Cactus Game Design Message Boards

1. You would need to appoint a few new people. For example, I look at Redoubter and Pol and they definitely have the ruling knowledge to be on that committee.

I assume that you are talking about the "ruling elder" position when you mention these two guys because they both have a good grasp on the intricacies of the rules right now.  I would also say that Pol has shown considerable skill in card creation over the years, and might fit on that team as well.  But it's not really that simple.  Redoubter is really pretty new here in the community, and it remains to be seen whether he's here for the long-term (which I sure hope he is).  Often there are players who come in and make a big splash in the community, and then totally disappear (I'll avoid naming names if possible).  Pol would be a better example because he's been around forever, but there are issues there too.  Nats was Pol's first live tournament in several years.  It's not too helpful to have a high level judge who's never at high level tournaments.  Personally I would still support his addition to the elder team, but I just want to point out that this sort of thing is actually more complicated than it first appears.

I apologize that both involved you, I didn't realize it.

No problem pal.  I consider you a friend, and I don't take things here on the forum personally anyway.  I'm actually glad that the examples you gave involved me instead of other people who might be more sensitive.  And as I mentioned previously I think both examples that you gave aren't really that bad when looked at in detail.  The first was a ruling that was in line with the official position a year ago, and the Lurking/Balaam was ruled correctly.  Both involved cards that had some wording that was a bit tricky, and all the people involved were trying to do the right thing.

3. It's true that our player base ebbs and flows, but if somebody leaves, a new person can take their place.

Again this is more complicated than it sounds.  How long does someone have to leave before they get demoted and replaced?  There is at least one elder who disappeared from the forum for a year or so but who has been one of the most active elders for the last couple years.  There is another elder who has disappeared for the last several years, but came to Nats, so I'm hoping that they will become more involved again.  There is another elder who has recently disappeared, and I don't know if they'll ever come back.  So how long do we wait on these things?  The value of these people's input makes me very reluctant to choose a short time, but if you choose a long time, then there can be gaps in coverage of responsibilities if we divide the elders into smaller sub-teams.

This has the advantage of not needing any major changes to how the game is run, but would at least make it easier for a judge to look up rules. I would do this myself, but I have a hard enough time keeping up with the game rules as it is (and I'm usually the rules expert in my gaming groups).

This really is the heart of the issue. There is absolutely no way--apart from spending several hours a week on the boards--for a judge to be able to stay current on rulings.

Currently we have judges who had not heard the ruling on the CBP lost soul (and the elder who announced the ruling forgot what he announced ). Last fall it was the fact that I didn't know that Jersualem Tower was ruled to be a protect overturning the long standing ruling that it was a prevent. You can talk about restructuring the elder group, but that is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic if even experienced judges have no easily digestible way to keep up on the latest rulings.


On a side note directly related to this thread--I am really glad Kirk is back posting.

I do think there is benefit from looking at other CCGs from a macro level rather than a micro level (lots of specific card examples). You have brought up a good point that Redemption has and does look to other CCGs for inspiration. The game would not be here in the first place if this were not the case.

I find great value in looking into how other successful CCG's have balanced their game and become more efficient at the practices they implement behind the scenes (as well as the history behind that), and how that can possibly be applied towards Redemption to make it a better game. I'm glad you're one of the very few on this board that can share in that sentiment.

However, I don't think it is beneficial to use words such as "stubborn" and "sickening" - they both carry a negative stigma and will potentially lead to emotionally-charged responses that are not beneficial to anyone.

I'm not going to be anything but brutally honest, as I certainly do not intend to sugarcoat anything for anyones sake, but that is exactly the way it has felt by someone looking from the outside in. I have not been active with this game since last years Nationals, and just very recently visited these boards again. It has greatly disheartened me to see the same amount of obstinate and short sighted behavior being displayed on this board that I left this game with. No one can mention any other CCG outside of Redemption without the internet police showing up and inducing nerd rage all over it.

MKC, I do think that with your extensive experience in other CCGs you could be a great source to summarize some key ways that these other games, such as Yu-Gi-Oh, train their judges and how they inform players across the country about rule changes.

Judge tests usually occur online and are open for anyone to take. Testing covers everything from the rulebook, basic and advanced game mechanics, and tournament policies. For Yugioh, the Level 1 Judge test is taken online and may be taken by anyone wishing to do so. 20 questions, must pass with at least 80%.

Regarding how Judges network, for Yugioh at least, there is no place greater than the Judges Facebook group which has over 1,800 registered Judges worldwide. Here Judges are able to answer rulings questions posted on their wall, view upcoming events and announcements, upload files for others Judges to view, and easily find everything in one streamlined location. You can visit the Yugioh Judges Facebook group, Adjudication Conflagration, at https://www.facebook.com/groups/248499755248/?ref=ts for more information and to see how things are run over there.

No one can mention any other CCG outside of Redemption without the internet police showing up and inducing nerd rage all over it.

We either have extremely inconsistent moderating or moderating that enforces the board rules, which I did not set but am charged to keep. Your posts were reported because they were speaking to the specifics of game play in other CCG's. Generalities are fine but where you took it was not.  (too bad I don't have a nerd police emoticon cause I would use it right here)

I'm so bummed that I missed the apparent chaos. FWIW, I think MKC's input is valuable, even if he needs to work harder at avoiding the specifics of "other CCGs." I vote MKC as a future Elder, just to add objectivity to the current Board of Elders. 

Quote from: Master KChief on August 15, 2012, 03:06:35 AM

No one can mention any other CCG outside of Redemption without the internet police showing up and inducing nerd rage all over it.

We either have extremely inconsistent moderating or moderating that enforces the board rules, which I did not set but am charged to keep. Your posts were reported because they were speaking to the specifics of game play in other CCG's. Generalities are fine but where you took it was not.  (too bad I don't have a nerd police emoticon cause I would use it right here)

It may have possibly been a bit out of place, but it was never at one point harmful towards the discussion at any point until someone started crying about it. Considering the details discussed therein had nothing to do with anyone but the person/people I was addressing and not at all detrimental towards anyone else, and offered insight in how other CCG's specifically operate and how it can relate to this game, perhaps putting in practice the method of simply not affording any attention to something that which certainly does not concern you (generalization, of course) would cut down on the unwarranted crying. Just a thought.

...even if he needs to work harder at avoiding the specifics of "other CCGs."

Sometimes that is a crucial and necessary element to getting a point across. If we're just going to rage ban every specific instance of a CCG popping up in a discussion (heaven forbid), then the endeavor is lost on intolerable convictions and the effort is completely futile.

Back on topic.

An online could could be a pretty easy thing to do. That could be included in the rulebook for anyone interested in being a judge, put on the website, whatever.

Yes, an online test on Cactus' website would make the process very easy. Of course, it would probably have to have far more than 20 questions, as there will be fewer Judge candidates than that other CCG-Which-Must-Not-Be-Named, therefore the average Judge must be expected to retain a substantial amount of information about this game.

What if we used SurveyMonkey or a similar website to create quizzes that judges need to take.

We could have general quizzes that are not particularly related to an individual tournament season (meaning questions would incorporate a wide range of things).

Then throughout each season as major rulings happen, we can take questions asked on the big ruling threads and add them as quiz question with a couple choices for answers. Then judges can take these quizzes throughout the tournament season as a way to be caught up on new rulings. So we could have a 2011 tournament season quiz that would contain ruling questions pertaining to cards released that season as well as changes to previous rulings, etc. This would require some individuals monitoring the ruling section of the forum fairly closely and continuing to add questions. Judges at major tournaments would be expected to take the quiz for the most current season before officiating at big tournaments. They would also need to take the basic quiz (or quizzes) as well.

What do y'all think of my suggestion? Upon initial research it looks like some of the better survey/quiz websites would cost money but we can use some of them in a limited fashion for free.

I would happy to help put together some questions and help with this process but would want some help from others.

This would help work to kill two birds with one stone: not having new ruling in an easy to access format and judges not being familiar with rules.

Kirk

I think this is a great idea, Kirk. This is certainly an example of how Redemption can learn good things from other CCGs.

A couple of cautions:

1. What happens if the judge fails, especially if there are no other qualified judges available for that State Tournament (for example)?
2. You mentioned a "couple choices," but as a teacher I would suggest a minimum of four options for each question to lessen the likelihood of randomly meeting the minimum scoring guideline.

I would suggest several different tests.

Deck Building Rules--include things like Dom Cap, Site Cap, Max Cards in a deck (i.e. can you have a John [ul] and John [promo] in the same deck, or Joseph Before Pharaoh [Pats] and Joseph Before Pharaoh [RoA2]), etc.

Rules--include things like Order of Operations, Definition of Protect, etc.

Card Interactions. It's one thing to know the rules, it's another thing to know how they play out (and vice versa). This would have examples of the rules.

Recent rulings--just a way to see how up to date people are, this one would have new rulings, such as the Mayhem errata, the CBP soul ruling, and any other new ones.

I think this is a great idea, Kirk. This is certainly an example of how Redemption can learn good things from other CCGs.

A couple of cautions:

1. What happens if the judge fails, especially if there are no other qualified judges available for that State Tournament (for example)?
2. You mentioned a "couple choices," but as a teacher I would suggest a minimum of four options for each question to lessen the likelihood of randomly meeting the minimum scoring guideline.

1. I agree with Chris that we don't have the luxury of having enough judges where we would use the quiz as a method of keeping individuals from judging smaller tournaments. I think that judges definitely on the regional/national level HAVE to pass with a certain %. 80% sounds good. What I envision this looking like is having a "Study Guide" which is a run-down of links to topics with major changes/rulings from the current season and the judges can study before taking the test. So the judge should be able to pass provided they take the time to get familiar with new rulings. The basic quiz will be such that the individuals can take it more than once to pass if needed.
2. I think of a "couple" as meaning 2 choices. In some questions, it is either a "Yes/No" answer or pretty clear-cut one way or the other. In some instances I could see 3-4 answer being appropriate.

I like Westy's suggestion. I think we have a good idea of where to start from and now we need a few more people willing to be involved in coming up with the subject matter for test questions and even help flesh out the questions. Who is willing to help?

Kirk

Would there be anyway to do a "Show your work" type thing? It'd be good to know whether people are just guessing or whether they know why it's a certain way.

Quote from: Captain Kirk on August 15, 2012, 12:39:31 PM

The basic quiz will be such that the individuals can take it more than once to pass if needed.

Not that any judges would do this, but we would have to have a test generator that changes questions and answers so that a judge could not just retake the test over and over until they get the right answers by process of elimination.

Quote from: Captain Kirk on August 15, 2012, 12:39:31 PM

2. I think of a "couple" as meaning 2 choices. In some questions, it is either a "Yes/No" answer or pretty clear-cut one way or the other. In some instances I could see 3-4 answer being appropriate.

If the test has some "easy" questions, then a judge would only have to get a few of the hard questions right (which they have a random 50/50 chance to do) in order to meet the 80% requirement. I would still suggest 4 choices to decrease the probability of random success to 25%.

Good points. The websites I am familiar with do randomly take questions from a larger question base.

We could make sure all questions have 4 answers.

Westy, I am not familiar with a way to do a "show your work" option but I could certainly play around with it.

Kirk

It's possible we could do a "Yes, because X" "No, because X" "Yes, because Y" "No, because Y" format, which would give us 4 formats and do somewhat of a show your work aspect.

Yes that would work well. This is similar to the format of the Yu-Gi-Oh quiz MKC showed us.

Here is an example set of answers:

 Ben cannot Set “Secret Village of the Spellcasters” because there is a Field Spell card currently active on the field.
  Ben can Set “Secret Village of the Spellcasters.” Khoi’s copy of “The Sanctuary in the Sky” is destroyed and sent to the Graveyard.
  Ben cannot Set “Secret Village of the Spellcasters” because a player is not allowed to Set Field Spell Cards.
  Ben can Set “Secret Village of the Spellcasters.” “The Sanctuary in the Sky” remains face-up and active on the field.
  None of the above.

Kirk