The "lack of judge issue" issue.

[Biggus Dickus]

If a person needs common sense and human decency listed as a hiring requirement they are already not qualified

Db players are the kind people who would argue a factual statement is incorrect because of punctuation, they need it spelled out, otherwise they'll argue it.

My counterargument to that is that our hiring choices are fairly judgmental. The passing score is the lowest bar needed to even be considered, but beyond that it just comes down to whether we think you'd be a good fit for the team. There doesn't seem to be a point to spell it out to people because if we just don't think they'd be a good fit, we just don't hire them, and there's really nothing that can be done about it.

And, I'll be honest, I'd rather have someone on my staff who doesn't need to be told to be a good person in order to be a good person. If you need to be told to be a good person to be a good person, you probably aren't a good person.

Doesn't this process automatically deter people who are not veterans on the site?
I am interested in becoming a judge, the main reason being that I want to know more about the game and to help fix the occasional judgeless situations in the timeframes I am on. Looking from the outside in, it feels like a closed circle that is difficult to get into unless you know other people on this site well (I might be wrong, as I am not very active in communicating with other users), and it's a shame because I believe that a large number of people who apply as a judge have good intentions and fail because of auxiliary requirements.

[Genexwrecker]

Db players are the kind people who would argue a factual statement is incorrect because of punctuation, they need it spelled out, otherwise they'll argue it.

My counterargument to that is that our hiring choices are fairly judgmental. The passing score is the lowest bar needed to even be considered, but beyond that it just comes down to whether we think you'd be a good fit for the team. There doesn't seem to be a point to spell it out to people because if we just don't think they'd be a good fit, we just don't hire them, and there's really nothing that can be done about it.

And, I'll be honest, I'd rather have someone on my staff who doesn't need to be told to be a good person in order to be a good person. If you need to be told to be a good person to be a good person, you probably aren't a good person.

Doesn't this process automatically deter people who are not veterans on the site?
I am interested in becoming a judge, the main reason being that I want to know more about the game and to help fix the occasional judgeless situations in the timeframes I am on. Looking from the outside in, it feels like a closed circle that is difficult to get into unless you know other people on this site well (I might be wrong, as I am not very active in communicating with other users), and it's a shame because I believe that a large number of people who apply as a judge have good intentions and fail because of auxiliary requirements.

Why would this deter non veterans from applying. If you can take the exam, pass it, be able to apply the exam to real call situations, have respected behavior and treat others with respect you have a good chance to get hired.

Seems like this would only deter people who have a reason to be afraid of a background check.

[ominous]

Db players are the kind people who would argue a factual statement is incorrect because of punctuation, they need it spelled out, otherwise they'll argue it.

My counterargument to that is that our hiring choices are fairly judgmental. The passing score is the lowest bar needed to even be considered, but beyond that it just comes down to whether we think you'd be a good fit for the team. There doesn't seem to be a point to spell it out to people because if we just don't think they'd be a good fit, we just don't hire them, and there's really nothing that can be done about it.

And, I'll be honest, I'd rather have someone on my staff who doesn't need to be told to be a good person in order to be a good person. If you need to be told to be a good person to be a good person, you probably aren't a good person.

Doesn't this process automatically deter people who are not veterans on the site?
I am interested in becoming a judge, the main reason being that I want to know more about the game and to help fix the occasional judgeless situations in the timeframes I am on. Looking from the outside in, it feels like a closed circle that is difficult to get into unless you know other people on this site well (I might be wrong, as I am not very active in communicating with other users), and it's a shame because I believe that a large number of people who apply as a judge have good intentions and fail because of auxiliary requirements.

Nothing is stopping you from helping in "judgeless situations" by answering questions in chat and yes you need to have built a reputation in order to be a judge, as stated, otherwise you get egomaniacs abusing authority. Knowing rulings does not make you a judge, being about to deescalate a situation does.

[Volstgalph]

There should be a ruling bot in chat that when someone says judge it has like a database of basic ruling answers to help

[sentinelsean]

There should be a ruling bot in chat that when someone says judge it has like a database of basic ruling answers to help

i like the idea. But personally, i think a bigger issue is even if you showed them an email from konami saying you are right with the exact cards in question being used. a great deal of people would still say i am going to wait for a judge and its within their rights on this site to do so. but yes having a chat just for judge calls from the public sounds nice. it wont get clogged up and it might solve some of the calls on its own.

[ominous]

There should be a ruling bot in chat that when someone says judge it has like a database of basic ruling answers to help

i like the idea. But personally, i think a bigger issue is even if you showed them an email from konami saying you are right with the exact cards in question being used. a great deal of people would still say i am going to wait for a judge and its within their rights on this site to do so. but yes having a chat just for judge calls from the public sounds nice. it wont get clogged up and it might solve some of the calls on its own.

If they have the official ruling and refuse to move forward then leave and report, they aren't looking to solve the problem they're stalling.

[ominous]

There should be a ruling bot in chat that when someone says judge it has like a database of basic ruling answers to help

Google.

[Christen57]

There should be a ruling bot in chat that when someone says judge it has like a database of basic ruling answers to help

Google.

It would be better if official sources acceptable on duelingbook were listed. Google isn't a yugioh source. It's a search engine where you may or may not find sources, and where even the sources you do find may or may not be trustworthy.

For example, https://db.ygorganization.com is one of the sites that can be listed as a source duelingbook users and judges can trust and rely on.

Problem is, not every card and effect interaction is listed on that site, so sometimes you still get into ruling disputes that can't be resolved by consulting db.ygorganization

Still, this would be a big help, and help resolve many disputes without needing to wait for a judge.

[Genexwrecker]

There should be a ruling bot in chat that when someone says judge it has like a database of basic ruling answers to help

Google.

It would be better if official sources acceptable on duelingbook were listed. Google isn't a yugioh source. It's a search engine where you may or may not find sources, and where even the sources you do find may or may not be trustworthy.

For example, https://db.ygorganization.com is one of the sites that can be listed as a source duelingbook users and judges can trust and rely on.

Problem is, not every card and effect interaction is listed on that site, so sometimes you still get into ruling disputes that can't be resolved by consulting db.ygorganization

Still, this would be a big help, and help resolve many disputes without needing to wait for a judge.

for ruling sources just apply basic logic. official sources from konami are accepted as well as our own listed policies. ygorganization is not a source but the database links all their pages have that they are translations of are. and even if we were to list acceptable sources aka konamis sources people just say EWWWW RANDOM INTERNET VIRUS ME NO CLICK and refuse to accept the source

[ominous]

There should be a ruling bot in chat that when someone says judge it has like a database of basic ruling answers to help

Google.

It would be better if official sources acceptable on duelingbook were listed. Google isn't a yugioh source. It's a search engine where you may or may not find sources, and where even the sources you do find may or may not be trustworthy.

For example, https://db.ygorganization.com is one of the sites that can be listed as a source duelingbook users and judges can trust and rely on.

Problem is, not every card and effect interaction is listed on that site, so sometimes you still get into ruling disputes that can't be resolved by consulting db.ygorganization

Still, this would be a big help, and help resolve many disputes without needing to wait for a judge.

70-80% of ruling calls can be solved with common sense and reading comprehension, with at least 10-15% being answered via online resources and 5% actually requiring a judge intervention. the vast majority of judge calls don't actually require judges they require 2 people of middle school level literacy and communication skills. Again this is not a "yugioh is hard" issue, it's a player issue.

[ominous]

There should be a ruling bot in chat that when someone says judge it has like a database of basic ruling answers to help

And who exactly is programming this bot with responses to all those ruling questions? And why do we need it if the resource they're pulling from is already public and accessible?

[Christen57]

There should be a ruling bot in chat that when someone says judge it has like a database of basic ruling answers to help

i like the idea. But personally, i think a bigger issue is even if you showed them an email from konami saying you are right with the exact cards in question being used. a great deal of people would still say i am going to wait for a judge and its within their rights on this site to do so. but yes having a chat just for judge calls from the public sounds nice. it wont get clogged up and it might solve some of the calls on its own.

If they have the official ruling and refuse to move forward then leave and report, they aren't looking to solve the problem they're stalling.

Speaking of stalling, duelingbook is too lenient when it comes to stallers and AFKers. 30 seconds is way too much time to respond to a judge after going AFK. The match loss should be given after just 15 seconds of refusal to respond to a judge when a judge asks if you're present.

Most judge calls, at least according to DistantCoder, are calls regarding AFK or stalling. If judges would just issue the game loss after they ask if a player is there and that player doesn't respond in 15 seconds, the judge could give the AFK loss twice as fast, cutting the time they spend simply waiting for players to come out of AFK in half, thus leaving them with more time to answer more important calls and go through calls faster.

[Genexwrecker]

i like the idea. But personally, i think a bigger issue is even if you showed them an email from konami saying you are right with the exact cards in question being used. a great deal of people would still say i am going to wait for a judge and its within their rights on this site to do so. but yes having a chat just for judge calls from the public sounds nice. it wont get clogged up and it might solve some of the calls on its own.

If they have the official ruling and refuse to move forward then leave and report, they aren't looking to solve the problem they're stalling.

Speaking of stalling, duelingbook is too lenient when it comes to stallers and AFKers. 30 seconds is way too much time to respond to a judge after going AFK. The match loss should be given after just 15 seconds of refusal to respond to a judge when a judge asks if you're present.

Most judge calls, at least according to DistantCoder, are calls regarding AFK or stalling. If judges would just issue the game loss after they ask if a player is there and that player doesn't respond in 15 seconds, the judge could give the AFK loss twice as fast, cutting the time they spend simply waiting for players to come out of AFK in half, thus leaving them with more time to answer more important calls and go through calls faster.

Wherever you got this 30 second rule from it isnt a thing

[Christen57]

If they have the official ruling and refuse to move forward then leave and report, they aren't looking to solve the problem they're stalling.

Speaking of stalling, duelingbook is too lenient when it comes to stallers and AFKers. 30 seconds is way too much time to respond to a judge after going AFK. The match loss should be given after just 15 seconds of refusal to respond to a judge when a judge asks if you're present.

Most judge calls, at least according to DistantCoder, are calls regarding AFK or stalling. If judges would just issue the game loss after they ask if a player is there and that player doesn't respond in 15 seconds, the judge could give the AFK loss twice as fast, cutting the time they spend simply waiting for players to come out of AFK in half, thus leaving them with more time to answer more important calls and go through calls faster.

Wherever you got this 30 second rule from it isnt a thing

Every time a judge comes to an AFK call they ask "You there? 30 seconds to respond."

[Genexwrecker]

Speaking of stalling, duelingbook is too lenient when it comes to stallers and AFKers. 30 seconds is way too much time to respond to a judge after going AFK. The match loss should be given after just 15 seconds of refusal to respond to a judge when a judge asks if you're present.

Most judge calls, at least according to DistantCoder, are calls regarding AFK or stalling. If judges would just issue the game loss after they ask if a player is there and that player doesn't respond in 15 seconds, the judge could give the AFK loss twice as fast, cutting the time they spend simply waiting for players to come out of AFK in half, thus leaving them with more time to answer more important calls and go through calls faster.

Wherever you got this 30 second rule from it isnt a thing

Every time a judge comes to an AFK call they ask "You there? 30 seconds to respond."

its commonly done but there isnt a specific timeframe we need to give I myself never give a timeframe and determine how long to give upon each situation