Allow me to challenge you to judge a Regular GPT - with an open mind. Your main point seems to be “it's boring”. Boredom is often a matter of attitude. I am pleased to see that most people in this thread have not decided that it's boring before even trying it. I don't see why you have to “roll your eyes” at them.

I think we've settled the matter of playing side events - please don't. Those who are interested in continuing the boredom/training opportunity side of the discussion can perhaps return to it after judging some GPTs under the new policy.

Please don't think because my profile doesn't list them I haven't done GPTs recently, I have done a few this year and I don't think my behaviour as a judge would have changed due to the REL. I think this is something that needs picking up on, I wouldn't expect my behaviour or responsibilities to the event and players to change simply because it became Regular REL, yes it's meant to be more relaxed and fun for the players but it's still on me to make it that way which means my attention needs to be on the event 85+% of the time

Even if your rounds are untimed my point still stands at some point nearly every round of your GPT your attention is going to be needed in two places at the same time so you either allow a delay to the next round of the event you're being paid to work or you force your opponent to wait while you sort it, are either of these situations fair to anybody?

@ Michel Degenhardt - Thank you! A well thought out answer that I have no problem taking in. :)

While swapping GPTs to regular makes sense for the L1s - we aren't required to know about comp rules, so having our “biggest” tournaments to be comp sounds silly - at the same time the program is slipping a bit of its tracks.

I've seen many comments on this thread alone that “a lot of TOs will still run their GPTs as comp events”, and I got no reason to believe otherwise. Since GPs are the closest thing to professional Magic most players will ever play at, it feels silly that while playing the trials to the said tournament wouldn't be as strict with rules as the tournament itself. This also makes TO's who will run regular rel GPTs think if there are anymore any real need to have a GPT, instead of just running a normal regular REL Standard tournament. It takes at least 3 hours less time, judges are more happier, and the compensations wont feel so bad for judges (half a box for judging 4 rounds vs. 7 rounds).

Now, keeping in the topic at hand. I wouldn't mind a judge playing in the GPT he's judging, if its regular and there aren't too many players. Would I do it myself? No. The players are competing for byes. Even if it's changed to regular, these tournaments are like mini-PPTQs. The players who want the byes really, really want them. They want me to pay attention to them, and be there when needed, and they want the tournament to go as smoothly as possible. As a judge, I'd want to make the tournament as succesfull as possible.


TL;DR: Even if GPTs aren't always played as COMP, the judge should pay attention to them as it would be.

Originally posted by Johanna Virtanen:

Allow me to challenge you to judge a Regular GPT - with an open mind. Your main point seems to be “it's boring”. Boredom is often a matter of attitude. I am pleased to see that most people in this thread have not decided that it's boring before even trying it. I don't see why you have to “roll your eyes” at them.

I think we've settled the matter of playing side events - please don't. Those who are interested in continuing the boredom/training opportunity side of the discussion can perhaps return to it after judging some GPTs under the new policy.

Touché, I know see why you are a RC.

PS! The :rolleyes: was because I felt so lonely in my opinion, not that everyone else was wrong.

Okay I cannot really share on judging a GPT yet since I have never done that yet (nor done any competitive judging), but I still have two points I would like to comment on.

As for playing while judging, I played in a 40 man 2HG prerelease where I was head judge and in hindsight, that was a bad idea. It did result in judge tasks becoming a distracting from the match I was in myself. It feels more like playing with judging on the side than judging with playing on the side. Therefore, with a GPT of a certain size, I think it would quickly feel the same, even if you are playing a side event since you are not allowed to play in the GPT itself.

It is not black and white, as far as I can tell from the comments of higher level judges, but I think the line should be drawn before it becomes something structured (participating in an event, continuous trading, managing a store). I guess a trade here and there and even a casual game (I would personally not try commander) every now and then could be fine I guess.

One other thing, in your last post you said that you and other local judges are aiming for a higher entry fee with a bigger prize pool so that you can run the event at competitive. This sounds like the wrong line of reasoning to me. I think the choice for how the event is organized should be based on what the TO and the community wants. Based on how the event is formed, it should be either regular or competitive. Judges deciding that it should be competitive because they want to judge competetive events seems wrong.

Originally posted by Harm Tacoma:

One other thing, in your last post you said that you and other local judges are aiming for a higher entry fee with a bigger prize pool so that you can run the event at competitive. This sounds like the wrong line of reasoning to me. I think the choice for how the event is organized should be based on what the TO and the community wants. Based on how the event is formed, it should be either regular or competitive. Judges deciding that it should be competitive because they want to judge competetive events seems wrong.

Thanks for sharing your input!

We (me and the other judges) did some brainstorming and reasoned that the GPT players we have today go to GPT's because they are run at Competetive and they want training in a competetive enviroment. We would therefore like to push the TO's to up the entry fee and have a bigger payout as that is required (see the Intervening If-clause for running GPT at Competetive) for Comp GPT.

Else I agree with Anttu that if considering to run the GPT at Regular, one should probably run a normal event instead as it does not require a judge not playing and we can have fewer rounds.

Could GPT's that don't feed a local GP now be a dead thing, or will players still crave it for the 3x PWP multiplier?

I'd like to add, from a TO's point of view, that if I hire a judge to run my tournament and to host that event for me, I expect that person to do the same great job, no matter the event's REL. I would not like to have them using my time to play another event when they should be watching the tournament.

The only real change that I see here is that the players might be a bit more relaxed at Regular (great!) and that the Judges don't have to impose the more strict penalties in the IPG in such a casual setting. Of course, if our store was to up our prize support, we would also go for Competitive, but as has been said many times here already, the player base does not support that right now.

Originally posted by Anttu Kaipainen:

Now, keeping in the topic at hand. I wouldn't mind a judge playing in the GPT he's judging, if its regular and there aren't too many players. Would I do it myself? No.

Good, because that's still not allowed. MTR 1.4. lists the events that you can play&judge, and GPT is not on that list.

Originally posted by Lars Harald Nordli:

We (me and the other judges) did some brainstorming and reasoned that the GPT players we have today go to GPT's because they are run at Competetive and they want training in a competetive enviroment.

I'd advise caution here - it's worth getting input from the players themselves before making too many assumptions. My experience has been quite the opposite - people don't like writing decklists and getting deck checks; people have no interest in the byes because they're not going to the GP; and people think it's just for the competitive players so decide to play a different event or even do something else entirely that day.

Basically, be careful you don't assume too much about the players. There's a funny saying in English that when you “assume” you make an “ass” out of “u” and “me” ;)


On a more general note - one of the key roles that a Judge serves is Customer Service. In fact - it's almost the entire reason there are judges in the first place. In a broad sense, enforcing the rules and applying the JAR/IPG means that everyone can expect events to be honest and fair. If events are fun and fair, you've achieved your goal of serving the customer well.

Looking at GPTs specifically, they're in a weird spot. It's Regular REL (like FNM), but there is a prize which is far more valuable than a pile of boosters to some people - 2 byes. So there will be the expectation from some players that there is a judge around to answer questions and solve problems. If that judge is busy doing something unrelated to the event, then the player(s) may not get the level of customer service they expect (and that they may deserve).

And that's a big negative against playing while judging a GPT in my opinion. One of the most common complaints I'll hear from players at an actual Grand Prix is that they couldn't find a judge when they had a call. That makes me wince. We've failed to provide adequate customer service to these players if they're shouting for a judge and waving and nobody is arriving.

Side note - I've been terribly bored at all sorts of events, from Prerelease right up to Grand Prix. I've also had fantastically busy and fun and interesting events, from Prerelease right up to Grand Prix. REL has very little to do with it. It's been mentioned already, but you get FAR more questions from players if you walk around and watch matches.

(and before I get the copy paste challenge to judge GPTs, I've judged countless over the years, and played countless more ;) )

As others have already demonstrated, our profiles are not always a good gauge for smaller events. At least in my region most small events including GPTs and PPTQs are staffed outside of JudgeApps so never listed here.

Originally posted by Lars Harald Nordli:

When I become an L2 I would still judge GPT at Comp because of the training at Comp REL.

But I was asking about the moment when that reason, the training, is gone. Will you still do them then? =p

I started out being rather against the idea, but on further thought, I can
easily see a situation at a store with a very casual environment, where the
judge (personally close to the store and its players) decides to run the
GPT as a service for the store and players interested in some byes, where
such behaviour would be appropriate. The event is small, and possibly has
an awkward number of rounds (9-15 players). 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), the judge does spend some time once in a while
walking around the play tables and highly prioritizes tournament needs, and
looks up from his activities every few minutes to track what's going on as
well, and the TO is aware beforehand and agreeable to such behaviour. I
think a draft is too much, but an EDH game or trading seem like prime
activities for this scenario.

Due to such considerations, I would think it unfair if an RC automatically
assumed that a judge deciding to play some side EDH games or do other
activities on the side is acting unacceptably. Such situations should be
assessed on a case-by-case basis considering the judge's actual behaviour
during the event, and the actual attention being paid to the event. I also
think that different judges have different ability for such multitasking.
If the players are complaining about the attention you're paying to the
event, it's time to forget about the idea.


2016-07-19 15:11 GMT-04:00 Toby Hazes <forum-28732-2e21@apps.magicjudges.org

Originally posted by Toby Hazes:

But I was asking about the moment when that reason, the training, is gone. Will you still do them then? =p

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

But seriously, I am affiliated with one store which counts on me to do GPT, so I would still do them. At least until I find someone I can mentor up to be a L1 and then mentor them how to run a Competitive event. I have three candidates that I'm starting this process with.

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 3:53 PM, Lars Harald Nordli <
forum-28732-1c37@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:

> At least until I find someone I can mentor up to be a L1 and then mentor
> them how to run a Competitive event.


​At the point that a L1 is a good choice for HJing a GPT that is big enough
that it should probably be run at Comp REL, the L1 isn't that far from L2
:)​



–
Gareth Pye - blog.cerberos.id.au
Level 2 MTG Judge, Melbourne, Australia

Originally posted by Gareth Pye:

​At the point that a L1 is a good choice for HJing a GPT that is big enough
that it should probably be run at Comp REL, the L1 isn't that far from L2
:)​

Size doesn't matter you know. :) A GPT can be run at Comp REL if the prize support is substantial (or at the TO's discretion according to WPN).

I agree that a L1 HJ-ing a Comp REL should be closer to L2 than a new L1. I did not have that luxury myself and was tossed into learning while doing, but I've managed through. I surely will mentor the L1 up to the point where I'm confident she'll/he'll manage just ok.