Language requests

A brief written in a language other than a judge's usual working language is not automatically a problem, but it is a question, and the polite move is to ask it before writing the rest of the brief rather than after.

Ask before you brief

"Do you work in [language]?" is a one-line question that belongs at the very top of a first message, ahead of the register, the length, and everything else. It costs the judge nothing to answer, and it saves both sides from a full brief written in a language the judge cannot deliver in, which is a worse outcome for everyone than a short question would have been. The same courtesy applies to a specific accent: some judges perform one on request, some do not, and it is a fair thing to ask about directly rather than assume.

This is a narrower case of a broader habit: asking whether something is in bounds before sending the full brief is the polite route for anything near an edge, and a language request is exactly that kind of edge for many judges.

Accept that it changes scope

A judge working outside their primary language is doing something closer to a second skill than a small variation. Performing a register - timing, emphasis, the specific words that make worship land or an honest read feel considered - is harder in a second language, and a judge who agrees to try is taking on real extra effort, not doing you a small favour. The mechanics behind why length and complexity move a quote apply here too: a language request is a complexity, and a quote that reflects it is not a language surcharge in a bad sense, it is the same honest pricing logic as everything else a judge takes on.

Do not assume the register carries over unchanged

A register that lands cleanly in one language does not automatically land the same way translated. Reviewing the research, Caldwell-Harris (2014) notes that bilingual speakers frequently report that swearing, praying, lying and saying "I love you" feel different in a native language than in a foreign one. Clinical reads as detached in some languages and cold in others; a worship register that sounds warm and specific in English can sound formal or stilted rendered directly into a second language a judge is less fluent in. A good judge working across languages will say so honestly rather than deliver a flattened version and let the buyer discover the gap on watching it. That honesty is worth the same trust as any other limit a judge states about their own work, in the same spirit as why a good judge will not fake a register they do not do - a language outside their comfort is simply another register they may not have.

What to do if the answer is no

Not every judge who does not work in your language declines the whole request outright. Some will offer a compromise: the register performed in their primary language with a written summary in yours, or a shorter clip than usual to keep the extra effort manageable. Ask, rather than assume a flat no means the door is fully closed; a judge who cannot do the full version may still be able to do a smaller one, in the same way a shorter request is often the answer when a length costs more than a buyer planned for.

If the answer really is no, that is the end of it. Pushing the request, or asking a second time with slightly different wording, treats a language limit as negotiable when it is simply a fact about what the judge can deliver well, and asking again after a decline is its own separate mistake regardless of the reason for the original no.

Where this sits next to the rest of a brief

Once the language question is settled, the rest of the brief works exactly as it would in any other case: state the register, give one specific, say what to leave out. None of that changes because the delivery language does. What changes is that the judge is now working with less margin for error, and a specific, clear brief matters even more than usual when a second language is already absorbing some of their attention.

Nothing about this has an equivalent on the automated side: a scoring model processes an image the same way regardless of the language attached to it, which is one more place the two kinds of assessment simply are not doing the same job. If a number is what actually matters and language is not a factor either way, a standard measurement or a fixed-scope automated score sidesteps the question entirely. Rate Cock's comparison between the two is worth reading before deciding which route fits a request like this best.