Subject: Judging Standards Date: Fri, 30 Oct 1998 00:16:39 -0500 From: "Robert S. Hahn" To: "Frank \"The Sensei\" Kusumoto" -- I've been on the road for the past two weeks driving from Seattle to NYC. Wow. This is a big country... full of very very bad food at very shady roadside truck stops.... In any case, I just wanted to make two points regarding the complaints about my personal standard of judging. First, I fully recognize the complaints. I admitted as much that I would probably make a horrible judge. Do I agree that my standards go too far? Well, they probably do. The only clarification I'd like to make, however, is what I consider to be "Taking advantage of obvious mistakes by a new player." To me, there's a difference between taking advantage of someone forgetting to activate an Oath of Druids during upkeep and taking advantage of obvious mistakes by a new player. The operative word here may be "new player" as opposed to "bad player". Anyone who shows up with an Oath of Druids deck really can't/shouldn't be classified as a new player. J. Tackett has very valid points. Applied without discretion, the standard I've espoused can create problems as he points out. However, as a lawyer, I have seen how rules and laws become nothing short of nightmarish when common sense departs them. Let judges apply common sense and things could be different. For example, if some dude sits down and busts out what is basically a Urza's Saga Preconstructed Deck to which he's added these power cards like a Shivan Dragon, but the deck is 3 colors with only 18 land (6 of each basic)... this is a new player. This is not necessarily a bad player, but a new one; one which we ALL should have a vested interest in getting to join the community of Magic. During a game, he attacks with his Armoured Pegasus, then after you block with your Tradewind Rider, he Disintegrates the said Rider for 3 thus killing it -- except for the fact that Disintegrate is a Sorcery.... Now, you say to this new player "You can't do that; please mana burn for 4." I say to THAT, come on now! What the hell can you be afraid of! He's playing with Armoured Pegasus!!! To me, this is dramatically different from someone who forgets to put counters on a Gemstone Mine. If you know enough to play with Gemstone Mine, please learn the rules of the game. The new player may -- after losing not only to someone of superior skill and knowledge but ALSO to mana-burning for 4 during his attack phase because his superior opponent decided to do a lot more than teach a lesson on beatings -- decide to take up a more entertaining hobby like L5R or perhaps Tiddlywinks. The bad player, on the other hand, is already a member of the community and should appreciate learning something new from the said beating by rules. So, let's just be clear about this: new player does not equal bad player. Show up with a Hatred deck and make a mistake -- tough luck. Show up with a 156-card G/W monstrosity and make a mistake... I think some slack could be cut, yes. But again, I would make a horrible judge, most likely. Second, however, I'd like to address the notion that "Rules are the rules". Yes, of course rules are the rules. I'm not in favor of dumbing down the rules or making the game less complex for the sake of attracting new players. Portal ain't my cup of tea, you hear? However, rules to me are like the law. Laws are supposed to facilitate life somehow (in an ideal situation, anyway); they serve a purpose apart and aside from the legal system. When we lose sight of those purposes, something bad usually happens. And in the legal system, there are ways for the laws to change to more correctly serve those purposes. For example, there are laws which help people enter into contract by saying what will happen when one side fails to live up to the bargain. But in a lot of negotiations, if you go "strictly by the law" you will have no deal. If you have no deal, then what the hell do you need the law for? The main purpose of Magic is to entertain. When rules get in the way of entertainment, I think they have to be examined. And entertainment is situational, I recognize that. Some newbie registers for a PTQ... sorry pal, the entertainment value of a PTQ is somewhat different from the entertainment value of the Tuesday Night Type II Tourney at Joe's Comics. I'm not suggesting that Randy Buehler not be allowed to take advantage of a mistake by Jon Finkel. No way! However, when Joe Newplayer comes in to some Type 2 tourney with his 156 card G/W monstrosity... yes, I do think entertainment should take priority over "black and white" rules at that point. No matter what, you'd have to work pretty hard to lose to Joe Newplayer, I think. In THAT situation, I believe that most judges have enough common sense to be able to 'bend' the rules a bit so that Joe Newplayer may want to return next week with a 89 card G/W semi-monstrosity because he had a good time. This central goal of Magic would, of course, be served better if his opponent playing mad Tradewind tech could graciously allow for the rules to be bent.... I hope these points clarify. -The Sophist