The place where JCP projects are planned, edited, etc.
Posts: 671
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:26 pm


Post by zarathustra »

Wigy has told me that the account for "Gwaihir" will retain its "Level 4 Judge" info until he sees an official announcement declaring that Wim is no longer a Level 4 Judge. To my mind, there's not much argument. Wim claimed to be hoarding rules and rulings knowledge not just from the NetRep team, but also from the entire meccg community. He's also made it part of his info at gccg that he will no longer answer rules questions. He's also off the NetRep team.

So, in my view, in my view, he's already no longer a level 4 judge. Does anyone have any objections to making an official announcement of this?

Council Member
Posts: 664
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 6:53 pm
Location: salzburg, austria

Post by thorondor »

well, i thought one would earn the title of a level 1 (or whatever) judge similar to some final examen at university. and ofter passing one wont be able to run into danger to loose it again.
however, this is a little bit different, since the title of level 4 judge was awarded to wim from the beginning. now it would be interesting, whats the basis on which the level 4 status for wim was awarded (same for all other high levelled judges).
my guess is it was because he was part of the netrep team. to give him (and his netrep fellows) some kind of authority. is this right? so if he is no longer among the netrep team, naturally he also has lost his level 4 status.
however things might be different: if he has earned it for doing some rules work, that has contributed a lot to the game, then it was well earned, and it shouldn´t be possible to be taken away.

Posts: 671
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:26 pm

Post by zarathustra »

Wim was given level 4 status because he was a NetRep advisor (not actually on the team anymore, though he had been on the team previously). Incidentally, he himself suggested that judge status should not be permanent, and that people should be demoted if they are shown to be (or become) incompetent. To me, this alone seems to make the case.

Let's be lenient, though. Here's the plan: PM him on behalf of the JCP saying that he either (1) recants claim to be hoarding, (2) admits he was hoarding and ceases to hoard, or (3) he loses his judge status. That way he has a choice about what to do.

Any thoughts, questions, objections?

Posts: 170
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 11:51 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA

Post by Wacho »

Looking back at the JCP forum on and the original conception Wim and others were awarded level 4 status by the COE by name. In fact in the proposal submitted to the COE Wim is separated out from the members of the NetRep team (presumably he wasn't actually on the Team at that point). Here's the link Even in regards to the NetRep team the level 4 status was then-current members of the team, not simply whoever is a member of the NetRep team. Since this was a direct award from the COE by name of level 4 status I don't see how his level 4 status could be removed without a vote of the council.

In addition, looking back at the beginnings of the JCP there are a number of things that seem to go beyond the proposal voted on by the COE.

1. Mikko being awarded level 4 status. As far as I know this was never voted on by the COE.
2. Level 2 judges. The original proposal was an initial stage. It only gave power to the NetRep Team to certify level one judges. After the project got going they were supposed to go back and submit a new proposal for level 2 (and perhaps higher level) qualifications. As far as I know this was never done.
3. While Mark certainly was the lead in development of the JCP, it does look like Wim was a partner in creation. Also the JCP is supposed to be administered by the NetRep Team as a whole, however it seems that Mark is running things on his own.

I could be mistaken about some things because since I'm not on the COE or the NetRep team I might be missing some information, but I've looked through the forums I could. My point here is not to accuse Mark of doing anything wrong, but more that the JCP needs to have a more detailed proposal dealing with these issues. For instance who is empowered to certify judges of different levels and what are the qualifications? Do certifications decay, and what is the requirement for upkeep? Etc.
As it stands now it at least appears that stuff is being done that there is no actual authority for.

Posts: 206
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 7:24 pm

Post by jhunholz »

Just to clarify some things from a CoE member's perspective...

I'll have to go back and read what we actually voted on and passed, but I remember it being something like "the CoE gives the Netrep the power to create the Judge Certification Program", and Mark is the current Netrep. That being said, I need to dig up the actual statement. Nevermind...I found it while typing this out. :) I've pasted it below. The CoE voted to create a system by which judges were created, and the Netrep Team was put in charge of handling that. So I think that the Netrep team was definately able to make Mikko a level 4 judge when Travis left. If I'm reading too much into the intent of what the CoE passed, let me know. If the community feels this is something the CoE should take up, I have no problem starting a discussion of it with them.

Here's the motion that was passed:
Mark Alfano wrote:Preamble

Seeing that there already exists a reputation-based foundation for
making rulings in MECCG, and also seeing that codifying aforesaid
foundation would greatly help in rules disputes, and further seeing that
much work can still be contributed to the electronicly-available
documentation for MECCG, we are


to create a system for certifying judges of MECCG rules. This system
will eventually consist of 5 levels, with level 5 being the highest and
least numerous, and level 1 being the lowest and largest. The first
stage will award level 4 status to all current members of the NetRep
Team (viz. Mark Alfano, Nigel Buckle, Travis Took, Chad Martin, and Wim
Heemskerk); moreover, during the first stage of the project the NetRep
team will be empowered to certify players as level 1 judges provided
that they meet two criteria. The first criterion will be a working
knowledge of the rules, and the second will be the satisfactory
completion of a small rules-related assignment in one of the following
projects: (1) Proofreading electronic rules documents, (2) Writing "How
to Teach MECCG" Guides, (3) Writing "Beginners' FAQ" Guides, (4) Writing
"How to be a Good Judge" Guides, (5) Compiling a Universal Rulesbook,
(6) Further Projects to be added if the need arises. Both criteria will
be checked by the empowered NetRep team for each judge. The second
stage will begin a process of "graduating" level 1 judges to levels 2
and above, each time with greater depth, breadth, and experience in
rules-related matters being required.

To give you an idea of the scope of this project, I envision the
hierarcy eventually looking something like this:

Level 1 Judges: ~50,
Level 2 Judges: ~20,
Level 3 Judges: ~10,
Level 4 Judges: ~5,
Level 5 Judges: less than 3.

Posts: 671
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 9:26 pm

Post by zarathustra »

I see little point in arguing over this. Either the actions were justified or they weren't. Let's just put a motion before the CoE after the new council arrives and see what they say. If they were justified, the CoE will see that and approve the motion. If they weren't, the CoE will have the prerogative to approve them anyway and therefore justify them.

Posts: 170
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 11:51 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA

Post by Wacho »

The text of the motion you posted Josh is actually slightly broader than what was discussed over in the JCP forum on so some of what I mentioned above is not accurate. However, I still think it leaves a lot of gaps that should be filled in by a more detailed proposal.

As far as the COE approving the actions already taken, I'm sure they will. My point is that these things need to be set up properly, and that actions should follow organization rather than the other way around. For example with Mikko, the motion gives the NetRep Team the power to create level one judges and also talks about a second stage where they graduate judges to level 2 and higher. There is no mention of any way of achieving a level without going through the process of doing projects and being tested. There is certainly no mention of the NetRep team having the power to simply grant levels. I'm not saying Mikko isn't qualified to be a level 4 judge. But if the proper procedure isn't followed then the legitimacy of the JCP suffers.


Return to “Rules and Rulings - JCP Discussion”