You as a judge and authority figure have a great deal of control over the tone that you want to set at Regular. That's as it should be. I think you are trying to use that control responsibly, which is why you're even here asking for help and advice. My advice is that this script that you use:

Me: Choose your next words very carefully. Are you trying to tell me that you did not …?
Him: Well… I guess I did.
Me: Good, because if you lied to a tournament official, I would have to disqualify you. Please be honest with me, and with yourself.

is very bad. It is aggressive, immediately suggests that you don't believe the player, and threatens them with disqualification if they don't immediately concede to your interpretation of events. Even if you weren't a player in your event, I'd advise you against using this sort of script. Especially if you've already been arguing with the player about what happened, using this script only serves to escalate the conflict, not defuse it or help reach any sort of agreeable conclusion. It may be appropriate to use this script if you need to directly confront a player about lying to you, but only in situations where you are clearly the neutral “finder of fact,” not either of the disagreeing parties. Instead, something like:

Come on, really? Why would you do that?

is less adversarial, and allows the player to explain why they would make the play they were claiming to. They may concede that they were trying to angle-shoot, or they may show that they don't know exactly how the interaction works. Don't make your investigation be about whether you believe your opponent, make it be about whether their play is objectively believable. If they can offer a reason, then accept it and “let it slide.” If they concede the point, then talk with them after the match is over about your concerns with their willingness to bend the truth to avoid having made a mistake. If you think that they need to be removed from the event, get someone else (TO, another judge) to sort things out and issue the DQ if necessary. Take conflict-of-interest concerns even more seriously than you usually do in this case, and do everything you can to avoid directly confronting this player since you are his opponent.

Jochem

I hadn't commented on whether or not you were being “too competitive” because I thought it didn't matter at all (it is in fact the reason why I only mostly agreed with Isaac, instead of completely agreed). It seems everyone who responded to you agrees on one core piece: you were being unnecessarily aggressive and you shouldn't have mentioned disqualification. There are other avenues of discussion that may be interesting to discuss (or useful for other judges), and some slight variation in our responses, but it is important to look at the common core idea within all the responses and not lose sight of that.

Originally posted by Jochem van 't Hull:

I know that there's a conflict of interests, or at the very least a perceived conflict of interests, and that bothers me, but I still don't want to treat myself differently and/or become “The Other Judge” (from ye olde “the other judge said it was OK.”) Imagine I let something slide when it happens to me, and then the next round I get called over because the exact same thing happened to a different player. And then I'd have to give a different ruling? How could I possibly justify that?

1)
Imagine this player gets the wrong idea “A judge (Jochem) allowed me to do something once, therefore I should expect all judges will allow me to do that same thing at any time”.
Imagine this player gets the wrong idea “Judges are rude, unhelpful, unfriendly, not neutral arbiters, and might DQ me if I question them at all.”
The 2nd wrong idea is so much worse, by such a large margin, that it is worth it to eliminate it entirely as a possibility, even if there is a chance the 1st wrong idea forms. Also, since you mentioned “The Other Judge” (and the implication that you want to not complicate things for other judges at other stores): I will state that I personally will gladly handle 100 players with the first idea if it means 0 with the second.


2)
I consider it most likely that an opponent that you let take something back will assume you did it in your capacity as a player.
I would also consider it likely that an opponent would intuitively understand that you would not want to make rulings on these types of calls for a match you are playing, and that next round you wouldn't have the same hesitation.

Originally posted by Jochem van 't Hull:

How could I possibly justify that?

“Last round when I let you take that play back, I allowed it in my capacity as your opponent, not as the judge. Generally I avoid acting as a judge for my own game for any situation that has even the slightest ambiguity, in order to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest”

Feel free to use those exact words. You are also welcome to explain it in another manner. Regardless: it IS possible to explain it. This entire thread has been judges justifying it. If you would like, I am sure plenty of the judges who has responded here could provide similar sample scripts geared towards players.


3)
I asked before, somewhat rhetorically, if you do anything different to make it clear to the player that you are speaking as a judge. But I think it actually might be helpful to discuss this, because I have a suspicion that how you view yourself may be different from how the players view you. I have played in small stores against the store owner and I generally think of them as just another player. If they've extended some courtesy to me (making sure I remembered some creature had haste, let me change what land I play for the turn), I've always interpreted it as them doing so as a player (this includes those incidents from well before I ever started down the judge path, when I was just another random player). I would generally, barring some specific information, assume that your players (when playing against you), think of you as “player” as well.

Do you have some specific reason to think your opponents are constantly viewing you as “judge” instead of as “player”? Are they constantly asking you about judge stuff?
Are you doing anything that might cause your opponents to be more likely to constantly view you as “judge”? Examples: wearing the official judge black shirt? Wearing a judge nametag? Using a judge playmat/sleeves/deckbox?

If you are constantly representing “I am a judge” then feel free to say, when you allow something like that, “speaking as a player, go ahead, but in future rounds if I was called over as a judge, I might not allow that”
If you are constantly representing “I am just another player” then in those exceptionally rare circumstances where you absolutely must “make a call” at your table (for example if your opponent just absolutely refuses to believe any rules explanation given), verbally announce yourself as a judge. “Acting in my official capacity as the judge of this tournament, this is the rule, we can discuss it later after the match, but we need to play on now”.

Originally posted by Jochem van 't Hull:

In an ideal world, maybe we would not play and judge at the same time even at Regular. In the real world, at least in my case, not an option. I go to the LGS to play Magic. I judge because I'm happy to do it while I'm there anyway and because nobody else will do it. If I can't play, please don't blame me for staying home. I'm the reason our LGS even has Game Days/Store Championship and Showdown, so if I'm staying home, that's the end of those as well.

I was curious about something before but didn't want to divert attention from the core point (don't threaten your opponent).

Is there a store employee who is present who can take judge calls like this that involve you? It doesn't have to be a certified judge. They don't need to know obscure-but-straightforward rules questions. They don't need to know how to use WER. They just need to provide an answer to these types of things. (This all assumes that they don't automatically rule in your favor). It'd only be for cases of actual conflict (the types of things that players would normally call a judge for, not the many instances that players handle it themselves).




4)
On a completely different topic: It sounds like you made a mistake as a player.

Originally posted by Jochem van 't Hull:

Him: Now that revolt is enabled… I'll give it a push! *points Fatal Push at Glorybringer*

If you had shrugged and said “okay”/“sure”/“that's fine” (maybe even move a hand towards the Glorybringer as if to pick it up), I think he would have tapped a swamp and placed Fatal Push into his graveyard (I'm assuming from your description that the swamp wasn't tapped and the fatal push was never placed in the graveyard). At that point you can point out the Glorybringer lives, and your opponent might politely ask to take it back, but almost certainly isn't going to argue that they should be guaranteed to be able to. Even if the original scenario would have likely gone your way (had it been at a GP, and you had called another judge), you could have easily lowered the chance of an argument dramatically (and: if it were at a GP, dramatically increased the probability that the judge call goes your way).
I bring this up for 2 main reasons. The first is that this is something you may want to start practicing (in particular with this player). It will help in preparation for larger events (for everyone involved), and it is advice you can give any players at your store who also want to avoid arguments with this player (and for players, both at that store and at larger events, who you believe “jumped the gun” and alerted an opponent to an upcoming potential misplay but before it was actually committed to).

The 2nd reason is that it adds (yet another) reason why your mention of potential disqualification was so out of place. (Not that this additional reason was necessary for everyone so far to agree that you shouldn't have mentioned potential disqualification).
When this situation first happened, did you think to yourself “I wish I had waited until the Fatal Push was in the graveyard”?
Or to put it another way:
When this situation first happened, had you realized that you had made a mistake? (An answer of ‘yes’ to the first automatically implies an answer of ‘yes’ to the 2nd, even if you weren't thinking about it explicitly in those terms).

I mentioned in my first post that human intention and motivation is hard to accurately assess, and is often mixed. It difficult to ever say “{X} didn't affect my dicision at all”. All the judges who have responded to you in this thread have made clear that we want to be very very sure that the player doesn't get ‘the wrong idea’. I want to go further and point out there is even potential for ‘the wrong idea’ to be even more massively worse than previously described.
The BIG wrong idea that the player might walk away with is: “the judge made a mistake, as a player, and is using his position as a judge to punish me for his mistake”. (aka: face-meltingly bad)



5)
As Andrew Keeler pointed out, it's excellent that you sought advice on this. LGS play is amazingly beneficial to magic as a whole and your players in particular, and it is wonderful that you are single-handedly running their Game Days, Showdowns, etc. As far as specific actionable advice (and this relates to some of the specific questions you originally posed):
I advise talking to the store owner/manager/etc.
I advise apologizing to the player (and I recommend being specific: apologize for mentioning DQ, apologize for suggesting he was lieing, apologize for not better separating your role as a judge and as a player, and then finally generally apologizing for making him feel unwelcome)
I advise putting in place some practices concerning “judge calls” (or things that normally would be judge calls) for your matches.

Edited Aaron Henner (Dec. 13, 2017 05:50:08 AM)

Originally posted by Aaron Henner:

It sounds like you made a mistake as a player.

Originally posted by Jochem van 't Hull:

Him: Now that revolt is enabled… I'll give it a push! *points Fatal Push at Glorybringer*

If you had shrugged and said “okay”/“sure”/“that's fine” (maybe even move a hand towards the Glorybringer as if to pick it up), I think he would have tapped a swamp and placed Fatal Push into his graveyard (I'm assuming from your description that the swamp wasn't tapped and the fatal push was never placed in the graveyard).

Thank you for stating that assumption, because that at least gives me the chance to address it.

This assumption is not correct. The Swamp was tapped and the Fatal Push was in the graveyard. To then claim that he didn't actually cast the Fatal Push would have been absurd, but he was about to do it anyway. If you think this is one of those You-Had-To-Be-There(TM) situations, then please remember that I was there, and trust me when I say he was about to lie straight to my face.

Had I followed the advice given in this thread, then he would have doubled down on his bs and I would have been forced to DQ him. Keep in mind that this particular player is… very resistant to communication. I did the only thing that I thought could stave off disaster: be super clear, absolutely-no-doubt-whatsoever about what was happening and the potential consequences.

Originally posted by Matt Sauers:

I applaud your courage to ask for help here! Well done, and continue your path forward in making a safe space for everyone!

Thank you, Matt, but I'm very disappointed in the way this thread has developed. I have received some valuable feedback but also serious criticism based on faulty assumptions. It was very difficult to identify the unwarranted criticism, and I have actually lost sleep over that. Moreover, I was shocked to learn just how little credit I was given. I have been painted as an unpleasant opponent who goes around threatening people with DQs for no real reason.

JudgeApps is clearly not a “safe place” to ask for feedback, and it's obvious that I have to be very careful with what I post here.

Edited Mark Brown (Dec. 20, 2017 05:14:06 PM)

Hi there Jochem! I just wanted to say a couple of things, I have been following this thread and I do think that most of the posts here are providing you with great feedback and food for thought.

I can't speak for others but I don't think the people here are trying to criticize you, most of them are just trying to give you their take with the information they have. When reading their posts, don't forget they only have the information in this thread to work with and some of us may not have the best comprehension of the situation.

Having said that, from your posts, it seems that you have taken the feedback as some kind of attack and you can't understand why some disagree with how you handled the situation. I believe there is a lot of room for improvement on how the situation was handled, and you are a bit upset because you didn't found a lot of aproval here.

I encourage you to take a step back and reflect on the posts here, I think that you may come to realize that people are just trying to help, and you will start to feel different about the replies.

We can all agree that things can be said with better words, including posts in this thread. But at the end I think we can cherish the good advise, be thankful that people took some time to respond and give their opinions, at the end we are just looking to help each other out.

Cheers!
Mauricio

To add to Maurico, you've pointed out how others appear to have misunderstood you. Please don't forget that that works in both directions - you may be misreading some of the responses in return ;) Also, note that not everyone speaks perfect English - what to one person might seem harsh, to another it might be the only translation they know (even if it's not the best). Take a step back and ask yourself “what point was the post trying to convey?” - ignore poor wording and focus on the message itself. Treat it as you would any other social encounter - assume everything is in good faith, with just a chance of coming across poorly. If anyone was actually trying to be insulting, a bunch of people would have jumped in to defend you, while a mod would have dealt with the post/person in question pretty quickly :)

Originally posted by Jochem van 't Hull:

Had I followed the advice given in this thread, then he would have doubled down on his bs and I would have been forced to DQ him. Keep in mind that this particular player is… very resistant to communication. I did the only thing that I thought could stave off disaster: be super clear, absolutely-no-doubt-whatsoever about what was happening and the potential consequences.

Thank you, Matt, but I'm very disappointed in the way this thread has developed. I have received some valuable feedback but also serious criticism based on faulty assumptions. It was very difficult to identify the unwarranted criticism, and I have actually lost sleep over that. Moreover, I was shocked to learn just how little credit I was given. I have been painted as an unpleasant opponent who goes around threatening people with DQs for no real reason.

JudgeApps is clearly not a “safe place” to ask for feedback, and it's obvious that I have to be very careful with what I post here.

I'm sorry that your experience in asking for feedback has been as poor as you describe. If any of my comments are ones that caused you distress, please PM me; I'd like to learn where I went wrong so I can give more constructive feedback in the future.

It's true that none of us have the direct experience with the problem player you do, and so we may (and did, in this case) misunderstand how difficult the situation you were in was. Perhaps it would do the problem player some good to receive a DQ for lying about the game state instead of forcing you into the position of having to “protect” him from the consequences of his problematic behaviors.

I feel like the entire problem could have been headed off at the pass by having a conversation outside of a match about the general practices of trying to fake actions in a way that can be construed as lying, rather than talking to them in the moment.

Just, some other day sit him down and say something like “I've noticed a few times, that you've made a play, or very obviously telegraphed that you were making a play in a way that looks like you were trying to leave yourself room to try and bait somebody into misplaying or letting you get away with game rule violations. I feel like that time where you tried to Fatal Push my Glorybringer, you knew it woudln't kill it, but if I had made an error and taken you at your word and put it in the graveyard, I feel like you would have allowed me to make that error. Knowingly allowing a game rule to be broken is cheating, and can be punished with a disqualification.

Bluffing is an important and valid part of competitive strategy, but you have to be careful not to cross the line from bluffing about private information into actually cheating. You also have to be careful not to propose shortcuts accidentally by trying to bluff. Saying ”I'll give it a push“ and pointing Fatal Push at my Glorybringer is absolutely something that many people would take to be you casting the spell and passing priority. If that's not your intention, you need to be more careful what you say.”

Give them at least the vocal benefit of the doubt by not just accusing them of cheating, but make it clear to them that what they did is absolutely interpretable as cheating. Speak generally about “That could result in disqualification” and not directly “I will disqualify you” because you're going for the effect that you're teaching them about important rules in a general case, and not directly threatening them.

Your goals are all met:
1/ You've called out their bad behavior
2/ You've made it clear to them that the punishments are very severe
3/ You've made it clear that a judge has seen their bad behavior

And you avoid the downfalls of how things played out:
1/ He doesn't feel directly threatened
2/ He doesn't feel like you're trying to leverage your judge-ness in a match