let's see how massive copy/paste works....
The conversation:
magnumcycloneX (2:15:20 PM): btw, i am going to be hj-ing a few events next year. what advice do u have?
LaskyAlexR (2:16:50 PM): don't feel like you have to have all the answers. If you feel the need to to confer with your judges do so.
LaskyAlexR (2:17:31 PM): the penalty guidlines are just that, guidelines. It is at your discretion to go by the book or not, use your best judgement
LaskyAlexR (2:18:13 PM): i try avoiding giving each judge specific jobs, it bcomes a problem when one is in the bathroom, taking lunch break, etc.
magnumcycloneX (2:18:20 PM): what about being a mentor to other judges? do u take a minute to gauge their strenths, weaknesses, abilities and then work on that during the events/
LaskyAlexR (2:19:02 PM): make it clear that you want your judges to be at the judges station before a round is being paired
LaskyAlexR (2:20:15 PM): i personally tell my judges that when it comes to posting pairings, and finding tables at the end of the round, I want them to take the initiative an to make it happen, not to wait around for you to tell them who is doing what
LaskyAlexR (2:20:39 PM): er, for me*
LaskyAlexR (2:21:03 PM): what you mentioned
LaskyAlexR (2:21:15 PM): you do that when you have spare time
magnumcycloneX (2:21:25 PM): ok
LaskyAlexR (2:21:41 PM): you'll be dealing with appeals, people reporting missing stuff, incorrect results being submitted
LaskyAlexR (2:21:45 PM): etc.
LaskyAlexR (2:21:58 PM): when you have the spare time, or when you notice something
magnumcycloneX (2:22:01 PM): so during the rounds, do u zone them or just have work like fluid
magnumcycloneX (2:22:14 PM): have them work like fluid*
LaskyAlexR (2:22:23 PM): you pull the judge aside and mention it away from the players and give advice
LaskyAlexR (2:23:02 PM): i personally don't zone my judges unless it;s a HUGE event like a shonen, or unless the event hall makes it impossible to not zone them
LaskyAlexR (2:23:08 PM): just because of what I mentioned before
LaskyAlexR (2:23:43 PM): during my judge meeting I always mention that i'm not zoning them but I want them to be constantly aware of each other and try to keep themselfs spread out
magnumcycloneX (2:23:43 PM): right, but u never want them to cluster together either
LaskyAlexR (2:24:13 PM): right, if you mention it during the judges meeting, it shouldn't be an issue, if it does, just mention it to them if you see it happen
LaskyAlexR (2:24:33 PM): also make sure you don't want two judges for one ruling
magnumcycloneX (2:24:47 PM): what about deckchecks? do u do it every round?
LaskyAlexR (2:25:12 PM): if I have the resources
LaskyAlexR (2:25:17 PM): as in judges
magnumcycloneX (2:25:19 PM): over here, we show judges how to do it quickly
LaskyAlexR (2:25:26 PM): i'll do it during the last few rounds
magnumcycloneX (2:25:28 PM): and what to look out for
magnumcycloneX (2:25:40 PM): ic. we do it every round randomly
magnumcycloneX (2:25:54 PM): but of course, near the top tables towards the end
LaskyAlexR (2:26:07 PM): mantis now choses what table for you
LaskyAlexR (2:26:09 PM): 3.0
LaskyAlexR (2:26:55 PM): here's probably the best peice of advice I have to give you
LaskyAlexR (2:27:23 PM): on average, my my regionals, i'll get 0-2 situations into he said she said
LaskyAlexR (2:27:38 PM): these people will be arguing with each other
LaskyAlexR (2:28:01 PM): and there will be spectators who will be involved in the conversation as well
LaskyAlexR (2:28:49 PM): your job it to get in there
LaskyAlexR (2:29:02 PM): calm the players down, and get the spectators to shut the hell up ;-p
LaskyAlexR (2:29:35 PM): your gonna want two other judges with you
LaskyAlexR (2:30:17 PM): one to keep an eye on the situation while you pull the players aside one at a time
LaskyAlexR (2:30:32 PM): and one judge to sit next to you while you listen to the player's story
LaskyAlexR (2:30:58 PM): this judge should have alot of judging experiance if possible
LaskyAlexR (2:31:20 PM): so when you get in there
LaskyAlexR (2:31:25 PM): the first thing you need to do
LaskyAlexR (2:31:28 PM): is calm everyone down
LaskyAlexR (2:31:57 PM): make sure you modulate your tone (god knows I suck at this any time other then when I'm doing this)
LaskyAlexR (2:32:05 PM): make sure you are very firm
LaskyAlexR (2:32:17 PM): not condesending
LaskyAlexR (2:32:50 PM): and don't raise your voice over theirs, your volume level can go up to, but not past, theirs
LaskyAlexR (2:33:00 PM): as their volume level goes down, yours goes down with it
LaskyAlexR (2:33:14 PM): you'll notice
LaskyAlexR (2:33:43 PM): that they are both trying to say two things
LaskyAlexR (2:34:12 PM): A)they will both make speculations
LaskyAlexR (2:34:34 PM): such as how performing a certain action gives someone an unfair advantage and why
LaskyAlexR (2:34:58 PM): B)facts, what they beleive to have actually happened
LaskyAlexR (2:35:33 PM): so you calm them down
LaskyAlexR (2:35:40 PM): if possible
LaskyAlexR (2:35:53 PM): you have them tell you each side of their story while at the table
LaskyAlexR (2:36:00 PM): make it clear to the person who goes second
LaskyAlexR (2:36:47 PM): that they are not to speak during the first person's story and that they will be next BEFORE the firs person starts to tell their story
LaskyAlexR (2:37:11 PM): as soon as you hear the person give speculations
LaskyAlexR (2:37:26 PM): or anything else that isn't a fact
LaskyAlexR (2:37:51 PM): you say thats a spectulation etc. I want facts
LaskyAlexR (2:38:03 PM): keep in mind this is what I've found works for me
LaskyAlexR (2:38:18 PM): then you have the other person give his story
LaskyAlexR (2:38:28 PM): you look for inconsistancies in stories
LaskyAlexR (2:38:48 PM): and if someone had difficulty remembering what happened
LaskyAlexR (2:39:29 PM): you get statements from witnesses and make note on if they are friends of the duelists or not
LaskyAlexR (2:40:05 PM): sometimes it will be a life point dispute
LaskyAlexR (2:40:17 PM): somtimes it will be a dispute on how many games have occured
LaskyAlexR (2:40:57 PM): and sometimes someone will have scooped up their cards before the game is over (in which case they have damaged the state of gameplay beyond repair and nothing else really matters much)
LaskyAlexR (2:41:30 PM): sometimes it wont be during a round, and will be a dispute on the results of a match
LaskyAlexR (2:42:02 PM): in which case you get both players seperate and talk to them individually
LaskyAlexR (2:42:23 PM): the person who is with you to listen to the persons story is there for you to discuss inconsistancies with
LaskyAlexR (2:42:56 PM): and when someone is unhappy with your ruling
LaskyAlexR (2:43:00 PM): which is inevitable
LaskyAlexR (2:43:37 PM): and there will definatly be people who talk to you about it after the fact
LaskyAlexR (2:44:42 PM): try to explain that no matter who you ruled in favor of, the other person would have been upset and then explain again why you gave the ruling FROM YOUR PERSECTIVE
LaskyAlexR (2:45:28 PM): you wanna try to depersonalize yourself when your explain yours ruling by explaining how and why it was the best rulings you could have given at the time
LaskyAlexR (2:47:29 PM): sometimes when you do this you need to explain all outcomes/senarios that happen for each ruling you could have/did give
LaskyAlexR (2:47:49 PM): for example player a's favor, player b's favor, double loss
LaskyAlexR (2:48:22 PM): and how in the other two senarios someone gets screwed
LaskyAlexR (2:48:35 PM): well
LaskyAlexR (2:48:38 PM): not screwed
LaskyAlexR (2:48:50 PM): how in the other two senarios it's unfair to someone
LaskyAlexR (2:49:21 PM): cause if its a double loss both players got screwed but it's as fair as you could have possibly made it :-/
LaskyAlexR (2:50:14 PM): remember that if a dispute can't be resolved and you can't determine what really happened it's a double loss
LaskyAlexR (2:51:01 PM): and if you determine that one player is LYING to you that is a disqualification
LaskyAlexR (2:51:43 PM): and sometimes you need to make that judgement based on the information you have even though in a court of law you would have no solid proof
LaskyAlexR (2:52:14 PM): it'll come up eventually, and it's the worst part of the job
LaskyAlexR (2:52:20 PM): it definatly sucks
magnumcycloneX (2:52:32 PM): ok...that is a lot of info. i am going to save this chat
LaskyAlexR (2:52:36 PM): k
LaskyAlexR (2:52:53 PM): to be honest
LaskyAlexR (2:52:57 PM): my first time head judging
LaskyAlexR (2:53:06 PM): i had THREE he said she said disputes
magnumcycloneX (2:53:14 PM): wow
magnumcycloneX (2:53:27 PM): must've been a headache back then
LaskyAlexR (2:53:33 PM): and I was surprized at myself for being able to handle them... it was all from watching john williams judge
LaskyAlexR (2:53:44 PM): one other thing
magnumcycloneX (2:53:47 PM): oh, u guys work together?
magnumcycloneX (2:53:56 PM): i mean, judge together?
LaskyAlexR (2:53:58 PM): make a list of all the anouncements you wanna make befoer the player meeting
LaskyAlexR (2:54:06 PM): and always mention paper>calculator
LaskyAlexR (2:54:12 PM): we have before
LaskyAlexR (2:54:34 PM): but his region is NY/NJ/PA while mine is new england
magnumcycloneX (2:54:40 PM): yeah, i got a list.
LaskyAlexR (2:54:48 PM): john williams is the man
magnumcycloneX (2:55:21 PM): i've never seen him in person. i don't think he was at nats this year
magnumcycloneX (2:55:29 PM): would've like to see him in action
magnumcycloneX (2:56:53 PM): for now, let me say thanks. this is good stuff and a lot of it i've seen simon choy do as well. he is trying to get 3 of us to take over as HJs while he does other stuff like demo-ing