Level Two - Lesson 26
Large Event Structure - Consultations and Escalations
Also available are archives of live broadcasts, where the Program Director goes over the lesson, answers any questions that folks may have and sometimes goes on tangets about other elements of judging. You can find the playlist of broadcasts on youtube.
Click for Translation
While proper translation and localization are among our long-term goals, we are currently offering Google Translate on the page. Please keep in mind that the translation is automatic, which means that specific game terms, names of cards or mechanics, or technical language used to describe the game may not translate well. As with the documents for the game itself, the English page is the authoritative document in case of any confusion or discrepancy.Join the discussion in our Discord and talk with other judges about what you learned, and ask any questions you may have!
Hello there!
Welcome back to the level two lessons for the Star Wars™: Unlimited Judge Program!
As always, I’m your host Jonah, and this lesson is going to cover asking for help. At large events, you’re often not the final authority. Furthermore, you’re definitely not the only judge, which means that there are many other knowledgeable and talented folks who have valuable insight and experience.
We’re going to talk about when and how to consult with other judges, and when to escalate. You can find a little bit more information that’s more relevant for local events in the Level One elective, Disqualifications and Escalations.
Knowing what to expect coming into these events can be a huge boon, so this lesson is going to give you a broad overview of what you need to know to be a bit more comfortable at your first event like a Sector Qualifier.
This document won’t be comprehensive, as there are a lot of specifics that are unique to particular events and organizers.
Consultations
Sometimes you’ll be uncertain of what to do or how to handle something, and that's where consultations come in. We're all part of a team, and our goal is to make sure that players have a positive and consistent experience. Telling players “let me consult with a colleague” is a phrase that I use often to ensure that the players get the best possible answer.
If you’re shadowing another judge on a call, and it looks like they’re struggling, they’re about to say something incorrect, or they already have said something incorrect, rather than interrupting the call and taking over, ask to speak to them away from the table. I like the phrase “can I ask you a question away from the table?”
My question is sometimes “Are you nuts?!” but it’s more frequently a politer “Am I missing something, because my understanding is XYZ...” Sometimes I don’t have a question, but more “It looked like you were a little lost - can I help or are you good?”
This process, of stepping away from the table, allows the judge in question to save face - they don’t have to maintain a facade in front of the players, and if they are nuts, or wildly wrong, it allows the two of you to strategize so that when they return to the table to continue the call, they’re able to maintain their authority.
Don’t feel like you’re a bad judge if you want to consult - taking the extra thirty seconds is always worth it to improve the quality and consistency of your rulings. I consult on rulings at events frequently, both for rules and policy. I know that I don’t know everything, and that other people have strengths that I don’t have.
When you have a live call and are seeking assistance, make it clear that it is a live call and that you are seeking assistance. I’ve had one too many calls where a judge comes up to me very casually, chats with me for a few minutes, I use the socratic method and ask them questions to prompt their consideration and growth, and at the end of a long conversation they say “okay, great. I’ll go let the player’s know.”
First, raise your hand - judges are looking for players raising their hands, and will notice your gesture, and will interpret it as a request for judge attention. Then, when you’re speaking with the judge you’re consulting with, always start with “live call” if it’s live (starting with “hypothetical question” or “this isn’t happening” when it’s not a live call is also a good practice, to maintain optimal communication).
You can also be a bit more specific - “I’m consulting on a Card Manipulation Error” or “This is reversing decisions, and I’m 99% sure, but I just wanted to confirm.” This gives the judge you’re consulting a bit more context and can make the process smoother.
Required Consultations
In addition to sometimes wanting to consult due to your own uncertainty, there are a few classes of infractions or calls where some Head Judges will require that judges consult.
This is because these calls - usually their fixes, specifically - have a high potential for disrupting the gamestate significantly and potentially in an irreparable way that can be hard to predict. Getting a second perspective on these sorts of calls not only reduces risk and improves consistency, but furthermore allows newer judges to see how others would approach the situation and learn from that exposure, rather than reinventing the wheel.
The Head Judge may have different tiers of consultation required, but they’re usually linked to a role or level. This means that you may receive the instruction “any time you’re issuing a Card Manipulation Error, consult with an L3+ judge” or “If a player is requesting to reverse their decisions, talk it over with any Team Lead”. These requirements are in place to keep the number of judges who are providing consultations to a controlled group. Not only is it easier to remain consistent with a smaller group, but it also allows the Head Judge a bit more control of who is providing insight on these more intense situations, rather than “any judge”, which might include someone who just certified.
At some events, however, “check with any other judge” is an acceptable threshold - particularly at small events, or post-cut of a larger event, when the team is smaller, and frequently more experienced.
But let’s get into a bit of specifics of when you’ll often be asked to consult, and why it’s considered in this way.
Reversing Decisions
Sometimes a player will want to “take back” a play. This is allowed, so long as they have not gained information. The line and definition of “gained information” can be subjective and Reversing Decisions calls are frequently appealed. Because they’re so frequently appealed, having a second judge involved means another person to remember exactly what the players said - and these rulings are frequently based on communication, and so more data on player communication is helpful. Furthermore, if you need to get a Head Judge to handle an appeal, you can leave your consult at the table, who can keep an eye on things and sometimes ask an additional question, or look at the board state to learn a bit more about the match.
Card Manipulation Errors
Some fixes for card manipulation errors involve revealing cards or shuffling cards into the deck. Both of these remedies are hard or impossible to undo, so we want to take an extra moment to ensure that we are issuing the correct remedy. Once cards get shuffled into the deck, we can’t get those specific cards back unless you, as the judge, took note of those cards. If the cards weren’t random, but instead selected by the opponent as part of the remedy, while the card can be returned, the information the non-active player gained can’t be removed.
Furthermore, the line between various remedies for these class of errors can sometimes be difficult to discern, and once again are dependent on past actions or communication, which can be hard to verify in the present. Having another set of eyes on the situation allows for better results.
Rewinds/Backups
Rewinds and back ups, as remedies for gameplay disruptions if handled poorly can sometimes be more disruptive than the error itself. If more than one single action is being rewound, various other options should be considered. Rewinds can result in cards being revealed, changing hidden zones, or changing the game state significantly enough so that a player’s decisions when the game is resumed are drastically different from their original line of play. Sometimes those drastic changes are what’s best for the match, but nonetheless, these sorts of incidents should be closely examined.
Escalations
Throughout the event, there are some calls that need to be brought to the attention of a Head Judge immediately - some responsibilities are not things that the Head Judge can delegate, and so it’s key to get them involved as soon as possible, so that they can execute on those tasks.
Like with other consultations, be direct with your request. “I have an appeal.” “I have an investigation” or “I have a game loss.” all properly prepare the Head Judge for the rest of the interaction.
Furthermore, you absolutely should interrupt a Head Judge (as long as they’re not actively in a call with a player - and sometimes even then). Your statement of “I have an appeal” will light a spark in the Head Judge, and they will be able to triage their current tasks - sometimes they’ll direct you to someone else because they are currently in an appeal or investigation. Other times, they’ll be able to stop their conversation about which non-traditional lightsaber hilt is the coolest to help you out.
Appeals
Sometimes a player will not be satisfied with your answer or a part of it. Sometimes they will explicitly say “I appeal” or ask to speak to the head judge. They may also say “are you sure?” or “I thought it was...”
If a player is dissatisfied with your ruling, see if you can understand why they are dissatisfied. Sometimes they just want to see the entry in the comprehensive rules, and you can provide that. Other times they just don't like the ruling. Whatever their reason, this is considered an appeal, and should be brought to the Head Judge.
When you bring the appeal to the head judge, before discussing your ruling, broadly tell the Head Judge what the point of contention is - why is the player appealing? Do they not like the ruling? Do they think their time extension was bad? Do they agree with the infraction and penalty but not the fix? Do they agree, but know that they lose if you’re right, so they’re hoping the Head Judge will have a different answer?
All of these different reasons (among many more) can help prime the Head Judge so they know what they need to listen to during the call. It is then best practice to tell the Head Judge what happened and what your ruling was.
Stay with the Head Judge throughout the appeal, so that they can ask you questions if necessary to see if information has changed, or if you have a different perspective.
Investigations
While every judge call has some amount of investigation involved, what we're referring to is any investigation into cheating. If you have concerns that a player is cheating or think a scenario needs deeper investigation, find a head judge.
Like with appeals, let the Head Judge know why you think it might be cheating - this gives them a foundation to begin with for their investigations and interrogations. Furthermore, like with appeals, stay with the Head Judge throughout the call. It is particularly relevant if a player clearly and deliberately changes their explanation drastically. Let the Head Judge know of major discrepancies between what the player told you and what they told the head judge.
Game Losses, Match Losses, and Disqualifications
If you believe a game loss, match loss or disqualification needs to be issued other than for tardiness/absences, find a head judge.
Even for straightforward issues such as a decklist error, it’s best to consult with the Head Judge. First, these are very impactful penalties and can severely hinder a player’s enjoyment of the event. The Head Judge is likely more experienced and has a deeper understanding of not only the rules and policies, but an understanding of the underlying philosophy, and may have a different answer than the consulting judge has.
Furthermore, because of the significant impact, players are much more likely to appeal, and so having the Head Judge already briefed and ready to go can help with efficiency.
Our next lesson is on studying strategy, which ties into becoming a better player, but more importantly, helps you better understand the game, players and improves your investigation skills. If you’re watching this on YouTube, and you want more level two lessons in your feed, go ahead and subscribe. Join us Tuesdays and Fridays on twitch.tv/swu_judges for live broadcasts covering the content of these lessons as they are released, and join the Star Wars: Unlimited Judge Program Discord to join the community in discussion of this and much, much more.
As always, good luck, and have fun.