That was kinda nerve-wracking, I gotta say. When I saw the initial judgements I was just happy that I got in on my first try, but then I saw your this-is-just-a-first-draft header, and spent the next three days biting my nails off whenever I looked at the thread. Must mean this is a good game.
Indeed it is. Normally I don't put such a huge disclaimer in my judging posts, but this time it was necessary, as I had three players (one of which is you) for only two places to advance and I wanted to put some extra thought into it. In the end, nothing changed, but it might have. Sorry if this caused you anxiety in any way, it wasn't meant to. And I suffer from anxiety myself so I know what that means...
I've been thinking about this far the past few months now, and I feel like I'm ready to address the topic more directly.
I'll also give my opinion on this, as...
I have viewed and used the current MCC rubric as a contestant, judge, and organizer now...
...I did this too, but...
and having tackled it from all angles I have to say that the rubric feels off.
...while I definitely think the rubric can be improved, I'm not feeling as bad with it as some (not only you) seem to feel. What follows is my own opinion on each point.
There is a section that gives points for passing subchallanges, but no section for rewarding/penalizing how a card interprets the main challenge. It's typically left as a pass/fail unless a challenge has specific technical/flavorful aspects that can be penalized elsewhere.
I absolutely think of the main challenge as a yes/no question, at least I always try to put it that way when I'm organizing myself. For example, now in round 2 I'm asking for a two-colored creature as the main challenge. There's no interpretation involved in that: if your card is not a creature, you've failed. If your card is monocolored, you've failed. If your card is three colors or more, you've failed. What is true is that not every round has a main challenge that is yes/no. The problem arises when the main challenge is not yes/no, for example (I'm inventing this right now): "design a card that would feel at home in the Lorwyn set". That involves subjective judging, which is something I always try to avoid in the main challenge, while I allow it in subchallenges. At least, that's the way I'm managing this for now when I'm organizer. But still, it may be useful to have a separate section for how well the main challenge was met. But if we have such a section, it just needs to be worth more than each of the subchallenges, otherwise you lose the difference between the two.
The Design and Development sections are worth 10 points and have 3 sub sections each, making it a awkward fraction of points divided between the sub sections. This makes scoring each section with equal weight harder and unrealistic.
This is the main problem with the rubric as it is right now in my opinion, and it's a problem I totally agree on. What I personally do as a judge to have a first evaluation is counting 1 as an extra point, then evaluate each subsection with a score ranging from 0 (total failure) to 3 (full points), then summing all four numbers. I do this for all cards I have to judge and then sometimes adjust the scores of half a point, one point max based on my own feelings about the cards and how the cards compare to each other. In fact, I made my own Excel sheet for that, and I use it every round as a judge. That's what I mean when I say in my "judging principles" that I divide the points and then add them up. This is the method I use but I acknowledge that it's not perfect, because in the end I'm evaluating each subsection the same. This issue in particular definitely needs being addressed somehow in my opinion, and I think the right way would be dividing the points in a given way among all subsections, not just design/development, and the way we divide them should reflect the relative importance of the various subsections.
The Balance section is particularly vague and interpreted extremely differently between judges. Some judges typically only care if the card is competitively playable, some only if it breaching into eternal/modern power levels, and some tolerate cards that are focused on limited.
Again, this is another issue I share and that for now I'm solving with another division of points. The 3 points I have for Balance from the previous division are furtherly divided in 1 for costs and eventual broken interactions (first two questions under Balance), 1 for playability in limited, and 1 for playability in constructed, focusing mostly on Standard for that. Power level in Modern and above may be considered in my approach, but it's not as important as Standard, because far less cards see play in Modern and beyond, and not every custom card designed should aim to be playable there in my opinion. It would be a very high bar and most submitted designs would fail there. One point I know it's undervalued in this approach regards multiplayer formats, including Commander. I think here too that an established and shared division of points would greatly help.
The Potential section is likewise troubled by interpretation as some judges only care if a single demographic would like it while others expect it to appeal to multiple.
This has also been an ongoing issue for quite some time, and I know you're not the only one thinking about that because of pm exchanges with other judges. The way I'm doing it for now involves yet another division of points: the 3 points of Potential are divided 1 for Timmy, 1 for Johnny, 1 for Spike. So in this system a card that appeals to all three psychographics would score the best. But it has also been suggested to me that the judge should instead first identify which psychographic(s) the card is appealing to, and then evaluate how well the card pleases its intended audience. Both approaches are perfectly valid in my opinion and the main problem is the current rubric doesn't explicitly say which one is the one you're supposed to apply. This is a point that definitely needs further discussion: which of the two approaches I mentioned do you other judges use? Or do you use a third different one? And if so, which is it?
Do others have issues/concerns with the rubric as is? Do you think it might be worth discussing possible updates/rewordings?
From what I just wrote I think it's clear that while I don't have that many issues myself with the rubric (but that's probably just because I made my own personal division of points in the rubric where I feel it's missing), I also think it's totally worth discussing eventual updates. But I think that whatever update we make should go in the direction of a shared and established division of points that should go as deep as possible. Ideally there should be just one question with a number of assigned points, then a following question worth another specified amount of points (that may be equal to different from the first one, and in any case it's supposed to reflect the different relative importance of the various points and questions in the rubric), and so on.
Let me close with a final thought and a proposal:
- the final thought is that the presence of a defined and ideally as strict as possible rubric is exactly what gives the MCC its strength. I'm saying this because the DCC system has also been brought up, where there is no rubric. While it's definitely true that a greater number of judges gives you a statistically more accurate evaluation of the card, I'm saying that without the rubric the MCC firstly wouldn't be the MCC anymore and secondly would lose a lot of its appeal, at least to me, and probably more people too. Also, consider that in the DCC you could vote for any reason and don't have to specify it. I bring this up because for example, while I shouldn't probably admit it, during the final days in the March DCC, seeing I still could win, I purposefully avoided voting for people who were too close to me or could surpass me in the standing. That was a strategic vote, let's call it so. Now in April I'm not doing it anymore and in these days I'm just voting for cards I like, but I definitely did that on the last days of March, and multiple times. And in the end I (co-)won, and I think that strategy helped. So what I'm saying is that without a rubric, the MCC would be exposed to such potential judging strategies too, and it wouldn't be good in my opinion. It would emphasize judging differences even more, and open judging to whatever subjective criteria, and that wouldn't be right in what is supposed to be our most important and objective contest. So a rubric of some kind is definitely needed for the MCC, and the more precise, strict, and objective it is the better.
- the proposal is to try to formulate a new rubric based on the existing one but much more defined. While I feel I could be myself in charge of that without any problem, and I also kind of would like to (but of course I don't want to step on anyone's toes), I think this should be a shared process, kind of like the YMTC contests were, where the person in charge (me for example) poses a question and other people involved in the MCC give their opinion on that, we reach an agreement on that point and then the person in charge poses another question, and so on until we have a complete rubric with a well established division of points. This could either be done here in the discussion thread, in its own thread or even in a series of polls as YMTC was. I think the first question should be something along the lines of: does the current division of design/development/polish satisfy you? If not, why not? Is there anything you would want to add or modify? Then the following questions would concentrate on the single subsections of each of those and the distribution of points. What do you think of this? I'm proposing this because I've heard of people not liking the rubric as it is for quite some time now, and I think that until somebody takes action nothing useful will come out of the discussion.
Sorry for the long post, at least I hope it can help.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (15): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) || Judge (34): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) CCL - Winner (3): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last one here) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016 DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (3): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016
• The two public custom sets I've been part a part of the design team for: "Brotherhood of Ormos" - Blog post with all info - set thread - design skeleton / card list || "Extinctia: Homo Evanuit" - Blog post with all info - set thread - card list spreadsheet
• "The Lion's Lair", my article series about MTG and custom card design in particular. Latest article here. Here is the article index.Rather outdated by now, and based on the old MCC rubric, but I'm leaving this here for anybody that might be interested anyway.
• My only public attempt at being a writer: the story of my Leonin custom planeswalker Jeff Lionheart. (I have a very big one that I'm working on right now but that's private for now, and I don't know if I will ever actually publish it, and I also have ideas for multiple future ones, including one where I'm going to reprise Jeff.)
That was kinda nerve-wracking, I gotta say. When I saw the initial judgements I was just happy that I got in on my first try, but then I saw your this-is-just-a-first-draft header, and spent the next three days biting my nails off whenever I looked at the thread. Must mean this is a good game.
Indeed it is. Normally I don't put such a huge disclaimer in my judging posts, but this time it was necessary, as I had three players (one of which is you) for only two places to advance and I wanted to put some extra thought into it. In the end, nothing changed, but it might have. Sorry if this caused you anxiety in any way, it wasn't meant to. And I suffer from anxiety myself so I know what that means...
No worries. It was the good kind of nerve-wracking.
I think the first question should be something along the lines of: does the current division of design/development/polish satisfy you? If not, why not? Is there anything you would want to add or modify?
Acknowledging that we haven't figured out the right venue to ask this question, I'll take a stab at it here:
The design criteria make sense to me. I'm not saying they're the ideal set of design criteria, but I do feel like they address three unique elements that are important for a designer to consider. I'm not sure that the three criteria currently in the rubric all deserve equal weight. And I think some criteria deserve to be added that are currently not there. But I think that what is there is OK.
On the other hand, I think that the development criteria are a hot mess. Reason #1 being, there is no metagame, no environment specified, so what kind of development target could anybody possibly have? The first two criteria make no sense without context. So, in such a context vacuum, people will (and do) resort so overly-conservative and incorrect generalizations when applying the rubric. Yeah, green doesn't get flying, except when it does. Yeah, a 6/6 for 6 with a slew of upsides is too powerful to print, except when it isn't. But the development criteria encourage judges to resort to boring, false generalizations. And asking judges to assign a single score to a card based on how it performs in Limited, Constructed, and Multiplayer is an impossible task. A task that only gets more impossible the further you define those formats (Sealed vs. Draft, Commander vs. 2HG). At the very least, I think you have to state the format each round if you want to use development criteria. Like, "This week we're designing for a Commander set", or "These cards are being evaluated for Sealed Deck".
As a kicker, the third development criteria (creative writing) really isn't a development criteria at all. It just falls into this category because it's not a design criteria. I'm not against having it, but flavor stuff belongs in its own top-level category, IMO.
I also agree with IcariiFA's concern that the subchallenge criteria are kind of backwards because you're given points for fulfilling the "optional" (not really optional) subchallenges, but none for fulfilling the main challenge. Sure, I guess you can say that fulfilling the main challenge is the price you pay not to get DQ'd, but that ignores the spectrum of how well players fulfill the main challenge. I think you either have to kill the subchallenge points, or you have to also award points based on the main challenge. (Or maybe even better, don't even have a "main" challenge and a series of subchallenges, just have three mini-challenges each round that are all worth some points.)
Again, I still believe that the best thing to do would be to add judges and shorten the judging criteria even further. But, speaking to the question that you asked, that's what I think should be considered for the rubric.
Acknowledging that we haven't figured out the right venue to ask this question, I'll take a stab at it here:
The design criteria make sense to me. I'm not saying they're the ideal set of design criteria, but I do feel like they address three unique elements that are important for a designer to consider. I'm not sure that the three criteria currently in the rubric all deserve equal weight. And I think some criteria deserve to be added that are currently not there. But I think that what is there is OK.
I'd be very interested in hearing what exactly are the "criteria that deserve to be added that are currently not there", so that we can consider and talk about what it would be like to add them.
On the other hand, I think that the development criteria are a hot mess. Reason #1 being, there is no metagame, no environment specified, so what kind of development target could anybody possibly have? The first two criteria make no sense without context. So, in such a context vacuum, people will (and do) resort so overly-conservative and incorrect generalizations when applying the rubric. Yeah, green doesn't get flying, except when it does. Yeah, a 6/6 for 6 with a slew of upsides is too powerful to print, except when it isn't. But the development criteria encourage judges to resort to boring, false generalizations. And asking judges to assign a single score to a card based on how it performs in Limited, Constructed, and Multiplayer is an impossible task. A task that only gets more impossible the further you define those formats (Sealed vs. Draft, Commander vs. 2HG). At the very least, I think you have to state the format each round if you want to use development criteria. Like, "This week we're designing for a Commander set", or "These cards are being evaluated for Sealed Deck".
I see all the issues you're talking about, but as of now I don't have an easy solution for them. Something like trying to first identify what environment the card is made to fit in and only then judge how well it fits it, kind of like I was considering for the psychographics in my previous post. Does anybody else have any opinion or ideas about this and the development section in general?
As a kicker, the third development criteria (creative writing) really isn't a development criteria at all. It just falls into this category because it's not a design criteria. I'm not against having it, but flavor stuff belongs in its own top-level category, IMO.
I completely agree, and this is a very important point I forgot to mention in my previous post. Also, since I wrote that, I also had another thought: what about modifying the rubric to mimic the actual process R&D uses to design cards, with four different separate sections?
- Design: the design section would more or less be as it is now.
- Development: the development section would need an almost complete revamp and anyway not contain anything about flavor and creative elements.
- Creative: flavor and creative elements would go in this new "creative" section instead. This includes what is now "Creative Writing" but probably not only that. Also, how about judging separately the name, the flavor text, and the mechanical flavor (that is how well the mechanics fit the flavor and vice versa)?
- Editing: finally "editing" includes what is currently in "Quality". The points for the challenges (both main and sub) would go in either a fifth separate section, or in the "editing" section, kind of like the "Polish" section is now, even though they're not actually about editing.
This would be the best structure in my opinion: it recreates the actual design process, it lets us be very specific about what we ask in each section, and it also allows us to assign a different number of points to each section as needed. I would really be interested to try to create a sample rubric along these lines.
I also agree with IcariiFA's concern that the subchallenge criteria are kind of backwards because you're given points for fulfilling the "optional" (not really optional) subchallenges, but none for fulfilling the main challenge. Sure, I guess you can say that fulfilling the main challenge is the price you pay not to get DQ'd, but that ignores the spectrum of how well players fulfill the main challenge.
100% true. That's how it is now and a section evaluating how well the main challenge is met is completely missing.
I think you either have to kill the subchallenge points,
Not an option in my opinion.
or you have to also award points based on the main challenge. (Or maybe even better, don't even have a "main" challenge and a series of subchallenges, just have three mini-challenges each round that are all worth some points.)
I think we have two options here: keep a main challenge and two subchallenges and give more points to the former and less to the latter (say 2 points for the main challenge and 1 for each subchallenge), or have three different challenges which I think would need to be worth each the same amount of points (say each 1 point, but I think this solution would fundamentally change the nature of the MCC and I don't think that's what we want). Which one would you all prefer? I personally prefer the first option, giving more points to the main challenge and less to each subchallenge, so that we still have a distinction between main and subchallenges but we actually take into account the main challenge too when determining scores.
Again, I still believe that the best thing to do would be to add judges and shorten the judging criteria even further. But, speaking to the question that you asked, that's what I think should be considered for the rubric.
I think maybe this is the only point where I'm not sure we agree that much. I don't feel the judging criteria need to be shortened, I rather feel they should be more specific and cleary specified. As for increasing the number of judges, I think that's just an unrealizable dream right now. I struggled to get four judges myself to run this month, and if I have four it's only thanks to a new judge who's judging for the first time ever, and me who have continously been a judge every month since last November. Not that I'm regretting it, as I actually like it a lot, otherwise I wouldn't be doing it, and I have no plans to stop doing it in the coming months, but it goes to show how difficult it is to have more than four judges each month.
Anybody else has any thoughts about all of this?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (15): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) || Judge (34): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) CCL - Winner (3): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last one here) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016 DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (3): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016
• The two public custom sets I've been part a part of the design team for: "Brotherhood of Ormos" - Blog post with all info - set thread - design skeleton / card list || "Extinctia: Homo Evanuit" - Blog post with all info - set thread - card list spreadsheet
• "The Lion's Lair", my article series about MTG and custom card design in particular. Latest article here. Here is the article index.Rather outdated by now, and based on the old MCC rubric, but I'm leaving this here for anybody that might be interested anyway.
• My only public attempt at being a writer: the story of my Leonin custom planeswalker Jeff Lionheart. (I have a very big one that I'm working on right now but that's private for now, and I don't know if I will ever actually publish it, and I also have ideas for multiple future ones, including one where I'm going to reprise Jeff.)
I don't have a ton to contribute here, but I would like to say that I wouldn't want to see any sort of fundamental changes to the MCC. I'm all for honing the rubric though, and I believe Bravelion would do an excellent job of heading this effort, but the MCC fills a necessary role in the CCC threads. It's the strict, formal contest. The DCC (my personal favorite) fills the role of the free-thinking, informal contest (the CCL seems to find the middle ground between the 2). I think both sides of this spectrum are equally important, and there should be a contest that is geared specifically for each. Which there is! I'd hate to see either one of them become more like the other. Does that make sense?
Edit: BTW, the thing I'd most like to change about any of the contests is what Lion is referring to as "strategic voting" in the DCC. I'm not trying to come down on you for doing it Lion, but I wish it wasn't even an option somehow.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
(22 Total) - October 2014; December 2014; January 2015; April 2015; June 2015; August 2015; September 2015; November 2015; December 2015(T); January 2016; March 2016(T); April 2016; June 2016; October 2016; December 2016(T); February 2017; April 2017; December 2017; November 2018(T); January 2019; April 2019; June 2019
(8 Total) - May 2015; May 2016; June 2016; August 2016; October 2016; December 2016; October 2017; May 2019
(7 Total) - September 2015; October 2015; January 2016; March 2016; April 2016; July 2016(T); March 2019(T)
Edit: BTW, the thing I'd most like to change about any of the contests is what Lion is referring to as "strategic voting" in the DCC. I'm not trying to come down on you for doing it Lion, but I wish it wasn't even an option somehow.
One possibility, although it would be rather heavier on the organizer, would be to anonymize the entries - run the contest by PM rather than by thread. But I think this discussion more properly belongs in the DCC discussion thread?
As to the MCC rubric, obviously I'm a newcomer here, and in a discussion like this that probably has more downsides than upsides. But to me, it seems like the present rubric encourages making pushed cards over average ones (which in turn pushes you towards higher rarities, by the by), because one of the criteria is 'will this see lots of play'. I also find it rather strange that more emphasis is given on pleasing Spike, Timmy and Johnny than on really pleasing one of the three; had I the call, I would probably allocate two points for how well it pleases its best psychographic, and another two for how well it pleases the rest (one each). I realize my thoughts are both incomplete and inexperienced, but I hope they may be helpful.
I don't have a ton to contribute here, but I would like to say that I wouldn't want to see any sort of fundamental changes to the MCC. I'm all for honing the rubric though, and I believe Bravelion would do an excellent job of heading this effort, but the MCC fills a necessary role in the CCC threads. It's the strict, formal contest. The DCC (my personal favorite) fills the role of the free-thinking, informal contest (the CCL seems to find the middle ground between the 2). I think both sides of this spectrum are equally important, and there should be a contest that is geared specifically for each. Which there is! I'd hate to see either one of them become more like the other. Does that make sense?
It makes a lot of sense! I completely agree with you here, I see the three contests in the same exact way as you do. And thanks for trusting me as a potential "leader"!
Edit: BTW, the thing I'd most like to change about any of the contests is what Lion is referring to as "strategic voting" in the DCC. I'm not trying to come down on you for doing it Lion, but I wish it wasn't even an option somehow.
I know it's not a good thing, and in fact I wasn't happy to do it, believe me. But I'm still a Spike after all! I saw a legal opportunity to try to win and I tried to took it. It worked, but I agree that's not a thing to be proud of, and in fact I'm not. If I mentioned it, it was only to help make it clear one of the potential many problems that the MCC would face if the rubric was less strict or completely removed. To be 100% clear, this is my thought: you want to kill the MCC? Just take away the rubric! The rubric can definitely be improved, and that's what I would like to try to do if there is interest in it, but it must be there! And it must be the strictest and most objective possible! That's what defines the MCC and makes it different from other contests in my opinion.
I don't know how you could avoid strategic voting at the end of a DCC month. I don't have any good idea about that for now, and even if I did I think it's better to talk about that in the DCC own discussion thread.
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (15): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) || Judge (34): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) CCL - Winner (3): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last one here) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016 DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (3): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016
• The two public custom sets I've been part a part of the design team for: "Brotherhood of Ormos" - Blog post with all info - set thread - design skeleton / card list || "Extinctia: Homo Evanuit" - Blog post with all info - set thread - card list spreadsheet
• "The Lion's Lair", my article series about MTG and custom card design in particular. Latest article here. Here is the article index.Rather outdated by now, and based on the old MCC rubric, but I'm leaving this here for anybody that might be interested anyway.
• My only public attempt at being a writer: the story of my Leonin custom planeswalker Jeff Lionheart. (I have a very big one that I'm working on right now but that's private for now, and I don't know if I will ever actually publish it, and I also have ideas for multiple future ones, including one where I'm going to reprise Jeff.)
While I feel it's fine to discuss altering the rubic I would advise against considering any major redesigns. In my opinion, it would be best if we allowed a more organic approach, with small changes trialled over a period of time and then seeing if they should be kept or whether we revert back. That way the rubic will evolve gradually, and in time it will evolve into a better rubic.
Certainly, I don't see why people are discussing given extra points for fulfilling the main challenge. The card submitted is an interpretation of the main challenge itself.
Certainly, I don't see why people are discussing given extra points for fulfilling the main challenge. The card submitted is an interpretation of the main challenge itself.
I can say when I was hosting last month based on the type of challenges I created a number of submissions executed the main challenges well while a number of them interpreted things in a way that I felt was sub optimal or not really satisfying the intent. Outside of some flavor issues that I could point to, there wasn;t really a way to show this shortcoming in the scoring. It's one thing like this month with Bravelion who has hard and fast criteria for the main challenge (which is probably a wise decision given the rubrics current state) but it's another when a challenge asks for card synergy for example. There should be room in rubric to evaluate that.
Just a quick note on my personal judging habits:
For potential I check for whether each card appeals to each of the 3 main demographics. If it fully appeals to each, I don't take anything off. If It partial appeals to a certain demographic, I take a half point. If It disregards one, I take a full point.
For balance I judge by contemporary standard. It the card fits into todays standard power level, then odds are I'll give it full points. I make exceptions for cards that would obviously be casual format focused, or cards that would play well in a contemporary limited environment. However, when a card pushes being a mid pick in limited OR starts brushing to where it be a staple in Modern is where I start making real deductions. I also use balance to consider whether the card would actually be "fun."
While I agree that having more than one judge for the rounds would more likely than not make the overall judging more fair, I think also refining the current rubric would alleviate that somewhat. Also, I feel it's integral to the MCC's identity to have specific and thorough judging of the cards submitted. The main challenge needs to be incorporated into the points more directly, and there needs to be more strategic divisions between the categories the better represent the full cycle of design. I think bravelion's proposal of 4 main categories looks close to what that should be.
At this point maybe those who are interested can submit drafts of what they propose the MCC rubric to look like and from there we can make some cross references to come up with a thorough combined draft for further refinement?
Certainly, I don't see why people are discussing given extra points for fulfilling the main challenge. The card submitted is an interpretation of the main challenge itself.
I can say when I was hosting last month based on the type of challenges I created a number of submissions executed the main challenges well while a number of them interpreted things in a way that I felt was sub optimal or not really satisfying the intent. Outside of some flavor issues that I could point to, there wasn;t really a way to show this shortcoming in the scoring. It's one thing like this month with Bravelion who has hard and fast criteria for the main challenge (which is probably a wise decision given the rubrics current state) but it's another when a challenge asks for card synergy for example. There should be room in rubric to evaluate that.
Is there a particular round where you felt this happened? If you mean round 2, I would say that a main feature of MCC is that judgements are made on a single card so this will be something hard to add to a rubic. One suggestion might be to use the subchallenges as bonuses and encourage hosts more flexibility for using them. For instance instead of having the two subchallenges in round, your could have allowed the judges two bonus points to award based how well the card synegised with the previous entry.
That's one possible solution. I was referring to both rounds 2 and 4 in terms of synergy. Rounds 1 and 3 of my MCC had serious flavor concerns in the challenge too, which I weighted heavily. As it stands though, the rubric doesn't cover things that are not strict pass/fail challenges well and that's something I think can be improved on.
Thanks everyone for their thoughts. There are a lot of interesting things said in these last posts, way too many to quote them all and answer them directly now. For now, I'll just say a few quick things:
- Personally I totally agree with Tilwin's view of the different contests. I participate in all three, but that's exactly why the one I too like the most by far is the MCC.
- Until we keep the current rubric, I would encourage every organizer to try to do objective yes/no main challenges: either you pass it, and your card is judged, or you fail it, and your card is DQ'ed. No middle ground. The subchallenges are where challenges with "grey areas" should be.
- When I judge "Balance", I personally try to consider the power level of Standard as it is now, and for limited an hypothetical average limited environment. Yes, there are variations from one limited environment to another, but almost never a card that is first pick in an environment will be last pick in another one. A bomb is a bomb regardless of which environment we are in, and so on. Playability in Modern and other older formats is something I try to consider but that's just a much higher threshold to achieve, and just a few cards reach that in real Magic, so I think not every custom card should aim for that. If it's playable in Modern and beyond, that's a thing I certainly appreciate, but I don't require it.
At this point maybe those who are interested can submit drafts of what they propose the MCC rubric to look like and from there we can make some cross references to come up with a thorough combined draft for further refinement?
This sounds like a very good way to procede. I'll try to think more about and develop my four section proposal from an earlier post of mine and see what I can come up with. If others want to try that too, that would be awesome. One thing I definitely think should be done (and I'll surely do it in my developed proposal) is attribute points not to the whole sections, but to each single point in it, so that we can have a better uniformity in judgments. For example (just an example to make my point clear, NOT an actual rubric draft), taking inspiration from the design section as it is now (my notes in square brackets):
Design [you DON'T put X/10 here]
- Creativity: X/3
- Elegance: X/3
- Potential: [this has subpoints with points attributed to each of them]
-- Timmy: X/1 [does the card appeal to Timmy? 0 = no, 1 = yes, 0.5 = it interests him but doesn't fully excite him]
-- Johnny: X/1 [the same as Timmy]
-- Spike: X/1 [the same as Timmy and Johnny]
-- How well does the card fit the intended audience? [I'd need to find a name for this] X/1 [an extra point to take into account that not every card should appeal to all psychographics, so this point is like: If this card is intended for Timmy, how well does the end result appear to Timmy's eyes? This may seem like a duplicate from the previous subsections, but it's intended to prize a card that fits particularly well the psychographic it's meant to appeal to vs a card that is forced to appeal to all three to achieve a high score here.]
To be clear, that's the level of detail in the distribution of points that I think is needed. A X/10 in design is not enough, we need to go deeper, and the more specific we are the better it is. I repeat, this is just meant as an example and I'm not submitting this as a draft, I need more time to think through it and other sections, but my draft will definitely be something along these lines for all sections. The only major doubt I have, as I mentioned before, is where to include challenge points (which need to be there): in Editing, or in its own section. In this moment I'm leaning towards the latter, and I'd have five sections in that case. I'll think more about it and when I'm ready I'll submit a draft here. If others want to try this too, they're very welcome! Then we can compare our drafts and take the best from each of them.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (15): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) || Judge (34): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) CCL - Winner (3): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last one here) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016 DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (3): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016
• The two public custom sets I've been part a part of the design team for: "Brotherhood of Ormos" - Blog post with all info - set thread - design skeleton / card list || "Extinctia: Homo Evanuit" - Blog post with all info - set thread - card list spreadsheet
• "The Lion's Lair", my article series about MTG and custom card design in particular. Latest article here. Here is the article index.Rather outdated by now, and based on the old MCC rubric, but I'm leaving this here for anybody that might be interested anyway.
• My only public attempt at being a writer: the story of my Leonin custom planeswalker Jeff Lionheart. (I have a very big one that I'm working on right now but that's private for now, and I don't know if I will ever actually publish it, and I also have ideas for multiple future ones, including one where I'm going to reprise Jeff.)
To be clear, that's the level of detail in the distribution of points that I think is needed. A X/10 in design is not enough, we need to go deeper, and the more specific we are the better it is. I repeat, this is just meant as an example and I'm not submitting this as a draft, I need more time to think through it and other sections, but my draft will definitely be something along these lines for all sections. The only major doubt I have, as I mentioned before, is where to include challenge points (which need to be there): in Editing, or in its own section. In this moment I'm leaning towards the latter, and I'd have five sections in that case. I'll think more about it and when I'm ready I'll submit a draft here. If others want to try this too, they're very welcome! Then we can compare our drafts and take the best from each of them.
I don't really see what we get from excessive subdivision. As a judge I think it creates a lot more hassle than the current model and I can't really see the benefits. If a judge wants to follow that level of detail there isn't anything stopping them. But what you have suggested is exactly what worries me when people start talking about changing the rubic, and that is that we are moving towards a simple box ticking judging system.
I see much workshopping is being done over the rubric. While I'd like to contribute to that later, for now, I have to ask the following question to the host of the MCC:
Would a double-faced card that's black/red on one side and red/green on the other side qualify for the main challenge?
Here is my first draft of a change to the current rubric:
Design - (X/3) Appeal: Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johhny/Spike) have a use for the card? Does it create or fit into a deck/archetype? (X/3) Elegance: Are the concepts of the card easily understood at a glance? Do all the flavor and mechanics combined as a whole make sense?
Development – (X/3) Viability: How well does the card fit into the color wheel? Does it break or bend the rules of the game? Is it the appropriate rarity? (X/3) Balance: Does the card have a power level appropriate for contemporary constructed/limited environments without breaking them? Does it play well in casual and multiplayer formats? Does it create fun play experiences?
Creativity - (X/3) Uniqueness: Has a card like this ever been printed before? Does it use new mechanics, ideas, or design space? Does it combine old ideas in a new way? Overall, does it feel “fresh”? (X/3) Flavor: Does the name seem realistic for a card? Does the flavor text sound professional? Do all the flavor elements synch together to please Vorthos players?
Polish – (X/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating. (X/2) *Main Challenge: Was the main challenge satisfied? Was it approached in a unique or interesting way? Does the card fit the intent of the challenge? (X/2) Sub Challenges: One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: X/25
* If this category is marked as 0, entry subject to disqualification.
If you look over it closely, you'll see that in terms of how the points are divided there has been very little change. Basically, the two categories of Design and Development from the old rubric (worth 10 points each) have been broken down into three categories, putting creativity as its own thing (each now being worth 6 points.) This leaves the 2 uneven points from the old rubric to be incorporated into the Main Challenge sub category in Polish.
Outside of that, I have some proposed wording changes within a number of the sub categories that make them simultaneously more focused and encompassing of what I feel we all should be considering in a challenge. Overall, I don't feel this rubric is a very radical change, but offers some key improvements. Thoughts?
Would a double-faced card that's black/red on one side and red/green on the other side qualify for the main challenge?
I say "relatively" because it's something I didn't think about and I actually had to do some research on this. Is that card two-colored because each of its faces is, or is it three-colored because both faces count at the same time when determining color? While being a color and having a color identity are different things, as I say in the clarifications, resorting to color identity definitely helps here. In fact, there is this rule:
Quote from Comprehensive Rules (DTK Edition) »
903.4c The back face of a double-faced card (see rule 711) is included when determining a card’s color identity. This is an exception to rule 711.4a. Example: Civilized Scholar is the front face of a double-faced card with mana cost 2U. Homicidal Brute is the back face of that double-faced card and has a red color indicator. The card’s color identity is blue and red.
For reference:
711.4a While a double-faced card is outside the game, in a zone other than the battlefield, or on the battlefield with its front face up, it has only the characteristics of its front face.
So that card would have a Jund color identity. Thus, in analogy and only for the purposes of this month's challenges, I'm ruling that such a card would count as three-colored and fails the main challenge. Other cases:
- At the contrary, a DFC that is monocolored on the front face and also monocolored but of a different color on the back face would pass the main challenge.
- A DFC that is two-colored on the front face and two-colored of the same exact colors on the back face would also pass the main challenge.
- A DFC that's monocolored on the front face and monocolored of the same color on the back face would obviously fail the main challenge.
I'll add all of this to the clarifications as soon as I can.
And now for the main topic of these days: the rubric. In random order:
I don't really see what we get from excessive subdivision. As a judge I think it creates a lot more hassle than the current model and I can't really see the benefits. If a judge wants to follow that level of detail there isn't anything stopping them. But what you have suggested is exactly what worries me when people start talking about changing the rubic, and that is that we are moving towards a simple box ticking judging system.
We get two things: objectivity and uniformity among different judges. Those are often loose with the current rubric, and in some cases there are huge differences. Personally, I feel this is where the current rubric fails the most, and in fact I'm one of those judges who already implement such a system themselves, because I feel I just need it as the categories of design and development are way too broad to be judged by themselves as objectively as I'd like.
In fact, we are as far as possible from one another here, as I would say "that what I have suggested is exactly what" is needed instead. I would like to leave the least room possible for judge subjectivity, and it requires something that is necessarily closer to box ticking, I'm not denying that. In fact, I actually see it as a positive.
I can also anticipate you will definitely NOT like the proposal I'm working on, as it expands that approach to the whole rubric. I've warned you in advance.
And here we come to disagreements. I don't get why Potential would be more important than Creativity. The way I see the current scorings, you might as well take a very good Wizards cards and throw it in here as a functional reprint. You will find some very elegant cards, that appeal to all psychographics, balanced, fit in the current formats and all that. Nobody is stopping you from doing that on purpose (or accidental as a matter of fact, but we are not discussing intention here)! Plus new designs here are about something fresh, not about sets, hence I find Creativity of utmost importance from the pov of design.
No problem about this, we just need to adjust the amount of points given to each subsection. We can just increase the points in Creativity relative to Potential (which name I'm definitely going to change in my proposal, as I don't feel it reflects the Timmy/Johnny/Spike concepts at all), or give the same amount of points to both. By the way, how do you consider Elegance? Is it worth more, less, or the same as Creativity and what is now still called Potential?
But then again, if you just give points to each subrubric, what about a card that really shines in creativity and potential but may have to make a small tradeoff in elegance? Would you say it's poorly designed? We want to be objective here, but some cards may put more focus on an aspect than another. So then the overall design would be let's say an 8/10, but you can't give it more than 5/10 because of the way you distributed the scoring. I think that is the reason why subrubrics are not scored.
There will be no perfect distribution of points, but we could and should aim for a reasonable average. There will always be corner cases and exceptions, we can and should just try to minimize how many there are.
(Ironically I did a subscoring for the judging of the first round and it seemed overall to work but I am asking myself the questions I raised above now).
It seems to work because it actually works! That's the point! I'm using this method since I started judging last November and I've never thought for a single moment to abandon it. It has never failed me even once so far! By the way, it looks you also feel like the current categories are too broad. And that's exactly why I feel a more detailed official division is needed. I and you each use our own, but I don't know yours and you probably don't know mine, even if you can understand it from my previous posts. Anyway, I don't think they're the same. And that's why having an official one would improve uniformity among different judges. It's useless to have different divisions when we could have a single official one.
Here is my first draft of a change to the current rubric:
(rubric proposal, cut because this post is already long enough)
If you look over it closely, you'll see that in terms of how the points are divided there has been very little change. Basically, the two categories of Design and Development from the old rubric (worth 10 points each) have been broken down into three categories, putting creativity as its own thing (each now being worth 6 points.) This leaves the 2 uneven points from the old rubric to be incorporated into the Main Challenge sub category in Polish.
Outside of that, I have some proposed wording changes within a number of the sub categories that make them simultaneously more focused and encompassing of what I feel we all should be considering in a challenge. Overall, I don't feel this rubric is a very radical change, but offers some key improvements. Thoughts?
That's a very good first step in the right direction in my opinion, and I like it a lot. My own proposal will be much more detailed, but this is a rubric I'd definitely be happy to adopt as a judge. This looks like a very good middle point between the current rubric and my proposal which I'll post very soon.
I have just a minor word adjustment to require: Timmy/Johnny/Spike aren't the "main" psychographics, they are the only ones! Melvin and Vorthos (if you refer to them with the word "main") are not psychographics, but aesthetic profiles. They're a different thing! So I suggest to change the word "main" with "different" in your "Appeal" section:
(X/3) Appeal: Do the different player psychographics...
Also, a typo: the word "contemporary" in "Balance" is missing an "n". The rest is very good and I'd be ready to adopt this rubric right now. My own detailed proposal will follow probably later tonight.
EDIT to avoid double post: and here it is, with comments. Enjoy!
I'm using spoiler tags because of length.
NEW RUBRIC (proposal) with rating instructions
This new rubric is divided into five "sections". All sections except editing are further divided into "subsections". The psychographic subsection is further divided into "third-level sections" (for lack of a better name). Points are always attributed at the lowest level possible, that means to the single third-level sections in the psychographic subsection. Elsewhere, points are assigned to the single subsections. Only in the editing section points are assigned to the section, as there are no subsections. This approach is probably one of the biggest changes from the previous rubric, but it's one I think it's necessary and needed, as I explained in my previous posts.
Note: please, whenever you read "he" and such in everything that follows, read it as "he/she/they". I'll only be using the male gender in this post just because of quickness in both typing and reading.
1. Design
1.1 Creativity - How original is the card?
Rate this from 0 (it's not original at all, this is something we see every day in real Magic) to 5 (this effect has never ever been done before, not even once). Things to keep into account here: existence of similar effects in real Magic; new twists on existing cards, mechanics, or concepts; new keywords not existing in real Magic. X/5
1.2 Elegance - Is the card easily understandable at a glance? Or, as MaRo would say, is it grokkable?
Rate this from 0 (the card is a complete mess and you can't understand it at all even after reading it many times) to 5 (you just need to read it one time to perfectly understand what it does). Keep also wordiness into account here. X/5
1.3 Psychographics
1.3.1 Timmy - Does Timmy like the card?
Rate this from 0 (he hates it) to 1 (he loves it). 0.5 means he likes it but it doesn't excite him. X/1
1.3.2 Johnny - Does Johnny like the card?
Rate this from 0 (he hates it) to 1 (he loves it). 0.5 means he likes it but it doesn't excite him. X/1
1.3.3 Spike - Does Spike like the card?
Rate this from 0 (he hates it) to 1 (he loves it). 0.5 means he likes it but it doesn't excite him. X/1
1.3.4 Appeal - How well does the card satisfy its intended audience?
Rate this from 0 (it doesn't excite its intended audience at all, or the designer mismatched the intended audience, for example he made a Johnny card for Timmy) to 2 (it fits its intended audience perfectly). X/2
Maximum possible points in the psychographic subsection: 5
Maximum possible points in the design section: 15
2. Development
2.1 Color pie - How well do the card mechanics fit into the color pie?
Rate this from 0 (the card breaks the color pie) to 4 (the card perfectly fits the color pie). X/4
2.2 Rarity - Is the card at the appropriate rarity?
Rate this from 0 (this card can never ever be at its rarity at all) to 3 (this card is perfect at its rarity). Halfway (1 point) there is a card that could be at its rarity but only under certain circumstances. X/3
2.3 Costing - How well do the mana cost and eventual ability costs and additional costs match the power of the card?
Rate this from 0 (there's no way the card would actually be printed with its costs, either because they're way too high or way too low) to 4 (the costs are perfect and the card is neither overcosted nor undercosted, but it would be printable as is as far as costs are concerned). X/4
2.4 Playability - How is the card playable in its intended format?
To rate this, first identify what format is the card made for, and then rate the playability in that format from 0 (either completely unplayable in its intended format let alone other ones, or completely broken in some format) to 4 (this is a very powerful card in its intended format, but it's not broken). Ignore formats other than the card's intended one(s), but keep into account if a card is playable in multiple formats. Also, if a card is broken in some formats, penalize it here (not just very powerful, but really broken, here we're thinking about something like Jace, the Mind Sculptor when it was in Standard or in Modern, or Skullclamp in Mirrodin block for example). Finally, take into account that commons are usually made for limited formats, while rares and mythics for constructed ones. X/4
Maximum possible points in the development section: 15
3. Creative
3.1 Card concept - How well does the card represent what it's meant to as a whole package?
Rate this from 0 (its flavor doesn't make any sense at all) to 4 (all the elements of the card perfectly integrate to make something you perfectly understand what it's meant to represent as soon as you see it). X/4
3.2 Card name - How good is the card name?
Rate this from 0 (it's awful and it's something that should never ever be on a Magic card) to 2 (it's perfect and no better name can be found). 1 means the name is good enough to be passable but not excellent. X/2
3.3 Flavor text - How good is the flavor text?
Rate this from 0 (it's awful and it's something that should never ever be on a Magic card) to 2 (it's perfect and no better flavor text can be written). 1 means the flavor text is good enough to be passable but not excellent. X/2
3.4 Mechanical flavor - How well do the card mechanics express flavor themselves?
Rate this from 0 (the mechanics are inherently flavorless) to 2 (the mechanics alone are telling a story that perfectly integrates into the card concept). X/2
Maximum possible points in the creative section: 10
4. Editing - Are there any mistakes in spelling, grammar, or templating?
Rate this starting from 5 points and deducting some amount of points for each mistake in the card, also depending on the severity of the mistake. X/5
Maximum possible points in the editing section: 5
5. Challenges
5.1 Main challenge - How well does the card fit the main challenge?
Rate this from 0 (the card fails to meet the main challenge at all) to 3 (it fits the main challenge perfectly). X/3
5.2 Subchallenge 1 - How well does the card fit subchallenge 1?
Rate this from 0 (the card fails to meet subchallenge 1 at all) to 1 (it fits the main challenge perfectly). 0.5 means the card technically meets the subchallenge but it doesn't perfectly fit its intent). X/1
5.3 Subchallenge 2 - How well does the card fit subchallenge 2?
Rate this from 0 (the card fails to meet subchallenge 2 at all) to 1 (it fits the main challenge perfectly). 0.5 means the card technically meets the subchallenge but it doesn't perfectly fit its intent). X/1
Maximum possible points in the challenge section: 5
Maximum possible points in the whole rubric: 50
NEW RUBRIC (proposal) shorter version
1. Design 1.1 Creativity (X/5) - How original is the card? 1.2 Elegance (X/5) - Is the card easily understandable at a glance? Or, as MaRo would say, is it grokkable? 1.3 Psychographics 1.3.1 Timmy (X/1) - Does Timmy like the card? 1.3.2 Johnny (X/1) - Does Johnny like the card? 1.3.3 Spike (X/1) - Does Spike like the card? 1.3.4 Appeal (X/2) - How well does the card satisfy its intended audience?
Design total: X/15
2. Development 2.1 Color pie (X/4) - How well do the card mechanics fit into the color pie? 2.2 Rarity (X/3) - Is the card at the appropriate rarity? 2.3 Costing (X/4) - How well do the mana cost and eventual ability costs and additional costs match the power of the card? 2.4 Playability (X/4) - How is the card playable in its intended format?
Development total: X/15
3. Creative 3.1 Card concept (X/4) - How well does the card represent what it's meant to as a whole package? 3.2 Card name (X/2) - How good is the card name? 3.3 Flavor text (X/2) - How good is the flavor text? 3.4 Mechanical flavor (X/2) - How well do the card mechanics express flavor themselves?
Creative total: X/10
4. Editing (X/5) - Are there any mistakes in spelling, grammar, or templating?
Editing total: X/5
5. Challenges 5.1 Main challenge (X/3) - How well does the card fit the main challenge? 5.2 Subchallenge 1 (X/1) - How well does the card fit subchallenge 1? 5.3 Subchallenge 2 (X/1) - How well does the card fit subchallenge 2?
Challenge total: X/5
TOTAL: X/50
EXPLANATION OF THE RUBRIC
It all starts from the psychographic subsection. It is organized in a way such that a card that equally appeals to all of them without exciting anyone is rated as close as possible to a card that appeals only to one of them but really excites him. Those two cards would both receive 3 points here:
- the first from 1 + 1 + 1 in Timmy/Johnny/Spike and a very low score in Appeal (because I said it doesn't really excite anyone)
- the second from 1 in the psychographic it appeals to, 0 in the other two profiles, and 2 in Appeal (because I said it really excites the one psychographic it appeals to)
This is done because none of the two approaches should be penalized and they should be equally valid.
This also implies that the maximum score in this subsection is 5 points. The concerns expressed by Tilwin in a previous post are kept into account here giving the same max amount of points (5) to Creativity and Elegance. That finally implies the total amount of points in the Design section has to be 15. It comes naturally to assign the same amount of total points (15) to Development. So now the question is: how to divide them into the various subsections?
First, we have to define what subsections are here. Obviously not Creative Writing, both because it doesn't really make sense in Development and also because it will have its own section later. This leaves Viability and Balance. But here we come to another problem: if you read the questions under those points, you realize that you're actually analyzing more than one thing in each of them, and those things you're analyzing together have little to do with one another. For example, Viability first asks about the color pie, then about rarity. What have those two to do with one another? Nothing! So I've separated them. The same goes for Costing and Playability in Balance. Those two actually have a little something to do with one another, but there are also other factors dictating playability beyond costs, so it still makes more sense to me to separate them rather than having them united in a single section.
Now that we've established what the subsections in Development are, we have to specify them and only then divide points. First, the specifications: color pie and rarity are self-explanatory. In Costing there is only one thing to specify: that an undercosted card is as bad as an overcosted one, if not worse, as it can break the metagame, while a card can simply be ignored if it's too weak, so it won't damage the metagame. In Playability, I willingly took a different approach than the current one. Instead of trying to evaluating the playability in all formats, which would penalize cards made specifically for one format, first identify the format(s) the card is made for, and then evaluate how it is in that format. Anyway, cards that are playable in multiple formats should see that still being considered. Also, being playable means not being too weak, but also not being as strong as to demand bannings. A broken card is not playable, it's bannable. That's different. So if a card is broken, it should be penalized here. But note that I'm referring to really broken cards, not just very powerful ones, in fact I've reported some examples of that in the rubric with instruction.
Now, how are the points divided in Development? They are all important things, so it makes sense to divide them equally, but 15 is not divisible by 4, so one subsection needs to get 3 points instead of 4. What is the less important subsection there? I think Rarity, so that's the one I gave 3 points to. Costing and Playability are clearly the most important, but what is worse: a card that's well costed, playable and at the right rarity but breaks the color pie, or a card that's well costed, playable and doesn't break the color pie, but it's at the wrong rarity? I think the former is worse than the latter, so I acted accordingly. That's not to say that the latter is good, obviously.
Now I have three sections left: Creative, Editing (formerly known as Quality), and Challenge. I have assigned 30 points up to now, so it makes sense to have the rubric at 50 points total. So I have 20 points left. The most logical division to me looked like 10 for Creative and 5 for each of Editing and Challenge. With that established, I faced the Creative section. I wanted it to reflect the single elements of flavor, with the same analytical approach I followed until now and that's just natural to me. So what are the components of flavor in a card? Name, flavor text, and what I called "mechanical flavor", that means how well do the mechanics themselves express flavor. But the card concept is more than just the sum of those three, and it's actually the most important thing here, so it also makes sense as a separate subsection that's given the most points here. That's why I have a 4/2/2/2 split.
Finally, I have already slotted 5 points for Editing, which is exactly the same as what Quality is now, and 5 points for Challenge. I have multiple targets here (pun unintended):
- insert a new subsection for the main challenge;
- keep the difference between main challenge and subchallenges;
- keep two subchallenges and not adding or removing any of them.
The only way to meet all those together is to give more points for the main challenge and an equal but lesser amount of points to each of the subchallenges. With 5 points total to assign, the only possible split that made sense here to me is 3/1/1, so that's the one I put here.
Let me specify that by giving 5 points to each of Editing and Challenge I'm not valuing them more than the current rubric does: 5/50 = 0,10 is just a little less than 3/25 = 0,12 (for Quality/Editing) and just a little more than 2/25 = 0,08 (for Challenges). Anyway, those three number are all comparable. Design, Development, and Creative respectively count for 30%, 30%, and 20% of the total, while now Design and Development are 40% each. The decreasing of those percentage is just a consequence of adding Creative as its own separate section.
Now, I'm not saying my rubric is perfect or can't be improved. I'm also not saying the amount of points assigned to each subsection can't be changed. All of that can be perfected, this is just a proposal. I also know it's a quite strong change from the current rubric, especially in the overall structure and in the general approach of always assigning points to the lowest level section available. I warned you all before that my proposal would have been like this. I know I probably went a little too far, but I hope that at least something of what I'm saying here in this post and in the discussion about the rubric that's going on in these days makes sense to someone else beside me. If I'm in the minority in wanting a more detailed rubric, that's fine, but at least I've expressed my opinion. Thanks everyone for the great discussion we're having in these days and for the patience you're having in both reading my long posts until the end and standing a person who's trying to take action on something people complained about in the last months. If no one ever takes action, a complaint will always remain a complaint. That's not excluding the possibility to leave the rubric as is, but even if in the end we decide that is the best way, we'll have arrived at that conclusion by discussing it, and that will give all of us a better understanding and awareness of the rubric.
Ok, I think I'm done. Thanks again for standing my ramblings.
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (15): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) || Judge (34): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) CCL - Winner (3): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last one here) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016 DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (3): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016
• The two public custom sets I've been part a part of the design team for: "Brotherhood of Ormos" - Blog post with all info - set thread - design skeleton / card list || "Extinctia: Homo Evanuit" - Blog post with all info - set thread - card list spreadsheet
• "The Lion's Lair", my article series about MTG and custom card design in particular. Latest article here. Here is the article index.Rather outdated by now, and based on the old MCC rubric, but I'm leaving this here for anybody that might be interested anyway.
• My only public attempt at being a writer: the story of my Leonin custom planeswalker Jeff Lionheart. (I have a very big one that I'm working on right now but that's private for now, and I don't know if I will ever actually publish it, and I also have ideas for multiple future ones, including one where I'm going to reprise Jeff.)
Bravelion, slow down. There's a lot to digest here, and at this point I don't think there's even an agreement to change the existing rubic.
Even if we have to change rubic, can we at least agree that the new design should not increase the workload of judges - otherwise it's going to get even harder to get enough signing up each month.
I think it may not be a bad idea to take things a little slow here. I'm all for trying IcariiFA's proposed new rubric next month, but I feel like Lion's suggested rubric is a pretty large departure from what is being done now, and should be discussed/honed a bit more before attempting to implement. The MCC seems to be the most popular of the CCCs, I'm afraid too radical a change may not be appreciated by many. It's kinda like when the NFL starts talking about making major changes to football, it makes a lot of people nervous because they love how it is currently. Just my 2 cents.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
(22 Total) - October 2014; December 2014; January 2015; April 2015; June 2015; August 2015; September 2015; November 2015; December 2015(T); January 2016; March 2016(T); April 2016; June 2016; October 2016; December 2016(T); February 2017; April 2017; December 2017; November 2018(T); January 2019; April 2019; June 2019
(8 Total) - May 2015; May 2016; June 2016; August 2016; October 2016; December 2016; October 2017; May 2019
(7 Total) - September 2015; October 2015; January 2016; March 2016; April 2016; July 2016(T); March 2019(T)
In fact I didn't say I wanted to implement something like that right now. I know it was pretty radical, and I told you even before posting it, I know that. And a deep discussion is definitely needed. I'm not forcing anyone to agree with that proposal, and in fact I expected it to be meeted in an even much harsher way than it was. I didn't mean that to be a finished product in anyway, as I said it was just my ramblings. I'm sorry if anyone misinterpreted that.
Please also note what I'm about to say, and I would have said this anyway: if there was a vote today (and we don't need to change the rubric immediately in any way, this is a long term discussion), I wouldn't vote for my proposal, but for IcariiFA's one. I really like that very much, I think it is very easily implementable (at the contrary of mine), and it looks like a very good middle ground between what everybody has said here. So:
Ok, now I definitely feel like I've detonated two major bombs lately here in the CCC forum: the MCC rubric (but I'll talk about it in that thread) and the strategic voting in the DCC. I'm feeling quite bad right now because of this. I'm feeling responsible for this. Maybe I should have said nothing and keep it all for myself. But as in real life, that's just not me, at least not anymore. Now I can't keep anything for myself. Sorry if that side of myself has taken over lately. I'm really sorry.
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (15): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) || Judge (34): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) CCL - Winner (3): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last one here) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016 DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (3): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016
• The two public custom sets I've been part a part of the design team for: "Brotherhood of Ormos" - Blog post with all info - set thread - design skeleton / card list || "Extinctia: Homo Evanuit" - Blog post with all info - set thread - card list spreadsheet
• "The Lion's Lair", my article series about MTG and custom card design in particular. Latest article here. Here is the article index.Rather outdated by now, and based on the old MCC rubric, but I'm leaving this here for anybody that might be interested anyway.
• My only public attempt at being a writer: the story of my Leonin custom planeswalker Jeff Lionheart. (I have a very big one that I'm working on right now but that's private for now, and I don't know if I will ever actually publish it, and I also have ideas for multiple future ones, including one where I'm going to reprise Jeff.)
Sure. Assuming next months organization is up for giving it a test run, trying my rubric seems like an agreeable change. I would try to test it myself, but I believe next month has already been claimed and due to a trip outside of the country I know I won't be able to organize or judge in June or July.
I like everything about this. The only question I have is whether contestants still fail for not meeting the main challenge. I believe that they should. Perhaps getting 0 points in the Main Challenge category in this rubric could be grounds for disqualification?
I like everything about this. The only question I have is whether contestants still fail for not meeting the main challenge. I believe that they should. Perhaps getting 0 points in the Main Challenge category in this rubric could be grounds for disqualification?
Design - (X/3) Appeal: Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johhny/Spike) have a use for the card? Does it create or fit into a deck/archetype? (X/3) Elegance: Are the concepts of the card easily understood at a glance? Do all the flavor and mechanics combined as a whole make sense?
Development – (X/3) Viability: How well does the card fit into the color wheel? Does it break or bend the rules of the game? Is it the appropriate rarity? (X/3) Balance: Does the card have a power level appropriate for contemporary constructed/limited environments without breaking them? Does it play well in casual and multiplayer formats? Does it create fun play experiences?
Creativity - (X/3) Uniqueness: Has a card like this ever been printed before? Does it use new mechanics, ideas, or design space? Does it combine old ideas in a new way? Overall, does it feel “fresh”? (X/3) Flavor: Does the name seem realistic for a card? Does the flavor text sound professional? Do all the flavor elements synch together to please Vorthos players?
Polish – (X/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating. (X/2) *Main Challenge: Was the main challenge satisfied? Was it approached in a unique or interesting way? Does the card fit the intent of the challenge? (X/2) Sub Challenges: One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: X/25
* If this category is marked as 0, entry subject to disqualification.
Sure. Assuming next months organization is up for giving it a test run, trying my rubric seems like an agreeable change. I would try to test it myself, but I believe next month has already been claimed
There was this a few pages ago, I don't know if it's still valid:
As for the rest, I completely agree on trying IcariiFA's rubric whenever you want. Obviously I can't change it in the middle of the month myself and I'll end the month with the old rubric. But after that, I'm open to everything as a judge.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (15): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) || Judge (34): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) CCL - Winner (3): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last one here) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016 DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (3): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016
• The two public custom sets I've been part a part of the design team for: "Brotherhood of Ormos" - Blog post with all info - set thread - design skeleton / card list || "Extinctia: Homo Evanuit" - Blog post with all info - set thread - card list spreadsheet
• "The Lion's Lair", my article series about MTG and custom card design in particular. Latest article here. Here is the article index.Rather outdated by now, and based on the old MCC rubric, but I'm leaving this here for anybody that might be interested anyway.
• My only public attempt at being a writer: the story of my Leonin custom planeswalker Jeff Lionheart. (I have a very big one that I'm working on right now but that's private for now, and I don't know if I will ever actually publish it, and I also have ideas for multiple future ones, including one where I'm going to reprise Jeff.)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Indeed it is. Normally I don't put such a huge disclaimer in my judging posts, but this time it was necessary, as I had three players (one of which is you) for only two places to advance and I wanted to put some extra thought into it. In the end, nothing changed, but it might have. Sorry if this caused you anxiety in any way, it wasn't meant to. And I suffer from anxiety myself so I know what that means...
I'll also give my opinion on this, as...
...I did this too, but...
...while I definitely think the rubric can be improved, I'm not feeling as bad with it as some (not only you) seem to feel. What follows is my own opinion on each point.
I absolutely think of the main challenge as a yes/no question, at least I always try to put it that way when I'm organizing myself. For example, now in round 2 I'm asking for a two-colored creature as the main challenge. There's no interpretation involved in that: if your card is not a creature, you've failed. If your card is monocolored, you've failed. If your card is three colors or more, you've failed. What is true is that not every round has a main challenge that is yes/no. The problem arises when the main challenge is not yes/no, for example (I'm inventing this right now): "design a card that would feel at home in the Lorwyn set". That involves subjective judging, which is something I always try to avoid in the main challenge, while I allow it in subchallenges. At least, that's the way I'm managing this for now when I'm organizer. But still, it may be useful to have a separate section for how well the main challenge was met. But if we have such a section, it just needs to be worth more than each of the subchallenges, otherwise you lose the difference between the two.
This is the main problem with the rubric as it is right now in my opinion, and it's a problem I totally agree on. What I personally do as a judge to have a first evaluation is counting 1 as an extra point, then evaluate each subsection with a score ranging from 0 (total failure) to 3 (full points), then summing all four numbers. I do this for all cards I have to judge and then sometimes adjust the scores of half a point, one point max based on my own feelings about the cards and how the cards compare to each other. In fact, I made my own Excel sheet for that, and I use it every round as a judge. That's what I mean when I say in my "judging principles" that I divide the points and then add them up. This is the method I use but I acknowledge that it's not perfect, because in the end I'm evaluating each subsection the same. This issue in particular definitely needs being addressed somehow in my opinion, and I think the right way would be dividing the points in a given way among all subsections, not just design/development, and the way we divide them should reflect the relative importance of the various subsections.
Again, this is another issue I share and that for now I'm solving with another division of points. The 3 points I have for Balance from the previous division are furtherly divided in 1 for costs and eventual broken interactions (first two questions under Balance), 1 for playability in limited, and 1 for playability in constructed, focusing mostly on Standard for that. Power level in Modern and above may be considered in my approach, but it's not as important as Standard, because far less cards see play in Modern and beyond, and not every custom card designed should aim to be playable there in my opinion. It would be a very high bar and most submitted designs would fail there. One point I know it's undervalued in this approach regards multiplayer formats, including Commander. I think here too that an established and shared division of points would greatly help.
This has also been an ongoing issue for quite some time, and I know you're not the only one thinking about that because of pm exchanges with other judges. The way I'm doing it for now involves yet another division of points: the 3 points of Potential are divided 1 for Timmy, 1 for Johnny, 1 for Spike. So in this system a card that appeals to all three psychographics would score the best. But it has also been suggested to me that the judge should instead first identify which psychographic(s) the card is appealing to, and then evaluate how well the card pleases its intended audience. Both approaches are perfectly valid in my opinion and the main problem is the current rubric doesn't explicitly say which one is the one you're supposed to apply. This is a point that definitely needs further discussion: which of the two approaches I mentioned do you other judges use? Or do you use a third different one? And if so, which is it?
From what I just wrote I think it's clear that while I don't have that many issues myself with the rubric (but that's probably just because I made my own personal division of points in the rubric where I feel it's missing), I also think it's totally worth discussing eventual updates. But I think that whatever update we make should go in the direction of a shared and established division of points that should go as deep as possible. Ideally there should be just one question with a number of assigned points, then a following question worth another specified amount of points (that may be equal to different from the first one, and in any case it's supposed to reflect the different relative importance of the various points and questions in the rubric), and so on.
Let me close with a final thought and a proposal:
- the final thought is that the presence of a defined and ideally as strict as possible rubric is exactly what gives the MCC its strength. I'm saying this because the DCC system has also been brought up, where there is no rubric. While it's definitely true that a greater number of judges gives you a statistically more accurate evaluation of the card, I'm saying that without the rubric the MCC firstly wouldn't be the MCC anymore and secondly would lose a lot of its appeal, at least to me, and probably more people too. Also, consider that in the DCC you could vote for any reason and don't have to specify it. I bring this up because for example, while I shouldn't probably admit it, during the final days in the March DCC, seeing I still could win, I purposefully avoided voting for people who were too close to me or could surpass me in the standing. That was a strategic vote, let's call it so. Now in April I'm not doing it anymore and in these days I'm just voting for cards I like, but I definitely did that on the last days of March, and multiple times. And in the end I (co-)won, and I think that strategy helped. So what I'm saying is that without a rubric, the MCC would be exposed to such potential judging strategies too, and it wouldn't be good in my opinion. It would emphasize judging differences even more, and open judging to whatever subjective criteria, and that wouldn't be right in what is supposed to be our most important and objective contest. So a rubric of some kind is definitely needed for the MCC, and the more precise, strict, and objective it is the better.
- the proposal is to try to formulate a new rubric based on the existing one but much more defined. While I feel I could be myself in charge of that without any problem, and I also kind of would like to (but of course I don't want to step on anyone's toes), I think this should be a shared process, kind of like the YMTC contests were, where the person in charge (me for example) poses a question and other people involved in the MCC give their opinion on that, we reach an agreement on that point and then the person in charge poses another question, and so on until we have a complete rubric with a well established division of points. This could either be done here in the discussion thread, in its own thread or even in a series of polls as YMTC was. I think the first question should be something along the lines of: does the current division of design/development/polish satisfy you? If not, why not? Is there anything you would want to add or modify? Then the following questions would concentrate on the single subsections of each of those and the distribution of points. What do you think of this? I'm proposing this because I've heard of people not liking the rubric as it is for quite some time now, and I think that until somebody takes action nothing useful will come out of the discussion.
Sorry for the long post, at least I hope it can help.
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (15): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) || Judge (34): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here)
CCL - Winner (3): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last one here) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016
DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (3): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016
• The two public custom sets I've been part a part of the design team for:
"Brotherhood of Ormos" - Blog post with all info - set thread - design skeleton / card list || "Extinctia: Homo Evanuit" - Blog post with all info - set thread - card list spreadsheet
• "The Lion's Lair", my article series about MTG and custom card design in particular. Latest article here. Here is the article index. Rather outdated by now, and based on the old MCC rubric, but I'm leaving this here for anybody that might be interested anyway.
• My only public attempt at being a writer: the story of my Leonin custom planeswalker Jeff Lionheart. (I have a very big one that I'm working on right now but that's private for now, and I don't know if I will ever actually publish it, and I also have ideas for multiple future ones, including one where I'm going to reprise Jeff.)
No worries. It was the good kind of nerve-wracking.
The design criteria make sense to me. I'm not saying they're the ideal set of design criteria, but I do feel like they address three unique elements that are important for a designer to consider. I'm not sure that the three criteria currently in the rubric all deserve equal weight. And I think some criteria deserve to be added that are currently not there. But I think that what is there is OK.
On the other hand, I think that the development criteria are a hot mess. Reason #1 being, there is no metagame, no environment specified, so what kind of development target could anybody possibly have? The first two criteria make no sense without context. So, in such a context vacuum, people will (and do) resort so overly-conservative and incorrect generalizations when applying the rubric. Yeah, green doesn't get flying, except when it does. Yeah, a 6/6 for 6 with a slew of upsides is too powerful to print, except when it isn't. But the development criteria encourage judges to resort to boring, false generalizations. And asking judges to assign a single score to a card based on how it performs in Limited, Constructed, and Multiplayer is an impossible task. A task that only gets more impossible the further you define those formats (Sealed vs. Draft, Commander vs. 2HG). At the very least, I think you have to state the format each round if you want to use development criteria. Like, "This week we're designing for a Commander set", or "These cards are being evaluated for Sealed Deck".
As a kicker, the third development criteria (creative writing) really isn't a development criteria at all. It just falls into this category because it's not a design criteria. I'm not against having it, but flavor stuff belongs in its own top-level category, IMO.
I also agree with IcariiFA's concern that the subchallenge criteria are kind of backwards because you're given points for fulfilling the "optional" (not really optional) subchallenges, but none for fulfilling the main challenge. Sure, I guess you can say that fulfilling the main challenge is the price you pay not to get DQ'd, but that ignores the spectrum of how well players fulfill the main challenge. I think you either have to kill the subchallenge points, or you have to also award points based on the main challenge. (Or maybe even better, don't even have a "main" challenge and a series of subchallenges, just have three mini-challenges each round that are all worth some points.)
Again, I still believe that the best thing to do would be to add judges and shorten the judging criteria even further. But, speaking to the question that you asked, that's what I think should be considered for the rubric.
I'd be very interested in hearing what exactly are the "criteria that deserve to be added that are currently not there", so that we can consider and talk about what it would be like to add them.
I see all the issues you're talking about, but as of now I don't have an easy solution for them. Something like trying to first identify what environment the card is made to fit in and only then judge how well it fits it, kind of like I was considering for the psychographics in my previous post. Does anybody else have any opinion or ideas about this and the development section in general?
I completely agree, and this is a very important point I forgot to mention in my previous post. Also, since I wrote that, I also had another thought: what about modifying the rubric to mimic the actual process R&D uses to design cards, with four different separate sections?
- Design: the design section would more or less be as it is now.
- Development: the development section would need an almost complete revamp and anyway not contain anything about flavor and creative elements.
- Creative: flavor and creative elements would go in this new "creative" section instead. This includes what is now "Creative Writing" but probably not only that. Also, how about judging separately the name, the flavor text, and the mechanical flavor (that is how well the mechanics fit the flavor and vice versa)?
- Editing: finally "editing" includes what is currently in "Quality". The points for the challenges (both main and sub) would go in either a fifth separate section, or in the "editing" section, kind of like the "Polish" section is now, even though they're not actually about editing.
This would be the best structure in my opinion: it recreates the actual design process, it lets us be very specific about what we ask in each section, and it also allows us to assign a different number of points to each section as needed. I would really be interested to try to create a sample rubric along these lines.
100% true. That's how it is now and a section evaluating how well the main challenge is met is completely missing.
Not an option in my opinion.
I think we have two options here: keep a main challenge and two subchallenges and give more points to the former and less to the latter (say 2 points for the main challenge and 1 for each subchallenge), or have three different challenges which I think would need to be worth each the same amount of points (say each 1 point, but I think this solution would fundamentally change the nature of the MCC and I don't think that's what we want). Which one would you all prefer? I personally prefer the first option, giving more points to the main challenge and less to each subchallenge, so that we still have a distinction between main and subchallenges but we actually take into account the main challenge too when determining scores.
I think maybe this is the only point where I'm not sure we agree that much. I don't feel the judging criteria need to be shortened, I rather feel they should be more specific and cleary specified. As for increasing the number of judges, I think that's just an unrealizable dream right now. I struggled to get four judges myself to run this month, and if I have four it's only thanks to a new judge who's judging for the first time ever, and me who have continously been a judge every month since last November. Not that I'm regretting it, as I actually like it a lot, otherwise I wouldn't be doing it, and I have no plans to stop doing it in the coming months, but it goes to show how difficult it is to have more than four judges each month.
Anybody else has any thoughts about all of this?
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (15): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) || Judge (34): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here)
CCL - Winner (3): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last one here) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016
DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (3): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016
• The two public custom sets I've been part a part of the design team for:
"Brotherhood of Ormos" - Blog post with all info - set thread - design skeleton / card list || "Extinctia: Homo Evanuit" - Blog post with all info - set thread - card list spreadsheet
• "The Lion's Lair", my article series about MTG and custom card design in particular. Latest article here. Here is the article index. Rather outdated by now, and based on the old MCC rubric, but I'm leaving this here for anybody that might be interested anyway.
• My only public attempt at being a writer: the story of my Leonin custom planeswalker Jeff Lionheart. (I have a very big one that I'm working on right now but that's private for now, and I don't know if I will ever actually publish it, and I also have ideas for multiple future ones, including one where I'm going to reprise Jeff.)
Edit: BTW, the thing I'd most like to change about any of the contests is what Lion is referring to as "strategic voting" in the DCC. I'm not trying to come down on you for doing it Lion, but I wish it wasn't even an option somehow.
One possibility, although it would be rather heavier on the organizer, would be to anonymize the entries - run the contest by PM rather than by thread. But I think this discussion more properly belongs in the DCC discussion thread?
As to the MCC rubric, obviously I'm a newcomer here, and in a discussion like this that probably has more downsides than upsides. But to me, it seems like the present rubric encourages making pushed cards over average ones (which in turn pushes you towards higher rarities, by the by), because one of the criteria is 'will this see lots of play'. I also find it rather strange that more emphasis is given on pleasing Spike, Timmy and Johnny than on really pleasing one of the three; had I the call, I would probably allocate two points for how well it pleases its best psychographic, and another two for how well it pleases the rest (one each). I realize my thoughts are both incomplete and inexperienced, but I hope they may be helpful.
It makes a lot of sense! I completely agree with you here, I see the three contests in the same exact way as you do. And thanks for trusting me as a potential "leader"!
I know it's not a good thing, and in fact I wasn't happy to do it, believe me. But I'm still a Spike after all! I saw a legal opportunity to try to win and I tried to took it. It worked, but I agree that's not a thing to be proud of, and in fact I'm not. If I mentioned it, it was only to help make it clear one of the potential many problems that the MCC would face if the rubric was less strict or completely removed. To be 100% clear, this is my thought: you want to kill the MCC? Just take away the rubric! The rubric can definitely be improved, and that's what I would like to try to do if there is interest in it, but it must be there! And it must be the strictest and most objective possible! That's what defines the MCC and makes it different from other contests in my opinion.
I don't know how you could avoid strategic voting at the end of a DCC month. I don't have any good idea about that for now, and even if I did I think it's better to talk about that in the DCC own discussion thread.
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (15): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) || Judge (34): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here)
CCL - Winner (3): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last one here) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016
DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (3): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016
• The two public custom sets I've been part a part of the design team for:
"Brotherhood of Ormos" - Blog post with all info - set thread - design skeleton / card list || "Extinctia: Homo Evanuit" - Blog post with all info - set thread - card list spreadsheet
• "The Lion's Lair", my article series about MTG and custom card design in particular. Latest article here. Here is the article index. Rather outdated by now, and based on the old MCC rubric, but I'm leaving this here for anybody that might be interested anyway.
• My only public attempt at being a writer: the story of my Leonin custom planeswalker Jeff Lionheart. (I have a very big one that I'm working on right now but that's private for now, and I don't know if I will ever actually publish it, and I also have ideas for multiple future ones, including one where I'm going to reprise Jeff.)
Certainly, I don't see why people are discussing given extra points for fulfilling the main challenge. The card submitted is an interpretation of the main challenge itself.
I can say when I was hosting last month based on the type of challenges I created a number of submissions executed the main challenges well while a number of them interpreted things in a way that I felt was sub optimal or not really satisfying the intent. Outside of some flavor issues that I could point to, there wasn;t really a way to show this shortcoming in the scoring. It's one thing like this month with Bravelion who has hard and fast criteria for the main challenge (which is probably a wise decision given the rubrics current state) but it's another when a challenge asks for card synergy for example. There should be room in rubric to evaluate that.
Just a quick note on my personal judging habits:
For potential I check for whether each card appeals to each of the 3 main demographics. If it fully appeals to each, I don't take anything off. If It partial appeals to a certain demographic, I take a half point. If It disregards one, I take a full point.
For balance I judge by contemporary standard. It the card fits into todays standard power level, then odds are I'll give it full points. I make exceptions for cards that would obviously be casual format focused, or cards that would play well in a contemporary limited environment. However, when a card pushes being a mid pick in limited OR starts brushing to where it be a staple in Modern is where I start making real deductions. I also use balance to consider whether the card would actually be "fun."
While I agree that having more than one judge for the rounds would more likely than not make the overall judging more fair, I think also refining the current rubric would alleviate that somewhat. Also, I feel it's integral to the MCC's identity to have specific and thorough judging of the cards submitted. The main challenge needs to be incorporated into the points more directly, and there needs to be more strategic divisions between the categories the better represent the full cycle of design. I think bravelion's proposal of 4 main categories looks close to what that should be.
At this point maybe those who are interested can submit drafts of what they propose the MCC rubric to look like and from there we can make some cross references to come up with a thorough combined draft for further refinement?
Is there a particular round where you felt this happened? If you mean round 2, I would say that a main feature of MCC is that judgements are made on a single card so this will be something hard to add to a rubic. One suggestion might be to use the subchallenges as bonuses and encourage hosts more flexibility for using them. For instance instead of having the two subchallenges in round, your could have allowed the judges two bonus points to award based how well the card synegised with the previous entry.
- Personally I totally agree with Tilwin's view of the different contests. I participate in all three, but that's exactly why the one I too like the most by far is the MCC.
- Until we keep the current rubric, I would encourage every organizer to try to do objective yes/no main challenges: either you pass it, and your card is judged, or you fail it, and your card is DQ'ed. No middle ground. The subchallenges are where challenges with "grey areas" should be.
- When I judge "Balance", I personally try to consider the power level of Standard as it is now, and for limited an hypothetical average limited environment. Yes, there are variations from one limited environment to another, but almost never a card that is first pick in an environment will be last pick in another one. A bomb is a bomb regardless of which environment we are in, and so on. Playability in Modern and other older formats is something I try to consider but that's just a much higher threshold to achieve, and just a few cards reach that in real Magic, so I think not every custom card should aim for that. If it's playable in Modern and beyond, that's a thing I certainly appreciate, but I don't require it.
The only thing I'm going to quote is this:
This sounds like a very good way to procede. I'll try to think more about and develop my four section proposal from an earlier post of mine and see what I can come up with. If others want to try that too, that would be awesome. One thing I definitely think should be done (and I'll surely do it in my developed proposal) is attribute points not to the whole sections, but to each single point in it, so that we can have a better uniformity in judgments. For example (just an example to make my point clear, NOT an actual rubric draft), taking inspiration from the design section as it is now (my notes in square brackets):
Design [you DON'T put X/10 here]
- Creativity: X/3
- Elegance: X/3
- Potential: [this has subpoints with points attributed to each of them]
-- Timmy: X/1 [does the card appeal to Timmy? 0 = no, 1 = yes, 0.5 = it interests him but doesn't fully excite him]
-- Johnny: X/1 [the same as Timmy]
-- Spike: X/1 [the same as Timmy and Johnny]
-- How well does the card fit the intended audience? [I'd need to find a name for this] X/1 [an extra point to take into account that not every card should appeal to all psychographics, so this point is like: If this card is intended for Timmy, how well does the end result appear to Timmy's eyes? This may seem like a duplicate from the previous subsections, but it's intended to prize a card that fits particularly well the psychographic it's meant to appeal to vs a card that is forced to appeal to all three to achieve a high score here.]
To be clear, that's the level of detail in the distribution of points that I think is needed. A X/10 in design is not enough, we need to go deeper, and the more specific we are the better it is. I repeat, this is just meant as an example and I'm not submitting this as a draft, I need more time to think through it and other sections, but my draft will definitely be something along these lines for all sections. The only major doubt I have, as I mentioned before, is where to include challenge points (which need to be there): in Editing, or in its own section. In this moment I'm leaning towards the latter, and I'd have five sections in that case. I'll think more about it and when I'm ready I'll submit a draft here. If others want to try this too, they're very welcome! Then we can compare our drafts and take the best from each of them.
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (15): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) || Judge (34): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here)
CCL - Winner (3): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last one here) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016
DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (3): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016
• The two public custom sets I've been part a part of the design team for:
"Brotherhood of Ormos" - Blog post with all info - set thread - design skeleton / card list || "Extinctia: Homo Evanuit" - Blog post with all info - set thread - card list spreadsheet
• "The Lion's Lair", my article series about MTG and custom card design in particular. Latest article here. Here is the article index. Rather outdated by now, and based on the old MCC rubric, but I'm leaving this here for anybody that might be interested anyway.
• My only public attempt at being a writer: the story of my Leonin custom planeswalker Jeff Lionheart. (I have a very big one that I'm working on right now but that's private for now, and I don't know if I will ever actually publish it, and I also have ideas for multiple future ones, including one where I'm going to reprise Jeff.)
I don't really see what we get from excessive subdivision. As a judge I think it creates a lot more hassle than the current model and I can't really see the benefits. If a judge wants to follow that level of detail there isn't anything stopping them. But what you have suggested is exactly what worries me when people start talking about changing the rubic, and that is that we are moving towards a simple box ticking judging system.
Would a double-faced card that's black/red on one side and red/green on the other side qualify for the main challenge?
Design -
(X/3) Appeal: Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johhny/Spike) have a use for the card? Does it create or fit into a deck/archetype?
(X/3) Elegance: Are the concepts of the card easily understood at a glance? Do all the flavor and mechanics combined as a whole make sense?
Development –
(X/3) Viability: How well does the card fit into the color wheel? Does it break or bend the rules of the game? Is it the appropriate rarity?
(X/3) Balance: Does the card have a power level appropriate for contemporary constructed/limited environments without breaking them? Does it play well in casual and multiplayer formats? Does it create fun play experiences?
Creativity -
(X/3) Uniqueness: Has a card like this ever been printed before? Does it use new mechanics, ideas, or design space? Does it combine old ideas in a new way? Overall, does it feel “fresh”?
(X/3) Flavor: Does the name seem realistic for a card? Does the flavor text sound professional? Do all the flavor elements synch together to please Vorthos players?
Polish –
(X/3) Quality: Points deducted for incorrect spelling, grammar, and templating.
(X/2) *Main Challenge: Was the main challenge satisfied? Was it approached in a unique or interesting way? Does the card fit the intent of the challenge?
(X/2) Sub Challenges: One point awarded per satisfied subchallenge condition.
Total: X/25
* If this category is marked as 0, entry subject to disqualification.
If you look over it closely, you'll see that in terms of how the points are divided there has been very little change. Basically, the two categories of Design and Development from the old rubric (worth 10 points each) have been broken down into three categories, putting creativity as its own thing (each now being worth 6 points.) This leaves the 2 uneven points from the old rubric to be incorporated into the Main Challenge sub category in Polish.
Outside of that, I have some proposed wording changes within a number of the sub categories that make them simultaneously more focused and encompassing of what I feel we all should be considering in a challenge. Overall, I don't feel this rubric is a very radical change, but offers some key improvements. Thoughts?
First, the relatively easy things:
I say "relatively" because it's something I didn't think about and I actually had to do some research on this. Is that card two-colored because each of its faces is, or is it three-colored because both faces count at the same time when determining color? While being a color and having a color identity are different things, as I say in the clarifications, resorting to color identity definitely helps here. In fact, there is this rule:
So that card would have a Jund color identity. Thus, in analogy and only for the purposes of this month's challenges, I'm ruling that such a card would count as three-colored and fails the main challenge. Other cases:
- At the contrary, a DFC that is monocolored on the front face and also monocolored but of a different color on the back face would pass the main challenge.
- A DFC that is two-colored on the front face and two-colored of the same exact colors on the back face would also pass the main challenge.
- A DFC that's monocolored on the front face and monocolored of the same color on the back face would obviously fail the main challenge.
I'll add all of this to the clarifications as soon as I can.
And now for the main topic of these days: the rubric. In random order:
We get two things: objectivity and uniformity among different judges. Those are often loose with the current rubric, and in some cases there are huge differences. Personally, I feel this is where the current rubric fails the most, and in fact I'm one of those judges who already implement such a system themselves, because I feel I just need it as the categories of design and development are way too broad to be judged by themselves as objectively as I'd like.
In fact, we are as far as possible from one another here, as I would say "that what I have suggested is exactly what" is needed instead. I would like to leave the least room possible for judge subjectivity, and it requires something that is necessarily closer to box ticking, I'm not denying that. In fact, I actually see it as a positive.
I can also anticipate you will definitely NOT like the proposal I'm working on, as it expands that approach to the whole rubric. I've warned you in advance.
No problem about this, we just need to adjust the amount of points given to each subsection. We can just increase the points in Creativity relative to Potential (which name I'm definitely going to change in my proposal, as I don't feel it reflects the Timmy/Johnny/Spike concepts at all), or give the same amount of points to both. By the way, how do you consider Elegance? Is it worth more, less, or the same as Creativity and what is now still called Potential?
There will be no perfect distribution of points, but we could and should aim for a reasonable average. There will always be corner cases and exceptions, we can and should just try to minimize how many there are.
It seems to work because it actually works! That's the point! I'm using this method since I started judging last November and I've never thought for a single moment to abandon it. It has never failed me even once so far! By the way, it looks you also feel like the current categories are too broad. And that's exactly why I feel a more detailed official division is needed. I and you each use our own, but I don't know yours and you probably don't know mine, even if you can understand it from my previous posts. Anyway, I don't think they're the same. And that's why having an official one would improve uniformity among different judges. It's useless to have different divisions when we could have a single official one.
That's a very good first step in the right direction in my opinion, and I like it a lot. My own proposal will be much more detailed, but this is a rubric I'd definitely be happy to adopt as a judge. This looks like a very good middle point between the current rubric and my proposal which I'll post very soon.
I have just a minor word adjustment to require: Timmy/Johnny/Spike aren't the "main" psychographics, they are the only ones! Melvin and Vorthos (if you refer to them with the word "main") are not psychographics, but aesthetic profiles. They're a different thing! So I suggest to change the word "main" with "different" in your "Appeal" section:
(X/3) Appeal: Do the different player psychographics...
Also, a typo: the word "contemporary" in "Balance" is missing an "n". The rest is very good and I'd be ready to adopt this rubric right now. My own detailed proposal will follow probably later tonight.
EDIT to avoid double post: and here it is, with comments. Enjoy!
I'm using spoiler tags because of length.
NEW RUBRIC (proposal) with rating instructions
This new rubric is divided into five "sections". All sections except editing are further divided into "subsections". The psychographic subsection is further divided into "third-level sections" (for lack of a better name). Points are always attributed at the lowest level possible, that means to the single third-level sections in the psychographic subsection. Elsewhere, points are assigned to the single subsections. Only in the editing section points are assigned to the section, as there are no subsections. This approach is probably one of the biggest changes from the previous rubric, but it's one I think it's necessary and needed, as I explained in my previous posts.
Note: please, whenever you read "he" and such in everything that follows, read it as "he/she/they". I'll only be using the male gender in this post just because of quickness in both typing and reading.
1. Design
1.1 Creativity - How original is the card?
Rate this from 0 (it's not original at all, this is something we see every day in real Magic) to 5 (this effect has never ever been done before, not even once). Things to keep into account here: existence of similar effects in real Magic; new twists on existing cards, mechanics, or concepts; new keywords not existing in real Magic.
X/5
1.2 Elegance - Is the card easily understandable at a glance? Or, as MaRo would say, is it grokkable?
Rate this from 0 (the card is a complete mess and you can't understand it at all even after reading it many times) to 5 (you just need to read it one time to perfectly understand what it does). Keep also wordiness into account here.
X/5
1.3 Psychographics
1.3.1 Timmy - Does Timmy like the card?
Rate this from 0 (he hates it) to 1 (he loves it). 0.5 means he likes it but it doesn't excite him.
X/1
1.3.2 Johnny - Does Johnny like the card?
Rate this from 0 (he hates it) to 1 (he loves it). 0.5 means he likes it but it doesn't excite him.
X/1
1.3.3 Spike - Does Spike like the card?
Rate this from 0 (he hates it) to 1 (he loves it). 0.5 means he likes it but it doesn't excite him.
X/1
1.3.4 Appeal - How well does the card satisfy its intended audience?
Rate this from 0 (it doesn't excite its intended audience at all, or the designer mismatched the intended audience, for example he made a Johnny card for Timmy) to 2 (it fits its intended audience perfectly).
X/2
Maximum possible points in the psychographic subsection: 5
Maximum possible points in the design section: 15
2. Development
2.1 Color pie - How well do the card mechanics fit into the color pie?
Rate this from 0 (the card breaks the color pie) to 4 (the card perfectly fits the color pie).
X/4
2.2 Rarity - Is the card at the appropriate rarity?
Rate this from 0 (this card can never ever be at its rarity at all) to 3 (this card is perfect at its rarity). Halfway (1 point) there is a card that could be at its rarity but only under certain circumstances.
X/3
2.3 Costing - How well do the mana cost and eventual ability costs and additional costs match the power of the card?
Rate this from 0 (there's no way the card would actually be printed with its costs, either because they're way too high or way too low) to 4 (the costs are perfect and the card is neither overcosted nor undercosted, but it would be printable as is as far as costs are concerned).
X/4
2.4 Playability - How is the card playable in its intended format?
To rate this, first identify what format is the card made for, and then rate the playability in that format from 0 (either completely unplayable in its intended format let alone other ones, or completely broken in some format) to 4 (this is a very powerful card in its intended format, but it's not broken). Ignore formats other than the card's intended one(s), but keep into account if a card is playable in multiple formats. Also, if a card is broken in some formats, penalize it here (not just very powerful, but really broken, here we're thinking about something like Jace, the Mind Sculptor when it was in Standard or in Modern, or Skullclamp in Mirrodin block for example). Finally, take into account that commons are usually made for limited formats, while rares and mythics for constructed ones.
X/4
Maximum possible points in the development section: 15
3. Creative
3.1 Card concept - How well does the card represent what it's meant to as a whole package?
Rate this from 0 (its flavor doesn't make any sense at all) to 4 (all the elements of the card perfectly integrate to make something you perfectly understand what it's meant to represent as soon as you see it).
X/4
3.2 Card name - How good is the card name?
Rate this from 0 (it's awful and it's something that should never ever be on a Magic card) to 2 (it's perfect and no better name can be found). 1 means the name is good enough to be passable but not excellent.
X/2
3.3 Flavor text - How good is the flavor text?
Rate this from 0 (it's awful and it's something that should never ever be on a Magic card) to 2 (it's perfect and no better flavor text can be written). 1 means the flavor text is good enough to be passable but not excellent.
X/2
3.4 Mechanical flavor - How well do the card mechanics express flavor themselves?
Rate this from 0 (the mechanics are inherently flavorless) to 2 (the mechanics alone are telling a story that perfectly integrates into the card concept).
X/2
Maximum possible points in the creative section: 10
4. Editing - Are there any mistakes in spelling, grammar, or templating?
Rate this starting from 5 points and deducting some amount of points for each mistake in the card, also depending on the severity of the mistake.
X/5
Maximum possible points in the editing section: 5
5. Challenges
5.1 Main challenge - How well does the card fit the main challenge?
Rate this from 0 (the card fails to meet the main challenge at all) to 3 (it fits the main challenge perfectly).
X/3
5.2 Subchallenge 1 - How well does the card fit subchallenge 1?
Rate this from 0 (the card fails to meet subchallenge 1 at all) to 1 (it fits the main challenge perfectly). 0.5 means the card technically meets the subchallenge but it doesn't perfectly fit its intent).
X/1
5.3 Subchallenge 2 - How well does the card fit subchallenge 2?
Rate this from 0 (the card fails to meet subchallenge 2 at all) to 1 (it fits the main challenge perfectly). 0.5 means the card technically meets the subchallenge but it doesn't perfectly fit its intent).
X/1
Maximum possible points in the challenge section: 5
Maximum possible points in the whole rubric: 50
NEW RUBRIC (proposal) shorter version
1. Design
1.1 Creativity (X/5) - How original is the card?
1.2 Elegance (X/5) - Is the card easily understandable at a glance? Or, as MaRo would say, is it grokkable?
1.3 Psychographics
1.3.1 Timmy (X/1) - Does Timmy like the card?
1.3.2 Johnny (X/1) - Does Johnny like the card?
1.3.3 Spike (X/1) - Does Spike like the card?
1.3.4 Appeal (X/2) - How well does the card satisfy its intended audience?
Design total: X/15
2. Development
2.1 Color pie (X/4) - How well do the card mechanics fit into the color pie?
2.2 Rarity (X/3) - Is the card at the appropriate rarity?
2.3 Costing (X/4) - How well do the mana cost and eventual ability costs and additional costs match the power of the card?
2.4 Playability (X/4) - How is the card playable in its intended format?
Development total: X/15
3. Creative
3.1 Card concept (X/4) - How well does the card represent what it's meant to as a whole package?
3.2 Card name (X/2) - How good is the card name?
3.3 Flavor text (X/2) - How good is the flavor text?
3.4 Mechanical flavor (X/2) - How well do the card mechanics express flavor themselves?
Creative total: X/10
4. Editing (X/5) - Are there any mistakes in spelling, grammar, or templating?
Editing total: X/5
5. Challenges
5.1 Main challenge (X/3) - How well does the card fit the main challenge?
5.2 Subchallenge 1 (X/1) - How well does the card fit subchallenge 1?
5.3 Subchallenge 2 (X/1) - How well does the card fit subchallenge 2?
Challenge total: X/5
TOTAL: X/50
EXPLANATION OF THE RUBRIC
It all starts from the psychographic subsection. It is organized in a way such that a card that equally appeals to all of them without exciting anyone is rated as close as possible to a card that appeals only to one of them but really excites him. Those two cards would both receive 3 points here:
- the first from 1 + 1 + 1 in Timmy/Johnny/Spike and a very low score in Appeal (because I said it doesn't really excite anyone)
- the second from 1 in the psychographic it appeals to, 0 in the other two profiles, and 2 in Appeal (because I said it really excites the one psychographic it appeals to)
This is done because none of the two approaches should be penalized and they should be equally valid.
This also implies that the maximum score in this subsection is 5 points. The concerns expressed by Tilwin in a previous post are kept into account here giving the same max amount of points (5) to Creativity and Elegance. That finally implies the total amount of points in the Design section has to be 15. It comes naturally to assign the same amount of total points (15) to Development. So now the question is: how to divide them into the various subsections?
First, we have to define what subsections are here. Obviously not Creative Writing, both because it doesn't really make sense in Development and also because it will have its own section later. This leaves Viability and Balance. But here we come to another problem: if you read the questions under those points, you realize that you're actually analyzing more than one thing in each of them, and those things you're analyzing together have little to do with one another. For example, Viability first asks about the color pie, then about rarity. What have those two to do with one another? Nothing! So I've separated them. The same goes for Costing and Playability in Balance. Those two actually have a little something to do with one another, but there are also other factors dictating playability beyond costs, so it still makes more sense to me to separate them rather than having them united in a single section.
Now that we've established what the subsections in Development are, we have to specify them and only then divide points. First, the specifications: color pie and rarity are self-explanatory. In Costing there is only one thing to specify: that an undercosted card is as bad as an overcosted one, if not worse, as it can break the metagame, while a card can simply be ignored if it's too weak, so it won't damage the metagame. In Playability, I willingly took a different approach than the current one. Instead of trying to evaluating the playability in all formats, which would penalize cards made specifically for one format, first identify the format(s) the card is made for, and then evaluate how it is in that format. Anyway, cards that are playable in multiple formats should see that still being considered. Also, being playable means not being too weak, but also not being as strong as to demand bannings. A broken card is not playable, it's bannable. That's different. So if a card is broken, it should be penalized here. But note that I'm referring to really broken cards, not just very powerful ones, in fact I've reported some examples of that in the rubric with instruction.
Now, how are the points divided in Development? They are all important things, so it makes sense to divide them equally, but 15 is not divisible by 4, so one subsection needs to get 3 points instead of 4. What is the less important subsection there? I think Rarity, so that's the one I gave 3 points to. Costing and Playability are clearly the most important, but what is worse: a card that's well costed, playable and at the right rarity but breaks the color pie, or a card that's well costed, playable and doesn't break the color pie, but it's at the wrong rarity? I think the former is worse than the latter, so I acted accordingly. That's not to say that the latter is good, obviously.
Now I have three sections left: Creative, Editing (formerly known as Quality), and Challenge. I have assigned 30 points up to now, so it makes sense to have the rubric at 50 points total. So I have 20 points left. The most logical division to me looked like 10 for Creative and 5 for each of Editing and Challenge. With that established, I faced the Creative section. I wanted it to reflect the single elements of flavor, with the same analytical approach I followed until now and that's just natural to me. So what are the components of flavor in a card? Name, flavor text, and what I called "mechanical flavor", that means how well do the mechanics themselves express flavor. But the card concept is more than just the sum of those three, and it's actually the most important thing here, so it also makes sense as a separate subsection that's given the most points here. That's why I have a 4/2/2/2 split.
Finally, I have already slotted 5 points for Editing, which is exactly the same as what Quality is now, and 5 points for Challenge. I have multiple targets here (pun unintended):
- insert a new subsection for the main challenge;
- keep the difference between main challenge and subchallenges;
- keep two subchallenges and not adding or removing any of them.
The only way to meet all those together is to give more points for the main challenge and an equal but lesser amount of points to each of the subchallenges. With 5 points total to assign, the only possible split that made sense here to me is 3/1/1, so that's the one I put here.
Let me specify that by giving 5 points to each of Editing and Challenge I'm not valuing them more than the current rubric does: 5/50 = 0,10 is just a little less than 3/25 = 0,12 (for Quality/Editing) and just a little more than 2/25 = 0,08 (for Challenges). Anyway, those three number are all comparable. Design, Development, and Creative respectively count for 30%, 30%, and 20% of the total, while now Design and Development are 40% each. The decreasing of those percentage is just a consequence of adding Creative as its own separate section.
Now, I'm not saying my rubric is perfect or can't be improved. I'm also not saying the amount of points assigned to each subsection can't be changed. All of that can be perfected, this is just a proposal. I also know it's a quite strong change from the current rubric, especially in the overall structure and in the general approach of always assigning points to the lowest level section available. I warned you all before that my proposal would have been like this. I know I probably went a little too far, but I hope that at least something of what I'm saying here in this post and in the discussion about the rubric that's going on in these days makes sense to someone else beside me. If I'm in the minority in wanting a more detailed rubric, that's fine, but at least I've expressed my opinion. Thanks everyone for the great discussion we're having in these days and for the patience you're having in both reading my long posts until the end and standing a person who's trying to take action on something people complained about in the last months. If no one ever takes action, a complaint will always remain a complaint. That's not excluding the possibility to leave the rubric as is, but even if in the end we decide that is the best way, we'll have arrived at that conclusion by discussing it, and that will give all of us a better understanding and awareness of the rubric.
Ok, I think I'm done. Thanks again for standing my ramblings.
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (15): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) || Judge (34): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here)
CCL - Winner (3): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last one here) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016
DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (3): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016
• The two public custom sets I've been part a part of the design team for:
"Brotherhood of Ormos" - Blog post with all info - set thread - design skeleton / card list || "Extinctia: Homo Evanuit" - Blog post with all info - set thread - card list spreadsheet
• "The Lion's Lair", my article series about MTG and custom card design in particular. Latest article here. Here is the article index. Rather outdated by now, and based on the old MCC rubric, but I'm leaving this here for anybody that might be interested anyway.
• My only public attempt at being a writer: the story of my Leonin custom planeswalker Jeff Lionheart. (I have a very big one that I'm working on right now but that's private for now, and I don't know if I will ever actually publish it, and I also have ideas for multiple future ones, including one where I'm going to reprise Jeff.)
Even if we have to change rubic, can we at least agree that the new design should not increase the workload of judges - otherwise it's going to get even harder to get enough signing up each month.
Please also note what I'm about to say, and I would have said this anyway: if there was a vote today (and we don't need to change the rubric immediately in any way, this is a long term discussion), I wouldn't vote for my proposal, but for IcariiFA's one. I really like that very much, I think it is very easily implementable (at the contrary of mine), and it looks like a very good middle ground between what everybody has said here. So:
+1 vote for that. I'm ready to try his proposed rubric as a judge whenever you want.
EDIT - also this, because it's relevant here too. I'm feeling really bad right now.
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (15): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) || Judge (34): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here)
CCL - Winner (3): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last one here) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016
DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (3): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016
• The two public custom sets I've been part a part of the design team for:
"Brotherhood of Ormos" - Blog post with all info - set thread - design skeleton / card list || "Extinctia: Homo Evanuit" - Blog post with all info - set thread - card list spreadsheet
• "The Lion's Lair", my article series about MTG and custom card design in particular. Latest article here. Here is the article index. Rather outdated by now, and based on the old MCC rubric, but I'm leaving this here for anybody that might be interested anyway.
• My only public attempt at being a writer: the story of my Leonin custom planeswalker Jeff Lionheart. (I have a very big one that I'm working on right now but that's private for now, and I don't know if I will ever actually publish it, and I also have ideas for multiple future ones, including one where I'm going to reprise Jeff.)
Already in the note.
As you can see, I totally agree.
There was this a few pages ago, I don't know if it's still valid:
As for the rest, I completely agree on trying IcariiFA's rubric whenever you want. Obviously I can't change it in the middle of the month myself and I'll end the month with the old rubric. But after that, I'm open to everything as a judge.
MCC - Winner (6): Oct 2014, Apr Nov 2017, Jan 2018, Apr Jun 2019 || Host (15): Dec 2014, Apr Jul Aug Dec 2015, Mar Jul Aug Oct 2016, Feb Jul 2017, Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here) || Judge (34): every month from Nov 2014 to Nov 2016 except Oct 2015, every month from Feb to Jul 2017 except Apr 2017, then Oct 2017, May Jun Nov 2018, Feb Jul 2019 (last one here)
CCL - Winner (3): Jul 2016 (tied with Flatline), May 2017, Jul 2019 (last one here) || Host (5): Feb 2015, Mar Apr May Jun 2016
DCC - Winner (1): Mar 2015 (tied with Piar) || Host (3): May Oct 2015, Jan 2016
• The two public custom sets I've been part a part of the design team for:
"Brotherhood of Ormos" - Blog post with all info - set thread - design skeleton / card list || "Extinctia: Homo Evanuit" - Blog post with all info - set thread - card list spreadsheet
• "The Lion's Lair", my article series about MTG and custom card design in particular. Latest article here. Here is the article index. Rather outdated by now, and based on the old MCC rubric, but I'm leaving this here for anybody that might be interested anyway.
• My only public attempt at being a writer: the story of my Leonin custom planeswalker Jeff Lionheart. (I have a very big one that I'm working on right now but that's private for now, and I don't know if I will ever actually publish it, and I also have ideas for multiple future ones, including one where I'm going to reprise Jeff.)