This thread is to discuss the Exemplar wave 12 changes outlined in
https://blogs.magicjudges.org/exemplar/wave-12-updates-and-announcements/

To make sure people know - I'm available for comments on the Vanguard
tokens and plan for those. A lot of the coordination is going to be going
to the RCs, but if you have comments and feedback, I'm gladly listen.


—
Rob McKenzie
Magic Judge Level III
Judge Regional Coordinator USA-North
Minnesota

Thought on the randomization system.

Perhaps, first time nominations should automatically be given foils? ie. exempted from the randomization process

I'm thinking that it would be a bad feels moment to get your first nomination, perhaps as a new judge, and receive no foils for your efforts, even knowing that foils aren't a certainty.

In contrast, judges that tend to get nominated repeatedly season to season likely wouldn't take it as bad if they get skipped occasionally.

Edited Todd Bussey (Dec. 1, 2017 07:56:26 PM)

Consider the following two (brief for sake of argument) nominations

saved a players life on the floor by performing CPR

moderates a forum well

If my reading of the post is correct - there will be a non-zero chance that the lower nomination is deemed worthy of foils but the top one will not?

Unless I'm missing something this seems like a massive flaw that potentially fatally undermines the programs purpose?

Would it not be better to have greater scrutiny on what gets nominations?

Post removed by poster.

Edited Russell Deutsch (Dec. 1, 2017 09:32:29 PM)

The award here is the recognition, not the foils. Please remember that fact as you continue onward in your journey as a judge.

This sounds like a great set of arguments to convince someone to remove foils from exemplar completely.

Keep in mind when you discuss this that there are other factors in this decision you aren’t and won’t be privy to.

I would like to point out that

The only solution to this is to insert manual oversight, which will create tension.

is false.

There are ways of implementing bad luck protection that have been used to great success in many other places. Manual oversight is not the “only solution.”

Originally posted by Nicola DiPasquale:

The award here is the recognition, not the foils. Please remember that fact as you continue onward in your journey as a judge.

One assumes judges were already receiving feedback and recognition via reviews and direct messages or even public acclaim via social media.

The foils are in fact the award, and it's disappointing that we have to dance around this self-evident fact.

Changing it to where a person who receives one exemplar (perhaps their first exemplar ever) and they get no foils because randomly they were chosen not to….and they get a token instead….Seems….NO IT IS BAD

Originally posted by Russell Deutsch:

This means there will be some judges who will receive foils 4x in a row, and others who will receive 0x for 4 waves in a row.

We (at least, I) actually don't know how the randomization will work. Maybe (I hope) it's not full random, but it allows something like “if you got no foils for X waves, this time you will receive” and gets around problems or situations like this one.

I do like to think that this change was thought through by trustworthy people and that the changes will be good for the program and for all of us ; I'm okay with letting this change a chance :)

Emmanuel

Originally posted by Todd Bussey:

In contrast, judges that tend to get nominated repeatedly season to season likely wouldn't take it as bad if they get skipped occasionally.

Please speak for yourself.

Getting these rewards is just like getting your judge shirt, or your first judge playmat, or your judge shirt, or your name tag….I could go on. Taking these away or making them randomly harder to get, even to someone who gets them most waves like myself….this is bad.

I agree gaming the system is bad, openly soliciting for recs or encouraging judges to use all their recs so more people get foils is bad and takes away from purpose behind the program in the first place. The reality is there's already a system for not every exemplar gets a foil…its the tiered system. and that's good. But your first exemplar of each wave should always net you 1 packet. Perhaps the more waves you have received foils or the more exemplars you get that wave skews the table of you getting packs….but not that first one.

Exemplars should be a surprise that you even got nominated, apart from the 1 or 2 I have received that I was told about in advance, its a shock to me that I have received any…and enjoy reading them. Knowing I will get 1 pack is sufficient….and would happily take 1 pack regardless of the number of exemplars I get….but give me 1 pack for 1 exemplar. a token….sorry to say especially this late in the game is discouraging and not encouraging. I don't do good things because I get foils. I do them because its my job, and I feel they are right to do. I am genuinely surprised at each of my exemplars and I love that.

I believe that randomization system will lead to a lot of extreme feel-bads, just like it did in the first few waves.

We explored several options, but ultimately only one option met our goals.

Any chance you could tell us a bit more about the goals, restrictions and not viable options?
Without knowing those, here are some blind suggestions that I would prefer:

1. A nomination is a single foil. Only 1 foil wave each year.
Instead of a single nomination resulting in 4 foils, it's just 1 foil. The foil aspect of each nomination is thus greatly reduced and less of the focus.
Once each year the number of nominations is tallied and an appropriate configuration of foils is send to the judge. This means less mail hassle AND puts even less focus on the foils, as it now can take a year between receiving a recognition and receiving a foil.

2. Conferences first, exemplar second
Conference foils are now closer to exemplar foils, but why not take this even further? Introduce new foils first at conferences, and exemplar only half a year or so later, after those cards have already rotated out of conferences already.

Originally posted by Emmanuel Gutierrez:

We (at least, I) actually don't know how the randomization will work. Maybe (I hope) it's not full random, but it allows something like “if you got no foils for X waves, this time you will receive” and gets around problems or situations like this one.

I do like to think that this change was thought through by trustworthy people and that the changes will be good for the program and for all of us ; I'm okay with letting this change a chance :)

Emmanuel

Why not be transparent about it then? What advantage is there to be gained in not giving a full explanation of how the new changes will work? It's hard for me to see how this is the best solution to the problems expressed in the original blog post and, for me at least, only exacerbates the problems I had with Exemplar to begin with.

With a great deal of love for the judges involved in these decisions, sincerely, I'm very frustrated by the way some of these changes are being communicated in this announcement.

I think some of these decisions are amazing and awesome and I am super excited for them to be implemented! I think some of them seem terrible, obviously. But reading this, what's most upsetting to me is the way that the decisions that seem terrible are being communicated.

They aren't well explained, and there is an undercurrent of (likely unintended) moralizing that carries with it tones of condescension and lack of trust. It hurts to feel like in official announcements from people you trust, about programs you love.

In a couple of places, the post explains that the prior structure of the Exemplar program lead to undesirable behaviors, that the committee was trying to quash. What are those behaviors? Why are they undesirable? Why are we deliberately not being told them?

Given that changes like the randomization of foil distribution were known to be unpopular, why was it communicated in such an opaque, corporate manner? It gives the impression that Exemplar isn't ours to understand, and that its gatekeepers don't trust us enough to explain themselves. Like I said above, I don't think either of these things are true, and I don't hold any ill will to the people behind this awesome program - which is precisely why this approach to communication is so upsetting.

This is the kind of communication you'd get from, say, Netflix when they raise their subscription fees - you know, where you're a consumer with zero stake or emotional investment in a luxury product with many competitors. It shouldn't be the approach to communication to the deeply emotionally invested stakeholders of the only public, supported, global peer recognition system available to us within a community of passionate hobbyists and close friends. It hurts to see the latter behave like the former.

I have very strong feelings about the value of “proxy” recognitions, and about providing at least some baseline assurance of receiving the same award as your peers - and this post addresses none of them. It leaves me feeling angry, and distant.

The closest we get to a meaty explanation is the repeated insistence that Exemplar shouldn't be about the foils. This is an extremely problematic assertion to keep making (and always has been), but when it's provided as the only thing approaching a substantial explanation for unpopular changes, it's downright moralizing and condescending. Whether intended or not, the message that is conveyed is this:

"You shouldn't feel hurt about these changes. If you do, it is because you are wrong about what the system is really about. If you were right, it wouldn't bother you. Despite all your emotions and experiences over the life of this program, what's it's really about is this. Your idea of what is valuable or precious about it is bad, because it leads to bad things, which we won't describe to you."

That is hurtful, and insulting.

Again, I am not impugning the character or motives of the people behind these decisions - I know some of them, and hold them in very high esteem. I can comfortably say that I broadly trust the Exemplar committee. I recognize that these decisions were not lightly made, and that they were made by people who also care about the program, as I do. I get that communicating tough changes is hard, and that any major change will invoke a feeling of loss. And I sincerely appreciate the effort that the committee puts into keeping this program running well.

But I wish this announcement addressed me better, and showed what is great about this program.