Magic-League.com Forum Index Magic-League.com
Forums of Magic-League: Free Online tcg playing; casual or tournament play.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Request that non-judges be able to idle in judges4you


Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Magic-League.com Forum Index -> General Magic-League Issues

Would allowing non-judges to idle in judges4you benefit magic-league?
Yes
51%
 51%  [ 19 ]
No
48%
 48%  [ 18 ]
Total Votes : 37

Author Message
Trivial



Joined: 15 Oct 2004
Posts: 55

PostPosted: Thu Sep 08, 2011 4:09 pm    Post subject: Request that non-judges be able to idle in judges4you Reply with quote

All,

I kindly request that we allow people to idle in judges4you. To be crystal clear: Idle means listening and learning not talking or making rulings.

Benefit: Players learn the rules.

Sub-benefits: Less need for judge rulings. More people learn enough to become judges. New players and players from different cultures are exposed to the norms (e.g., don't lie to the judge, don't swear at your opponent).

Cost typically cited: Players might gain an advantage in a tournament by learning about opponents' decks in the course of observing judge rulings.

Responses to cost argument:
(1) This is an acceptable cost.
(2) Judges idle in judges4you now even if they are playing in the tournament in question, so (some) players already know about opponents' decks. This is unfair to non-judge players.
(3) MWS Message logs are open to all and reveal a ton more than any single ruling would.
(4) If a player really wants to keep the conversation from potential opponents, the player can explain things through pms or in a third room to a judge after connecting on judges4you.

Other costs have trivial solutions: "too many people chatting" (solution: No non-judge talk or be kicked) and "judges like to hang out" (solution already in place with the judges4us room).

Thoughts?

Jeff Stewart
AKA Trivial


Last edited by Trivial on Thu Sep 08, 2011 5:10 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
HdH_Cthulhu



Joined: 24 Dec 2006
Posts: 39

PostPosted: Thu Sep 08, 2011 4:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I dont know...
maybe someone asks a stupid question, makes a dumb rule mistake or got caught cheating and doesnt want that all others in ml know about this (you konw 4ever in mirc history...).

personally idc so yeah make this -.-
but I also dont have a problem with the current way
Back to top
fdart17



Joined: 15 Aug 2008
Posts: 21

PostPosted: Thu Sep 08, 2011 4:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I love this. The only thing I would change is that non-judges shouldn't be aloud to talk unless they have a question of their own. Judges have enough to worry about without fixing bad rulings by non-judges.
Back to top
kendiggy



Joined: 30 Nov 2004
Posts: 441
Location: not here

PostPosted: Thu Sep 08, 2011 5:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As a former judge in this league, I believe that keeping the traffic in #j4u to a minimum is essential to the orderliness of the channel. Quite often judges are busy and it takes them a minute to see that there is an issue to be resolved. The last thing we want is for non-judges to jump in and attempt to resolve it without the presence of a judge and increase the possibility of the players walking away with an incorrect result.

An alternative to your request is to make possible "trainee judges" - players who cannot make rulings or run minis but can idle in j4u and watch the traffic while learning from actual judges. A player can be designated a "trainee judge" by taking the judge test and scoring above a six but below the necessary 8 to become a judge. This trainee period can last for a pre-determined period of time and/or until a higher judge determines that the player is ready to take the judge test again to become a judge.
Back to top
Trivial



Joined: 15 Oct 2004
Posts: 55

PostPosted: Thu Sep 08, 2011 5:08 pm    Post subject: Clearing up misunderstanding Reply with quote

Non-judges would not be allowed to make rulings in any way, shape, or form. No "chiming in." Just listening.

Apologies for not being clear on this point. I updated the posting to be clear.

Jeff
Back to top
niknight



Joined: 14 Oct 2004
Posts: 261

PostPosted: Thu Sep 08, 2011 5:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My concern is that having too many idling non-judges makes it harder to help some people. Two common situations:

1. A player asks their question during an involved ruling between players and judges. Nobody actually sees the question being asked, and it quickly gets lost in the blob of text.

2. A good number of players here are rather introverted online, and will not ask a question until we acknowledge them.

The reason why idlers are bad in this situation is that the judges will have absolutely no idea who has questions and who is just idling. This will significantly delay the correct ruling being given.
Back to top
fdart17



Joined: 15 Aug 2008
Posts: 21

PostPosted: Thu Sep 08, 2011 6:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

@niknight -> you bring up some good points I had not though of. I would now have to agree that having plain idlers is bad. I do think the judge trainee idea might be something to consider? They could get some sort of minimal opage to distinguish them from people with questions?
Back to top
P_P4E



Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 579

PostPosted: Thu Sep 08, 2011 7:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think its fine if you aren't allowed to say anything. Mod the channel, and require that if you need to make a ruling you message your TC first, then he ops you so you can talk, etc.

This takes slightly longer for routine stuff, but for involved rulings its much better.
Back to top
cloysterd



Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 176

PostPosted: Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

P_P4E wrote:
I think its fine if you aren't allowed to say anything. Mod the channel, and require that if you need to make a ruling you message your TC first, then he ops you so you can talk, etc.

This takes slightly longer for routine stuff, but for involved rulings its much better.


It would probably be easier to set up the bot to handle it. Message the bot with !voice or something and it gives you vops, then removes them after 5 minutes of idle.
Back to top
AppleofEris



Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 553

PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2011 3:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I like this idea.
Back to top
DonDiggy



Joined: 16 Mar 2010
Posts: 27

PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2011 8:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I dislike the idea of non-judge-idlers....Especially when running Trials/Masters or in the mini rush times, its a hard job to manage the incoming ruling requests. But however you can keep a little overview of the involved persons via the Nicklist (Non-Opped Persons). I dont want to miss this advantage. And for the arguement "Judges have additional info, like the players decks": Theres a word called "Honor". A judge with Honor wont let these informations have any influence on the matches he will be playing later. So its up to each and everyone by himself to not take this advantage. But what we clearly should not do is blindly give everyone access to those informations. Another point to mention is that especially in simple rulings (like "Is my animated Gideon Clone a 6/6, is he put into grave as sba" etc) people could be afraid of other players carrying out the discussions to the common channel to make fun of it.

Ah one thing left: I dislike that this poll is accessable to every Board-User. This poll shouldve been only for Judges/Staff, because in fact its a decision about additional work for them, not for the non-officials.
Back to top
Strid3r



Joined: 18 Jan 2010
Posts: 295

PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2011 8:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

DonDiggy wrote:
I dislike the idea of non-judge-idlers....Especially when running Trials/Masters or in the mini rush times, its a hard job to manage the incoming ruling requests. But however you can keep a little overview of the involved persons via the Nicklist (Non-Opped Persons). I dont want to miss this advantage. And for the arguement "Judges have additional info, like the players decks": Theres a word called "Honor". A judge with Honor wont let these informations have any influence on the matches he will be playing later. So its up to each and everyone by himself to not take this advantage. But what we clearly should not do is blindly give everyone access to those informations. Another point to mention is that especially in simple rulings (like "Is my animated Gideon Clone a 6/6, is he put into grave as sba" etc) people could be afraid of other players carrying out the discussions to the common channel to make fun of it.

Ah one thing left: I dislike that this poll is accessable to every Board-User. This poll shouldve been only for Judges/Staff, because in fact its a decision about additional work for them, not for the non-officials.


On the other hand, the way things are on m-l, most judges would never want to accept more work. So a poll for Judges/Staff would be completely pointless. But you are right too in a way.
Back to top
AppleofEris



Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 553

PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2011 10:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

A simple solution here:

Run a bot in the #j4u channel that allows someone to !ask to ask a question, otherwise, set the channel mode to +m and let people idle there.

1.) Players can learn what it takes to be a judge
2.) There can be community oversight of the judges, which is important to maintain a fair league.
Back to top
darkwizard42
Level 2 Judge


Joined: 02 Sep 2005
Posts: 260

PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2011 10:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

DonDiggys point is most important. Judge rulings are private. People will discuss them in another channel if they can't in J4U. Judges have the responsibility and the understanding that what happens in J4U is private. Giving that information to everyone makes asking the "stupid" simple questions intimidating when all your peers can openly discuss that question.

I vote against this. If you want to be a judge, study and read on rulings online. Don't use being unable to idle in J4U as an excuse to not study properly.
Back to top
AppleofEris



Joined: 20 Dec 2006
Posts: 553

PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2011 11:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

darkwizard42 wrote:
DonDiggys point is most important. Judge rulings are private. People will discuss them in another channel if they can't in J4U. Judges have the responsibility and the understanding that what happens in J4U is private. Giving that information to everyone makes asking the "stupid" simple questions intimidating when all your peers can openly discuss that question.

I vote against this. If you want to be a judge, study and read on rulings online. Don't use being unable to idle in J4U as an excuse to not study properly.


So when at an event and a person at my table calls a judge, I am to plug my ears?
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Magic-League.com Forum Index -> General Magic-League Issues All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 1 of 4

 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

All content on this page may not be reproduced without consent of Magic-League Directors.
Magic the Gathering is TM and copyright Wizards of the Coast, Inc, a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc. All rights reserved.


About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy