instantly conceding your match if I'm the last table playing in the round?

Why should/would you do this? At FNM you're as entitled to any other player to finish out your match properly. It risks people thinking “I'm playing the judge, he/she will concede if we're the last match”. It denies your opponent the chance to feel like they “earned” the win (which is a huge deal for many people starting out). You could be playing at a fine pace, and your opponent could be slow, or it could just be a really grindy matchup. If the JAR wanted you to concede, it would instead say that you can't play in the first place.

I understand that you probably feel like you don't want to feel like you're delaying everyone else because you had a judge call, but I think you're doing yourself a disservice by snap conceding every time your match is last. Regular is for fun - and that includes your fun!

Mark, for me it's important to put the event first. Now, this doesn't mean I will always snap concede, in fact in most situations I won't. The important thing is the willingness.

Originally posted by Yonatan Kamensky:

Mark, for me it's important to put the event first.

I'm with Yoni here. Another example is that I judged small store drafts where the comp was free entry; if adding me made the pod go really wonky (i.e. we had a perfect 16 without me) I would defer my free entry to another week. I liked having fun and it's a lot more fun to play and judge, but I'm not going to add myself to an event to the detriment of all the other players playing. That's not what Judging is about.

Maybe this deserves it's own topic, but I'd like to bring up some practical application questions I have about moving GPTs to Regular REL.

1. Running an 8 man Regular REL event with single elimination feels wrong, but we are required to do so because GPTs are still premier events. Are there any plans for this to change so we can run 8man GPTs as Swiss in the future? Regular REL events are intended to encourage people to play Magic. Single Elimination or 3-rounds of swiss has no different effective outcome for awarding byes that are won through GPTs and running 8man GPTs at swiss would only encourage more magic as Regular REL is intended to do.

2. Unless there is a primer or introductory material that I am missing, deck lists are not mandatory for GPTs at Regular. Running a GPT without a decklist at Regular REL has significant implications as players can effectively preboard against their opponents without consequence. It is my belief that altering the contents of a deck or even changing decks between rounds is acceptable at Regular REL as this behavior does not fall under the Serious Problems outlined in the JAR. Am I mistaken here?

Edited Russell Deutsch (July 25, 2016 11:21:59 PM)

For 2),
MTR 3.15 Sideboard
“The deck and sideboard must each be returned to their original compositions before the first game of each match.”

Since it is in the MTR it applies at all RELs which means that they can't change the original composition of their deck throughout the tournament except during limited events.

MTR 7.3 Sideboard Use (Limited Events)
“Players participating in Limited tournaments that do not use decklists may freely change the composition of their decks between matches by exchanging cards from their deck for cards in their sideboard without being required to return their deck to its original composition before their next match. The Head Judge or Tournament Organizer must inform players if this option is not being used prior to the start of deckbuilding. This option is not available at Competitive or Professional Rules Enforcement Level tournaments.”

Edit: Add more info.

Edited John Temple (July 25, 2016 11:42:06 PM)