I have been getting conflicting information from different sources.

Are we required to take the RA Exam every year or is it simply a good idea to make sure we are keeping up with the game?

Also, I couldn't find a “proper” place for this question since it isn't a Rules Question and the Judge Center is close enough to Judging Technology.

Edited Christopher Thompson (May 1, 2013 03:29:57 PM)

There is no requirement to maintain RA status, or even to earn it in the first place. In fact, it mostly ends up being extra work for the team that has to manually update RA status for everyone who takes the exam. :P

If you're a certified judge, RA status is something you can do for yourself, but doesn't mean anything substantial. The only tangible benefit of RA status is the ability to create L1 practice exams for yourself.

Originally posted by Christopher Thompson:

Are we required to take the RA Exam every year or is it simply a good idea to make sure we are keeping up with the game?

If you wish to maintain the actual Rules Advisor membership, then yes, you must take the Rules Advisor exam every year. The membership is only good for 12 months, and will expire if you don't retake the Rules Advisor exam prior to that point.

However, this membership is NOT required to be a certified judge, or otherwise judge events. The Rules Advisor membership is completely unrelated to actual judging, and your actual Level 1 judge membership is maintained by actively judging events. Each time you are reported as a judge for an event, that refreshes that judge membership. So, just consider the Rules Advisor membership a kind of “badge” in terms of how well you have demonstrated your rules knowledge. (Scoring an 84+% on the exam is a bit of a challenge.) It's completely optional, and while it isn't really intended as a practice exam, you can use it just to assess your rules knowledge. Though, keep in mind that both that judges need both rules and policy knowledge, as well as several other knowledge sets and skills; knowing just the rules is only one part of a much greater whole.

Furthermore, all Level 2+ judges (current and future) have a manual permission that is explicitly set upon passing the Level 2 exam that lets them have the “Rules Advisor” role. I set that permission as I review Level 2 exams each month, and that role allows those individuals to create the L1 Practice exam. Being a Level 2+ judge gives the additional permission to create exams for other people; thus allowing a Level 2+ judge to generate the L1 Practice exam for others. (So no Level 2+ judge needs to maintain their Rules Advisor membership either.)

Here's an excellent reason to NOT maintain your RA if you're an L2+ judge:
Since you can create exams for others, being able to create the RA exam for
a candidate you're working with can be quite helpful in identifying areas
they need more study in, or as a way for them to get extra practice before
taking a level 1 practice. You can only do this if you're not locked out of
the Rules Advisor exam, which you will be if you're currently a Rules
Advisor.

Originally posted by Brian Schenck:

Just as a gentle reminder: May I ask that Level 2+ judges avoid creating Rules Advisor exams for anyone other than themselves? Please stick to just the Easy Practice and L1 Practice exams.

Brian talked about creating exams for others on this thread.

Essentially, creating an RA test for someone else violates the integrity of the exam. It has a “cool down” period for a reason. Don't make RA tests for others.

Charlotte: I did this for an L1 candidate once and promptly got a message from Brian informing me that I should only do it with the L1 practice test, not the RA exam. As I understand it, we want RA candidates to generate their own tests so that they must wait the full lockout period before trying again. This is circumvented if we generate an RA test for them.

I have, in the past, asked for manual resets of the timer if the case was
somehow exceptional. I didn't know I could do it myself. The requests were
always granted. I certainly do not recommend doing it all the time. But, a
human being who works with a candidate sometimes sees that the automatic
timer does not reflect its purpose.

A candidate who sits with you and goes over the gaps in his or her
knowledge should not be automatically treated in the same manner as someone
who is sitting at home retaking the test enough times to exhaust the
question pool.
On May 1, 2013 6:09 PM, “Robert Hinrichsen” <

Wonderful answers, thanks everyone. Looks like I passed my RA Exam again for no other reason than I could.

I'm not suggesting that we circumvent the lockout timer, I'm suggesting
that create RA tests for our candidates so that we can review the results
with them. I don't see the problem with doing so. I would obviously suggest
that the candidate wait the suggested amount of time before taking another
one.

… And on rereading Brian's post in the other thread, it seems that this
is not something we should be doing. Ok then.
On May 2, 2013 6:05 AM, “Charlotte Sable” <csable@gmail.com> wrote:

Originally posted by Jacob Faturechi:

A candidate who sits with you and goes over the gaps in his or her knowledge should not be automatically treated in the same manner as someone who is sitting at home retaking the test enough times to exhaust the question pool.

While I agree in principle with what you are saying, I would ask that you respect the lockout period nonetheless. Especially as the Rules Advisor exam is ill suited for practice purposes, as the questions on the exam were never designed with that purpose in mind. It's an exam that grants a membership and it tests strictly on rules knowledge; given the passing score on the exam, it is actually more than a bit tougher than the actual Level 1 exam. (Of course, the Rules Advisor exam is also an “open book” exam.)

Given that Level 1 judges need a mix of both rules and policy knowledge, the Easy Practice and L1 Practice exams are far better suited to the task of helping an L1 candidate prepare and providing material that both candidate and mentor can discuss. This is especially true on the policy side of things, where I typically note some pretty specific weaknesses in how to handle certain Common Issues and Serious Problems at Regular REL. Both the Easy Practice and L1 Practice exams offer opportunities to discuss those issues.

While it isn't the end of the world if you create a Rules Advisor exam for someone, it really isn't going to give you the same level of information to evaluate an L1 candidate's knowledge for judging. Keep in mind that all judges require a mix of rules and policy knowledge, and leaning too heavily on the rules side of things is not ideal. And given the intent of the Rules Advisor exam, it is requested that all judges refrain from using it for mentoring purposes.

Please respect that, and understand that this fits within my monthly recommendations for all L1 candidates as that is part of the “Why” behind that.

Just to be clear, I wasn't suggesting that anyone take it upon themselves
to flagrantly disregard a clear policy. I was, however, suggesting that you
use your judgment when something is exceptional and talk to your RCs about
it.

So, should I take it that if a candidate has a question about one of the questions in the judge center, we would NOT be able to explain the question for them after the fact due to confidentiality requirements and such?

I find that this particular aspect of policy to be a bit counter to the goals of fostering a mentor-student environment and building rules understanding, and would appreciate clarification on what is/isn't allowed.

If you're mentoring them, then it's fine to go through questions one-to-one. Beyond the two of you there shouldn't be a need to discuss them.

Originally posted by Trey Cizek:

So, should I take it that if a candidate has a question about one of the questions in the judge center, we would NOT be able to explain the question for them after the fact due to confidentiality requirements and such?

Keep in mind that everyone who takes an exam in the Judge Center can submit feedback for the content on the exam. Clicking the question number from the exam itself opens a feedback form for the question (specific to its unique Content ID#), where a person can post their thoughts/concerns on the question.

I'll come along and answer the question within a couple of hours or so. :) In a lot of cases, it is a misread of the scenario itself or overlooking something in the explanation that is provided (or citations).

Originally posted by Trey Cizek:

I find that this particular aspect of policy to be a bit counter to the goals of fostering a mentor-student environment and building rules understanding, and would appreciate clarification on what is/isn't allowed.

Mentoring judges working with candidates are allowed to discuss content from the exam between one another, especially as it relates to content from Practice exams created by the mentor for the candidate. That's private discussion, and it is reasonable to ask questions back and forth. Especially if the questions relate to actual subject areas that could potentially appear on the exam. To the extent that people can “share” Practice exam content, I would still suggest being discrete and not openly discussing all the various questions. Recognize that even Practice exam content can lose its usefulness if too many people are aware of certain questions that might appear on the exam.

Keep in mind, you still cannot discuss actual exam content from certification exams with other potential candidates for that exam. That includes (but is not limited to) the scenarios discussed in the exam, the cards used in questions, formatting of answers, or any other specifics. So, Level 2 candidates who pass… Don't discuss that you saw a question involving Humility from the exam with someone who is also a Level 2 candidate. (This reduces the usefulness of test material for certification purposes in assessing rules and policy knowledge; especially as knowing rulings for a card will not necessarily help you pass the exam or have appropriate knowledge.)

What is expressly prohibited is public disclosure of exam content. One should never post an exam question to any forum, whether Magic Judge Apps or anywhere else.