LEVEL 4

This is a brief description of how an L4 candidate might be evaluated on each quality. This is not exhaustive but serves to give examples of how candidates might be evaluated and what general expectations are. This section replaces the Skills section from the other levels, as it also describes in detail what skills L4s are evaluated to have.

• • Policy Knowledge (evaluated in the Practical Evaluation)
    • • Tournament Policy Application
        • • Tested by the Advanced Rules/Policy Exam
        • • The entire IPG, MTR, and JAR may be included on this exam. Candidates should be able to answer questions about infractions, penalties and remedies, including application to situations not directly described in examples, and to select the most applicable of each for described situations
        • • Knowledge of the Digital MTR or other community supplemental tournament policy will not be tested

    • • Tournament Policy Philosophy
        • • The candidate must show a strong understanding of the underlying philosophies that inform the MTR, IPG, and JAR 
        • • The candidate must show some ability to articulate how these philosophies are applied, and how they result in the written policy
        • • A deficient candidate applies policy or its philosophy incorrectly, and may not understand the appropriate times to deviate from policy, or why not deviating is important

• • Event Skills (evaluated in the Practical Evaluation)
    • • Tournament Operations Proficiency
        • • The candidate shows good knowledge of each team and task utilized at large tournaments
        • • The candidate shows knowledge of product distribution logistics and limited procedures
        • • A deficient candidate might not understand how one or more teams work, like forgetting that the paper team should make sure that pairings boards are in place before the tournament starts

    • • Tournament Operations Philosophy
        • • The candidate shows good knowledge of tournament philosophy, and the ability to balance results with the time cost involved
        • • A deficient candidate cannot provide alternative solutions for problems that might occur at a tournament

    • • Investigations
        • • The candidate can identify instances of potential cheating, and doesn’t overlook them in judge calls
        • • The candidate can explain the difference between opportunistic and premeditated cheating
        • • The candidate can make a plan for talking to a player during a cheating investigation, operate that plan, and adjust based on new information
        • • A deficient candidate may overlook the potential for advantage in an infraction or may make decisions that solely rely on “gut feeling”, without being able to articulate factual elements pointing towards potential cheating.

• • Leadership Skills  (evaluated in both the Practical Evaluation and the Panel Interview, but from different perspectives)
    • • Team and Event Coordination
        • • The candidate communicates appropriately with head judges, team leads, and other judges in preparation for and at events
        • • The candidate coordinates team tasks with their team and with other teams
        • • A deficient candidate may isolate themselves as a team lead, have difficulty communicating with other leads, be unable to delegate tasks, or unable to teach tasks
        • • A deficient candidate may also be unable to manage a team while maintaining team morale and mentorship

    • • Diplomacy
        • • A strong candidate is mature, trustworthy, amiable and well respected by their peers
        • • A deficient candidate may have trouble working with others, or often fail to maintain decorum, diplomacy, and tact, either in person or in an online setting
        • • A deficient candidate may have accumulated a trail of other judges who don’t like working with them, and is unable to resolve any of the issues

    • • Stress Management
        • • The candidate is capable of dealing with stress, and understands how they operate in a stressful environment
        • • A deficient candidate may fold under pressure, or actively avoid stressful situations to their own or the event’s detriment

• • Personal Skills (evaluated in the Panel Interview)
    • • Conflict Management
        • • The candidate is capable of handling conflict, both involving themselves and between other judges
        • • A deficient candidate may concede their position to their own or the event’s detriment to avoid conflict or be unprepared to deal with a conflict between players

    • • Maturity
        • • The candidate is understanding of others, punctual, and understands and embodies professionalism
        • • A deficient candidate may be often regarded as negative, tardy, irritating, difficult to work with, and might favor complaining about a problem over and over rather than trying to find a solution

    • • Self-Evaluation
        • • The candidate understands their strengths and weaknesses, and works towards growing in places in which they aren’t proficient
        • • A deficient candidate’s self-reflection lacks accuracy or depth, and the candidate may not put effort into actively improving where they are struggling

• • Program construction Skills (evaluated in the Panel Interview)
    • • Teamwork
        • • The candidate works well with a team, and knows their place within leadership structures as they change event-to event.
        • • An excellent candidate thrives as a team member, bringing up the morale and teamwork of the entire team, while supporting their lead
        • • A deficient candidate might have trouble taking directions, or trying new things that a lead asks them to do. They might also attempt to take over from an inexperienced lead instead of letting them grow

    • • Mentorship
        • • The candidate is capable of mentoring judges to achieve Level Three, including performing L3 interviews
        • • The candidate understands the definitions of L1, L2, and L3, and is able to appropriately evaluate judges based on those definitions
        • • A deficient candidate may be unable to identify any meaningful weaknesses in their peers, or unable to provide critical feedback
        • • A deficient candidate might not understand the requirements for L3, and might not be able to appropriately fail a candidate’s L3 interview if the candidate isn’t prepared

    • • Community building
        • • The candidate is able to provide value and help build the judge community in some way
        • • An excellent candidate collaborates with the judge program in one or more ways, like writing educative articles, presenting educational seminars, participating in projects, etc.
        • • A deficient candidate has no interest in participating in any way to construct the program or does it only with the intent to pass an evaluation