Navigating Online Controversy as a Judge: A Guide to Thoughtful Engagement

Émilien Wild is a Level 2 judge from Belgium. He has been a mainstay on the Flesh and Blood competitive circuit as a Head Judge for several tier 3 and 4 events, and is Team Lead of the Judges of Rathe Policy Team and the Learn to Play Team.

The Scenario

Imagine you’re judging a Road to Nationals event. During a match, Tyler calls you over because Nick forgot to put a counter on their Fyendal’s Spring Tunic before playing an attack action. Neither player knows how to resolve the situation. You consult the Procedure and Penalty Guide (PPG) and find the following guideline:

“If the only part of a triggered effect that would have an impact on the game is optional and it is not acknowledged, it is assumed that the controlling player decided to not generate that effect and it is not considered an infraction.”

Based on this, you rule that the missed Tunic counter does not need to be applied retroactively. Both players accept the ruling, the Tournament Organizer (TO) is happy, and you move on with your day.

A few days later, you hear that a thread has been started on social media about the event. You check and read the following:

“Worst event ever. A friend of mine played in it, and at the next table, a judge ruled that cards don’t always do what they are supposed to. I’ve read the judge document, and it clearly says:
‘A player makes a game rules error. Most gameplay errors can be addressed by partially fixing what was illegal and letting play continue. If the error involved the player forgetting a simple action (drawing, discarding, paying a cost, putting a counter on a card), have them take that action now.’
Judges can decide to not even apply the rules of their own game now? Worst game ever, I’m selling all my FAB cards.”

What's Happening Here?

Two key misunderstandings are immediately clear to you as a judge:

The wrong document is being quoted. The passage cited comes from the Casual Procedure Guide (CPG), which applies at Casual Rules Enforcement Level (REL). Road to Nationals events operate at Competitive REL and follow the Procedure and Penalty Guide (PPG) instead.
The ruling is misrepresented. The decision was not based on arbitrarily disregarding a rule but rather on the specific wording of the Tunic’s ability—specifically, the word “may”, which makes the counter placement an optional effect. In another scenario with a different triggered ability, the ruling could have been different.

The real issue? While these errors are obvious to you, they are not obvious to the person who wrote the post or to those reading and reacting to it. Without the full context of the ruling, it’s easy for misinformation to spread. So what can we do about it?

Engaging Thoughtfully (or Not at All)

As judges, we are naturally inclined to correct misunderstandings. However, online discussions—especially those fueled by strong emotions—are rarely productive venues for clarification. Even well-intentioned rule explanations can be twisted, misquoted, or used against you or others. The truth is that you can’t comment on the specific case. You weren’t there, and neither were they. You just simply don’t have the facts, and as we’ve seen above, missing key elements can wildly change a ruling and its perception.

"Can’t we just correct the misunderstood facts and provide the correct information then?"

It’s a fair question. Wouldn’t it be simpler to step in, correct the misinformation, and set the record straight? In reality, we can’t—and more importantly, we shouldn’t.

Discussions about rulings remain confidential. This confidentiality is not about secrecy for secrecy’s sake; it serves a crucial purpose. It ensures that judges and players can engage in honest, constructive discussions without fear of public scrutiny.

A tournament setting is already a high-pressure environment, for both judges and players. When stakes are high, emotions run high, and investigations and rulings are some of the most stressful moments in that environment. For decisions to be made fairly, for biases to be set aside, and for the truth to emerge, we need an environment where people can speak candidly, knowing that what they say in the heat of the moment won’t be dragged into the court of public opinion.

As much as I sometimes want to climb to the top of the internet and shout, “That’s not true! That’s not what happened!”, I know that would be the wrong approach. Doing so would send a dangerous message: that creating online controversy is an effective way to pressure judges into breaking trust and confidentiality.

If we allow external pressure to dictate how and when we disclose details of rulings, we undermine the integrity of our entire system. We must take the professional approach, hold firm to our principles, and recognize that some battles are not worth fighting in public.

Should We Use This as a Teaching Moment?

A common argument is: “Now that everyone’s attention is on this ruling, why not take the opportunity to educate?”
While this sentiment is understandable, we must decline for three reasons:

Learning requires an open mind, not an angry one. Real education happens when people are willing to question their assumptions and engage in thoughtful discussion. Emotional, reactionary online outrage is the opposite of this environment. That’s why this article was written after the controversy settled, not at its peak.
Real situations involve real people. Players, judges, and spectators are not just case studies. Publicly dissecting real interactions, exposing individuals’ mistakes, and magnifying imperfections is harmful. It goes against the values of fairness and respect that the Judges of Rathe upholds.
We already have better learning resources. Between articles, conference lectures and workshops, judge quizzes, testing materials, and in-depth discussions face to face and on Discord, we have ample avenues for judge education. We do not need to resort to public callouts to foster learning.

What About Transparency?

We value transparency—this article itself is proof of that. But like any virtue, when pushed to the extreme, transparency can become a flaw. Being transparent does not mean revealing everything at the expense of fairness, privacy, and integrity.

That said, accountability matters. Every Calling, Pro Tour, and World Head Judge is required to submit a detailed report explaining major rulings, which is reviewed by their peers and LSS. And believe me—when a ruling sparks social media controversy, LSS asks questions. The company is incredibly supportive of its judges, but not blindly so. The principle of “trust, but verify” applies even at the highest levels of leadership.

"But I Really Want to Know What Happened!"

Judges are, by nature, curious people. But part of wisdom is recognizing the difference between what we want and what we need. It’s easy to rationalize our desires and convince ourselves that we need information when, in reality, we just want it.

Sometimes, the wisest choice is to accept that you don’t know something, that you can’t form an opinion, and that you don’t need to weigh in.

“I Always Knew Tyler Was an Asshole.”

Do you? Have you meaningfully interacted with Tyler enough to judge their character? Are you forming an opinion based on direct experience, or are you reacting to their online persona, shaped by second-hand reports, gossip, and assumptions?

Reducing a person to their worst moments is neither fair nor productive. Judges should always remember: We judge actions, not people. It’s easy to believe rumors when they confirm our biases. True wisdom is stepping back and asking, “Does this hold up?”

What Should We Do?

I don’t have a perfect answer. I wish I did. But I do know what not to do:

Don’t add fuel to the fire.
Don’t react publicly when you’re emotional.
Don’t spread second-hand stories as truth.
Don’t discuss cases you were involved in publicly.
Don’t waste energy engaging with people who don’t want an intellectual discussion—they just want to vent.

Sometimes, there is simply no “good” message to post in an online thread.

What you can do is be a force for level-headedness and compassion. Be approachable. Listen to local players’ concerns. If someone is genuinely open to learning, have a thoughtful, face-to-face discussion.

True education happens when people are ready to listen. Until then, let the storm pass.

If a Local Player Asks You About It

I don’t have a perfect solution to this problem, but if a player approaches you in person with concerns, I strongly suggest having a one-on-one, face-to-face conversation rather than engaging in online debates. Why?

It allows you to explain intent and nuance more effectively.
It avoids mob mentality and people hijacking the discussion.
It creates a time buffer that helps emotions cool down.
It prevents your words from being screenshotted or taken out of context.

It builds trust with your local community and fosters meaningful discussions—maybe even inspiring a future judge!

If You Still Want to Engage Online

My advice? Wait. When a controversy starts, emotions are high, with heated discussions happening across social medias. No one needs an immediate lesson on Slow Play or Missed Triggers. If you truly want to contribute to a broader understanding of the topic, consider writing an educational article and submitting it for publication once the controversy has died down:
📌 FAB Judge Article Submission Form

Featured Image: Relentless Pursuit by Reza Afshan

Author

Émilien Wild

View all posts