- I like the flavor text, but you misuse the word "assure". The word you're looking for is "ensure".
Assure and ensure are pretty much interchangeable here. Ensure is the first synonym listed in the dictionary for assure, and visa versa. The second dictionary definition of assure is - "Make (something) sure to happen".
Edit: Also, I'm pretty sure Rage Nimbus and Vent Sentinel would like to have word with you about red defenders. I've only made one defender deck in my time, and red was the primary color of the deck because of the two creatures I just mentioned.
(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)
It's kind of a slap in the face that you're allowing someone to progress into the Top 8 who didn't provide feedback. I spent a lot of time providing feedback.
And you got the reward for that: Two points per round. But you were outscored. The CCL rules have always heavily encouraged feedback but never required it, and at this point it's not even a "this is a subjective score and I'm the judge" case as it would be for the MCC; it's "this is a subjective score that other people provided and I'm just the scorekeeper." So you're going to have to deal with this and move on.
It's kind of a slap in the face that you're allowing someone to progress into the Top 8 who didn't provide feedback. I spent a lot of time providing feedback.
And you got the reward for that: Two points per round. But you were outscored. The CCL rules have always heavily encouraged feedback but never required it, and at this point it's not even a "this is a subjective score and I'm the judge" case as it would be for the MCC; it's "this is a subjective score that other people provided and I'm just the scorekeeper." So you're going to have to deal with this and move on.
While I agree completely that this is the correct decision because of the current rules of the CCL, I have always believed that the rules should be changed to make providing a top 3 a requirement for receiving any points for that particular round. I would keep the point bonus for providing feedback, but make the top 3 mandatory. Of course this is only my opinion, and such a change would need to have the consensus of the community, but I figured this was as good a time as any to bring up my suggestion. I'm curious how others feel about it.
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)
It's kind of a slap in the face that you're allowing someone to progress into the Top 8 who didn't provide feedback. I spent a lot of time providing feedback.
And you got the reward for that: Two points per round. But you were outscored. The CCL rules have always heavily encouraged feedback but never required it, and at this point it's not even a "this is a subjective score and I'm the judge" case as it would be for the MCC; it's "this is a subjective score that other people provided and I'm just the scorekeeper." So you're going to have to deal with this and move on.
While I agree completely that this is the correct decision because of the current rules of the CCL, I have always believed that the rules should be changed to make providing a top 3 a requirement for receiving any points for that particular round. I would keep the point bonus for providing feedback, but make the top 3 mandatory. Of course this is only my opinion, and such a change would need to have the consensus of the community, but I figured this was as good a time as any to bring up my suggestion. I'm curious how others feel about it.
I'm in agreement, considering how critical top 3s are for scoring.
Also, I do understand kjsharp's frustration. I have had rounds in which I only received consideration from two out of six people, which is never fun, especially when one of the people that didn't hold up their end of the bargain ends up moving on to the next round. I try not to complain about it because I know the rules going in, but there is no reason the rules can't be changed. In the end, we're trying to encourage participation, so the real question is, are people more bothered by not receiving consideration, or by being forced to provide a top 3? Personally, I'm more bothered by the former, although not so much so that I've quit participating.
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)
Happened to me too (sets ago) entered both rounds got, judged others. Then didnt make it to top 8. But the real final straw was one of those that got in only entered first round, barely judged others and got judged well! And guess who got ZERO judgenings. That was when I adopted a very BR apporach and just entered entries when I feel like it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MtG is where you can hate white players or black players, and still not be racist.
It does suck when someone who doesn't fully participate in judging makes it to the top 8 versus those who put in more time in effort. BUT (prepare for me to sound like an arse) this is a design competition. It's about what you produce. If you can produce creative and high quality designs consistently, you can likewise make the top 8 pretty consistently, as several designers on the boards have proven time and again.
That's not to say that perhaps the scoring system in the CCL can't be improved, but also consider you own designs and really compare to what else is being put out there. What are they doing differently that people are rating highly? Is your submission really outstanding compared to the others around, or are you fighting with the middle of the pack? Aim higher.
I know as of late I give rather brief critiques in the CCL as my personal and work life keep me pretty busy, but if anyone wants expanded thoughts on what I think your strengths and weakness might be, feel free to ask.
Yes sometimes its just the luck of the draw, more than it is design space really. Take my last entry for CCL three people thought it was borderline OP, while one thought it was too weak to see any play. So yeah, you design a timmy card and get spike judges?
I am not trying to say I am good or that shouldbhave won, the point Im trying to get across is BR have fun approach. People will not like your card, people will. Think of it less as a contest and and more of a game.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
MtG is where you can hate white players or black players, and still not be racist.
I can do it if you'd like to take a break, but if you have no problem hosting a third straight month, I'd prefer not to.
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)
I didn't see this until now, and I've been very busy for the past month and will be for the next few days, but I do want to briefly comment. I hesitate to do so because I don't really want to "rock the boat", but just take it for what it is - an accurate portrayal of a newcomer's perceptions and feelings. I don't wish to comment upon this subject further.
When I saw this subforum I was pretty excited because I've been designing my own card game and I wanted a creative outlet for Magic card design. I've always been fond of musing over card design choices and what not, so I was eager to participate. I can definitely say that the way that this was handled dampened my enthusiasm to participate in the future. I'm back again for this May competition, but I don't think that this system is good for bringing in new people and welcoming new people to this community.
There is the fairness factor, as flatline said. But even more there's the factor of people simply not caring about what you design. I feel like my cards were given about 2 seconds of thought by most others, if any at all (there were several people who did not provide any feedback or rankings). When Icarii writes: "It does suck when someone who doesn't fully participate in judging makes it to the top 8 versus those who put in more time in effort. BUT (prepare for me to sound like an arse) this is a design competition. It's about what you produce. If you can produce creative and high quality designs consistently, you can likewise make the top 8 pretty consistently, as several designers on the boards have proven time and again." That attitude and perspective is exactly the problem - many come into this thing as if it is all about him and him alone. That explains the lackluster feedback provided, the lack of consideration others employ when critiquing and judging cards, and the high number of people who don't provide feedback. It is unsurprising that Icarii is a prime offender here - you can't think about my card Wall of Time for more than 1 minute and arrive at the conclusion that the card would be oppressive (I will do a write up about the card later this week, but therein I will explain why the card would be Standard-playable, fringe Modern-playable, and unplayable in other formats. That is hardly oppressive. And gameplay-wise the card is not all that complex. It reads as if it were complex, but it doesn't play out that way. But in order to see that you have to actually mull over the card for a bit. "Chew the cud" as Nietzsche would say). But I do see how one could arrive at that conclusion if one perceived giving feedback more as a chore that needed to be completed to get a few points in the standings instead of as an opportunity to contemplate others' designs and see what is cool about them. My evaluations and judgments of cards certainly changed as I thought about others' cards and the intentional design and thought that went into them. I even saw my own mistakes when judging others' cards (for example, when I critiqued Theelspeak's card, I described a "Tower of Babel problem" that I noticed equally applied to my first submission). I don't mean to pick on Icarii specifically, but it was emblematic in the sense that as I read through others' critiques of others' cards, it just seemed like many weren't all that interested in looking at others' cards. There was an evident lack of enthusiasm regarding feedback, and that is what disappointed me the most.
Basically, if the cards that others designed were not whipped up in 5 seconds, then one's judgment and consideration of a card should not be concluded in 5 seconds.
Obviously I am new here, but competitions like this are great opportunities to practice your craft. Competitions, especially friendly ones like this, don't exist solely for doling out trophies and prestige though - they get a whole cohort of card designers to take a limited prompt and produce a myriad of responses to that prompt. There is a teaching, learning, and collaborative component to it. Further, part of practicing your craft is studying others' designs, seeing what you like and don't like about them, seeing why they are good and bad. You don't grow merely from production - Aquinas wasn't a great philosopher merely by writing a bunch of *****. He was a great philosopher because he studied other philosophers who came before him. Anyway, I don't want to get too far afield, but it does seem like it would be helpful for the rules to be modified in such a way that encourages a greater attention to others' cards. I certainly hope that the feedback I provided was helpful and shared with that person some of my perspective about card design etc etc...But it is disheartening when others do not want to take the time to think about what you produced. I took time and gave every card serious thought, and I enjoyed the process of doing so. Once you no longer enjoy doing that, you have almost no room to grow as a card designer anyway. A bad professor is one who knows deep down in his heart that he has nothing to learn from his students.
In sum, I think what Flatline and void_nothing propose would be helpful. And I also think that thoughtful feedback helps you accurately judge cards, and the amount of thoughtful feedback that took place in the first few rounds of the April competition was not as high as would be ideal. As a newcomer, this experience was discouraging, and I suspect that I am not the first new person to feel that same way.
but I do see how one could arrive at that conclusion if one perceived giving feedback more as a chore that needed to be completed to get a few points in the standings instead of as an opportunity to contemplate others' designs and see what is cool about them.
If you're going to call me out, you need to check yourself and get your facts in line.
I can't say im the most well liked on these forums, but I think very few of the veteran members would ever call me out as a poor designer or judge. As someone who consistently does well in these competitions, who has spent a lot of time doing extensive MCC reviews in the past, one of the few people who have a degree and experience in game development, I'm one of the MOST qualified people to provide feedback for cards on these forums currently.
If you have to mull over the card for a bit to understand it, it is too complex. PERIOD. For the average player, it is too much. And guess what? If you're posting on these forums, especially in these threads, you are NOT the average player. To be frank, despite your wall of time card having a clear concept, it's a card that would not see print on that basis alone in my opinion.
I'm not saying everything in my judgings is 100% accurate. I make mistakes, but I give more than a minute of thought before evaluating a card even if I only write one or two sentences. One of the reasons I havent been judging in the MCC as of late is because I dont have the time to do extensive reviews of each card. That's why I play and judge in the CCL more these days as I can summarize my thoughts to the most pertinent points. If you want more extensive reviews, play and do well in the MCC. That's one of the intended differences between the two.
And here is a dose of reality for you. In game design, individual people arent going to write and essay on every design you submit. Even in WotC, when they are designing and developing cards, each individual team member will often add a note or two to the cards on file to consider based on reactions and testing, and move on. So in that sense, the CCL is more accurate to how an individual card receives feedback.
You're new here. I get you want more feedback on why people don't see your designs in the same light as you do. You want more in depth explanation then the sentence or two I give you. Fine. Ask me. Here in this thread or PM. I have no problem with that. In fact I quite recently offered to do that in this very thread as well. But if your going to throw a fit you aren't going to get that.
Call someone else out, like the people who post design but don't critique at all.
I'm sorry you feel discouraged kjsharp, you are definitely not the first person to feel that way. I started off in the DCC, which doesn't require feedback at all. After I did rather poorly the first month, I too felt discouraged because I wasn't sure what I was doing wrong. Still, I stuck to it and learned from paying attention to what was getting votes. After a couple of months, I progressed enough to win my first DCC, and have won 16 more DCCs since then. Now when I look back at the cards I was making at first, I totally understand why they weren't receiving votes.
Ultimately, you need to understand that people come to these forums for different reasons, and everybody has a different level of interest in them, as well as varying amounts of time to dedicate. Some people just can't set aside a lot of time to thoroughly evaluate and write reviews for 20 or more cards a month, and that's ok. I do think it is rude to completely ignore the judgment portion of the CCL though, and that's were I disagree a bit with what IcariiFA is saying. A card design competition can't be all "about what you produce", because if no one cares about crits and rankings, it ceases to be a competition. The word competition implies that their will be a winner at the end, but if nobody cares about the judgment portion, there can be no winner.
I continue to believe that providing a top 3 should be mandatory to advance to the next round, and that points should be given out for written critiques. For a while we were giving 1 pt for crits, and 2 pts for "good crits", but that was a bit tough because what is considered a "good crit" can be subjective, but I have no problem trying that again. It would be up to the host as to whether your crit deserved 1 or 2 pts. Maybe we could even go to a 3-2-1 pt system for crits. Again, this would all have to be agreed upon by the community before being enacted.
Anyway, I hope you continue to participate kjsharp, as these forums are starved for some new blood (although participation seems to be up in the DCC and MCC again lately). If you want to know more about what others thought of your card, I recommend you try to engage people in the discussion threads, but you need to realize that you may or may not get a response. If you don't, just realize that people have real life obligations, and sometimes it's hard for people to make a stranger on the internet a very high priority in life. If you really want a thorough assessment of your card everytime, perhaps the MCC is the best competition for you.
Edit: BTW, if you stick around long enough, I think you'll find that IcariiFA is actually one of the more insightful and reliable participants in these forums, even if he can come off as a bit harsh at times.
(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)
Call someone else out, like the people who post design but don't critique at all.
I was afraid you were going to take it that way. As I think I made clear in my post, though, I was shedding light on a general apathy regarding the judgment and critiquing portion of the competition that I found discouraging. This takes two forms: (1) people not doing it at all and (2) people doing it too cursorily. I was honest when I said that I wasn't trying to call you out. I have nothing against you, and if I were to re-write my thoughts I might very well not have used a personal example like that, or perhaps used an example of feedback about a card not my own so as not to give off an impression of whining. The larger issue of apathy toward judgment and critique is what was discouraging and disappointing and is what my post was about.
I'm sorry you feel discouraged kjsharp, you are definitely not the first person to feel that way. I started off in the DCC, which doesn't require feedback at all. After I did rather poorly the first month, I too felt discouraged because I wasn't sure what I was doing wrong. Still, I stuck to it and learned from paying attention to what was getting votes. After a couple of months, I progressed enough to win my first DCC, and have won 16 more DCCs since then. Now when I look back at the cards I was making at first, I totally understand why they weren't receiving votes.
Edit: BTW, if you stick around long enough, I think you'll find that IcariiFA is actually one of the more insightful and reliable participants in these forums, even if he can come off as a bit harsh at times.
I believe it
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Follow me on Twitch if you're interested in watching competitive league drafts.
Play MTGO? Check out my latest MTGO finance articles on Quiet Speculation.
I was afraid you were going to take it that way. As I think I made clear in my post, though, I was shedding light on a general apathy regarding the judgment and critiquing portion of the competition that I found discouraging.
Just because you added a caveat in your original post that you don't intend to "pick on me", doesn't mean you didn't actually pick on me and call me out. It the same thing as when someone says "I don't mean to be racist but" and you know what follows is 99% likely to be racist. You said I gave lackuster feedback and my participation is about me and no one else. You responded to my critique of your card saying it was obviously wrong and that I only though about your card for a minute, and If I thought about it more it would of been obvious I off on all accounts (basically.)
Let me clarify my statement about "it's what you produce." If you produce a card that takes you 5 hours to nail down how you like it, and someone else takes 5 minutes and comes up with a design that's a higher quality, than tough luck. It doesn't matter who put in more effort if the result of there minimal effort produces better work. This also applies to critique as a whole. Someone could write a sentence or two that nails the most valuable points of a card while another goes into depth about the card. But if their succinct points are more accurate than the paragraph(s) the other wrote, it doesn't matter. What they did, despite taking less effort, is more valuable.
I don't like it when people post entries and refuse to critique. But if you're continue to lose to the people who do that, who miss out on those points, how strong and consistent is your body of work?
I'm not against a system that would impose harsher penalties on those who fail to fully participate. I worry a bit on how that might affect the number of entries, but if it improves the quality of the competition then great. Whether it should be mandatory for people to post critiques to continue, I'm not 100% sure, but I'm not against giving it a go.
It's frustrating to lose to people who you know don't put in the same amount of effort, but at the same time, think about what you could do to improve. Are you at the level you think you are? It wasn't just my single critique that left you out of progressing. The system the CCL has is not perfect, but neither are you. What are your shortcomings as a designer? What are your shortcomings when designing for the audience on this board?
But don't just think of it as what you're weaker at. Think about what your strengths are too. If you can emphasize what you're strong at while mitigating your weakness, you're golden. You'll do better.
TLDR: You called me out, don't back track. CCL ain't perfect and may need a change, but it's not just the CCL rules that have caused you to lose. Think about why you lost and how you can improve too.
Your perspective feels out of whack for a competition in which the participants are the ones doing the judging and critiquing and offering feedback. I said that your perspective and your feedback were emblematic of a general apathy I sensed toward feedback and the work others produce. The TLDR of my post, in other words, was that participants in the competition are focusing too much on their own work (the production) and are not focusing enough on the other aspects of this exercise, namely the critiquing and offering of feedback. Were everyone to share the general perspective and priorities you have elucidated in your posts on this thread, that would be a direct consequence. Asking me and others to examine why we "lost" dodges this issue.
I didn't backtrack my criticism of you at all - I just mentioned that it was imprudent for me to criticize a particular person because it could sidetrack the discussion away from the important issues that I and others like Forestguy were raising.
I like the general structure of this competition, and I do hope that some of these changes being bandied about are implemented. As Flatline and others have noted, though, people have to actually care about the cards others make. A collaborative project/competition isn't good or fun or just when no one cares about what the other people in the group are doing.
I feel like I should say, while it does bother me when people don't even bother to post a top 3, I try not to get too upset about lackluster crits. I've never claimed my crits were anything great. I am able to put varying time into such things, and critiquing someone else's card thoroughly takes me a lot more time than it does to come up with cards. TBH, I'm not really a fan of critiquing other people's cards, it's not anything thing I've ever said I was qualified to do, and from my experience, it just tends to lead to arguments.
Edit: Of course I do appreciate thorough crits and try my best to make my crits as thorough as time allows, I don't mean for my post to sound otherwise.
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)
I feel like I should say, while it does bother me when people don't even bother to post a top 3, I try not to get too upset about lackluster crits. I've never claimed my crits were anything great. I am able to put varying time into such things, and critiquing someone else's card thoroughly takes me a lot more time than it does to come up with cards. TBH, I'm not really a fan of critiquing other people's cards, it's not anything thing I've ever said I was qualified to do, and from my experience, it just tends to lead to arguments.
It's an exercise that I enjoy. More importantly, it's an exercise that helps your card-designing skills, in part because it asks you to get yourself into the head of the designer and figure out what issues he was facing and what idea he was going for. Even more importantly, if done with a bit of care an enthusiasm, it can really help the person being critiqued. It was definitely one of the things I was looking forward to when I saw the existence of this competition.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Follow me on Twitch if you're interested in watching competitive league drafts.
Play MTGO? Check out my latest MTGO finance articles on Quiet Speculation.
Anyway, I don't want to dwell on this any further. As should be obvious, I think that any changes that encourage more enthusiasm for the critiquing and judging and feedback aspect of the competition would be well worth considering.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Follow me on Twitch if you're interested in watching competitive league drafts.
Play MTGO? Check out my latest MTGO finance articles on Quiet Speculation.
Your perspective feels out of whack for a competition in which the participants are the ones doing the judging and critiquing and offering feedback.
I don't worry about those people as much because as each round gets tighter it becomes impossible to move forward without providing critique. The points lost become too large of a factor.
Were everyone to share the general perspective and priorities you have elucidated in your posts on this thread, that would be a direct consequence. Asking me and others to examine why we "lost" dodges this issue.
I'm not dodging the issue, just pointing out a facet of why you lost is the designs you submitted, not just CCL issues. You're the one who brought it up when you specifically called out my review of your card and how it was incorrect on multiple fronts.
My point is while there are certainly room to improve the CCL part of your issue is you're not accepting what you've submitted may not be as impressive as you think it is. You've made that clear as you've avoided even admitting that MAYBE your entry wasn't ideal.
If you want to "focus" on your intended issue, maybe you should stop continuing to use me as a target board(despite expressing regret in doing so) as you outline how people who "share the general perspective and priorities you[IcariiFA] have elucidated." are the problem. Leave me out of it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Edit: Also, I'm pretty sure Rage Nimbus and Vent Sentinel would like to have word with you about red defenders. I've only made one defender deck in my time, and red was the primary color of the deck because of the two creatures I just mentioned.
And you got the reward for that: Two points per round. But you were outscored. The CCL rules have always heavily encouraged feedback but never required it, and at this point it's not even a "this is a subjective score and I'm the judge" case as it would be for the MCC; it's "this is a subjective score that other people provided and I'm just the scorekeeper." So you're going to have to deal with this and move on.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
I'm in agreement, considering how critical top 3s are for scoring.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
That's not to say that perhaps the scoring system in the CCL can't be improved, but also consider you own designs and really compare to what else is being put out there. What are they doing differently that people are rating highly? Is your submission really outstanding compared to the others around, or are you fighting with the middle of the pack? Aim higher.
I know as of late I give rather brief critiques in the CCL as my personal and work life keep me pretty busy, but if anyone wants expanded thoughts on what I think your strengths and weakness might be, feel free to ask.
I am not trying to say I am good or that shouldbhave won, the point Im trying to get across is BR have fun approach. People will not like your card, people will. Think of it less as a contest and and more of a game.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
It's not a problem for me at all. I could host CCLs from here to kingdom come if need be.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
When I saw this subforum I was pretty excited because I've been designing my own card game and I wanted a creative outlet for Magic card design. I've always been fond of musing over card design choices and what not, so I was eager to participate. I can definitely say that the way that this was handled dampened my enthusiasm to participate in the future. I'm back again for this May competition, but I don't think that this system is good for bringing in new people and welcoming new people to this community.
There is the fairness factor, as flatline said. But even more there's the factor of people simply not caring about what you design. I feel like my cards were given about 2 seconds of thought by most others, if any at all (there were several people who did not provide any feedback or rankings). When Icarii writes: "It does suck when someone who doesn't fully participate in judging makes it to the top 8 versus those who put in more time in effort. BUT (prepare for me to sound like an arse) this is a design competition. It's about what you produce. If you can produce creative and high quality designs consistently, you can likewise make the top 8 pretty consistently, as several designers on the boards have proven time and again." That attitude and perspective is exactly the problem - many come into this thing as if it is all about him and him alone. That explains the lackluster feedback provided, the lack of consideration others employ when critiquing and judging cards, and the high number of people who don't provide feedback. It is unsurprising that Icarii is a prime offender here - you can't think about my card Wall of Time for more than 1 minute and arrive at the conclusion that the card would be oppressive (I will do a write up about the card later this week, but therein I will explain why the card would be Standard-playable, fringe Modern-playable, and unplayable in other formats. That is hardly oppressive. And gameplay-wise the card is not all that complex. It reads as if it were complex, but it doesn't play out that way. But in order to see that you have to actually mull over the card for a bit. "Chew the cud" as Nietzsche would say). But I do see how one could arrive at that conclusion if one perceived giving feedback more as a chore that needed to be completed to get a few points in the standings instead of as an opportunity to contemplate others' designs and see what is cool about them. My evaluations and judgments of cards certainly changed as I thought about others' cards and the intentional design and thought that went into them. I even saw my own mistakes when judging others' cards (for example, when I critiqued Theelspeak's card, I described a "Tower of Babel problem" that I noticed equally applied to my first submission). I don't mean to pick on Icarii specifically, but it was emblematic in the sense that as I read through others' critiques of others' cards, it just seemed like many weren't all that interested in looking at others' cards. There was an evident lack of enthusiasm regarding feedback, and that is what disappointed me the most.
Basically, if the cards that others designed were not whipped up in 5 seconds, then one's judgment and consideration of a card should not be concluded in 5 seconds.
Obviously I am new here, but competitions like this are great opportunities to practice your craft. Competitions, especially friendly ones like this, don't exist solely for doling out trophies and prestige though - they get a whole cohort of card designers to take a limited prompt and produce a myriad of responses to that prompt. There is a teaching, learning, and collaborative component to it. Further, part of practicing your craft is studying others' designs, seeing what you like and don't like about them, seeing why they are good and bad. You don't grow merely from production - Aquinas wasn't a great philosopher merely by writing a bunch of *****. He was a great philosopher because he studied other philosophers who came before him. Anyway, I don't want to get too far afield, but it does seem like it would be helpful for the rules to be modified in such a way that encourages a greater attention to others' cards. I certainly hope that the feedback I provided was helpful and shared with that person some of my perspective about card design etc etc...But it is disheartening when others do not want to take the time to think about what you produced. I took time and gave every card serious thought, and I enjoyed the process of doing so. Once you no longer enjoy doing that, you have almost no room to grow as a card designer anyway. A bad professor is one who knows deep down in his heart that he has nothing to learn from his students.
In sum, I think what Flatline and void_nothing propose would be helpful. And I also think that thoughtful feedback helps you accurately judge cards, and the amount of thoughtful feedback that took place in the first few rounds of the April competition was not as high as would be ideal. As a newcomer, this experience was discouraging, and I suspect that I am not the first new person to feel that same way.
If you're going to call me out, you need to check yourself and get your facts in line.
I can't say im the most well liked on these forums, but I think very few of the veteran members would ever call me out as a poor designer or judge. As someone who consistently does well in these competitions, who has spent a lot of time doing extensive MCC reviews in the past, one of the few people who have a degree and experience in game development, I'm one of the MOST qualified people to provide feedback for cards on these forums currently.
If you have to mull over the card for a bit to understand it, it is too complex. PERIOD. For the average player, it is too much. And guess what? If you're posting on these forums, especially in these threads, you are NOT the average player. To be frank, despite your wall of time card having a clear concept, it's a card that would not see print on that basis alone in my opinion.
I'm not saying everything in my judgings is 100% accurate. I make mistakes, but I give more than a minute of thought before evaluating a card even if I only write one or two sentences. One of the reasons I havent been judging in the MCC as of late is because I dont have the time to do extensive reviews of each card. That's why I play and judge in the CCL more these days as I can summarize my thoughts to the most pertinent points. If you want more extensive reviews, play and do well in the MCC. That's one of the intended differences between the two.
And here is a dose of reality for you. In game design, individual people arent going to write and essay on every design you submit. Even in WotC, when they are designing and developing cards, each individual team member will often add a note or two to the cards on file to consider based on reactions and testing, and move on. So in that sense, the CCL is more accurate to how an individual card receives feedback.
You're new here. I get you want more feedback on why people don't see your designs in the same light as you do. You want more in depth explanation then the sentence or two I give you. Fine. Ask me. Here in this thread or PM. I have no problem with that. In fact I quite recently offered to do that in this very thread as well. But if your going to throw a fit you aren't going to get that.
Call someone else out, like the people who post design but don't critique at all.
Ultimately, you need to understand that people come to these forums for different reasons, and everybody has a different level of interest in them, as well as varying amounts of time to dedicate. Some people just can't set aside a lot of time to thoroughly evaluate and write reviews for 20 or more cards a month, and that's ok. I do think it is rude to completely ignore the judgment portion of the CCL though, and that's were I disagree a bit with what IcariiFA is saying. A card design competition can't be all "about what you produce", because if no one cares about crits and rankings, it ceases to be a competition. The word competition implies that their will be a winner at the end, but if nobody cares about the judgment portion, there can be no winner.
I continue to believe that providing a top 3 should be mandatory to advance to the next round, and that points should be given out for written critiques. For a while we were giving 1 pt for crits, and 2 pts for "good crits", but that was a bit tough because what is considered a "good crit" can be subjective, but I have no problem trying that again. It would be up to the host as to whether your crit deserved 1 or 2 pts. Maybe we could even go to a 3-2-1 pt system for crits. Again, this would all have to be agreed upon by the community before being enacted.
Anyway, I hope you continue to participate kjsharp, as these forums are starved for some new blood (although participation seems to be up in the DCC and MCC again lately). If you want to know more about what others thought of your card, I recommend you try to engage people in the discussion threads, but you need to realize that you may or may not get a response. If you don't, just realize that people have real life obligations, and sometimes it's hard for people to make a stranger on the internet a very high priority in life. If you really want a thorough assessment of your card everytime, perhaps the MCC is the best competition for you.
Edit: BTW, if you stick around long enough, I think you'll find that IcariiFA is actually one of the more insightful and reliable participants in these forums, even if he can come off as a bit harsh at times.
I was afraid you were going to take it that way. As I think I made clear in my post, though, I was shedding light on a general apathy regarding the judgment and critiquing portion of the competition that I found discouraging. This takes two forms: (1) people not doing it at all and (2) people doing it too cursorily. I was honest when I said that I wasn't trying to call you out. I have nothing against you, and if I were to re-write my thoughts I might very well not have used a personal example like that, or perhaps used an example of feedback about a card not my own so as not to give off an impression of whining. The larger issue of apathy toward judgment and critique is what was discouraging and disappointing and is what my post was about.
Thank you for the kind words Flatline. I do plan on continuing to participate.
I believe it
Just because you added a caveat in your original post that you don't intend to "pick on me", doesn't mean you didn't actually pick on me and call me out. It the same thing as when someone says "I don't mean to be racist but" and you know what follows is 99% likely to be racist. You said I gave lackuster feedback and my participation is about me and no one else. You responded to my critique of your card saying it was obviously wrong and that I only though about your card for a minute, and If I thought about it more it would of been obvious I off on all accounts (basically.)
Let me clarify my statement about "it's what you produce." If you produce a card that takes you 5 hours to nail down how you like it, and someone else takes 5 minutes and comes up with a design that's a higher quality, than tough luck. It doesn't matter who put in more effort if the result of there minimal effort produces better work. This also applies to critique as a whole. Someone could write a sentence or two that nails the most valuable points of a card while another goes into depth about the card. But if their succinct points are more accurate than the paragraph(s) the other wrote, it doesn't matter. What they did, despite taking less effort, is more valuable.
I don't like it when people post entries and refuse to critique. But if you're continue to lose to the people who do that, who miss out on those points, how strong and consistent is your body of work?
I'm not against a system that would impose harsher penalties on those who fail to fully participate. I worry a bit on how that might affect the number of entries, but if it improves the quality of the competition then great. Whether it should be mandatory for people to post critiques to continue, I'm not 100% sure, but I'm not against giving it a go.
It's frustrating to lose to people who you know don't put in the same amount of effort, but at the same time, think about what you could do to improve. Are you at the level you think you are? It wasn't just my single critique that left you out of progressing. The system the CCL has is not perfect, but neither are you. What are your shortcomings as a designer? What are your shortcomings when designing for the audience on this board?
But don't just think of it as what you're weaker at. Think about what your strengths are too. If you can emphasize what you're strong at while mitigating your weakness, you're golden. You'll do better.
TLDR: You called me out, don't back track. CCL ain't perfect and may need a change, but it's not just the CCL rules that have caused you to lose. Think about why you lost and how you can improve too.
I didn't backtrack my criticism of you at all - I just mentioned that it was imprudent for me to criticize a particular person because it could sidetrack the discussion away from the important issues that I and others like Forestguy were raising.
I like the general structure of this competition, and I do hope that some of these changes being bandied about are implemented. As Flatline and others have noted, though, people have to actually care about the cards others make. A collaborative project/competition isn't good or fun or just when no one cares about what the other people in the group are doing.
Edit: Of course I do appreciate thorough crits and try my best to make my crits as thorough as time allows, I don't mean for my post to sound otherwise.
It's an exercise that I enjoy. More importantly, it's an exercise that helps your card-designing skills, in part because it asks you to get yourself into the head of the designer and figure out what issues he was facing and what idea he was going for. Even more importantly, if done with a bit of care an enthusiasm, it can really help the person being critiqued. It was definitely one of the things I was looking forward to when I saw the existence of this competition.
I don't worry about those people as much because as each round gets tighter it becomes impossible to move forward without providing critique. The points lost become too large of a factor.
I'm not dodging the issue, just pointing out a facet of why you lost is the designs you submitted, not just CCL issues. You're the one who brought it up when you specifically called out my review of your card and how it was incorrect on multiple fronts.
My point is while there are certainly room to improve the CCL part of your issue is you're not accepting what you've submitted may not be as impressive as you think it is. You've made that clear as you've avoided even admitting that MAYBE your entry wasn't ideal.
If you want to "focus" on your intended issue, maybe you should stop continuing to use me as a target board(despite expressing regret in doing so) as you outline how people who "share the general perspective and priorities you[IcariiFA] have elucidated." are the problem. Leave me out of it.