As a contrast to my prior wall of text, I did want to say -

The customized tokens are AMAZING! They sound like a phenomenal idea, something really unique and special to hold onto after each wave. The fact that we're getting a professional, well-known artist to do custom art each time is a level of production value that I never would've expected from Exemplar, so it is doubly exciting!

I have trouble imagining what kinds of negative behaviors are being created by the program as it is, that aren't themselves behaviors that ought to result in judges being kicked out of the program.

You don't get foils unless you get nominated. You don't get nominated unless you've done something exemplary. So what's the problem? People keep doing exemplary things to try and get nominations? Awesome. How is that not a direct goal of the program? Encouraging people to go above and beyond what is expected, even if their motivation is financial compensation, they still have to be doing -good and positive things- for that to result in nominations.

Like…is the secret bad behavior judges conspiring to nominate each other for fabricated good deeds? Cool. Kick them out. Is it judges bribing or threatening judges to nominate them? Cool. Kick them out. None of that should be even vaguely appropriate for a judge and they should be removed when found.

Honestly, I feel like it is exactly as accurate to say “No judge should even consider, for an instant, the possible awarding of foils for exemplary behavior, or they are a greedy bad judge” as it is accurate to say “Every exemplar nomination that has resulted in the awarding of foils was actually exemplary and not basic service behaviors that should be expected of all judges”

My biggest concern about the changes though, as always, is that they continue to punish small markets, small stores, and judges who are also TOs.

There's more emphasis on conferences, which many judges can't attend.

There's less ability for proxy nominations, which means L1s without ready access to L2s to see their work are at risk of being overlooked.

The randomization says it is weighted towards judges with multiple nominations, meaning that judges in large communities with more large events, more events with L2s and L3s present become even more likely to get foils than if it were random per person regardless of number of nominations. I understand that it makes sense to say “Well if you got 5 noms you should be more likely to get foils than somebody with 1 nom” but aren't you just shifting the “bad behaviors” from “I want nominations instead of none” to “I want more nominations instead of 1”?

I want to pull out and highlight these three quotes, because I think they do an excellent job of covering the spectrum of what judge foils represent to different people:

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.

Originally posted by Russell Deutsch:

I know more than one Judge who's ability to Judge will be directly affected by this, as many judges use Exemplar Foils to fund their GP travel.

The elephant in the room is that no matter how many times we claim that Exemplar Foils are not monetary rewards for judging, it is simply not true. Like a small rural town with a speed-trap in a school zone, some things are just a source of cash flow no matter how you dress it up.

Originally posted by Frank Chafe:

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.

—-

To me, personally, the few judge foils I've received are special, unique reminders of my involvement with MTG, and helping organized play to happen. I remember the first GP I worked, where I received my judge shirt, and working the first GP Vegas, with its unique judge playmat. I've been fortunate to receive an Exemplar recognition, and the Phyrexian-language Elesh Norn was very exciting.

Personally, I don't really need the money, and I have a hard time imagining trading these sentimental tokens for any reasonable amount of cash.

That said, I recognize that for some judges, Foils are a source of income that supports their ability to judge, to travel to GPs, etc. And it's worth remembering the history of judge foils as compensation for working a GP. Even if they were originally intended just as a “special thanks” to the small team of judges who volunteered for the small, 500-person GP, they eventually morphed into expected compensation for the many judges working hard to make 2,000, 5,000, 10,000-player GPs possible.

If I were in a position to work multiple GPs per year, I'd be in a position to do more exemplary things, and in a more visible fashion. I'd also be much more aware of the travel costs, and the time tradeoff, of working these events. In that scenario, I too would be selling those foils.

Thinking through that, and the contents of this post, I think that to the extent possible, it's a good idea to decouple special recognition from financial incentive. Custom tokens fit this idea exactly - they're unique and special recognition, and they're likely to not have great resale value.

But, in terms of decoupling special recognition from financial incentive - it might be impossible to do that, without discontinuing judge foils, in any form. Which is a sad thought, but worth confronting.

I dislike the changes very much, but most of it got covered by the previous posts (especially the random element).

I would like to touch the less talked about subject of “proxy” recognition.
I'm a country coordinator (area captain) in my region, and I'm very active both in my country and my region. I find myself working with a lot of people, and I wish to recognize them.
The number of slots I have wasn't enough several times, so I had to use “proxy” nominations.

I know I have my RC, but that's not enough. RCs get a few more slots, but they have L1s who can't nominate (and no, becoming a L2 just for exemplar is a really bad idea. L2 is for competitive events, not exemplar), and a bunch of people to recognize of their own. My RC has a backlog of additional nominations of over a year. Waiting for that (or next waive) is bad, since recognitions aren't effective if they happen too long after the recognizable behavior.
Yes, some “proxy” recognitions are made so they don't get “wasted”, but others (I hope most) are from people who really wish to recognize exemplary behavior and use other people's slots to do so. If you cancel this option, can you at least start giving slots to judges according to the number of nominations they actually use (if someone uses all, increase for next wave, and if someone uses less than 50%, decrease for next waive)?

I'll give these changes the benefit of the doubt, but my first impression is that they won't be well received.

Originally posted by Yuval Tzur:

I know I have my RC, but that's not enough. RCs get a few more slots, but they have L1s who can't nominate (and no, becoming a L2 just for exemplar is a really bad idea. L2 is for competitive events, not exemplar), and a bunch of people to recognize of their own. My RC has a backlog of additional nominations of over a year. Waiting for that (or next waive) is bad, since recognitions aren't effective if they happen too long after the recognizable behavior.

If I understand correctly, you will still be able to recognize people due to others persons observations. It's just that you can no more write :
“On behalf of A. B. : Jeremy, you were awesome at this PPTQ doing this special stuff”.

But you can still write :
“Jeremy, I received positive feedback from the judges you work with, and especially A.B., who reported me that at your PPTQ together, you did this thing. It's exactly the kind of behavior we want to see in the program”.

I believe that is what Bryan meant with “This does not mean that you, as an L2+ judge, must personally observe everything you nominate a person for. If you are told about an awesome thing another judge does and you decide you want to nominate them for it, that’s exactly what Exemplar is for. You decided that you value the action based on what you heard, and you want to recognize that Judge in your own words.”

Emmanuel

EDIT : Copy-pasted badly

Edited Emmanuel Gutierrez (Dec. 2, 2017 05:41:32 AM)

I'm really put off by the idea that some Exemplars will randomly receive several hundred dollars worth of foil rewards and some will not. This announcement is baffling to me.

If we really believe that “the satisfaction of a job well done should be enough recognition,” then award no foils to anyone and see if the Exemplar program still generates interest.

Originally posted by Emmanuel Gutierrez:

I believe that is what Bryan meant with “This does not mean that you, as an L2+ judge, must personally observe everything you nominate a person for. If you are told about an awesome thing another judge does and you decide you want to nominate them for it, that’s exactly what Exemplar is for. You decided that you value the action based on what you heard, and you want to recognize that Judge in your own words.”

I don't want someone to recognize a judge with their own words for me. I want to recognize them myself, with MY own words.

Hi,

I beg the high-level judge management to go to WotC management and ask them to stop producing judge promos. Through all those years, they are an object which brings jealousy and bad feelings in the community.

Anyway, I guess that in few years WotC layers will make the judge promos disappear…

On the other hand, I LOVE tokens (and you know it)…

Originally posted by Kevin Binswanger:

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.

This is petulant, argumentative and does not reflect positively on our judge leadership.

It you're going to lay out a threat expect people to no longer care about your contributions to the program.

Build bridges not lay mine fields. We need to have a positive discussion about these issues and it will take people a great while to digest the upcoming consequences.

I routinely see people get 2, 3, 5 recognitions for the same action simply because they are in a high population center and more L2 and L3s have visibility to their actions.

The potential for abuse is still here and will likely worsen as you are now going to have people seeking more nominations for more lottery tickets rather than a RC having some discretion in number of nominations versus number of packets. Do we have any sort of review process in place to prevent nomination stacking in the new system. I argue that we should.

I'm all for helping and making the process better but blanket threats do not help advance the dialogue.

I have a few concerns and a solution.

I am afraid making the distribution random will only prompt more nomination
farming, especially them being weighted toward more nominations.

Why not just send a single pack to everyone that gets any number of
nominations? It lowers the amount put out, introduces stability and does
not take away the emotional value for both giver and reciever.

Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't this option cover all concerns? Just
keep it simple and things will work out. No weighted shenanigans where
someone has to pick a parameter, and no feel bad because you did not
receive what you expected.

I am also worried by the fact people think introducing randomness in a
reward system is a good idea. Inability to predict the outcome of things
that are measurable causes stress, this is about as basic a rule as it
gets.

On another note: I wish native English speakers would take the
international nature of our forum into account. It is one thing to be
fluent or even functional in a language but I have the feeling people are
scared of joining some discussions because half the posts require a
dictionary to understand. There is elegance in simplicity.

Niels

On 1 Dec 2017 23:05, “Milan Majerčík” <forum-40079-abfb@apps.magicjudges.org>
wrote:

Another con for the random system:
Every time I nominate someone, I recrudesce my chances to be randomly
selected.
Once people will nominate someone who got “lucky”, but get nothing
themselves, those people will be less inclined to nominate their
“competition”.

Originally posted by Niels Viaene:

Why not just send a single pack to everyone that gets any number of nominations? It lowers the amount put out, introduces stability and does not take away the emotional value for both giver and reciever. :

This I cannot praise enough! Great idea.

Originally posted by Yuval Tzur:

Another con for the random system:
Every time I nominate someone, I recrudesce my chances to be randomly
selected.
Once people will nominate someone who got “lucky”, but get nothing
themselves, those people will be less inclined to nominate their
“competition”.

Not really. It's a percentage, not a fixed number of nominations that are selected. The chances of any given nomination receiving foils are the same regardless of whether there are 1000 other nominations in the wave or 2000.

Is this decision something that is asking for public comment/taking suggestions or is this thread more for just a little bit of thinking outloud?

If there is space for public comment, it may make sense to institute some sort of anonymous comment system if possible. A lot of people L1s, new L2s etc. may have good suggestions or thoughts but may be nervous to say it for fear of pushback (that could be detrimental to progression within the program and could occur myriad ways), however unfounded those fears may be.

Just a thought. Could probably put together a professional google forms if it's of interest to the decision makers that be.

Edited Alex Martin (Dec. 2, 2017 08:15:35 AM)

Originally posted by Dan Collins:

Not really. It's a percentage, not a fixed number of nominations that are selected. The chances of any given nomination receiving foils are the same regardless of whether there are 1000 other nominations in the wave or 2000.

It is simple statistics here really. X * .1 < (X +1) * .1. Adding to the pool of nominations reduces your probability of being selected for a card award.