The month of June is nearly on our doorstep, which means I must call out and draw on our cast of local talent to judge what will be another exciting contest. When I lasted hosted I gave viewers a clue as to what the new month's theme would be. This time will be no different. Well, except a very different theme of challenges. A riddle:
This months theme is a simple product that we take to every event.
At least to ones where we duel and command as part of introductions.
That aside, please sign up if your are interested in judging! If you have not judged before, you are welcome to after you submit a critique for the following card using the MCC rubric posted in this thread. (Assume Main and sub challenges are met.)
Dream Prowler2UB
Legendary Craeture - Illusion (R)
Dream Prowler gets +1/+1 for each illusion you control.
When Dream Prowler deals combat damage to a player, they put that many cards from the top of their library into their graveyard.
"It feasted on me while I slept. I saw it in my dreams."
- Gerrand the Spectre
1/1
MCC rubric:
Design - (X/3) Appeal: Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johhny/Spike) have a use for the card? (X/3) Elegance: Is the card easily understandable 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 or fit into a deck/archetype? Does it create an oppressive enviorment?
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
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
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.)
Dream Prowler2UB
Legendary Craeture - Illusion (R)
Dream Prowler gets +1/+1 for each illusion you control.
When Dream Prowler deals combat damage to a player, they put that many cards from the top of their library into their graveyard.
"It feasted on me while I slept. I saw it in my dreams."
- Gerrand the Spectre
1/1
My Judging:
Design - 3/6 (1/3) Appeal: Johnny likes the idea of trying to break an unusual tribal theme. Timmy doesn't love this, because it isn't big or splashy. In a vacuum, Spike really doesn't care, if this was in a set where Illusions were a significant tribe Spike might like this but these cards are judged as if they were in a vacuum, and so this isn't a Spike card. (1.5/3) Elegance: Overall the card makes sense at a glance, however, the abilities don't have much synergy and newer players might be confused when they realize that this gives itself +1/+1 by virtue of being an Illusion, which it probably shouldn't to avoid confusion.
Development - 4/6 (2.5/3) Viability: This card doesn't have many color wheel issues and rare seems right for it. It doesn't really break or bend rules, except for maybe the bit about boosting itself, which doesn't usually happen. (1.5/3) Balance: In a vacuum, it seems kind of weak, but could be fun for a casual Illusions deck. No oppressive environments or broken formats here. However, its weakest point is limited unless Illusions is a draft archetype in a set.
Creativity - 3.5/6 (0.5/3) Uniqueness:Crosstown Courier has the second ability, and the first feels a lot like Krovikan Mist. It's an original combination of unoriginal abilities. (3/3) Flavor: Good name, cool flavor text, the abilities fit the flavor text and name well.
Polish - 4.5 (0.5/3) Quality: Illusion should be capitalized, and creature is spelled wrong. The first ability would usually say "for each other" and also would usually say "Illusion creature" rather than just Illusion. (2/2) Main Challenge: Given. (2/2) Sub Challenges: Given.
I think 5 judges will be plenty at this point. Consider the sign up's closed. Both CyroZenith and Sperlman's judgements hit a reasonable level of quality while outlining a majority of the mistakes. Here is my sample judging of the card:
Sample Judging for Dream Prowler:
Design - (0.5/3) Appeal: Timmy looks at this card and sees a pretty low power creature. It has the potential to get bigger and mill, which he likes, and tribal themes have some appeal so it isn't totally lost on him. Johnny takes away little, while Spike sees a subpar card bogged with the legendary subtype to boot. Not worth it. (1.5/3) Elegance: Most of the mechanics and flavor make sense without being terribly disruptive. The big exception is the whole legendary factor. The idea of this card doesn't seem legendary. A card that has the potential to simultaneously hurt a lot and mills some is somewhat anti-synergistic too despite some applications.
Development - (2/3) Viability: This card could be Black/Blue but could just be blue, especially with the illusion tribal effect. Speaking of the tribal effect, contemporary design would have it reference other creatures, not including itself. (1/3) Balance: Dream Prowler is almost offensively weak for a legendary creature. If Illusions are a major tribe in limited, it will at least be useful there but otherwise is a rare that isn't worth a quarter. It's also an offensively bad Commander.
Creativity - (1/3) Uniqueness: The name is taken, see: Dream Prowler. None of the mechanics are new, but used together is somewhat unique. Illusion tribal carrying about numbers has yet to be done. Overall though, this certainly isn't a fresh idea. (1.5/3) Flavor: The name does not say legendary, nor does it come out through its flavor text or mechanics. The flavor text is interesting but can also be confusing: Did the dream prowler feed on the dreams of a spectre? Or the man that was before a spectre? The abilities fit the card however.
Polish - (0.5/3) Quality: Creature is spelled wrong. Illusion should be capitalized. We refer to "his or her" in magic, not "they." "Whenever" should be used, not "when." Also, we count illusion creatures. (2/2) *Main Challenge: Challenge met. (2/2) Sub Challenges: Challenge met.
Total: 12/25
So yes, no designs like this please. Nor half as bad.
I am not sure an already used name doesn't actually affect viability since it is actually breaking for the game itself, having two non-token cards with the same name printed.
If a card can't be printed for some reason, then it effects its viability. At least thats one way to interpret it. So long as it was addressed someone in the overall critique, that's what I really cared about, not exactly how a judge justified it.
The card referencing itself also should probably affect Elegance since it makes it more difficult to understand and track (on its own the card is a 2/2 actually, not a 1/1).
That's an opinion and certainly an option to do it that way. Again, so long as it was referenced in the critique somewhere is what mattered to me, not the exact position it was justified in.
I would say the Legendary is part of the Balance and not the Elegance section since it does not affect how readable and easy to understand the card is, but rather part of how it interacts with other copies onto the battlefield affecting its power level.
I disagree completely here. I took off in both areas as it affected the elegance (This card doesn't feel legendary thanks to the name, concept, and overall execution) and its balance (this card is quite weak for a legendary and legendary works against it.)
I did not sign up this weekend for judging but I'll try to find time to sign up for the contest. Happy judging to the judges
I look forward to seeing your entries. I do want to say this in advanced however: I know you and others often respond to judges critiques and while I'm open to that generally, this specific instance was not really a place for it. Further, if you have problems with a judges evaluation this coming month and want to dispute it, it will need to be based on hard facts and not opinions. If something is subjective on both sides of the argument, I will side with the judges.
Well if you felt offended by it in any way I apologize upfront. I find that these discussions better help understanding and stabilizing the scoring grid, especially since they were outside of any contest, they were past the submission deadline so there was no "competition" in my reply. But if you feel this happened "at the wrong moment", "at the wrong place" and/or "at the wrong time" that's your point of view and that's alright.
Your warning does feel rather condescending though I'd prefer we can keep a friendly and positive attitude rather than getting all patronizing and flaunting who "has the upper hand" by being the "organizer". Because this feels more like pushing people away rather than taking an inviting stance towards the contest.
Then we look at things differently. I am for keeping the contest open and inviting, but as organizer it's my job to run it and set the ground rules for how things work. That has nothing to do with "flaunting" but rather doing what I see is my job. I don't think its appropriate to come into the sign up thread and critique other judges critiques. I feel that what is an acceptable judging is up to the organizer. As I've stated (and acted on) numerous times before, I am totally up for players critiquing the judgements they were given and voicing their concerns in the discussion thread. I just went ahead and stated my expectations for such. If you think it's too much for me to say "As organizer these are my expectations" that's your point of view and that's alright. We just disagree.
I think that, while both Tilwin and IcariiFA present valid points, there isn't anything wrong or even bad with players giving feedback on judgments. While not directly pertinent, judges, much like players, can always use improvement on their technique. Even judges make mistakes; my and IcariiFA's disagreements over my judgments in the past have shown that judges can mess up, too. If nothing else, my biggest point is this: the players have the judges to check and balance their work, but who performs that service to the judges? I'm not saying that there needs to be one in place, but rather that Tilwin's attempt to bridge that gap should not be viewed with scorn.
Yes, I'm the one who is being dramatic and offensive by pointing out your habit of responding to judges remarks, when you're the one talking about me being patronizing, flaunting, and trying to gain an upper hand. You want me to chill? Let's be real. Take your own advice on presenting intent before you dish it out. I don't care if you take this personally.
I felt it was inappropriate for you to come in to offer critiques by posting in this specific thread. I stated such, and was fine to move on seeing as I addressed your critique anyways. You made an apology, but immediately negated its sincerity by saying I was flaunting authority. I do take contest and rules more seriously than most, and the MCC is supposed to be the most formal. That didn't seem to upset anyone before. In fact, being clear with rules helps people have a good time as expectations are clear.
I don't see a problem with an organizer saying what he or she feels is appropriate and defining how they intend to handle rules disputes. If you felt I singled you out in doing so, I really wasn't, because as you quoted yourself I said "I know you and others." There was no parenthesis there to change emphasis. You stepped into this thread and made critiques, so I was addressing you and others who habitually do that, setting a standard of my expectations going forward. I'm not sorry for it.
My point about presenting objective arguments was specifically related to your critiques in this thread since several of your points were subjective. All I said was that if a judges critique makes a subjective point and a players comment counters it with a subjective point, I will side with the judge. It's that simple. There will always be subjective bits the come out when evaluating cards. The rubric helps minimize it, but with numerous factors it will remain as we don't have the time to play test cards and set up fictitious environments for them. That's a reality. Further, the stance I present it a standard one.
I personally don't like sticking sign ups to PMs because I feel it can lead to deception. It allows organizers to play favorites among other things, and I rather guarantee that the sign ups are honest. I have no intent of letting our butting of heads interfere with that.
Yes, I'm the one who is being dramatic and offensive by pointing out your habit of responding to judges remarks, when you're the one talking about me being patronizing, flaunting, and trying to gain an upper hand. You want me to chill? Let's be real. Take your own advice on presenting intent before you dish it out. I don't care if you take this personally.
I felt it was inappropriate for you to come in to offer critiques by posting in this specific thread. I stated such, and was fine to move on seeing as I addressed your critique anyways. You made an apology, but immediately negated its sincerity by saying I was flaunting authority. I do take contest and rules more seriously than most, and the MCC is supposed to be the most formal. That didn't seem to upset anyone before. In fact, being clear with rules helps people have a good time as expectations are clear.
I don't see a problem with an organizer saying what he or she feels is appropriate and defining how they intend to handle rules disputes. If you felt I singled you out in doing so, I really wasn't, because as you quoted yourself I said "I know you and others." There was no parenthesis there to change emphasis. You stepped into this thread and made critiques, so I was addressing you and others who habitually do that, setting a standard of my expectations going forward. I'm not sorry for it.
My point about presenting objective arguments was specifically related to your critiques in this thread since several of your points were subjective. All I said was that if a judges critique makes a subjective point and a players comment counters it with a subjective point, I will side with the judge. It's that simple. There will always be subjective bits the come out when evaluating cards. The rubric helps minimize it, but with numerous factors it will remain as we don't have the time to play test cards and set up fictitious environments for them. That's a reality. Further, the stance I present it a standard one.
I personally don't like sticking sign ups to PMs because I feel it can lead to deception. It allows organizers to play favorites among other things, and I rather guarantee that the sign ups are honest. I have no intent of letting our butting of heads interfere with that.
I'm not sure what you see the MCC as, but I certainly don't view it as nearly elitist or exclusive enough to disallow comments on the individuals who run it. Yes, Tilwin's comments were unsolicited, and sure, there might have been some things that he said that you view as objectively incorrect. But even if you want to disregard or even flat-out ignore his opinion, this is a public contest run on a free, public website. There is nothing that says Tilwin cannot comment on your judgments in this thread, and there are no norms in place saying he cannot make helpful, respectful, and constructive comments on what you're saying. If you truly want to disregard his opinion, take it with as much salt as you'd like. But in spite of Tilwin's repeated and incredibly clear attempts to remain as respectful and polite towards you as possible, you have continued to treat his opinion with open contempt and disrespect. At the end of the day, what purpose is there to putting him and his opinions down? If you disagree with them, that is perfectly acceptable, and you're equally free to state the reasons why you believe them to be wrong. If you wish to go so far as to write an essay explaining everything that's wrong with what he said, you have the freedom to do so. However, being demeaning will accomplish little other than alienate him and anyone else who would otherwise take part in this contest.
There is nothing that says Tilwin cannot comment on your judgments in this thread, and there are no norms in place saying he cannot make helpful, respectful, and constructive comments on what you're saying.
I stated that him providing critiques of other judges in this thread felt inappropriate, as it wasn't his position to do so here. If he had taking a different avenue, hell even posting in the MCC discussion thread instead of here, I likely wouldn't of thought the same way as that would of been to discuss. Here it came off as corrections, which is clearly not his place.
But in spite of Tilwin's repeated and incredibly clear attempts to remain as respectful and polite towards you as possible,
AA, he was not being respectful. That's a big key that I think you're objectively putting aside. Tell me how...
rather than getting all patronizing and flaunting who "has the upper hand" by being the "organizer".
...is respectful. Or Inconstantly quoting me sometimes literally and sometimes exaggerating/changing my words.
Anyway, I think this has gone far enough. I've voiced my opinion on the matter plenty, and really, this is such a small thing to have blown up like this. I have been harsh as I oft am and will remain. I didn't agree with what Tilwin did nor did I think it was a huge deal but reacted when he called me out for flaunting my position. So that's that. I'm putting this aside.
The month of June is nearly on our doorstep, which means I must call out and draw on our cast of local talent to judge what will be another exciting contest. When I lasted hosted I gave viewers a clue as to what the new month's theme would be. This time will be no different. Well, except a very different theme of challenges. A riddle:
That aside, please sign up if your are interested in judging! If you have not judged before, you are welcome to after you submit a critique for the following card using the MCC rubric posted in this thread. (Assume Main and sub challenges are met.)
Dream Prowler 2UB
Legendary Craeture - Illusion (R)
Dream Prowler gets +1/+1 for each illusion you control.
When Dream Prowler deals combat damage to a player, they put that many cards from the top of their library into their graveyard.
"It feasted on me while I slept. I saw it in my dreams."
- Gerrand the Spectre
1/1
MCC rubric:
Design -
(X/3) Appeal: Do the different player psychographics (Timmy/Johhny/Spike) have a use for the card?
(X/3) Elegance: Is the card easily understandable 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 or fit into a deck/archetype? Does it create an oppressive enviorment?
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
*An entry with 0 points here is subject to disqualification.
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.)
My Judging:
Design - 3/6
(1/3) Appeal: Johnny likes the idea of trying to break an unusual tribal theme. Timmy doesn't love this, because it isn't big or splashy. In a vacuum, Spike really doesn't care, if this was in a set where Illusions were a significant tribe Spike might like this but these cards are judged as if they were in a vacuum, and so this isn't a Spike card.
(1.5/3) Elegance: Overall the card makes sense at a glance, however, the abilities don't have much synergy and newer players might be confused when they realize that this gives itself +1/+1 by virtue of being an Illusion, which it probably shouldn't to avoid confusion.
Development - 4/6
(2.5/3) Viability: This card doesn't have many color wheel issues and rare seems right for it. It doesn't really break or bend rules, except for maybe the bit about boosting itself, which doesn't usually happen.
(1.5/3) Balance: In a vacuum, it seems kind of weak, but could be fun for a casual Illusions deck. No oppressive environments or broken formats here. However, its weakest point is limited unless Illusions is a draft archetype in a set.
Creativity - 3.5/6
(0.5/3) Uniqueness: Crosstown Courier has the second ability, and the first feels a lot like Krovikan Mist. It's an original combination of unoriginal abilities.
(3/3) Flavor: Good name, cool flavor text, the abilities fit the flavor text and name well.
Polish - 4.5
(0.5/3) Quality: Illusion should be capitalized, and creature is spelled wrong. The first ability would usually say "for each other" and also would usually say "Illusion creature" rather than just Illusion.
(2/2) Main Challenge: Given.
(2/2) Sub Challenges: Given.
Total: 15/25
Sample Judging for Dream Prowler:
Design -
(0.5/3) Appeal: Timmy looks at this card and sees a pretty low power creature. It has the potential to get bigger and mill, which he likes, and tribal themes have some appeal so it isn't totally lost on him. Johnny takes away little, while Spike sees a subpar card bogged with the legendary subtype to boot. Not worth it.
(1.5/3) Elegance: Most of the mechanics and flavor make sense without being terribly disruptive. The big exception is the whole legendary factor. The idea of this card doesn't seem legendary. A card that has the potential to simultaneously hurt a lot and mills some is somewhat anti-synergistic too despite some applications.
Development -
(2/3) Viability: This card could be Black/Blue but could just be blue, especially with the illusion tribal effect. Speaking of the tribal effect, contemporary design would have it reference other creatures, not including itself.
(1/3) Balance: Dream Prowler is almost offensively weak for a legendary creature. If Illusions are a major tribe in limited, it will at least be useful there but otherwise is a rare that isn't worth a quarter. It's also an offensively bad Commander.
Creativity -
(1/3) Uniqueness: The name is taken, see: Dream Prowler. None of the mechanics are new, but used together is somewhat unique. Illusion tribal carrying about numbers has yet to be done. Overall though, this certainly isn't a fresh idea.
(1.5/3) Flavor: The name does not say legendary, nor does it come out through its flavor text or mechanics. The flavor text is interesting but can also be confusing: Did the dream prowler feed on the dreams of a spectre? Or the man that was before a spectre? The abilities fit the card however.
Polish -
(0.5/3) Quality: Creature is spelled wrong. Illusion should be capitalized. We refer to "his or her" in magic, not "they." "Whenever" should be used, not "when." Also, we count illusion creatures.
(2/2) *Main Challenge: Challenge met.
(2/2) Sub Challenges: Challenge met.
Total: 12/25
So yes, no designs like this please. Nor half as bad.
This is really out of the ordinary for anyone other than the organizer to critique other judges in the sign up thread, but...
This is true.
If a card can't be printed for some reason, then it effects its viability. At least thats one way to interpret it. So long as it was addressed someone in the overall critique, that's what I really cared about, not exactly how a judge justified it.
That's an opinion and certainly an option to do it that way. Again, so long as it was referenced in the critique somewhere is what mattered to me, not the exact position it was justified in.
I disagree completely here. I took off in both areas as it affected the elegance (This card doesn't feel legendary thanks to the name, concept, and overall execution) and its balance (this card is quite weak for a legendary and legendary works against it.)
I look forward to seeing your entries. I do want to say this in advanced however: I know you and others often respond to judges critiques and while I'm open to that generally, this specific instance was not really a place for it. Further, if you have problems with a judges evaluation this coming month and want to dispute it, it will need to be based on hard facts and not opinions. If something is subjective on both sides of the argument, I will side with the judges.
Then we look at things differently. I am for keeping the contest open and inviting, but as organizer it's my job to run it and set the ground rules for how things work. That has nothing to do with "flaunting" but rather doing what I see is my job. I don't think its appropriate to come into the sign up thread and critique other judges critiques. I feel that what is an acceptable judging is up to the organizer. As I've stated (and acted on) numerous times before, I am totally up for players critiquing the judgements they were given and voicing their concerns in the discussion thread. I just went ahead and stated my expectations for such. If you think it's too much for me to say "As organizer these are my expectations" that's your point of view and that's alright. We just disagree.
I felt it was inappropriate for you to come in to offer critiques by posting in this specific thread. I stated such, and was fine to move on seeing as I addressed your critique anyways. You made an apology, but immediately negated its sincerity by saying I was flaunting authority. I do take contest and rules more seriously than most, and the MCC is supposed to be the most formal. That didn't seem to upset anyone before. In fact, being clear with rules helps people have a good time as expectations are clear.
I don't see a problem with an organizer saying what he or she feels is appropriate and defining how they intend to handle rules disputes. If you felt I singled you out in doing so, I really wasn't, because as you quoted yourself I said "I know you and others." There was no parenthesis there to change emphasis. You stepped into this thread and made critiques, so I was addressing you and others who habitually do that, setting a standard of my expectations going forward. I'm not sorry for it.
My point about presenting objective arguments was specifically related to your critiques in this thread since several of your points were subjective. All I said was that if a judges critique makes a subjective point and a players comment counters it with a subjective point, I will side with the judge. It's that simple. There will always be subjective bits the come out when evaluating cards. The rubric helps minimize it, but with numerous factors it will remain as we don't have the time to play test cards and set up fictitious environments for them. That's a reality. Further, the stance I present it a standard one.
I personally don't like sticking sign ups to PMs because I feel it can lead to deception. It allows organizers to play favorites among other things, and I rather guarantee that the sign ups are honest. I have no intent of letting our butting of heads interfere with that.
I'm not sure what you see the MCC as, but I certainly don't view it as nearly elitist or exclusive enough to disallow comments on the individuals who run it. Yes, Tilwin's comments were unsolicited, and sure, there might have been some things that he said that you view as objectively incorrect. But even if you want to disregard or even flat-out ignore his opinion, this is a public contest run on a free, public website. There is nothing that says Tilwin cannot comment on your judgments in this thread, and there are no norms in place saying he cannot make helpful, respectful, and constructive comments on what you're saying. If you truly want to disregard his opinion, take it with as much salt as you'd like. But in spite of Tilwin's repeated and incredibly clear attempts to remain as respectful and polite towards you as possible, you have continued to treat his opinion with open contempt and disrespect. At the end of the day, what purpose is there to putting him and his opinions down? If you disagree with them, that is perfectly acceptable, and you're equally free to state the reasons why you believe them to be wrong. If you wish to go so far as to write an essay explaining everything that's wrong with what he said, you have the freedom to do so. However, being demeaning will accomplish little other than alienate him and anyone else who would otherwise take part in this contest.
I stated that him providing critiques of other judges in this thread felt inappropriate, as it wasn't his position to do so here. If he had taking a different avenue, hell even posting in the MCC discussion thread instead of here, I likely wouldn't of thought the same way as that would of been to discuss. Here it came off as corrections, which is clearly not his place.
AA, he was not being respectful. That's a big key that I think you're objectively putting aside. Tell me how...
...is respectful. Or Inconstantly quoting me sometimes literally and sometimes exaggerating/changing my words.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edit
Anyway, I think this has gone far enough. I've voiced my opinion on the matter plenty, and really, this is such a small thing to have blown up like this. I have been harsh as I oft am and will remain. I didn't agree with what Tilwin did nor did I think it was a huge deal but reacted when he called me out for flaunting my position. So that's that. I'm putting this aside.