This thread is for discussing the article Head Judging a GPT by Evan Cherry

This article does a good job of showing what is expected from a head judge at a GPT.

However, I'm not entirely sure if it fits the current judge level definitions that well. From what I understood, the goal is to have the headjudge of a GPT be an L2, or an experienced L1. Simultaneously, since L1's will be mostly judging regular, an L0 training to be L1 would ideally get his experience from a regular tournament, whereas L1's who want to get experience with competitive tournaments make excellent floorjudges for a GPT. Even though it's covered, the article could give the wrong impressions when not read carefully. I realize that not all regions have the judges available for the ideal situation, but is that a good reason to not mention the ideal situation at all?

Most GPTs have exactly one judge because 2 would be too many.

I have to disagree that 2 would be too many.

First, it is always advisable to have 2 judges at a Competitive event,
because it helps with deck checks and allows for judge breaks. Judges
having breaks is important.

Second, GPTs are a great training opportunity. Whenever an L1 in our
community HJs his/her first GPT, I make an effort to be there to help.
I don't take over as HJ, I am just there to help. There are very few
opportunities for an L1 to HJ a Competitive event that is still small
enough to give lots of time for talking and large enough to actually
need judges.

On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 6:39 AM, Philip Böhm
<forum-4472-b282@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:

I think when you're discussing the number of judges at an event, you have
to state your expected player range. GPTs locally can be as little as 8
players. I wouldn't want 2 judges there ever.

Paul Smith

paul@pollyandpaul.co.uk

What Paul said.

Around where Philip and I live, we have about 5(ish) stores in the extended area which can run GPTs, and usually have no more than 16 competitors (breaking 8 is more often the problem than having more than 16, really). It is probably a regional thing, but I ‘grew up’ as a L1 solojudging GPTs simply because having two judges for 8-16 people is ridiculous. It takes some reading beforehand on what you need to know, but this article really helps in that (so thumbs up for the article!), but with a little preparation, small GPTs can be handled by less experienced L1s without greater problems.

This is a ‘problem’, if one wishes to see it that way, with the current expectations of a L1, as Michel rightfully pointed out, but very much a nececary evil for regions which do not have superb L2 coverage (and bigger GPTs). On the other Hand, it gives L1s the possibility to smell competetive air without the pressure a PTQ or greater tournament brings, which I feel is very much worth preserving for regions like ours (where judging a GPT with a staff of 2 or more is mostly just ridiculous).

I don't really see the downside if too many judges other than boredom. If
it is a new judge, that shouldn't really be a problem. And if I'm not
needed, I just go sit somewhere and play with people not in the event.

The judges I have helped out seem to really appreciate the safety net.
On Jun 6, 2013 10:26 AM, “Philip Körte” <

Originally posted by Jacob Faturechi:

I don't really see the downside if too many judges other than boredom.

Convincing the TO he needs to compensate two judges for a 8-16 players event could be tricky. Well, in some areas, convincing some TOs they need to properly compensate one judge for an event is already tricky.

I don't think Jacob was expecting to be compensated in that situation.

On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 10:17 PM, Emilien Wild <
forum-4472-9d1a@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:

> *Jacob Faturechi*
>
> I don't really see the downside if too many judges other than boredom.
>
> Convincing the TO he needs to compensate two judges for a 8-16 players
> event could be tricky. Well, in some areas, convincing some TOs they need
> to properly compensate one judge for an event is already tricky.
>
> ——————————————————————————–
> 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/24725/
>
>
> Disable all notifications for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/4472/
> Receive on-site notifications only for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/4472/
>
>
> You can change your email notification settings at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/profiles/edit
>



–
Adam Cetnerowski
Gdansk, Poland

Bite your tongue, Adam! I always expected to be compensated!

Compensation is not always monetary nor from the TO. I have always
maintained that judges should always make sure they are getting at
least as much out of the judge program as they put in. It is not hard
to do.

First, you can learn a lot by teaching. I have gotten some great
feedback and ideas that way. One particular piece of advice I would
give is to make sure that you remember you may know more than someone
but you don't know everything someone else does.

Second, building the judge community rewards you with having a
stronger judge community.

Third, others notice the time you take in helping fellow judges.
Wizards, TOs and your RC all take this type of thing into
consideration when staffing events.

I never judge simply in order to be altruistic. I judge because it is
one of the most worthwhile, rewarding and educational experiences I
have ever had.

The foils are nice too. :)

I've learned so much from becoming a judge. I've grown as a person, learned lots of new skills, bolstered my confidence and met loads of people. Even if judging was strictly volunteer based, I'd still be involved to some extent. However, we're lucky in Calgary to have a thriving judge community and store owners who really appreciate the work we do and compensate us accordingly. Depending on the level of time and effort required for the job that can range from a box of packs and meal stipends to free entry to the next draft. Judging has become part of my identity and I hope I never have to give it up.

Plus I have a terrible weakness for shiny things…

Thanks for this article !