Hey Milan,

Originally posted by Milan Majerčík:

Hi Scott, I am wondering how that person was identified.

I guess many of us are wondering such things, because curiosity is a common personality trait. It's however wise to understand that this kind of information aren't things we actually need, and would probably be damaging to the security to get wildly published.

Originally posted by Milan Majerčík:

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).

As judges, we merely train other individuals to perform at best in organised play and make sure they have all the resources and support required to do so. We then make sure that certifications are available for individual to advertise that they passed such training and demonstrated success in the skills and knowledge some position require.
Who which tournament organiser decides to staff, and which criteria they utilise to make their decision, is nothing we have control over.
When possible, we can provide recommendations and advices on best practises, but it's ultimately a tournament organiser business decision.

- Emilien

Originally posted by Milan Majerčík:

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 agree with Emilien that this is something for individual TOs to consider in consultation with appropriate legal advice, to ensure they follow any laws or regulations that govern employment. Because the use of “background checks” is a very broad one and not nearly as easy as some may make it out to be. There are considerations in terms of the process itself, what things are “screened”, and even what information sources are used.

It may very well be worth considering, weighing both the pros and cons, but it is very much something beyond the scope of what the Judge Program could possibly do. Especially when one considers any potential litigation and liability if something goes wrong.

I think the Judge Program itself, and I appreciate the Program Coordinators doing this, should be as transparent as possible regarding both certification and de-certification of judges. There was great care in the statement they made. Misconduct by judges is a very serious issue and needs to be dealt with accordingly. And it is, though there may be missteps and sometimes mistakes. Perception of some being what it is, we as an organization need to address where the process may not have worked and improve things so as to demonstrate we take it seriously in all cases.

But I also think it does us a great disservice to be overly reactive and engage in behaviors that would create a more openly hostile environment or cause far more suspicion and fear-mongering, which would eat away at the heart of the Judge Program and damage relations between judges, TOs, and players.

While not directly in response to this post, it feels relevant to note that Jeremy has already gotten access to this thread, disected and reordered the content to fit his narrative and posted a new video. I'm by no means a fan of giving his content any views, but I figured it was best to make everyone aware as well.

Originally posted by Michael Fletcher:

While not directly in response to this post, it feels relevant to note that Jeremy has already gotten access to this thread, disected and reordered the content to fit his narrative and posted a new video. I'm by no means a fan of giving his content any views, but I figured it was best to make everyone aware as well.

I don't think we can control what Mr. Hambley will do with anything that is “leaked” to him, though I would hope that anyone who provides anything to him exercises their own skepticism of his intent and motives. But at the end of the day, the Judge Program and its members need to be able to speak frankly and openly within this forum. Especially to address concerns of the members of the community.

We can't control what he does, but we can hold ourselves accountable and conduct ourselves with the utmost professionalism. Likewise, we can't let the actions of him or others stifle the Judge Program or its members.

Originally posted by Brian Schenck:

Originally posted by Michael Fletcher:

While not directly in response to this post, it feels relevant to note that Jeremy has already gotten access to this thread, disected and reordered the content to fit his narrative and posted a new video. I'm by no means a fan of giving his content any views, but I figured it was best to make everyone aware as well.

I don't think we can control what Mr. Hambley will do with anything that is “leaked” to him, though I would hope that anyone who provides anything to him exercises their own skepticism of his intent and motives. But at the end of the day, the Judge Program and its members need to be able to speak frankly and openly within this forum. Especially to address concerns of the members of the community.

We can't control what he does, but we can hold ourselves accountable and conduct ourselves with the utmost professionalism. Likewise, we can't let the actions of him or others stifle the Judge Program or its members.

100% agreed, my apologies. My post was mostly an informational update. I can't stand thst someone is using attacks on our community as a platform to further his own agendas. We just have to keep being the best we can. Thank you brian.

As this thread about the statement I want to say some words/ask some question about it:

Why did noone sign this statement with their name? Why did the program coordinators have to hide behind their function? Who are the “other leaders” of the judge program?

Why are the PCs overusing the word “attacks”? The leaked data was no attack at all. The leaker had normal access to the data, and didnt have to use any “attacks”.

Why are you criticizing the breach of “the social standard around using information of the judgelist” if there is no user agreement to accept when signing up? (Yes, you said something is coming… Soon ™?)

Why are you saying that he has no access to this forum? But you can go to youtube and watch his video laughing about this thread. The judge that leaked has still access to this forum as it looks like(Michael also pointed that out).

Why do I have the feeling that you are protecting somebody with every statement?

And last but not least: Why was the statement not listed at the program coordinator blog? Now it is, almost two days later.

Originally posted by Brian Schenck:

But I also think it does us a great disservice to be overly reactive and engage in behaviors that would create a more openly hostile environment or cause far more suspicion and fear-mongering, which would eat away at the heart of the Judge Program and damage relations between judges, TOs, and players.

As Scott already pointed out that's a normal procedure for an employment. I already did this a couple of times.
How does this create a “openly hostile environment”?

Johannes, I also have background checks done as well. Both for my current job as my employer monitors certain records and for my volunteer activities via local Parks and Recreation where I work with children. I don't view such background checks as being intrusive or burdensome. But I also recognize the cost and concerns as well.

Furthermore, there is a differentiation between being a member of an all-volunteer organization and actual employment. One could argue about leadership within the organization and I would grant that argument may be very reasonable. But I'm not certain that's comparable for the average member of an all-volunteer organization.

Nevertheless, it is incumbent upon us to be deliberative about such things rather than reactive or be swayed by provocateurs.

Originally posted by Johannes Wagner:

Why are you criticizing the breach of “the social standard around using information of the judgelist” if there is no user agreement to accept when signing up? (Yes, you said something is coming… Soon ™?)

Even though JudgeApps doesn't currently have a user agreement, there is definitely a social standard around activity on the site.

JudgeApps is nearly seven years old. In that time, thousands of people have used the information provided on the site responsibly and for its intended purpose (help TOs and judge candidates find judges near them, apply for events, connect to mentors, and so on). This has all happened without an explicit user agreement, which strongly suggests that people in general implicitly understand how to responsibly use the information provided on this site – in other words, that there is some kind of social standard in play.

Social standards and user agreements are not the same thing. The former can (and does) exist without the latter.

Hope that clears up my point of view on things. I'm happy to go on record as saying I'm one of the “leaders” who reviewed the statement while it was being drafted (and I suggested the sentence you quoted).

If you'll permit a (probably soon to be officially, as my cert has probably just about expired) outsider's perspective for a moment, I don't believe the Judge program itself, just by its nature, is capable of subjecting new candidates and current members to background checks across the board.

I don't buy the financial obstacle. Not in the US, at least. If you factor the cost of a background check into costs for working at an event - the one-time check, by the way, for the presumably multiple events you'll work in a year - does it even come close to the top 5 items in your budget? Travel, hotel, food, cards, souvenirs… I don't see it.

What I see, from the outside looking in, is multiple groups (Judges, WotC, TOs) walking a legal tightrope act together and holding each other's hands along the way. If anybody steps out of line, the whole thing can go south. So, everybody has to be very careful with how they word everything. I am well aware that, no matter what happens, WotC will never be found guilty of negligence in a lawsuit if an offender slips through and initiates contact with a minor at an event (leading to… y'know.) The Judge program will not, either. It will be the Tournament Organizer whose head will roll. And everybody else will learn from their mistake, and change will happen. But that TO may never recover from said mistake.

The question everybody needs to start asking themselves, if they're going to run tournaments on any scale - GP, PPTQ, FNM, do you want to set the example for everyone to follow? Or do you want to be made an example of by others after you have everything crash and burn around you?

I don't think the Judge program, specifically, deserves much of the criticism it has received lately over this. It's a collective thing and some people are more limited than others in what they can say or do. But PR is something I have always felt very strongly about. It's something I feel is lacking here. Flaws in the system have been exposed. The proper response, in my view only of course, is NOT to say “well, this is our legal stance, we're not legally responsible for this, we're not legally this or that, there isn't a problem.” It SHOULD be “we are aware of what's going on, what has happened in the past, our goal is this, and we are always looking for ways to do this thing better.”

I disagree with Hambly sharing what has been leaked to him to YouTube from this forum, as this is a private forum and internal discussion is by no means decision-making. So that information can be skewed sometimes. It's unfair, for my liking anyways. But I don't disagree with his assertion that event staff - from the heads of whatever organization is hosting an event to the janitors at the venue - should be cleared by a formal background check before they are allowed to serve in any fficial capacity. But even MORE importantly, if you know something, say something. If the guy that was at your FNM 2 weeks ago has his home raided and he's charged with something like possession of CP, or worse? Notify WotC. Don't tell someone else to do it. Do it yourself. Be proactive. Make sure WotC, and your local TOs are aware if there is someone who should not be at your local or major events.

Everyone shares some responsibility in maintaining a safe environment for all at an event and within the community, and I believe it would look a lot better if everyone acknolwedged that.

I have a question - as the PC Statement was intended to be addressed to judges (“Dear judge community”), is there a plan to create also a public statement towards the broader Magic community / players? What I personally sense as a misstep or oversight is that the Judge Program has not actively provided a clear stance to the people for who we are here primarily - our players (and their families).

I definitely believe that this thread has derailed far too much and am closing it.

If you have questions for the PCs please address it to the PCs at mail-the-pcs@googlegroups.com.