A Judge is a member of the Grand Archive community that has proven some degree of qualification regarding understanding not only the rules of the game but also guidelines regarding competitive settings and how to enforce them. At a minimum, a Judge has passed a qualification exam testing for fundamental knowledge of rules and interpretations of violations and corrective procedures. This status is reflected within Omnidex where Judges may earn experience by event attendance and other means to showcase their commitment to the community. After reaching certain thresholds of experience and service, Judges may take higher-level exams to qualify them for higher ranks in certification (WIP). At high enough ranks, Judges become eligible to apply as a Head Judge for events.

A Judge fundamentally resolves questions regarding specific interactions or uncertain interpretations of the Comprehensive Rulebook. In applying interpretations of the Tournament Regulations and Guidelines, Judges help protect a fair, competitive environment for players and serve as advocates for players in tournaments. They serve as a point of contact to convey feedback and concerns to tournament staff and can assist players with certain requests related to the tournament environment.

Judges may hold roles related to judging more in line with the bigger-picture responsibilities, such as Head Judge or Assistant Head Judge. Specifics of these roles, what they entail, and those who may qualify for such positions will be discussed in other sections.

Hello Judges, existing and aspiring!

This document serves as a general guide for judging. What you will not find are any specifics regarding rules and regulations or rule interpretations. Rather, this document discusses the particulars of judging, the skills needed to judge, and the roles judges take during events. So far, the current documents and resource hubs are the following: Comprehensive Rules, Tournament Rules & Guidelines, Infraction Policy Guide as documents, the official judge discord, and a large community-run unofficial judge discord. Apart from these, the players prize your presence and support in the official Grand Archive Discord. This document adds to the available resources and offers a more focused guide on the judge's duties and skills.

In your capacities as judges for tournaments, you have proven that you have sufficient knowledge about not only the rules of the game but also the guidelines by which tournaments operate, and how to maintain an environment of fairness and respect among the players and attendees at these tournaments. As mentioned in the TRG, judges typically: resolve tournament disputes, interpret rules and answer rules questions, and make important decisions regarding tournament proceedings, including correcting errored game states and issuing penalties. Beyond this, you are an integral part of the community, and many of you act as advocates for your local and regional communities.

Among you are those who may shoulder greater responsibilities as Head Judges, who have proven their acumen in leading others, and may have a greater depth and breadth of knowledge about the game and competitive settings. Part of this handbook will focus on topics specific to your duties and shed light on the potential requirements for any judges who may aspire to be a Head Judge at an event.

As we grow our community and the Judge Program, it is our hope that this document will grow to be a reliable tool for judges in giving more focused and detailed advice compared to our more general documents.

Judging at an event does not begin and end with a judge call. A judge must be present and attentive throughout a tournament to ensure that it proceeds smoothly. Players look to judges not only to maintain fair play but also as a resource for information regarding the event, questions regarding interactions, requests for accommodations, and, sometimes, presence as a mediator when situations get heated.

Judges need a few skills to facilitate these roles and responsibilities. Among them are:

1. Impartiality

2. Communication

3. Teamwork

4. Professionalism

5. Game Knowledge

While many of the thresholds for advancing through the judge program measure game knowledge, the reality is that much of judging goes beyond the rulebook and policy documents.

Judges' tasks are mostly executed through communication, and, as such, this means that communication is an extremely important skill. When mediating judge calls, the language and tact used when interviewing players, issuing rulings, and delivering penalties are very important.

Judges should speak confidently when attending a call or speaking to a player. Even when a judge is unsure of the right answer, it is still possible to confidently and clearly communicate this with the follow-through of getting another judge's opinion. Related to this, the use of decisive language may help convey confidence. E.g., rather than beginning to answer a question regarding an interaction with "I think," simply answer the interaction. It is more helpful to add that you would like to verify this interpretation with another judge than leading with an undecisive and unconfident "I think."

It is best practice to avoid using argumentative or connotatively negative language when communicating with players. Judges need to err on the side of de-escalating every situation, staying calm, and remaining cool-headed. Not only does this convey respect for the players, but it also establishes a good communication environment to reach the correct answer and the right words to deliver it.

As a reminder, judges speak with players rather than to players. Judging is a collaboration between the judge and the player rather than a one-sided issuance of a ruling or command. Avoiding condescending language is a must, especially when explaining complex topics or interactions. While judges typically have more rules knowledge than players, it's imperative that judges not make players feel either embarrassed or uncomfortable asking questions; this dynamic would be counterproductive.

As Grand Archive brings communities of players together at some tournaments, sometimes communication barriers form. In these situations, it is important to smooth these barriers as much as possible, either by delegating judges who are proficient in translating the languages at issue or by being resourceful and using translational apps to effectively convey information (without a better alternative, such as a translator).

A judge is the most intrinsic unit of the judge program. A level 1 judge has passed the initial certification test for judging, which (currently) is comprised of rulings questions, game mechanics and interactions, and hypothetical scenarios. Once a judge has passed the certification, they are granted Judge status on the Omnidex, the digital hub that records information regarding competitive Grand Archive, including events attended, won, and the accrual of experience from each event.

Judges, at a minimum, can register for events at non-premier events (Store Championships and lower) to participate as event judges. Events are listed on Omnidex and posted by tournament organizers, whether they are stores or other entities. As judges participate in events, they gain experience, which may grant them a higher level and the possibility of being accepted to judge premier events. Premier events can host hundreds of players, require a larger staffing to run smoothly and effectively, and have a greater need for competent judges.

Judges typically attend calls during a round when a player either calls "Judge!," raises their hand, or otherwise signals for a judge's presence throughout the round. When a judge attends a call, they should be the only judge present to interview players unless there are extenuating circumstances that require the presence of other judges. A common example would be for translation assistance, in which the translating judge may take over the judge call. After an initial ruling is issued, the course of the call and how the ruling was issued may be discussed at the liberty of the judge who attended the call. If the judge feels that they need to appeal the call, they may ask for a Head Judge's opinion on the call and how to handle it.

Typically, areas in which Judges will attend calls will be zoned out according to the tournament organization or at the discretion of the Head Judge. Judges should exert authority principally over their region unless there is a compelling reason to temporarily move to another region.

Judges are also expected to solve their judge calls in a timely fashion to maintain the pace of play and keep the tournament running on time. Tournament regulations allow time extensions up to 5 minutes to be granted to players in a match for time taken in judge calls cumulatively for a round, despite how many judge calls happen in a game. Having resource documents on hand during events can help keep judge calls proceeding in a timely fashion and reduce the burden on judges to have perfect recall of important information. That said, it is useful for judges to have studied the materials well enough to know corrective procedures, infractions, and penalties by memory so that the lookup of this information does not significantly detract from time in a round.

To facilitate tournament proceedings, judges may assist with or be delegated tasks necessary to carry out the tournament. This can include the distribution of paper match slips or their collection, registration, scheduled deck checks, collecting decks for safekeeping (typically for top-cut players), giving instructions, or reminding players of time in the round (if delegated by the Head Judge).

Judges also serve as an important timekeeper for tournaments and can remind players of time in the round, particularly during end-of-round procedures or overtime. Judges are expected to track any extra time given for attending judge calls and communicating these extensions with the team. When a match is finished, judges authenticate the match result verbally with players before acknowledging the result and submitting it to the scorekeepers for processing.

Judges set for side events act as regular floor judges, for the most part. The only considerations given might be that side events will have other event structures and types compared to the main event and may have specific rules or procedures to follow, such as for drafts. Side event judges are typically segmented off from floor judges during Day 2 of premier events, where the staffing requirements for main event judges decline as a result of having fewer people to monitor. Judging at these side events may typically adopt a more casual approach to issuing penalties for infractions, particularly in cases such as product features (e.g. Re:Collection previews).

Judges seldom act alone. At large tournaments, teams of judges are organized with a Head Judge as a leader and some judges as team leads in specific roles. Teamwork is an important component of judging at events, both for the sake of the judges and for the players. It is far more likely for complex situations to arise at larger events that either need a new precedent established or require an involved and creative fix to maximize the integrity of the tournament. Many times, the experience of a single judge is not enough to correctly assess and fix every situation, even when it comes to simpler ones. In a team, judges may rely on one another's knowledge, experience, and other skills, such as communication, that may result in a far better result during a call than acting alone. While judges should take ownership of a call and attempt to resolve it on their own, judges are expected to recognize when a call is too involved for only their presence or when they lack the knowledge needed to apply an appropriate ruling and/or fix.

By working in a team and relying on the proficiency of fellow judges (especially a Head Judge), not only will individual skills as a judge grow appreciably, but players and tournament organizers can be more confident that an event was handled as fairly as possible and with as much circumspection as possible.

Teamwork is a must at Premier-level events, such as Nationals and Ascents. In these settings, judges can expect that they will be organized into teams for specifics tasks. For example, you might be tasked with performing routine deck checks between rounds at randomly selected tables, or you might be selected as one of the stream judges for media coverage. These specific roles might hone specific skills related to judging and builds on the expectations of judging for Grand Archive. Higher-tier judges may be selected to lead these teams or be assigned as a Head Judge or Assistant Head Judge for these types of events.

Stream judging typically happens during premier events where players seated at a featured match table have their game recorded via camera and broadcast. Judges selected for stream judging can take a role from among, generally, two different ones: Multimedia observation versus table judging. In either case, those selected or volunteered for stream judging are typically trained with multimedia equipment, including the life counters or other accessories present for production.

During stream judging, the table judge has the responsibility to track the game state and assist with representing changes in it, placing counters when needed, marking appropriate damage, or writing down any public information that may be necessary to assist players, broadcasters, and viewers. The table judge can pause the game at any point in time to either verify information, correct a game state, or for any justifiable reason, such as intervening to prevent a potential error from happening. This is different from floor judging, where floor judges do not typically intervene unless a game rule violation has occurred or to fix an already-errored game state.

The other role that some stream judges may take is an observational one from the multimedia and production section of a venue, where they may monitor the communication and recorded gameplay to verify and validate any transpired game states. They can communicate with the table judge to issue a pause in the game if needed, as well.

As opposed to following the rule of one judge being the only judge to attend a call, if there are two active stream judges, they may collaborate to examine a game state and agree upon a corrective procedure and penalty to apply. Of course, this may be appealed to the Head Judge as with any decision. If only one judge is available as the table judge during stream judging, the protocol is no different from the typical procedures that happen during a judge call.

Judges selected for the deck check team conduct deck checks routinely throughout events, primarily premier events. While deck checks are not an exclusive responsibility to only the deck check team, the responsibility of this team is solely based on the routine checks; any judge may perform a deck check during the round if necessary.

Typically, tables will be selected at random with a preference for tables from among those in contention for a top cut during the event and the players will be notified prior to any play that their decks will be checked. Their decks are then examined and compared to their submitted decklists for any inconsistencies, signs of tampering, or any malicious intent.

While the Tournament Rules & Guidelines document covers a majority of the steps and considerations when it comes to deck checks, here a couple of reminders of things to look for:

• Complete set of cards noted on the decklist is identified, including any intended generated cards and tokens to be used in a game

• Presence of excessive or patterned marking/damage on the cards or sleeves

• Appropriate proxying/altering of cards

• Illegal/banned cards being played

Table judging occurs when a judge sits next to players playing a match at a table to solely focus on the match. Stream Judging is a subsection of Table Judging specifically applied to feature matches that are broadcast as part of media coverage during an event.

For table judging, similar principles for floor judging are applied, but a judge's focus can be placed entirely on the play patterns of the players at the table, closely examining any actions and communications that either result in or could result in violations. As the judge is effectively present for the full context of any events that cause a judge to call, less time is needed to interview players to gain an account of events.

Fundamentally, judges are required to have a deeper level of the mechanics and rules of the game compared to an average player. Attaining judge status is a sign that a player has studied for the certification test and possesses sufficient knowledge to assume the judge role. At the base level, technical knowledge is necessary, such as explaining mechanics and interactions. In a tournament setting, judges must also be aware of the tournament format and structure. At higher proficiencies, judges should be able to interpret the rules, apply corrective procedures, and issue the correct infractions and penalties. At the highest levels, judges should be able to not only effectively argue for an interpretation but also frame any interpretations and understandings of the rules within the philosophies for which they were established. That is, judges should be able to effectively understand the rules and frameworks of tournament policies to promote tournament integrity. Much of the game and tournament knowledge is cultivated through experience; the highest level judges push themselves to judge at premier events, the best settings to learn how to judge at a high level.

The Assistant Head Judge role is typically assigned by the Head Judge to another judge on the team at premier events. While this judge will primarily fulfill the same responsibilities as a regular judge during the course of the event, the Assistant Head Judge will take over the Head Judge's role and responsibilities for side events and sub-tournaments hosted at premier events. This is done to alleviate the administrative burden on Head Judges so they may focus on the main events and important decisions that must be made. The Assistant Head Judge does not, however, have responsibilities such as conducting any sort of performance reviews. This role primarily exist as an auxiliary role to the Head Judge to smooth tournament proceedings for side or other non-main events.

Whenever the Head Judge is not available, the Assistant Head Judge can temporarily serve as the person to whom rulings can be escalated and from whom a final ruling is issued. Leaning on our philosophy in terms of impartiality, the Assistant Head Judge can also weigh in on any situations in which a Head Judge feels the need to recuse themselves from any calls or decisions if authority is deferred.

This section will cover the basic roles judges may take and the responsibilities that fall under each role.

Principally, there are three roles in which judges can fall under, in addition to sub-roles associated with a team designation when judging at premier events.

Team roles can be some of the following:

This page serves as a directory and link to various resources and tools available to judges. It will be readily updated as new materials become available.

A judge has a duty and responsibility to assume a position with an absence of bias. At the very least, judges are expected to act in a way such that they avoid even the appearance of bias as much as possible.

To act impartially means that a judge can examine every situation more thoroughly and objectively. A tournament setting must be as fair as possible for all attending players to compete with integrity. Judges acting without bias or favor is a must to this end, otherwise, some players may receive unequal treatment, either favorable or unfavorable, irreparably damaging the essence of competition and fair play. This often means that an issued ruling may have to compromise the corrective procedure between two options to restore as much integrity to a match and the tournament as possible. This also means that, even if severe (i.e., match loss and disqualification penalties), some punishments must be carried out according to the established rules and precedents set in the game. As a reminder, severe punishments (match losses and disqualifications) must be reviewed by a Head Judge as a check.

Sometimes situations may occur when close friends, family, team members, or very familiar coworkers are involved. Judges should assess these situations carefully and recuse themselves from a call when possible under these circumstances. Even if a judge believes themselves to be acting impartially in these contexts, even the appearance of bias may cast doubt on the integrity of a game and the tournament.

Floor judging is the most common form of judging at an event. Floor judging is typically termed this way because judges walk the floor of a tournament venue and circulate among players and tables to observe for fair play and attend calls that occur. As previously mentioned, floor judging is typically zoned during events where a judge will be responsible for attending a certain number of tables and players.

For floor judging, judges should be monitoring player actions and looking for either incorrect play patterns, poor sequencing, miscommunication, suspicious habits, and, between games, insufficient shuffling or improper sideboarding. For example, if players are taking game actions at the start of a turn before waking up legal units, a floor judge should point this fact out and correct this behavior to help maintain gamestate. In this example, it may or may not be necessary to apply a penalty for an appropriate infraction. Unless there is a judge call, no intervention should be necessary unless there is an explicit violation for which an infraction can be called. Intervention should only be seen as creating a judge call in the absence of one, rather than as gentle and brief reminders given to players. A good floor judge may pick up on signs that a player has a high chance of performing a gameplay error or some other violation before it happens, so that it can be quickly remedied when it does.

For judge calls, it is rare that a judge will have been present for the entire interaction that led up to the judge call. As such, much information and context will be missing that is needed to arrive at the correct issued ruling. Judges attending calls where they were not immediately present might need to conduct interviews with each player, either with or without the presence of the other (in the case of situations where advantageous information might be shared). A judge should use their best discretion to ask about the pertinent and agreed-upon information within the game to gather the much objective truth as possible from a judge call. Sometimes, player stories about events and tracked information may conflict. Other times, a player may ask a question they may not ask (such as questions that constitute outside assistance if answered), and judges can't answer questions of this nature. It is up to the judge to use their best judgment to seek as many facts as possible and avoid answering questions related to the gameplay that they cannot answer without damaging tournament integrity.

Especially in the case of questions broaching the subject of outside assistance, these are examples of suggested ways to circumvent awkward or undue situations:

• Ask the player to clarify their question or rephrase it

• A judge can tell that player that they can't answer that question

• Suggest a differently worded question to the player under the guise of "Are you asking (this interaction/clarification)..." and answer that question instead to see if the player is satisfied with the answer.

Sometimes, there are problematic players in the course of a tournament, either due to borderline behavior that may be unsporting conduct or due to unhealthy play patterns that may be malicious. Floor judges ought to monitor these players with greater frequency in the service of investigating potential issues with these players and maintaining tournament integrity.

When a judge's calls are appealed by a player, the judge should typically seek out the Head Judge so that they may investigate the situation. If unavailable, they may alternatively gather a congress of judges from adjacent zones to assist in a ruling if possible, though this is not advised for the sake of time spent in delegation in a congress compared to having a Head Judge issue a final ruling with more immediacy.

In brief, floor judges monitor and maintain the overall health of tournament integrity passively while attending judge calls as they arise. They report to the Head Judge or, if at a side event, to the Assistant Head Judge for those events.

Judges hold an important position in tournament settings to maintain tournament integrity and serve as a central figure for both operational and player support. In dealing with both players and staff, professionalism is a requirement. This means maintaining respect with these individuals, as well as with other members of the judge team. Some examples of what professionalism might mean:

• Arriving to venues and other scheduled proceedings on time

• Maintaining courteous language

• Respecting other judges' boundaries and roles

Judges are part of a select group of players who have not only exhibited a deeper understanding of the game on a technical level but also represent Grand Archive in the community, acting akin to ambassadors. As such, judges are expected to maintain a sense of professionalism at all times while acting in the role of a judge. This is even more important for Head Judges, as they are expected to keep their team on task and professional through the course of an event.

Other aspects of professionalism may include appearance. While judges are typically issued polos with a blue color scheme and official Grand Archive labeling in addition to a JUDGE tag, other stores may suggest that judges wear a similarly-colored blue shirt for easy identification in the absence of the official judge polo. While there are no other strict requirements for dress code (other than what may be up to the tournament organizer), judges should dress in a presentable way. Maintaining hygiene is also important; judges interact at very close proximity with players much of the time, especially when attending calls at a table. In addition, many events host players who travel, making transmission of illness a higher risk. Judges should keep their hands clean when possible, either by washing or by sanitizing as needed. This also helps with maintaining respect towards players and their property, as judges will handle cards from other players regularly.

The Head Judge assumes a more administrative role when it comes to judging. At non-premier events, the Head Judge is typically assumed to be the highest-level just or most senior judge on staff unless otherwise specified by the tournament organizer. At premier events, the head judge is typically selected through an application and/or interview process from a prospective pool of judges. Head Judges have the responsibility to help select their judge staff, assign roles to judges, delegate tasks, and host performance reviews for judges who attend events, if directed to do so by the tournament organizer. For premier events, performance reviews are required as a baseline requirement where the Head Judge will evaluate the competencies of their judge staff on categories such as those listed under Judging: The Basics.

Apart from administrative duties, the Head Judge is the final decision-maker regarding rulings, judge calls, corrective procedures, and penalties applied within a tournament. Decisions from a Head Judge are final. However, it is typically good practice to review any tricky situations or calls that might have had an alternate result or interpretation. Much of the feedback that goes into improving policy documents and the verbiage of the comprehensive rules originates from Head Judges.

For tournament proceedings, the Head Judge will also typically announce the beginning of the next round, but may also delegate this task. The Head Judge should also either announce to delegate another judge to give players reminders for how much time is left in the round. Suggested announcements are at the 30, 10, and 5 minute clock times, in addition to announcing when the round is over, when overtime begins, and when overtime ends for players to quickly submit their match slips.

Head Judges must have an excellent understanding of the tournament details, from venue organization to the staff and roles involved, especially from outside of the judge team itself. Large events, in particular, require extensive collaboration between the judging team and others, such as any other tournament officials, volunteers, or venue staff.

While the Head Judge carries the position with the greatest weight behind any decisions or rulings, it is important to understand that the position does not come without its problems. Head Judges are typically prominent members of the judging community who have repeatedly demonstrated commitment, excellence, and leadership qualities befitting the position and are trusted by the community. We understand that Head Judges will form strong bonds with players, particularly in the competitive scenes, and build friendships and other relationships in this context. It is unavoidable, in this context, for Head Judges not to be involved in rulings or decisions for which they may hold some degree of inherent bias. Being selected as a Head Judge implies that the individual is trusted to put the integrity of the tournament above personal interests and can act faithfully to uphold justice in the competitive setting. However, if a Head Judge feels that they are incapable of rendering a decision and cannot assume the necessary position of impartiality, they can defer judgment to an Assistant Head Judge.