Judges remain split in three macro categories, them being ROM Hack, Modern 2D, and 3D.

To speed up decision making, we have introduced the figure of the Head Judge, who is in charge of more sensitive tasks, such as tie breaking, and resolving any doubts in the Quality Control process.

Please note that this Judge list is still temporary, and that we are still in the process of evaluating a number of trialists. The Judge list will be updated as soon as possible.

Following a few issues presented during previous Contests, we created a Judges' Code of Conduct to provide transparency to the public with what a Judge is and is not expected to do during the judging of entries and before, during or after the Contest Period. We hope this continues to address any concerns some may have and encourage people to submit to this year's Contest along with subsequent events.

• If a Judge feels that they can not judge entries this year, for personal or other reasons, they should inform the rest of SHC staff prior to commencing the judging period, especially in case we need to prepare a replacement Judge.
• Judges are allowed to give their rough opinions on Entries, but are asked to reserve extensive details until Community Voting is over. They should also not attempt to excessively sway public opinion in favor of an Entry, regardless of whether they were involved in its development or not. Voting results will be announced and showcased after Community Voting is over.
• Judges should not engage in conduct that may implicate the Sonic Hacking Contest.
• Anything that happens on another website or platform is completely unrelated to SHC unless the issue is critical enough that the SHC may be threatened just by having the Judge on board.

• Judges will only evaluate the games they have agreed to evaluate. If a game is understaffed, a number of Judges of a given category matching that of the understaffed game may be required to Judge it. The categories are split into ROM Hack, Modern 2D, and 3D. This will allow all entries to be judged in the fairest of manners, compared to previous years of the Contest where all Judges took part in evaluation and allocating trophies to all entries regardless of type.
• Judges must evaluate all the entries submitted should they have the capability to do so.
  • Exception 1: If a Judge is involved in an entry, either individually in a major capacity, or as a team effort, the Judge will not be allowed to judge and evaluate said entry. Any ambiguity will be cleared with the Head Judges on a case-by-case basis.
  • Exception 2: If playing the game is outright impossible, either due to hardware issues, or the inability to set up a multiplayer game where required, or other reasons, the Judge is excused from judging and evaluating said entry.
  • Exception 3: If a Judge, for whatever reason, cannot provide an honest judgment or evaluation of an entry, due to issues with the contest participant in general, or due to any type of relationship with the entrant that may result in an exceptionally positive or negative bias in the evaluation process, they may excuse themselves, within good reason. However, this exception may only be granted in the most severe of circumstances and therefore this must not be abused and must be raised to and approved by the Head Judges prior to requesting this.
  • Exception 4: Judges are free to excuse themselves from Judging any given entry marked as being suitable for Mature audiences.
• Judges must complete all assigned duties (playing the entries, voting, and writing evaluations) within the agreed-upon time frame. Should there be issues with doing so, Judges are asked to communicate said issues within an appropriate time frame. Judges that fail to complete their duties may be reassigned to a different SHC Staff role, or excused from all SHC related duties. Incomplete votes will be left as they are. Incomplete evaluations may either be released as they are, or removed from the public release, at the request of the individual Judge and/or after evaluation by the Head Judges.
• Judges may not show unreasonable bias towards an entry because they do not like the base game, characters, etc.
• Judges are allowed to evaluate the entries as they see fit, they are not asked to evaluate anything a certain way; if they want to rate something out of ten or give them a five star rating, that's their call, as not every Judge will be the same. If there are issues with how a Judge evaluates entries, contact the higher ups: we will evaluate the situation, and we will respond accordingly.
• Judges are allowed to express an opinion on each entry as they see fit, but should avoid problematic behavior such as derogatory and outright offensive comments. Evaluations will be reviewed before going public to prevent these offenses.

• Judges are permitted to assist streamers off-screen with entry setup and technical issues. Streamers however should prepare entries outside stream time, to avoid any delays. Streamers should also pay attention to the entry description and setup instructions.
• Judges may not force themselves in any way (through stream chat, direct messages, or any other way to beg for invitation) into participating on air of any Contest Week streams, or be seen as biased towards particular entries, regardless of their involvement.
• Any judge who is invited onto a stream is done so as an invitation of the streamers themselves, who may have their own participants (including non-Judges) in place.