The Hand's Judgement - Should GoT Judges Intercede During Games?

Should AGOT Judges Intercede During Games?
Position: NO
By imrahil327, with assistance from Deathjester26, TO extraordinaire

The ‘active judging’ debate is a common one, and every game I’ve played has a different answer. For me, the answer is simple: active judging is not right for games such as AGOT, where only one or two judges are present for a tournament. It is essential for both players in the game to know the rules, follow them, and call a judge if they have a question.

The first and most important reason that I am against active judging is fairness and consistency. I am sure that my opponent will use this argument as well: He will say that playing the game as correctly as possible is the most ‘fair’ way of doing things, and I don’t necessarily disagree with him, especially in a perfect world. However, we don’t live in such a world, and so practicality must reign. If the situation arises where there can be a judge at EVERY game that is going on AND the judges are all equally skilled, then and only then would I find active judging acceptable, but that is usually only true for one game each tournament: the finals. Until that point, there are generally not nearly enough judges to watch each game, and if active judging is allowed, this creates inherently unfair situations. A couple of examples:
1) A judge is walking around ruling on games. He sees an error in a game, and points it out. The player who made the error is now at a disadvantage. However, in another game, the same error occurs and the judge does NOT see it. We have a lack of fairness and consistency- if the error is game-changing enough, it could swing the entire tournament in a different way.
2) Player A has made 5 errors in the game, all in his favor. Player B makes only one error, but a judge happens to be nearby and sees it. Why is it that Player B’s one error is fixed while none of Player A’s were? Again, major inconsistency.
3) Perhaps a worst-case scenario: Players A and B are in a mirror match. Player A plays a card in a certain way, and Player B assumes that Player A must be playing it correctly. Player A gets the benefit of this incorrect state, but when the judge comes by he sees it and corrects Player B. Who is at fault here? And again, why is the player who originally made the error rewarded for it?

Another strike against active judging is the effect that it can have on a game in progress. If both players are concentrating on the game, and a judge interrupts to try and correct the game state, it can be extremely distracting, and cause one or both players to lose focus. Judges are human too, and if a judge were to miss a modifier on the table that caused his statement to be incorrect, he has just interfered in the game for no reason. Further, it could inadvertently tip the game in one player’s favor or another by reminding him of an effect on one of his own cards that he had been forgetting- for instance, if a challenge took place, and the judge saw a strength pump on the table that a player had forgotten, it could change the outcome of a challenge. Where is the line drawn for the judge? Does he point it out? Does he only point out mandatory triggers such as renown? How far back can he ‘reset’ the game state? And at what point does it become the judge playing the game and not the players?

The final reason that active judging should not be allowed is judge bias, or the appearance thereof. Until we hire an outside firm to direct all tournaments, the judges in our tournaments will always be our friends and compatriots. It may seem like this point is bashing judges, but in reality it is meant to protect them. If active judging does not exist, a judge cannot be accused of favoring a friend. He can rightfully defend himself by saying “I answered the rules questions that were presented to me.” In an active judging situation, if such a judge was watching a game and legitimately missed an error, the player who was hurt by that error could easily accuse the judge of favoritism toward the other player, and that is not an environment that should be encouraged.

Hopefully I’ve given you a better look into the issues that active judging could cause, and show why they are worse than the alternative. While active judging sounds very good in principle, the practicalities of it make it untenable for the vast majority of tournament situations. The job of a tournament organizer is, and should remain, to resolve only questions that two players within a game cannot agree upon.

Should AGOT Judges Intercede During Games?
Position: YES
By clu

It is assumed when the lists fill with tournament contenders the common game they will all play is AGOT. It is an inherent truth unique games exist because of their rule structure. If rule structure is broken, then the uniqueness of the game ceases to exist. You are no longer playing the agreed upon game. Both players are now playing with incorrect game states, a variant they didn’t agree to play before hand.

Should a player benefit from participating in a different rule set than the other contenders? Why should a judge even be present at tournaments unless the same rule structure is followed? Shouldn’t a player using their own rule set be punished, or at least be corrected? Could I agree before a match to allow attachments on No Attachment keyworded characters?

Taking the mantel of judge shouldn’t be worn lightly. The game state is a holy battle ground to be revered. To ensure a righteous melee the rule structures must be followed. We need bequeath judges the power to correct game states.

Note I didn’t say interfere with game states. I mean correct them until the all rules are being followed. A judge stays silent when response effects are missed like Lannisport Brothel isn’t used during the dominance phase and when a maester forgets to trigger Copper Link. Passives must be triggered, immune to events prevents an event from being played, and stealth must always be declared. The game state doesn’t allow for these effects to not happen. If they don’t occur, then correct game state is lost.

Another benefit for judges being able to do their job is removing the bad taste you sometimes get from a game. I don’t mind losing a close game due to being outplayed by superior cards or skill. I absolutely see red when I have to keep track of passive abilities and triggers that my opponent may “forget” to work. I get it; it is part of my job as a player to stay sharp. But when my opponent remembers to use Theon to discard one of my cards but is silent when I win by four or more I get angry.

Precedence can not be ignored. Name another game/sport where there aren't punitive/corrective responses to the rules structure being ignored. I can't imagine watching a chess game and seeing a pawn move diagonally without the opponent's notice and nothing happens.

There are varying degrees of incorrect game state and they must be addressed with varying punishments. FFG needs to come up with a standard set of punishments. For the most part incorrect game states should be corrected when spotted and the match allowed to continue from that point. However, drawing extra cards, playing a plot twice, and a deck with House Only cards in the wrong house should draw immediate game loses.

A judge should be called over when two players don’t agree on how a card works. There isn’t a penalty inflicted, just the game state being maintained. For the most part players need to be vigilant on their own to keep the field pure because the judge can’t watch every game. Most tournaments have judges that play in the tournament and only get a chance to look over people’s shoulders after they are done. The top eight is an exception. It’s rare that all the event judges make the cut and it is imperative those matchers are examined by the Night’s Watch (a previous incarnation name of judges appointed by FFG was required to take a rules test and show skill in tournament organizing).

It doesn’t make sense to not enforce the rules of the game. I feel that statement alone ends the debate. In the end, aren’t we all just trying to play fairly and for fun?