Originally posted by Dominik Chłobowski:

The judge is being paid an inadequate compensation for the time (no, I will never ask a store to pay a box for a 9-man GPT)

If the GPT has a turn out that doesn't allow to properly compensate a judge for the time it takes, why should the judge be the one who makes a sacrifice?

The judge doesn't have a control over the business model of the TO, neither he or she is the one responsible for the advertisement of the event and its turn-out. The TO is. The TO is the one to take responsibility if the business model he or she sets up for his or her tournament isn't viable, or if one of his or her events isn't as successful as expected.

If such situation happens, it's OK to see what we can do to help the TO solving these issues. But a solution that goes through improper compensation will just teach the TO to not properly value judges and will incite TOs to not solve the underlying issues of their organized play offer.

- Emilien

Edited Emilien Wild (July 20, 2016 04:28:03 PM)

Originally posted by Lars Harald Nordli:

I believe one can never get enough training at competitive, even though you are a L2. ;)

Yes yes that's why I had to choose my words very carefully, changed them a few times ^^;
A tournament is always an opportunity to learn and a person is never done learning.
But there will come a point where the training part is no longer a -reason- you do those tournaments, even though you will still get that training.

In the end, if you just really enjoy judging competitive tournaments and don't enjoy them on regular, that's perfectly fine. Just like Mark Rosewater likes to say “card you dislike are simply cards not meant for you but for a different audience”, this new form of GPTs might not be your kind of tournaments anymore.
But I don't think you're in the mainstay here. The vast majority of events is regular. I assume the mainstay judge is a regular judge. I would guess this change significantly increases the amount of judges willing to judge a GPT, as they don't have to learn that silly IPG anymore to do so.

I'd also like to add that as a player I'd prefer decklists for a limited GPT, because I perceive the potential for cheating as higher and continuous construction makes scouting an even bigger deal. Decklists and no continuous construction can be done at regular but I would also be fine with competitive limited GPTs and regular constructed GPTs as a player. Poll you locals about it. And as others have said, never assume =)

Edited Toby Hazes (July 20, 2016 06:36:31 PM)

Originally posted by Toby Hazes:

In the end, if you just really enjoy judging competitive tournaments and don't enjoy them on regular, that's perfectly fine. The vast majority of events is regular. I assume the mainstay judge is a regular judge. I would guess this change significantly increases the amount of judges willing to judge a GPT, as they don't have to learn that silly IPG anymore to do so.

I'd also like to add that as a player I'd prefer decklists for a limited GPT, because I perceive the potential for cheating as higher and continuous construction makes scouting an even bigger deal. Decklists and no continuous construction can be done at regular but I would also be fine with competitive limited GPTs and regular constructed GPTs as a player. Poll you locals about it. And as others have said, never assume =)

I agree that the mainstay judge is a regular judge. I do enjoy judging at Regular as well, but I have only done so while engaging in other activities (often playing in the same event). Being at an event for 8-10 hours only observing seems boring to me after the first 2-3 hours, that's why I wanted to start this discussion if it was possible to do other things during the tournament. Maybe other judges in my shoes feel the same, but then again other judges may feel that it is ok to hang out in the venue all day observing, talking, observe and teach and then observe some more.

I have checked with my local community and 100% of the ones that replied wanted higher entry fee, Competitive REL and higher prize payout, so it seems that I'll just continue what I'm doing now.

I did mention compensated judges is indeed problematic. As both a judge and a TO I know getting the balance is tricky. It is all very well to blame the TO for the turnout and you are correct that the judge as little influence on that, but with the schedule being more and more stretched with more and more advanced stores optimum scheduling is becoming more and more difficult and consequently numbers suffer. The problem is the TO may very well dismiss GPTs being worth sanctioning at all! This in itself is not good for inexperienced judges to develop. No one wants to work for peanuts nor should be expected to but a balance is not easy. Maybe it's time for Wizards to start helping out again with some prize support like in the old days? I know it is unlikely to happen but is a thought. Gpts have declined in importance first price support was stopped, then the number of byes reduced, now finally they are dropped to Regular. Players care little about these events any more so numbers have decreased this is not the TOs fault.


Sent from my iPhone

Originally posted by Lars Harald Nordli:

Thank you for your reply. I see on your profile that you are the Judge Manager for a lot of GPT's, but that the Head Judge for each event is another judge. Can I ask you how long since you actually judged a GPT? I'm being a bit sharp here and I apologize, but the answers I have got so far from most of you are of high-level judges that doesn't seem to work at the lower level events as judges. I then have to question how much insight you actually have in the subject you are speaking?

I have discussed with other local judges about Regular/Competetive GPT's, and it seems like we're going to try for å higher entry fee with a bigger prize pool (display to the winner) in order to run them at Competetive as that REL is what seems like the GPT-players want to practice on.

It seems that it works out ok for me (continue to run GPT's at Competetive) but I like the discussion we're having, although no one else seems to share my point of view… :rolleyes:

Well, I'm quite inexperienced, particularly as a Judge Manager, so probably not a lot of GPTs. I last HJ'd some GPTs a few weeks before the last “local” GP, which in this case is GP Barcelona, April 2016. As others said before, GPTs for further GPs are not very popular among the player base (the semi-pros already have the byes, the not-so-pros aren't attending anyways).

But honestly I don't think all of this matters, and I'd advise you against asking every judge who has a different point of view about “hey, how much time since you actually judged a GPT??”. As you might be aware, a lot of GPTs aren't created as events in JudgeApps (they're managed through local forums, in private or public projects), so quite a lot of judges haven't them listed in their profile. I manually submitted a few (yes, you can do that, and I absolutely encourage you to do so, particularly if you're a L1 trying to advance to L2 or get more experience in bigger events) to show some experience on the field, when I was “younger”, heh :)

The main argument about “Regular REL GPTs are boring” is difficult for me to understand, sorry.

Edited Joaquín Pérez (July 20, 2016 07:49:04 PM)

Originally posted by Joaquín Pérez:

But honestly I don't think all of this matters, and I'd advise you against asking every judge who has a different point of view about “hey, how much time since you actually judged a GPT??”. As you might be aware, a lot of GPTs aren't created as events in JudgeApps (they're managed through local forums, in private or public projects), so quite a lot of judges haven't them listed in their profile. I manually submitted a few (yes, you can do that, and I absolutely encourage you to do so, particularly if you're a L1 trying to advance to L2 or get more experience in bigger events) to show some experience on the field, when I was “younger”, heh :)

The main argument about “Regular REL GPTs are boring” is difficult for me to understand, sorry.

No problem. The reason I'm asking is if a judge only judges at high events like GP's, WMCQ's and PPTQ's, what insight do they really have on smaller GPT's with 10-20 players? Looking at the profiles from the ones who answered (mostly L3 and L2) I could not find those small events in recent history. We can agree to disagree on this one though. :)

I was under the impression that all Competitive events should be listed here on JudgeApps. If that's not the case then I should probably not make quick assumptions henceforth.

Regular GPT's where you have to be in the venue for 8-10 hours and are prohibited to do something other than observe and running the tournament seems boring to me after the first 2-3 hours. If you believe that is super-fun, then we have to agree to disagree on this one as well! :D

Emilien, I don't really want to sidetrack this thread, but I really think
this is also a case-by-case scenario depending on your relationship with
the TO and the player base. The judge “should” be the one to make the
sacrifice because the reasonable personable thing to do is to offer
yourself for 1.5 packs/player (at least until such a point where that stops
being satisfactory to you) to the small store you want to support. If the
TO agrees that this is an issue and offers you the full box anyway, then
great. If you're running 11-hour events, discuss with the TO. For me, all
that's important is a reasonable discussion between the parties, not some
kind of black-and-white calculations. “Hey listen, I don't want to be
unfair, but if I'm going to be spending 10 hours running GPTs for you,
perhaps we should discuss giving me the full box or not running more GPTs.”
Also, honestly, the figure of 9 hours for a 9-man event seems unlikely
unless the format is super-slow. Most rounds should end well before time.

2016-07-20 5:15 GMT-04:00 Graham Theobalds <

Originally posted by Lars Harald Nordli:

I was under the impression that all Competitive events should be listed here on JudgeApps. If that's not the case then I should probably not make quick assumptions henceforth.

You should indeed not.

Originally posted by Lars Harald Nordli:

Regular GPT's where you have to be in the venue for 8-10 hours and are prohibited to do something other than observe and running the tournament seems boring to me after the first 2-3 hours.

And that's totally fine. The judge program is diverse enough that every single judge doesn't have to enjoy every single activity, nor engage in activities he or she doesn't like instead of the one he or she enjoys.
If, after giving them a fair try, you don't enjoy judging GPTs, don't feel pressured into judging them.

- Emilien

So your 9 person GPT should be 5 rounds plus a cut to top 4, that's 7 total “rounds”. This should take no more than 7 hours. This goes all the way up to 16 people. If a store offers the judge 1.5 packs per person that's 24 packs at 16 players, 2/3rds of a box. You get to a full box WELL before you hit the point of 9+ hours, unless things go horribly wrong.

While I feel like this change was intended to help L1s judge more of these, I instead feel like what will end up happening is stores will be even more likely to schedule them alongside a PPTQ or similar event and try to piggyback them onto the L2 head judge they already have. Another possibility would be to run them in line with FNM, in which case an L1 could be compensated not only for judging the GPT but also running FNM, and that should be less “boring” I would think.

My question, which I seem to recall the answer being “no” to: if a GPT is run on Friday night, can you hand out FNM promos as part of the prize support? How about release promos on release weekend?

Originally posted by Christopher Wendelboe:

My question, which I seem to recall the answer being “no” to: if a GPT is run on Friday night, can you hand out FNM promos as part of the prize support? How about release promos on release weekend?

You remember correctly; premium prizes must be awarded for the pemium event with which they're assoicated.

Also, don't combine two (or more) premium events into one.

d:^D

Originally posted by Dominik Chłobowski:

The judge “should” be the one to make the
sacrifice because the reasonable personable thing to do is to offer
yourself for 1.5 packs/player (at least until such a point where that stops
being satisfactory to you) to the small store you want to support.

Why do you say that?

The Tournament Organizer is running a business, not a public service. There are a number of economic stakeholders in an event, including the players, TO and judge, and expecting that the risk should get assigned to the judge when they don't have as much control over results seems like a good way to burn out judges.

If a TO can't make an event's finances work by adjusting the entry fee, prize payout, marketing and effect on merchandise sales, he or she probably shouldn't run the event. I don't think it's wrong for a TO to tell players, “I can't make the numbers work so that you pay the entry fee you want, get the prizes you want, pay my contractors for reserving a day to run the event, and still make money.” If the players want to make GPTs happen, they need to be willing to pay entry fees and take prizes (including the byes, which Wizards provides the TOs for free) that include a reasonable payment for the TO and judge.

I'm a big proponent of “you work, you get paid” however, there are some points of compromise.

If you agree to work an event for a box, show up, and there are only 9 players, I think holding the TO to a box of compensation is potentially unreasonable.
You are fully within your rights to say “no, this was agreed to”. It is also the TOs right to say “I don't want to work with this guy again”

Be reasonable. When I hire a contractor to do a job, and the labor/materials comes in below the estimate, I expect to pay less. If it comes in above the estimate I expect to pay more.

Just don't make a habit out of being the guy that always takes the hit so the TO doesn't lose money. That's not your problem to solve, and working for cheap just allows your situation to get worse.

———————————————
This space intentionally left blank

Originally posted by Lars Harald Nordli:

Regular GPT's where you have to be in the venue for 8-10 hours and are prohibited to do something other than observe and running the tournament seems boring to me after the first 2-3 hours. If you believe that is super-fun, then we have to agree to disagree on this one as well! :D

Yes, it's not nearly as fun as playing in the tournament, but I don't really see how it should differ that much from competative REL. You're only missing deckchecks and decklists, but that's only 30/40 minutes of work for a small tournament that lasts 7-8 hours anyways. In fact, being regular makes it easier for you to strike up a conversation with players who aren't playing or have finished their rounds so time should go by even faster. I will be judging a regular REL GPT this weekend, but I don't expect it to differ from the previous GPTs I've judged, but I will get back to you Sunday.

Also, you should look at things from the player's perspective as well. GPTs are supposed to be the gateway between the casual events like FMNs and Game days and more competative events like PPTQs, WMCQs and GPs. I know plenty of players who don't come to GPTs because they are intimidated by them. Having GPTs at Regular REL, but requiring a judge there seems like a good middle ground for those people to start moving toward bigger events. What kind of signal will it send if the only judge at the event is treating it like FNM or game day and is busy doing other things while they are playing?

What I'm more worried about is that it takes away opportunities for players to play in competative events here in Norway. Just hoping the number of infractions on PPTQs and WMCQs don't go up because of it.

Lastly, there's always the possibility of running GPTs at competitive REL if your community wants.

Originally posted by Michael He:

1. I will be judging a regular REL GPT this weekend, but I don't expect it to differ from the previous GPTs I've judged, but I will get back to you Sunday.

2. What kind of signal will it send if the only judge at the event is treating it like FNM or game day and is busy doing other things while they are playing?

3. Lastly, there's always the possibility of running GPTs at competitive REL if your community wants.

1. Great! I'd love to hear from you how you experienced your event!

2. Well, with Regular REL it IS like FNM, it just happens to require a L1 Judge present observing and helping. Look at what the JAR says:

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.

If we should treat a Regular GPT in any other way than a FNM, I think the program needs to keep it at Competitive REL, or maybe change the JAR so it encompasses what exactly GPT at Regular needs to be doing differently.

3. Yes, I did a poll and will keep GPT at Competitive level with a more “Win-A-Box” style tournament. That is what our players wants and ultimately what I want as well. Have you done a poll in your region?

So what I gather from all the posts in this thread is that GPT at Regular does not offer any possibilities of doing side-activities for the HJ. That is totally fine by me and for that, this thread has served its purpose for me at least.

As Emilien Wild said:

Originally posted by Emilien Wild:

The judge program is diverse enough that every single judge doesn't have to enjoy every single activity, nor engage in activities he or she doesn't like instead of the one he or she enjoys.

I believe that Regular GPT's are not my kind of event, but other judges might be super-excited by them.
Please do keep the thread alive as reports keep coming in from judges doing GPT's how they work.

On a second thought, does the JAR need an update regarding GPT run at Regular, or does the document cover it fine already as it stands today?