Ok how would you handle this:

You are head judging a GPT, obviously a competitive level event. One of the players is an employee of the store and occasionally handles events for them. When their match is done they fill the slip out and then enter the result into WER themselves.

Now from what I can see there is no infraction for this particular case, however to me it seems a situation like this could compromise the integrity of the tournament itself.

So what would you do?

Ive actually had this happen.
Slightly different flavor though. The TO was scorekeeping. One of the store employees who enters results in FNM was playing . TO had to run in the back for a moment and asked the player/employee to enter some results for her.

The way it was handled was:
1) Stop them.
2) Explain why they cant do what they are doing.
3) Explain to the TO why they cant do what they did.
4) Verify all the results of the event.
5) Game on.

I'd just pull the employee aside and explain what the rules are regarding this and why they're important for competitive rel events. Then I'd smile and thank him for trying to help me out and wish him luck in the event.

I'd shrug.

Results slips have the points for each round - their opponents can check if
they got the right points next round. All the stores I work with have
pretty high standards for their staff, and anyone we trust enough to be on
staff has no incentive to cheat - they would get let go from the store for
doing so.


~Rob

Rob, I agree that you're unlikely to run into a real fraud problem regarding this, but it's important to avoid even the appearance of bias. So while it's not necessary to take punitive action against the player for this, I think it is important to curb the behavior immediately.

Edited Josh Stansfield (May 3, 2013 03:51:06 PM)

I'm with you Josh, even if I personally trust the employee, that doesn't mean that everyone who is in the shop does. The appearance of imparitiality can be just as important as actual impartiality.

When that happens at competitive event, I point out that MTR says clearly tournament officials are any people “affiliated with the tournament organization”. That puts it pretty well. What matters there is that it doesn't matter what#s actually input to software (who is TO, judge) but what the people also act as. On competitive events, I make a clear line there. That goes as far to: If I participate in an event (competitive) and pay entry fee at an employee, later play him. It feels incorrect, so I give feedback there to TO/him that it will put a bad picture on him/store in case some player feels bias.

“But it's just registration” is not much for an employee, but it means much to someone joining that competitive event from somewhere else.

What Bryan and William said.
In addition, I'd try to station the computer that's running WER in a position that provides only entrance/exit space that's enough for only one person. This way, it's easier to “block” access to the WER for GPTs run with a considerably smaller crowd.

I believe that judges and shops can exert an aura of integrity. If I thought a store in my area lacked integrity, I'd likely decline the option of judging the GPT. If I thought an individual lacked integrity or competence (a more likely issue), I'd not allow that person near the computer. However, given that I and those I choose to associate with have and are known for integrity, then I and the players at my events do not have any concern about a situation like the one described resulting in reduced integrity.

I see much more potential for judges as a whole losing credibility with players over pedantic or obsessive control at events. Frankly, if you, your reputation, or your event's stature are weak enough that a store employee entering his own match result might call the event into question, I doubt the flaw is with the employee. If instead your events are run consistently and with obvious care for the players, and you maintain a clear and open relationship with your community, then your players will understand that no matter who enters any result, you're going to make sure every result is accurate.

John, what about players who are not used to playing competitive events and/or in this store? They don't know the employee. They don't know its integrity. For this reason, I agree with it's important to not only maintain high integrity, but great integrity perception, especialy toward players who have no other means than this perception to form their judgement about the event.

Note the phrase “exert an aura of integrity.” Exert is an active word… it's not just “have an aura.” If you haven't unlocked that skill, then you have to put more work into other actions to to demonstrate a proper concern for integrity. A judge's standing and reputation in a wider community (not just that store), their willingness and ability to be an ambassador to the whole community (not just that store's), and their attention to running quality events is all part of a judge's reputation, and that reputation is often the basis for one's aura of integrity.

If a judge operates only in one location and never visits other locations or participates in citywide or regional events, then yes, players outside that store might see that guy as just “the guy who's judging.” If you work events outside the store or at least play at those events and are friendly towards the judges of those events, then people coming to your local store will begin to see you as “the judge.” If players see you at bigger event or see you as someone who has helped their local judges improve in their stores, then when they spot you at your local store, they'll see you as “The Judge.”

If it sounds an awful lot like the work it takes to project integrity often has very little to do with the event at hand, you're right. How you manage yourself and your involvement in the community is an investment you make over month and years. You back it up by having appropriate levels of concern at events. Sometimes that means being very hands on with detailed work, and sometimes that means letting players see that you're comfortable with appropriate people pitching in.

Let's take the original scenario: an employee playing in the event enters a result in WER. If you block off access to the computer, that sends a message that you're either concerned. Players may think you have general concern for the event, or they may think you're worried the employee is shifty or incompetent. If instead you note the entry and say to the employee, “Thanks for taking care of that while I handled this call / deck check / break,” then you're showing that you're keeping an eye on things and that the event is ok. If you say to the employee, “Thanks for taking care of that while I sat on my butt,” then you're probably doing it wrong.

If you as a judge have enough authority, then it's ok for an employee to be given a small piece of that authority under your auspices. It's better that you have authority and can delegate than be authoritarian an unable to allow others to assist.

Many players are not that integrated in the Magic community or its judges. The PTQ regulars and more casual FNM regulars, sure, but you could be known as “the judge” in a hundred-mile radius and still have a bunch of players showing up who just don't know you (well enough).

I also agree with Josh. John, you may feel that all of the players you interact with see you as having impeccable integrity but I don't think that's the case and I certainly don't feel like it's a reasonable expectation for everyone.

As far as integrity goes, I would be comfortable with every player at my LGS entering their own results; those guys are painfully honest (which makes my job a cakewalk). A couple weeks ago, a $5,000 Legacy deck (Japanese and 1/2 foil RUG Delver) sat on a table for 4 hours before someone finally decided to open it up. They immediately brought it up to the counter and turned it in. But I still wouldn't allow any of my players to enter their own results because it's not whether or not there's any chance of sketchy behavior happening, it's whether or not the *perception* is that there's a chance of sketchy behavior.

If I take a judge call to a table and both players are friends of mine, I act differently than if only 1 player is a friend and the other is someone I don't know. I don't want a perception when I make a ruling that my ruling may have been altered because of my friendship. It will never happen, but the perception could be there and I want to avoid that. When I put on the mantle of ‘judge’, it's important to me that I act in a way that puts the judge program in the most positive light possible. I may be a loud, obnoxious a-hole the rest of the time, but when I put a judge shirt on, I strive to be as urbane and friendly as possible.

I also disagree that taking precautions to prevent the appearance of impropriety will cause players to worry that impropriety is or could be occuring. I have smoke detectors in every major room of my house. I don't think that any visitors will think that I'm expecting or worried about a fire. It's a precaution that has very little opportunity cost associated with it, so I take it. It's the same with having 1 person scorekeep. Am I worried about cheating? No. But it doesn't cost much to have 1 person entering results, so I do it. I think the players understand and appreciate the level of professionalism that we apply to competitive events.

I'm VERY happy to see so many responses emphasizing the importance of perception, in what we do as judges. One of the hardest things about becoming a judge: you are then seen in that context, by the players who know you are a judge … and it doesn't matter if you're playing, judging, scorekeeping, or just stopping by to see how things are going. You ARE the Judge!

So we have to remember that, and always try to live up to their expectations.