Level two judges are expected to be able to manage larger events and to work with judges, TOs, and players they don’t know more frequently. Developing a local presence or reputation is key to doing so.

Differences from baseline L1: A new level two judge can lead at least one other judge and are a known quantity in their chosen community.

Exceptional: Can provide direction and leadership to another judge under their authority, and can command the attention of more than fifty players. The candidate is the go-to resource for all rules and policy questions in their local area.

Very Good: Can command the attention of 30 or more players easily, instructions are followed without pushback. Players approach the candidate regarding rules and policy questions even when the candidate is not acting in a role as a judge.

Adequate: Can command the attention of 15-30 players easily. Players call for the candidate when they have a rule or policy question when the candidate is the judge for the event, and sometimes even when the candidate is not acting in a role as a judge.

Needs Improvement: Can get the attention of 15-30 players without significant difficulty and instructions are generally followed. Players call for the candidate when they have a rule or policy question when the candidate is the judge for the event.

Deficient: Can not get the attention of 15 players reliably. Instructions are frequently ignored. Players approach other individuals for rules and policy questions.

Level two judges have been a part of the community long enough and have enough experience to understand what can make a judge a benefit to their community and local game store. An L2 should be able to evaluate a candidate for level one, and be able to provide explicit mentorship on the path to L1.

Differences from baseline L1: A new level two judge is able to mentor an L1 candidate.

Exceptional: Has participated in the training of other judge candidates, and has written reviews helping them. Has a thorough understanding of the IPG and is able to explain the basics to a judge interested in learning Comp REL.

Very Good: Has participated in the training of other judge candidates, teaching rules and policy, as well as providing feedback in other areas, such as logistics or player interactions.

Adequate: Has a thorough understanding of the CR and the JAR, and can explain the basics to a candidate.

Needs Improvement: Has only a foundational understanding of the CR and JAR and cannot teach all of the basics to a candidate.

Deficient: Provides inaccurate information regarding the CR or the JAR when talking with judge candidates. Can’t provide direction toward educational resources.

The baseline expectation for a level two judge is the ability to run a small competitive event at their LGS, or a slightly larger regular REL event. For Comp REL, this means they must be able to manage several more logistical challenges including deck checks and managing time spent on more involved judge calls. At Regular REL, an L2 should be able to comfortably handle thirty-two players.

Differences from baseline L1: A new level two judge is able to run a competitive event, which includes issuing penalties, checking decks, and running a top-8, which can lead to events with both a sealed and draft portion. A level two is also expected to be comfortable running larger events, up to a 64-player Regular REL event with minimal assistance.

Exceptional:

Very Good:

Adequate:

Needs Improvement: Is unable to perform a deck check in a timely manner.

Deficient: Struggles to run an 8-16 player Comp REL event or a 32-player Reg REL event without assistance.

Differences from baseline L1:  Maturity – unchanged. Self-Evaluation: know which areas of rules and policy knowledge they are weak on. Able to manage higher stakes of Comp REL.

Exceptional:

Very Good:

Adequate:

Needs Improvement:

Deficient:

Differences from baseline L1: Able to work on a team at a larger event, with people they don’t know as well as locals. Is able to manage higher stakes of Comp REL and more competitive players.

Exceptional:

Very Good:

Adequate:

Needs Improvement:

Deficient:

Differences from baseline L1: Understand the basics of the IPG and the differences between Regular and Competitive REL.

Exceptional:

Very Good:

Adequate:

Needs Improvement:

Deficient:

Differences from baseline L1: Is able to manage higher stakes investigations. Has confidence with more competitive players dealing with simple reversing decisions and rewinds. Has a basic grasp of working through card counts and life total discrepancies.

Exceptional:

Very Good:

Adequate:

Needs Improvement:

Deficient:

Differences from baseline L1: Greater knowledge of the whys of the rules, not just what they are, to help understand corner cases. Knows the common infractions in the IPG.

Exceptional:

Very Good:

Adequate:

Needs Improvement:

Deficient:

Level three judges are have earned the respect of players and judges as experts on the various tasks of judging and the optimal execution. Furthermore, they’re seen as exceptional leaders at events. They have the trust of the judges under their authority and the tournament organizers they work for to get the task done, and in a way that gives other judges the opportunities to grow and learn. They understand the difference between getting their team to complete the task and leading their team to complete the task. Judges enjoy working with them.

Differences from L2: A judge performing at the standard of level two in a leadership position is able to ensure that the task is completed and that the judges are generally taken care of. A judge performing at the standard of level three in the same role is able to do that while inspiring other judges, by delegating tasks to provide growth opportunities for all members of their team, provide insightful feedback, and does so without flaunting their authority.

Exceptional: Is able to exert their influence on their community in a positive way. Is looked to as a guided for leadership and management, and a go-to resource for advice at large events, even when not in leadership roles.

Very Good: 

Adequate: Is able to lead a team of 4-6 other judges on standard event tasks, while providing growth opportunities and mentorship. Is consulted regularly for advice, and is respected when in leadership roles.

Needs Improvement:

Deficient: Has trouble commanding the respect or attention of judges or players in their community, or on their team at events. Can confuse role-based authority with genuine leadership. Struggles to manage their team.

Exceptional: Is able to consistently write quality reviews and provide detailed feedback. Their evaluation of judges is combined with practical mentorship and guidance. They are insightful and reveal understanding to their subjects that they had not realized about themselves. They are able to evaluate more experienced judges effectively as well as peers. Their influence as a mentor extends beyond a small group of judges.

Very Good:

Adequate:

Needs Improvement:

Deficient: Shows little to no mentorship at or outside events, or their mentorship is demonstrably ineffective. Reviews may only asses other judges superficially or lack depth, detail and accuracy, while not providing actionable feedback. Is unable to evaluate a broad range of pillars in other judges.

Exceptional: The candidate can comfortably lead any team, and is a resource for best practices. They also develop new techniques, with a good success rate. They are able to identify essential tasks and provide support to other judges.

Very Good:

Adequate:

Needs Improvement:

Deficient: The candidate is effective in only some roles, and may lack the awareness of the greater event and problems that may crop up out of their sight.

The ability of assessing ones own strengths and weaknesses, and being honest about failures and finding ways to improve on their own is key to an L3 judge – who may not have peers at events to evaluate their performance.

Exceptional: Shows deep insights into their own judging practices and is able to identify strategies for improvement. Thrives under stress, where the pressure drives them to achieve more.

Very Good:

Adequate:

Needs Improvement:

Deficient: Self evaluation lack depth, detail and accuracy. The candidate is unable to assess their own performance in meaningful ways. While under pressure the candidate may become noticeably affected, and is unable to maintain composure or focus.

Exceptional: The candidate is known for their tactfulness, and is often sought to help mediate conflicts between other judges, and is an excellent ambassador for the game and the community. They are able to deescalate irate players with ease, and either is able to prevent conflicts from arising between judges or is able to resolve them quickly.

Very Good:

Adequate:

Needs Improvement:

Deficient: The candidate demonstrates difficulty following the leadership of others, or is notably less effective when not in leadership roles, often pushing back against other judges plans or ignoring them completely. They may have lapses in tact that cause discomfort or outrage in other judges – either in person or in online venues. They are not a good ambassador for the program or the game. The candidate may demonstrate difficulty in calming irate players and frequently finds themselves in conflict with other judges or is unable to resolve those conflicts.

Exceptional: The candidate has exceptional understanding of policy, and regularly provides feedback that improves written policy.

Very Good: The candidate is able to offer suggestions that could improve policy.

Adequate:

Needs Improvement:

Deficient: The candidate has extraordinarily poor policy knowledge or their philosophical views (the goals of policy) run contrary to the basic principles. They are unable to explain why policy is written the way it is, or explain policy to players or other judges.

Exceptional: The candidate is effective at investigating a player’s intentions, or discovering past events of a game. They are able to do so in an effective and efficient manner. They also take into account information beyond testimony (include game state, risks, motivations).

Very Good:

Adequate:

Needs Improvement:

Deficient: The candidate does not dig deeper than the basic resolution of a situation presented in a judge call. They may take an excessive amount of time, or arrive at incorrect conclusions, whether for cheating investigations or card counts and life-total discrepancies.

These are not skills that are expected or required of level three judges but are areas where a level three judge can specialize a bit more.

Professional Event Head Judge: After working many professional-level events, a level three judge can aspire to professional event head judging. This is a highly demanding role, requiring the judge to not only have exceptional rules and policy knowledge, but be an exceptional leader, have exceptional logistics skills, and be able to balance the needs of a broadcast and player experience with tournament flow and integrity.

Evaluation Lead: After participating in several evaluations, an L3 can lead an evaluation interview. This requires a deep understanding of the pillars of a level three judge, and how to quickly understand a candidate, their strengths, and their weaknesses.

Exceptional: Has a comprehensive knowledge of the rules and tournament policy. Is able to explain very complex concepts and rulings to players and judges of all experience levels.

Very Good:

Adequate:

Needs Improvement:

Deficient: The candidate has difficulty explaining or understanding uncommon (but relevant) rules and policy scenarios.

Each of these self-reviews has several requirements:

1. Evaluation: Using associated resources, compare yourself to the expectation for level three: major deficiency (0), minor deficiency (1), underdeveloped (2), adequate (3), above average (4), or exceptional (5). This benchmark will allow other judges to understand where you think you are in a very clear and direct manner.
2. Strengths: It is essential for you to be able to identify what you are good at, so you know where to devote your energy.
3. Weaknesses: Even more important is knowing where you aren’t up to par, and what needs to be improved.
4. Plan for Improvement: These should be either practices you have already implemented (that have shown results) or strategies you plan to take and why you think they will work.
5. Examples: The people reading your self-review in the later stages of your evaluation may not have worked with you, or if they have, not regularly. It’s not enough to state your conclusions, you must also provide evidence that supports your understanding.
6. Critical Analysis: Furthermore, showing an understanding of cause and effect is important – explaining how your example demonstrates your strengths and weaknesses and how your plan will address those elements ties the whole thing together.

Understanding where you are in comparison to the baseline expectation for level three and where you are relative to experienced level three judges can be a difficult task. For explicit detail on all of the pillars and what the expectations are for level three, as well as explanations of the scale of ability from deficient to exceptional, check out the guidelines in the L3 tab on this page.

Even so, reading the documentation is no comparison to practical experience – the L3 process can take several years and most judges never begin, much less complete the journey. It is common for most people who pursue L3 to realize that their earlier estimations of their skill were higher than it should have been and their understanding of what is required and expected of L3s was lower than it should have been. However, recognizing that discrepancy and correcting your understanding is a hugely valuable growth opportunity.

There is no expectation that an L3 candidate is able to analyze themselves perfectly, especially at the beginning of the process. Instead, the goal is to ensure that the candidate has critically evaluated themselves and considered the role of L3.

Furthermore, the candidate has the closest perspective of themselves and their skills – they’re the only one who can truly say why they behave in any given way or what they think will work for them for future development.

A self-review is not a solo evaluation. You are absolutely allowed and encouraged to collect feedback and perspectives from judges, tournament organizers, or even individuals outside the judge program to help you understand who you are and your performance. You should not simply regurgitate other people’s perspectives, but using their insights to develop a foundation or further your understanding is a great place to begin.

The self-review can be an intimidatingly open document – you’re talking about your personal failings and explicit weaknesses. Only a handful of people will see the self-review as part of your L3 process.

• Validator: A Judge Academy employee will read and approve your self-reviews as you submit them. This person is not evaluating for accuracy – only confirming that the self-review meets the technical requirements. They may require additional comments from the candidate and may make suggestions to the candidate to help them on their journey of growth.
• Interviewer: A Judge Academy employee will consolidate information gained from your practical evaluations, recommendations, and self-reviews to develop questions for your prep interview. This is likely the same individual as the validator.
• Recommending Judges: If a judge recommends a candidate for a particular pillar, they should be granted access to the relevant self-reviews.
• L3 Practicum Shadow: The L3 who acts as your shadow during your L3 practical will have access to all self-reviews, in order to evaluate the differences between your evaluation and theirs.
• L3 Evaluators: Both the Evaluation Lead and Evaluation Observer will have access to your self-reviews, recommendations, interview, and any feedback from previous stages.

In case of significant differences in perception between evaluators, your self-review may be shared with those evaluators. However, if this occurs, you will be informed exactly who will be able to see your self-reviews.

As mentioned above, your initial self-review is not expected to be perfectly accurate – but it should be as close to accurate as your understanding allows. It is not an uncommon occurrence that a candidate submits multiple evaluations during the L3 process, as their skills and their understanding of their skills grow.

Upon initial submission, the self-review is not evaluated for accuracy by Judge Academy. The first check for accuracy will be performed by the L3s who are writing your recommendations. In the event that there is a large difference between your evaluation and that of your recommender, you should have a conversation about why that difference in perception exists, and what can be done to remedy any deficient qualities.

The next check for accuracy is during the prep interview. The interviewer will have access to your evaluations from your recommendations, and any practicals you have completed. At this point in time, there will be a check to see if your evaluation of yourself matches your external perception of yourself. Any significant differences will be highlighted for the L3 Evaluation Interview to focus on, as potential areas of concern. If there are significant failings in self-evaluation, the process may be extended.

The final check for accuracy is during the L3 Evaluation Interview, where your observer from earlier in the weekend and the evaluation lead will use a wide array of resources to provide you insight into where your understanding of your skills differs from an external perspective, and what that means for you moving forward.

When you submit your self-review, it will be reviewed by a Judge Academy staff member, and evaluated against the requirements that are both listed above and on each self-review assignment.

If your self-review meets the requirements, it will be approved, and you’ll be able to use the review as part of your L3 process. The self-review will be valid for one year from when it was approved.

If it does not meet the requirements, the validator will comment on your self-review and give feedback based on which requirements were not met. You will be asked to either submit an addendum in the form of a comment or re-submit the self-review.

In some cases, the validator will comment on your self-review, providing some guidance or tools that may help you on your L3 path, in addition to approving it.

If you’re asked to update or add further information to a segment of your self-review, simply comment on the initial review, and the validator will look at your submission and either approve it or give further feedback.

If your self-review expires, you will be asked to submit a fresh review, which will include uploading an updated version, including examples from the past six to twelve months.

You are, of course, allowed and encouraged to update your self-review with new experiences if you ever feel you have grown or learned something relevant. You can do this by simply adding a comment to your approved self-review. You can also upload a new document, which will be validated independently of previous submissions.

Task Prep __/5

• Created staff schedule
• Communication with staff
• Has plan prepared for logistical tasks

Success with Task __/5

• Event runs smoothly
• In the event of logistical complications, manages to provide and execute solution
• In the event of logistical complications, remains composed and focused

Delegation __/5

• Tasks are appropriately assigned to team leads or point people
• Let team leads guide their teams
• Does not delegate tasks that they should personally handle

Event Overview and Feedback __/5

• Understood how each team was proceeding with their task
• Was aware of floor coverage
• Was able to give feedback to at least their direct reports

Team Building and Mentoring __/5

• Able to create an atmosphere of a unified team
• Able to provide meaningful advice and guidance to members of the staff

Communication __/5

• During the event was able to gather any necessary information
• During the event was able to distribute any necessary information
• Able to deescalate conflicts between players and judges

Rules, Policy, and Investigations __/5

• Accurately upheld or overturned rulings on appeal.
• Demonstrated understanding of policy philosophy in complex scenarios
• Efficiently and effectively investigated in scenarios when appropriate
• During contentious appeals and investigations is able to remain composed and keep the situation from escalating

Task Prep __/5

• Had necessary communications with HJ and other leads before the event
• Has plan prepared for the team’s tasks
• Communicated plan to the team before the event

Success with Task __/5

• Event runs smoothly
• In the event of logistical complications, manages to provide and execute solution
• In the event of logistical complications, remains composed and focused

Delegation __/5

• Tasks are appropriately assigned to members of the team
• Let other members of the team provide guidance and mentorship as appropriate
• Does not delegate tasks that they should personally handle
• Was able to appropriately share members of their team with other teams that needed assistance

Event Overview and Feedback __/5

• Understood how each member of the team was proceeding with their task
• Was aware of where judges on their team were throughout the event
• Was able to give some feedback to the judges on their team
• Was able to give some feedback to the head judge

Team Building and Mentoring __/5

• Able to create an atmosphere of a unified team
• Able to provide meaningful advice and guidance to members of the team

At Event Communication __/5

• During the event was able to gather any necessary information regarding the task
• During the event was able to distribute any necessary information regarding the task
• Was able to manage any conflicts that rose within the team
• Was able to request additional resources, if required

Rules, Policy, and Investigations __/5

• Was able to provide concise and correct answers to judges seeking advice in live calls
• Was able to provide reasoned insight regarding potential rewinds, reversing decisions or HCE calls they were consulted on
• Demonstrated understanding of policy philosophy in complex scenarios
• Efficiently and effectively investigated, and escalated when appropriate