Your computer time is misconfigured. This may cause problems with the site, particularly, the "time remaining" may be incorrect when taking exams. This may cause exams to be submitted before you are ready, or may cause you to be unaware that time has expired, preventing submission. Your computer told us that it is , but this page was downloaded from the server at . Please correct your computer's time and timezone settings.

Level 2 Judge Recommendation Review Rubric

The Level 2 (L2) certification process is the first time judges of the program are involved in a significant part of the advancement of other judges. The goal of this process it to create a consistent standard for certifying judges on aspects that are not assessable through an automated process. To this end, we have established the following rubric as a guide for assessing potential judges for the L2 certification. This rubric refers to the “reviewer” as the L2+ judge writing the recommendation review and the “candidate” as the judge receiving the review. The reviewer should be assessing candidates against the following rubric and a recommendation should be written if they meet the required standard. If the reviewer has specific concerns about the rubric or a candidate we encourage them to discuss it with other L2+ judges to get a second opinion.

The certification criteria have been divided into three groups, each containing a number of requirements: mandatory (must-haves), important (should-haves), and optional (nice-to-haves). Each group has a standard to meet to consider a candidate for advancement. The mandatory requirements are fundamental elements that the candidate must be ready to immediately put into practice. The important requirements are areas where the candidate should have the knowledge, because L2 Judges may be expected to be proficient in these areas when called upon. The optional requirements are growth areas, which exceptional candidates may already exhibit, but which are not a part of the baseline requirements. These review standards intentionally do not cover rules or policy knowledge as that is specifically assessed by the L2 judge exams.

Mandatory (Must-Haves)

These are the fundamental requirements for an L2 judge, as they relate directly to their ability to fulfill the key role of an L2 judge: to be the Head Judge at a tier 2 event or the Floor Judge of a tier 3+ event. The candidate must meet ALL of the following mandatory requirements.

  • The candidate is capable of consistently performing professional and timely judge calls. A successful candidate is able to identify where a judge should step in, introduce themselves, listen to discover and understand the problem(s) presented, and give an unbiased ruling, all in a confident, diplomatic, and efficient manner.
  • The candidate is capable of performing an accurate and timely deck check A successful candidate is able to complete a full deck check of a 80-card Classic Constructed deck in under 10 minutes - including a full comparison of cards to the deck list and checking for marked cards. The candidate should understand when a swoop should be made (after decks are presented but before the opponent shuffles if at all possible) and when it should not (after players draw opening hands).
  • The candidate is capable of presenting and upholding a welcoming and fair event. A successful candidate has internalized the authority relationship that is created between a judge and a player and upholds the trust the players have placed in them. The candidate should be mindful of their biases, ensure how they act at an event upholds the Judge Code of Conduct and be able to identify, admit, and seek to correct mistakes that they make in the official capacity as a judge.
  • The candidate is capable of communicating at both a friendly and technical level. A successful candidate is able to run an event from start to finish using the language they intend to run events with (typically English). The candidate should be able to engage in welcoming conversation, and exhibit clarity and diplomacy when making rulings. If the reviewer does not speak the language the candidate intends to run events in, we advise the reviewer to seek additional assistance from other L2+ judges.
  • The candidate is capable of performing the customer service role of a judge. A successful candidate is able to not only manage a tournament but create a positive experience for players and non-players while balancing it against the integrity of the event. The candidate should be capable of taking a patient and understanding approach to dealing with difficult situations and rulings. The customer service role of a judge also includes things like knowing the environment the event takes place in, understanding the atmosphere of the players, knowing when to step back and allow the TO to take over an interaction, and knowing when a judge needs to set aside the helpful mindset and focus on maintaining event integrity.

Important (Should-Haves)

These are significant, but not necessary requirements for an L2 judge, as they are related to the role of an L2 judge, but are not required to perform the duties of a Head Judge at a tier 2 event or the Floor Judge of a tier 3+ event. The candidate must meet at least 3 of the following important requirements. If a candidate meets all 5 important requirements they do not need to meet any of the optional requirements. Any important requirements they do not have should be suggested as areas for development.

  • The candidate is capable of completing a basic investigation. A standard candidate is able to independently perform an in-depth investigation into the actions taken by players over multiple turns of the game. Investigations include taking into account both game elements (actions taken within the game that affect the visible game state) and non-game elements (actions taken by the players, such as what they’ve said or done that don’t affect the visible game state), in order to determine discrepancies in the current game state or the motives of the player’s themselves. The candidate should be aware of what questions to ask and who to listen to, to complete the investigation efficiently and effectively.
  • The candidate is capable of managing the start and end of an event. A standard candidate is able to conduct the opening and closing announcements of an event and organize pre-event procedures and resources for players on behalf of the Tournament Organizer. This includes pool opening/registration procedure for sealed, having a method for decklist collection, and checking to assure all players have submitted their decklists. Announcements and other public speaking roles should be able to be performed with clarity and confidence.
  • The candidate understands the philosophy of the balance between equity, education, and mission when dealing with an infraction. A standard candidate will understand that while there is written policy, sometimes there is a need to deviate from the rules as written to ensure that players are playing great games. A candidate should be able to apply deviations from that policy where they make sense by balancing equity, education, and mission as outlined in the Procedure and Penalty Guide. In addition, the candidate should understand that the Head Judge must approve deviations and that one should not deviate liberally just because they have authority to.
  • The candidate has basic operational skills for the GEM interface. A standard candidate is self-sufficient and can operate the GEM interface to complete a tournament. The candidate should be able to correctly navigate the interface to perform common operations for any official format including, but not limited to, cutting to top X players, manually dropping players, correcting previous round results, and re-pairing specific tables. Troubleshooting capability is not expected, just a familiarity with the interface enough to be able to run an event without undue delay.
  • The candidate can use the resources they have available to them effectively. A standard candidate understands how the judge hierarchy operates in larger tournaments and the procedures for second opinions and appeals. The candidate can navigate additional resources to find answers outside of the primary documents (PPG, TRP, and CR), including the release notes, rules articles, and various forums (Discord, Facebook, JudgeHub). They have a plan for quick access to these resources and tools while on the floor even when they don’t have internet access at an event.

Optional (Nice-to-Haves)

These are ideal, but not necessary requirements for an L2 judge, as they are exceptional qualities of a candidate that are not strictly related to judging an event, but show their judge-related qualities that they can contribute to the wider community. If the candidate has only 3 or 4 important requirements the candidate must have at least 1 of the following optional requirements. These areas are not part of the baseline skill set of a L2 Judge, but they are still beneficial skills to cultivate within the judge program. Candidates who demonstrate strength in one or more of these areas are a priority to promote, but candidates who are weak or inexperienced in these areas should not be held back from promotion for that reason alone.

  • The candidate actively mentors other judges. An exceptional candidate raises other judges alongside them. This includes helping others study with them for the L2 exam or helping to develop L0s into L1s. Part of this process is the ability to give candid, critical feedback about areas for improvement. A standard candidate can receive critical feedback while an exceptional candidate can give the appropriate level of critical feedback to continue the development of the other judge. The final form is the ability to accurately evaluate the ability of other judges to advance to the next level of the program.
  • The candidate makes significant contributions to the wider judge community. An exceptional candidate makes any number of significant contributions towards helping the wider judge community. This includes, but is not limited to, presenting at and supporting judge conferences, writing questions for the certification exams, editing rules and policy documents, and being a recognized figure answering questions on Discord/Facebook/JudgeHub. In this way, they are not only growing as a judge but contributing to the growth of many other judges.
  • The candidate knows how to build store relationships to grow events An exceptional candidate knows how to build the relationship and be a resource to the stores they work with to provide better insight into the world of Flesh and Blood. A candidate who does this will most likely be actively aware of OP developments and be in touch with stores early to help them get involved, as well as be in touch with their local community to promote the game of Flesh and Blood.
  • The candidate understands the expectations differences between competitive and professional REL An exceptional candidate understands the expectations at Competitive REL, and how to step that up to Professional REL when called upon to be the Floor Judge at tier 3+ events.
  • The candidate has demonstrated the leadership of other judges at a large event. An exceptional candidate has already taken on a non-trivial leadership role in previous events. Leadership roles include leading 3 or more judges as a team lead, or as a head judge, and have shown that they know how to best assign their team to both improve the team members and ensure a quality event.

L2 Recommendation Review Entry Guide

While the process of evaluating a candidate may be very time-consuming in some cases, we want to make sure the paperwork at the end is as easy as possible and takes as little time as needed. We ask that reviewers enter a short review on JudgeHub to mark the success or failure of a candidate and give them guidance towards their next steps. The results of the review should not be a surprise to the candidate and should have already been discussed with them, this is just the paperwork.

Where to find review entry

From the main menu of JudgeHub select “Write a Review” within the “Reviews” menu.

Once on the review page, enter the information about the candidate and select the type “L2 Recommendation (Successful or Unsuccessful)”

There are five other key fields on the form that are mandatory, all other fields are optional.

  1. Review subject’s name Click on the subject’s name from the dropdown so it is correctly associated with the candidate
  2. Recommend for Advancement? If you do not select “Yes” for this the review will not be usable by the candidate to complete their checklist
  3. Strengths. Please place a bullet point or two worth of strengths of the candidate, this is best used for the highlight of why you’re recommending promotion.
  4. Areas for Development. This field will be pre-filled with the items from the “Should Have” and “Nice to Have” section above. Delete any that the candidate already meets. You may, if you choose, add additional information for the candidate next to any of the points to help them. The candidate should already know this from your conversation with them. Please delete the comment at the top of the field that notes the pre-filled nature of this section!
  5. Comments. We recommend you end with a compliment or some form of encouragement (or just a simple congratulations on a successful recommendation). If you’re not recommending the candidate for advancement you should include a note on what you’d need to see before you’d consider doing a re-evaluation.

Once you save it as a non-draft it will become visible to the candidate who can then attach it to their checklist to complete the L2 process.

The contents of the review are also visible to LSS staff (currently Joshua Scott) and JudgeHub site admins (currently Dan Collins and Joe Kavanagh).