An article on the comparisons between the Pokémon Professor Program & the Magic: the Gathering
Judge Program and what to keep an eye on when moving from judging one game to the other.

(Note my experiences are based on having judged primarily in Tasmania, Australia - they may not reflect what others experience in larger and international areas)

Is it easier or harder to judge multiple Trading Card Games? In my case I’ve found it to be a bit of both.
While I’ve dabbled with Magic’s Intro decks harking back to 8th Edition, I only really became invested in
the brand around Dragons of Tarkir. Inspired by my many years as a Pokémon Professor (what Pokémon
Judges/TOs are known as) and my new position as a local game store owner I was eager to dive into the
world of Magic Judging. After all how different could they be?

Indeed looking at the philosophy behind each game and you’ll see similar words popping up. Pokémon
players are expected to abide by the ‘Spirit of the Game’ - Fun, Fairness, Honesty, Respect,
Sportsmanship, and Learning. The ‘Professor Core Values’ that judges use expand upon these with -
Integrity, Honesty, Responsibility, Professionalism. The ‘Magic Judge Code’ prefers to use - Service,
Integrity, Community, Respect, and Trustworthiness.

Perhaps the biggest difference is that Magic has 15 pages covering its code - Pokémon has a page and a
half. When all is said and done, both games want judges you can trust to look after the community. No
real surprises there. Sometimes though there can be minor differences in what each game considers
each value to mean. I believe that lies in each game’s target audience and therefore the differences
between the communities that each of the judges serve.

Pokémon is naturally marketed towards younger children and families, whereas Magic prefers to lean
towards the youth - adult demographic. Of course this doesn’t stop anyone from playing either game
but it does show up strongly in attendance. Perhaps the most obvious difference when judging either is
Pokémon’s age divisions (and Magic’s lack thereof).

The Pokémon Age divisions are divided by year of birth. As of the 2016-2017 season these are: Juniors -
born in 2006 or later (under 11s), Seniors - born in 2002-2005 (11-15) and Masters - born 2001 or earlier
(15+). The presence of players at a Juniors age in particular is something that is far less prevalent in
Magic than Pokémon, and is something that requires unique sets of judging skills. I would argue that
things like negotiating with parents, skills in instructing children and reading body language are all that
more important in Pokémon where the players you’re working with might not have the communication
skills older players have. Younger players are also more likely to make accidental errors throughout the
course of play, making active judging even more vital. Should Magic have age divisions? I think so –
having a split level of play means the game is more accessible for those who are younger. And younger
players means more judge calls, which means more opportunities for judges to be put through their
paces. I’ve found that skills I have had to learn to consciously use when communicating with younger
kids are equally applicable when communicating with adults – though we aren’t as conscious of applying
them. Being conscious of how you communicate allows you to consciously improve.

One of the largest differences in judging come ups up in relation to age divisions - variation in penalties
at a competitive level based on age + circumstance (e.g. top tables vs bottom tables) are far more
common in Pokémon than in Magic. It is entirely possible to turn a Game Loss into a Caution/Warning if
the change is unlikely to affect the integrity of the tournament and result in a more positive experience
for the Juniors involved. Magic’s circumstances for the downgrade of a penalty are clearly documented
and are for certain infractions only. I think a mixture of these approaches would be optimal (assuming
Magic implemented age divisions). Magic’s precise rulings could be applied for criteria like win record
with an addendum for flexibility situational circumstances (to be approved by a Lead/Head Judge).

On that note, Magic’s judging documentation is more precise than Pokémon’s. There are clear judging
levels at Regular REL, Competitive REL and Professional REL and philosophies behind each tier. Pokémon
has two penalty tiers (simply labelled 1 & 2) however they are used more for escalation than event level
(though the highest level events usually start at Tier 2 straight away, this isn’t documented in the
Penalty Guidelines). Magic’s IPG even has an annotated version for further clarity. In terms of game
rules, Magic’s comprehensive rules are quite lengthy (owing to the addition of mechanics on a fairly
regular basis) and arguably cover every single interaction possible in the game. Pokémon’s rulebook
doesn’t contain everything in full detail, though everything in current tournament legal formats are
(older mechanics are briefly alluded to in the glossary but not fully described). However, Pokémon’s
rulebook DOES include easy to understand diagrams to help interpret each rule. Again these are
audience driven differences - Pokémon’s younger audience are more likely to need a visual aid, and the
difference in the number of mechanics is also attributable to the comprehension levels of each game's
target audience. In addition to the basic rulebook, judges also have access to the Compendium, an
unofficial compilation of official rulings from the Pokémon Company. ‘Meta rulings’ tends to cover any
instance that the rulebook does not. In this regard, Pokémon has a lot to learn from Magic in terms of
providing clear and comprehensive rulings in one place. While it would be nice, I don’t think it would be
practical for Magic to implement diagrams to explain interactions (unless they appeared as separate
links?)

Understanding the cards themselves in Pokémon tends to be somewhat easier - unlike Magic, altered
art is not allowed and cards are only allowed to be of a language native to the region the tournament is
being held in (exceptions are made for International/World Championships). Magic has Oracle text to
cover text on all cards. Pokémon has had few erratas so has a document which only covers errata'd
cards. From a judge’s perspective, Pokémon’s rulings on this are obviously preferable – however this is
an area that I think is fine to concede to players in order to help the community. Magic has clear
guidelines to deal with this including the Oracle text, so it works.

Running an event in either game is fairly straightforward. Both games have their own tournament
software (Wizards Event Reporter for Magic, Tournament Operations Manager for Pokémon) and both
use Swiss round tournaments with a top cut dependent on attendance. One advantage of WER is the
ability to create manual pairings (though of course it comes with the risk of exploitation).

Compensation for judging Pokémon events comes in the form of Professor Points which can be
redeemed for exclusive Pokémon Professor branded loot (everything from playmats to shirts). At
Prereleases, Pokémon provide judge support in the form of boosters contained in the Prerelease kits
that the hosting store buys. For higher level events, Pokémon provides Booster Boxes directly. In
comparison, Magic prefers stores to dictate their own judge support at all levels of play in order to
foster a more professional relationship between judge and store. To ensure judges are used (as stores
are not always keen to pay support out of their own pocket), Magic requires the use of Level 2 judges
for PPTQs and recommends using judges for other events. Finally Magic provides Judge Promos through
the Exemplar program, encouraging judges to go the extra mile. It’s possibly my store owner bias
coming through here, but I prefer Pokémon’s system. While it comes as an additional cost to the brand,
it ensures that stores are happy to have judges on board. As a store owner I’ll usually try and ensure I
can judge myself in the majority of situations rather than paying an additional judge in terms of prize
support – it can be the difference in running an event successfully and suffering a loss. It also allows me
to run free events (as a casual point of entry). One point I DO like about Magic’s support is the Exemplar
program – having the extra incentive to do that bit more is something Pokémon lacks which can
sometimes result in judges just turning up and doing the bare minimum to get support. If legal reasons
are behind Magic not providing support – I’d be interested to know how Pokémon get around it.

While there are several tiny differences between penalties and rulings in the two games, one of the
most interesting I’ve noticed is how the situation of a Head Judge making a mistake is handled. Magic
opts to go for the apology route and ensure that all future instances are ruled as the game intended.
However Pokémon requires that the tournament use the ruling that the Head Judge made for the
remainder of the event for consistency. Both games quote that this maintains integrity, and is a good
example of how different philosophies come into play. I definitely agree with Magic’s standard on this –
if you make a mistake on one game, it affects only one game (as regrettable as that is, it happens). If the
ruling is extended to the whole tournament, you potentially affect every single player using cards
affected by the ruling. If that ruling is not in the players favour, you suddenly have a lot of players unable
to play as intended (and consequently very unhappy). Not only that, but it spreads confusion on how the
cards actually work for future events.

In order to become a Pokémon Professor, you have to pass a small rules based test that covers
mechanics and tournament structure. You will also fill in a resume style questionnaire (why do you want
to be a Professor, what skills do you bring to the table etc). Finally you’ll need a reference (generally
someone already judging). There are 3 stages of Professor - Basic, Stage 1 & Stage 2. To progress you
need to judge a certain number of premier events, as well as several events overall. Then you’ll need to
pass a similar test to the one you used to qualify for the Basic stage. Professor qualifications need to be
renewed every year.

In comparison Magic has a much more stringent testing process above the first level (and I’d argue that
the first level exam is harder than Pokémon’s equivalent). The additional requirements of Judge Reviews
and article writing are indicative of Magic’s quality control when it comes to the judge program. By
ensuring judges are actively involved in mentoring their colleagues, you end up with higher quality
judges. In this regard, I’m quite confident that Magic’s process is superior. Pokémon have shown signs of
progressing on this front however.

In conclusion both games are very similar in the function of judges except Magic leans towards quality
control and structure, whereas Pokémon prefers flexibility to work with the younger audience and
teaching them the rules (with teaching emphasised by the name Professor). Each game appears to be in
a stage where they’re learning from the other however, and I look forward to seeing how things turn out
as a result. Both games are a pleasure to judge - if you’re only judging one, I encourage you to check the
other one out as it can only help broaden your judging experience!

Edited Ashley Kendall (April 8, 2017 04:18:24 AM)