{"id":3936,"date":"2025-03-24T19:30:11","date_gmt":"2025-03-24T19:30:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blog.judge.fabtcg.com\/?p=3936"},"modified":"2025-03-24T20:02:10","modified_gmt":"2025-03-24T20:02:10","slug":"navigating-controversy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blog.judge.fabtcg.com\/fr\/blog\/2025\/03\/24\/navigating-controversy\/","title":{"rendered":"Navigating Online Controversy as a Judge: A Guide to Thoughtful Engagement"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

\u00c9milien 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.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

The Scenario<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Imagine you\u2019re judging a Road to Nationals event. During a match, Tyler calls you over because Nick forgot to put a counter on their Fyendal\u2019s Spring Tunic before playing an attack action. Neither player knows how to resolve the situation. You consult the <\/span>Procedure and Penalty Guide<\/span><\/i> (PPG) and find the following guideline:<\/span><\/p>

“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.”<\/span><\/i><\/p>

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.<\/span><\/p>

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

“Worst event ever. A friend of mine played in it, and at the next table, a judge ruled that cards don\u2019t always do what they are supposed to. I\u2019ve read the judge document, and it clearly says:<\/span><\/i>
<\/span><\/i>\u2018A 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.\u2019<\/span><\/i>
<\/span><\/i>Judges can decide to not even apply the rules of their own game now? Worst game ever, I\u2019m selling all my FAB cards.”<\/span><\/i><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

What's Happening Here?<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Two key misunderstandings are immediately clear to you as a judge:<\/span><\/p>

  1. The wrong document is being quoted.<\/b> The passage cited comes from the <\/span>Casual Procedure Guide<\/span><\/i> (CPG), which applies at Casual Rules Enforcement Level (REL). Road to Nationals events operate at Competitive REL and follow the <\/span>Procedure and Penalty Guide (PPG)<\/span><\/i> instead.<\/span><\/li>
  2. The ruling is misrepresented.<\/b> The decision was not based on arbitrarily disregarding a rule but rather on the specific wording of the Tunic\u2019s ability\u2014specifically, the word <\/span>\u201cmay\u201d<\/span><\/i>, which makes the counter placement an optional effect. In another scenario with a different triggered ability, the ruling could have been different.<\/span><\/li><\/ol>

    The real issue? While these errors are obvious to you, they are <\/span>not obvious<\/b> to the person who wrote the post or to those reading and reacting to it. Without the full context of the ruling, it\u2019s easy for misinformation to spread. So what can we do about it?<\/span><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

    \n\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t

    Engaging Thoughtfully (or Not at All)<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

    As judges, we are naturally inclined to correct misunderstandings. However, online discussions\u2014especially those fueled by strong emotions\u2014are rarely productive venues for clarification. Even well-intentioned rule explanations can be twisted, misquoted, or used against you or others. The truth is that <\/span>you can\u2019t comment on the specific case.<\/b> You weren\u2019t there, and neither were they. You just simply don\u2019t have the facts, and as we\u2019ve seen above, missing key elements can wildly change a ruling and its perception.<\/span><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

    \n\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t
    \"Can\u2019t we just correct the misunderstood facts and provide the correct information then?\"\n<\/h5>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

    It\u2019s a fair question. Wouldn\u2019t it be simpler to step in, correct the misinformation, and set the record straight? <\/span>In reality, we <\/span>can\u2019t<\/b>\u2014and more importantly, <\/span>we shouldn\u2019t<\/b>.<\/span><\/p>

    Discussions about rulings remain <\/span>confidential<\/b>. This confidentiality is not about secrecy for secrecy\u2019s sake; it serves a crucial purpose. It ensures that judges and players can engage in honest, constructive discussions without fear of public scrutiny.<\/span><\/p>

    A tournament setting is already a <\/span>high-pressure environment<\/b>, for both judges and players. When stakes are high, emotions run high, and <\/span>investigations and rulings are some of the most stressful moments in that environment<\/b>. 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\u2019t be dragged into the court of public opinion.<\/span><\/p>

    As much as I sometimes want to climb to the top of the internet and shout, <\/span>\u201cThat\u2019s not true! That\u2019s not what happened!\u201d<\/b>, I know that would be the <\/span>wrong<\/b> approach. Doing so would send a dangerous message: that creating online controversy is an effective way to pressure judges into breaking trust and confidentiality.<\/span><\/p>

    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 <\/span>professional approach<\/b>, hold firm to our principles, and recognize that some battles are not worth fighting in public.<\/span><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

    \n\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t

    Should We Use This as a Teaching Moment?\n<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t
    \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

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

    1. Learning requires an open mind, not an angry one.<\/b> 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\u2019s why this article was written <\/span>after<\/b> the controversy settled, not at its peak.<\/span><\/li>
    2. Real situations involve real people.<\/b> Players, judges, and spectators are not just case studies. Publicly dissecting real interactions, exposing individuals\u2019 mistakes, and magnifying imperfections is <\/span>harmful<\/b>. It goes against the values of fairness and respect that the Judges of Rathe upholds.<\/span><\/li>
    3. We already have better learning resources.<\/b> 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 <\/span>not<\/b> need to resort to public callouts to foster learning.<\/span><\/li><\/ol>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
      \n\t\t\t\t
      \n\t\t\t\t\t

      What About Transparency?\n<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
      \n\t\t\t\t
      \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

      We value transparency\u2014this article itself is proof of that. But like any virtue, when pushed to the extreme, transparency can become a flaw. Being transparent <\/span>does not<\/b> mean revealing everything at the expense of fairness, privacy, and integrity.<\/span><\/p>

      That said, accountability matters. Every Calling, Pro Tour, and World Head Judge is required to submit a <\/span>detailed report<\/b> explaining major rulings, which is reviewed by their peers and LSS. And believe me\u2014when a ruling sparks social media controversy, <\/span>LSS asks questions<\/b>. The company is incredibly supportive of its judges, but not blindly so. The principle of <\/span>\u201ctrust, but verify\u201d<\/span><\/i> applies even at the highest levels of leadership.<\/span><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

      \n\t\t\t\t
      \n\t\t\t\t\t

      \"But I Really Want to Know What Happened!\"<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
      \n\t\t\t\t
      \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

      Judges are, by nature, curious people. But part of wisdom is recognizing the difference between <\/span>what we want<\/span><\/i> et <\/span>what we need<\/span><\/i>. It\u2019s easy to rationalize our desires and convince ourselves that we <\/span>need<\/span><\/i> information when, in reality, we just <\/span>want<\/span><\/i> it.<\/span><\/p>

      Sometimes, the wisest choice is to accept that <\/span>you don\u2019t know something<\/b>, that <\/span>you can\u2019t form an opinion<\/b>, and that <\/span>you don\u2019t need to weigh in<\/b>.<\/span><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

      \n\t\t\t\t
      \n\t\t\t\t\t

      \u201cI Always Knew Tyler Was an Asshole.\u201d\n<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
      \n\t\t\t\t
      \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

      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 <\/span>online persona<\/b>, shaped by second-hand reports, gossip, and assumptions?<\/span><\/p>

      Reducing a person to their worst moments is neither fair nor productive. <\/span>Judges should always remember: <\/span>We judge actions, not people. <\/b>It\u2019s easy to believe rumors when they confirm our biases. True wisdom is stepping back and asking, <\/span>“Does this hold up?”<\/span><\/i><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

      \n\t\t\t\t
      \n\t\t\t\t\t

      What Should We Do?\n<\/h2>\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
      \n\t\t\t\t
      \n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

      I don\u2019t have a perfect answer. I wish I did. <\/span>But I do know what <\/span>not<\/b> to do:<\/span><\/p>