I continue to think that making a top 3 mandatory, but crits voluntary, is a compromise that comes the closest to solving the issues at hand. ... Top 3's are necessary for the competition to continue, whereas crits are icing on the cake.
Just +1'ing this. I just read the recent discussion (let's ignore how bad the tones were, I'd really appreciate people calming down and remembering all this is just about a game...) and this perfectly summarizes how I feel too. I wouldn't mind trying this and seeing how it goes.
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 Here is the article index.Rather outdated by now, and based on the old MCC rubric, but I'm leaving this here for anybody that might be interested anyway.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 would like to propose an extension of the current system. (Note: I have not done any of the math here and it may turn out that it's unfeasible.)
As presently: Each player is required to do a top 3 from their assigned scoring batch (a set of 6 players, typically), and optionally may do a critique for that batch. Rules change: A player may to a top 3 and a critique for an additional scoring batch (the next group of 6 players, typically) as long as they don't run out of players, critique themselves, etc. There is some scoring incentive to do additional scoring batches.
In this way, as long as there are players who do bonus scoring batches, on average any given card gets slightly more critiques than they would using the current system.
I would like to propose an extension of the current system. (Note: I have not done any of the math here and it may turn out that it's unfeasible.)
As presently: Each player is required to do a top 3 from their assigned scoring batch (a set of 6 players, typically), and optionally may do a critique for that batch. Rules change: A player may to a top 3 and a critique for an additional scoring batch (the next group of 6 players, typically) as long as they don't run out of players, critique themselves, etc. There is some scoring incentive to do additional scoring batches.
In this way, as long as there are players who do bonus scoring batches, on average any given card gets slightly more critiques than they would using the current system.
By "as presently", do you mean what is presently being proposed, or what is presently happening? Because what is presently happening is that people aren't required to post a top 3 or any critiques, they are just encouraged to do so with a point-based reward system.
I'm not so sure how well your suggested rules change would work. Just so we're clear, what you're proposing is to keep everything voluntary, but encourage people to critique more than just the six entries they are assigned in hopes that there are enough people that go beyond the their six assigned entries to make up for the people that don't do any crits at all, right? This idea could potentially make the CCL into more of a judging competition than a card competition. People could potentially get through even if their card did poorly just by posting one line crits of every card in the round.
As long as I'm here, I'd like to +1 bravelion's +1 of my idea.
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)
The axis of participation-time commitment that Willows describes is important, and equally important is one of intrinsic reward-time commitment. That is, people are more willing to participate and put in effort if they derive some sort of reward or benefit from it, and if they found it a positive experience. Constructive, positive, encouraging feedback is important for this axis. This axis, I feel, is just as important for those who do not regularly participate as the one of participation-time commitment. People don't do something merely because it asks less of them - they do things because they feel it is rewarding in some way, either because they enjoyed it, felt that they themselves progressed because of it, or that they were more a part of a community through it. Again, this is a fundamental aspect of human nature and at the bedrock of behavioral psychology and social science.
While I do not believe that "tone" of feedback should be judged or monitored or given less/more credit, I do feel like it is an important goal that we should all strive for. Now, I'm seemingly alone in this, but I do believe that people should be required or heavily incentivized to provide feedback to progress to the next round. Feedback is too important to the 2nd fundamental axis I identify for it not to be required or heavily incentivized. Positive, constructive feedback and a collaborative, congenial atmosphere are the two surefire methods of growing a community and participation within it. Nevertheless, obviously I support Flatline's proposal and would support Flatline's more robust proposal that raised the point value of feedback, since those are meaningful steps in the right direction.
EDIT: I didn't see Willows's own proposal. I don't think we should do that, namely for reasons Willows elucidates in his earlier post. I think it'd be better for people to craft good feedback for 6 people than rushed feedback for 12. We'd be more likely to reach the goals I laid forth in this post if we kept judging tasks manageable by bearing in mind Willows's discussion in his earlier post.
People don't do something merely because it asks less of them - they do things because they feel it is rewarding in some way, either because they enjoyed it, felt that they themselves progressed because of it, or that they were more a part of a community through it.
This statement is where our main difference lies. While I don't really disagree that people don't do something merely because it asks less of them, I do think it can be a major factor. Especially when it comes to hobbies. It's one of the reasons the three main competitions came to be. If you have a lot time to commit and want to be a in a very strict competition, you play in the MCC. If you want to be able to just post a card in a more informal setting and see if anybody likes it, you play the DCC. If you're somewhere in between, you play the CCL. TBH, the CCL is my least favorite competition because I have to post crits (I already think of it as mandatory). I'm sure there must be people out there that avoid the CCL altogether because they don't want to post crits. Not everybody wants the same thing out of a card competition, which is one of the reasons there are three of them.
Edit: BTW, one of the main reasons I started making Magic cards is because it required less of me than actually playing Magic, both financially, and time-wise. So there's at least one example of someone doing something at least partially because it requires less of him.
Edit 2: @kjsharp, I don't post this to try to be disagreeable with you in any way. I totally understand and respect where you're coming from. It's just that I don't think the majority of the community wants to make the crit portion of the CCL more stringent, myself included.
(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 don't think we necessarily disagree that these are the two axes that are important to calibrate correctly to maximize participation, competition health, and forum growth and health. I think we differ on the relative weight we ascribe to each of them. I think they are like the axes on x-y coordinate plane. Both are important. The trick is to identify the best spot on the plane.
[An Aside:] From a new person's perspective (or two new person's perspectives, actually, because my friend had the same reaction as myself), the tiered system DCC --> CCL --> MCC did not quite seem absolute or real to us. Both of us looked at the three competitions and wanted to first participate in the CCL. From an outsider's perspective, the DCC is intimidating because there is no structure to it and the voting system seems intimidating. The MCC seemed really formal, and posed more difficult/stringent challenges, so did not seem geared for the new person. The CCL felt structured enough and "friendly" enough to participate in, and the slower pace helps prevent you from feeling overwhelmed. Practically speaking, the CCL is the best tool for making someone new to the forum feel a part of the community because of its collaborative nature and the feedback that is provided. That helps you develop connections to others in the forum. These are just 2 new people's experiences, but they are 2 new people's experiences.
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.
To avoid delays in July, I'm going to start the CCL today, and if no one has a serious objection, I'm going to change the scoring rules to the most prevalent suggestion on a trial basis: As of this coming month, a Top 3 will be required to score any points for a round, and submitting critiques along with the top 3 will be worth 2 bonus points in the round.
Most contestants are putting in both critiques and Top 3s anyway, so this will probably not additionally burden anyone else who chooses to compete. For those who habitually do not do so, a Top 3 often takes a minute or less to compile, requires no effort other than determining a personal preference, and is completely necessary to scoring the contest.
I hope ending Round 1 on the 4th is not too early - some might miss it expecting a later date. Might be hard for the finalists from this month to make it too.
I just thought of a pretty nifty idea - what if the first 2 rounds had a bit of overlap? Say:
a) Round 1: XX-July 6th
b) Round 2: published on July 4th with a July 10th deadline
I see that you added a few days to the Top 8 and Top 4 in the new model. Rather than cutting off Round 1 earlier, I think this staggered model would be better to maximize participation since it allows a late straggler to jump in a bit later and is generally just a bit more forgiving. This is less important this month since we're starting early, but in the future this would be a good way to make the schedule look roughly as it is does now even if you start August's CCL on August 1st instead of July 28th. Might be a good idea
Also, the first round of the July CCL looks really fun and fascinating. Fitting too, given the mass reanimation spell Blue just got from today's spoilers. I never would have expected blue to get an effect like that, but here we are.
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.
To avoid delays in July, I'm going to start the CCL today, and if no one has a serious objection, I'm going to change the scoring rules to the most prevalent suggestion on a trial basis: As of this coming month, a Top 3 will be required to score any points for a round, and submitting critiques along with the top 3 will be worth 2 bonus points in the round.
Most contestants are putting in both critiques and Top 3s anyway, so this will probably not additionally burden anyone else who chooses to compete. For those who habitually do not do so, a Top 3 often takes a minute or less to compile, requires no effort other than determining a personal preference, and is completely necessary to scoring the contest.
Thank you very much.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."
I am in favor of big challenges but I feel like we should examine the poll stats and see if the sheer size of the judging requirement here has some effect on voting participants.
I see a decent number of disqualified entries in July's Round 1. Please read the challenge fully.
Namely netn10, willows and scrad_the_wanderer, for not making an instant or sorcery. That's bound to happen with a task that's complex and then has a little catch you don't expect.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Multiple instances of lifelink on the same creature are redundant.
Multiple instances of lifelink on the same creature are redundant.
Multiple instances of lifelink on the same creature are redundant.
—Eli Shiffrin, Rules Manager, on a design stacking lifelink instances
I haven’t hung around here much lately, but what intrigued me to participate originally, and later host, was the ease of participation. The contest is laid back, the themes are generally fun, and it’s quick to submit an entry. Please don’t ever change any of that. 👍🏼
@kjsharp, I think you’re right about asking for more Top 3’s. Fortunately while I was hosting it was rarely an issue. A Top 3 is really one of the easiest points to get, so it surprises me people haven’t submit more. That being said, I do believe that sometimes deadlines can be missed when real life kicks in, and I would feel absolutely horrible if the best design didn’t advance because they simply missed a Top 3.
If the CCL taught me anything, it’s that it’s really a contest with yourself — it’s actually a mastery of timing. To help with this, later rounds I directly messaged participants to remind them they got in and get them to post. (I don’t know, maybe that served those months well?)
In any case… my goodness your posts here came off quite combative. I think it’s great getting new blood, and new ideas, but can you turn some of your passion into a more friendly manner next time? If people are being belligerent this will only turn others away and have the opposite effect: less participation.
As long as the environment remains positive and courteous around here (we are human, after all, people make mistakes) I will try to participate. But if things turn sour, I’m not going to stick around.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Create your own cards on MTG.Design
( ancestral on Custom Magic Discord server )
( mproud on reddit )
Something about CCL challenge - supplemental products such as Commander, Conspiracy, Planechase and Archenemy are usually consist of reprints + maybe 10% of new cards. Should we follow this rule?
Something about CCL challenge - supplemental products such as Commander, Conspiracy, Planechase and Archenemy are usually consist of reprints + maybe 10% of new cards. Should we follow this rule?
In any case… my goodness your posts here came off quite combative. I think it’s great getting new blood, and new ideas, but can you turn some of your passion into a more friendly manner next time? If people are being belligerent this will only turn others away and have the opposite effect: less participation.
Civil discourse requires that people interpret charitably the words of others. From the very moment I noted my indignation that someone who did not provide a top 3 and feedback was moving on to the semifinals of the CCL, ulterior motives were continually ascribed to my perspective and my claims were frequently misconstrued. I had to "be combative" to get my argument across. I do not back down, but nor do I condemn others' character, and nor do I read others' words in such a way that turns them into deer during hunting season; I am no sophist.
Although claiming to want peace and civility, you wrote your post in such a way that makes it virtually impossible to respond in a way that does not invite further civil discord. And unlike other posters, you decided to call out only one person who got entangled up in the argument. A week or two ago I messaged Icarii saying that I wanted to move on from the episode. It would be nice if your post didn't derail the three of us from doing so.
Also, void - please give us enough time to read the 45 cards that these three are creating. It takes a lot of work to do something like what you're asking them to do; I definitely want to appreciate the work that they are gonna put into it, and I suspect that the three finalists will want us to appreciate and carefully consider that work as well.
Your submissions are due Saturday, June 8, 23:59 EST.
This should be July 8th, not June.
Anyway, I just checked it now as I'm not playing for June, and this challenge is totally crazy! (I mean it in a positive way ) It looks like a lot of fun, but the difficulty is through the roof! And I thought last month's final with me and Flatline designing for custom planes was already crazy... that's nothing compared to this! In these last two months void_nothing has really amazed me with their final rounds! Terrific job as a host! Bravo!
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'm extending the critique period for July's first two rounds by two days in order to accommodate one of June's finalists' need for an extension, and hence the deadlines beyond that have all been bumped ahead by two days.
Void, do you think it would be wise to extend the deadlines for the first two rounds by a day each (without changing any other deadlines)? I don't know the likelihood that others participate given the extra day or two, but seems like something easy to do that might snag another participant or two.
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.
Please remember that the challenge required the card to be an instant or sorcery when awarding scores. It looks bad to give people points who didn't follow the rules.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Just +1'ing this. I just read the recent discussion (let's ignore how bad the tones were, I'd really appreciate people calming down and remembering all this is just about a game...) and this perfectly summarizes how I feel too. I wouldn't mind trying this and seeing how it goes.
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.)
As presently: Each player is required to do a top 3 from their assigned scoring batch (a set of 6 players, typically), and optionally may do a critique for that batch.
Rules change: A player may to a top 3 and a critique for an additional scoring batch (the next group of 6 players, typically) as long as they don't run out of players, critique themselves, etc. There is some scoring incentive to do additional scoring batches.
In this way, as long as there are players who do bonus scoring batches, on average any given card gets slightly more critiques than they would using the current system.
I'm not so sure how well your suggested rules change would work. Just so we're clear, what you're proposing is to keep everything voluntary, but encourage people to critique more than just the six entries they are assigned in hopes that there are enough people that go beyond the their six assigned entries to make up for the people that don't do any crits at all, right? This idea could potentially make the CCL into more of a judging competition than a card competition. People could potentially get through even if their card did poorly just by posting one line crits of every card in the round.
As long as I'm here, I'd like to +1 bravelion's +1 of my idea.
While I do not believe that "tone" of feedback should be judged or monitored or given less/more credit, I do feel like it is an important goal that we should all strive for. Now, I'm seemingly alone in this, but I do believe that people should be required or heavily incentivized to provide feedback to progress to the next round. Feedback is too important to the 2nd fundamental axis I identify for it not to be required or heavily incentivized. Positive, constructive feedback and a collaborative, congenial atmosphere are the two surefire methods of growing a community and participation within it. Nevertheless, obviously I support Flatline's proposal and would support Flatline's more robust proposal that raised the point value of feedback, since those are meaningful steps in the right direction.
EDIT: I didn't see Willows's own proposal. I don't think we should do that, namely for reasons Willows elucidates in his earlier post. I think it'd be better for people to craft good feedback for 6 people than rushed feedback for 12. We'd be more likely to reach the goals I laid forth in this post if we kept judging tasks manageable by bearing in mind Willows's discussion in his earlier post.
Edit: BTW, one of the main reasons I started making Magic cards is because it required less of me than actually playing Magic, both financially, and time-wise. So there's at least one example of someone doing something at least partially because it requires less of him.
Edit 2: @kjsharp, I don't post this to try to be disagreeable with you in any way. I totally understand and respect where you're coming from. It's just that I don't think the majority of the community wants to make the crit portion of the CCL more stringent, myself included.
[An Aside:] From a new person's perspective (or two new person's perspectives, actually, because my friend had the same reaction as myself), the tiered system DCC --> CCL --> MCC did not quite seem absolute or real to us. Both of us looked at the three competitions and wanted to first participate in the CCL. From an outsider's perspective, the DCC is intimidating because there is no structure to it and the voting system seems intimidating. The MCC seemed really formal, and posed more difficult/stringent challenges, so did not seem geared for the new person. The CCL felt structured enough and "friendly" enough to participate in, and the slower pace helps prevent you from feeling overwhelmed. Practically speaking, the CCL is the best tool for making someone new to the forum feel a part of the community because of its collaborative nature and the feedback that is provided. That helps you develop connections to others in the forum. These are just 2 new people's experiences, but they are 2 new people's experiences.
Most contestants are putting in both critiques and Top 3s anyway, so this will probably not additionally burden anyone else who chooses to compete. For those who habitually do not do so, a Top 3 often takes a minute or less to compile, requires no effort other than determining a personal preference, and is completely necessary to scoring the contest.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
I just thought of a pretty nifty idea - what if the first 2 rounds had a bit of overlap? Say:
a) Round 1: XX-July 6th
b) Round 2: published on July 4th with a July 10th deadline
I see that you added a few days to the Top 8 and Top 4 in the new model. Rather than cutting off Round 1 earlier, I think this staggered model would be better to maximize participation since it allows a late straggler to jump in a bit later and is generally just a bit more forgiving. This is less important this month since we're starting early, but in the future this would be a good way to make the schedule look roughly as it is does now even if you start August's CCL on August 1st instead of July 28th. Might be a good idea
Also, the first round of the July CCL looks really fun and fascinating. Fitting too, given the mass reanimation spell Blue just got from today's spoilers. I never would have expected blue to get an effect like that, but here we are.
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
So good luck all!
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.͇̣̙̝
Multiple instances of lifelink on the same creature are redundant.
Multiple instances of lifelink on the same creature are redundant.
—Eli Shiffrin, Rules Manager, on a design stacking lifelink instances
I haven’t hung around here much lately, but what intrigued me to participate originally, and later host, was the ease of participation. The contest is laid back, the themes are generally fun, and it’s quick to submit an entry. Please don’t ever change any of that. 👍🏼
@kjsharp, I think you’re right about asking for more Top 3’s. Fortunately while I was hosting it was rarely an issue. A Top 3 is really one of the easiest points to get, so it surprises me people haven’t submit more. That being said, I do believe that sometimes deadlines can be missed when real life kicks in, and I would feel absolutely horrible if the best design didn’t advance because they simply missed a Top 3.
If the CCL taught me anything, it’s that it’s really a contest with yourself — it’s actually a mastery of timing. To help with this, later rounds I directly messaged participants to remind them they got in and get them to post. (I don’t know, maybe that served those months well?)
In any case… my goodness your posts here came off quite combative. I think it’s great getting new blood, and new ideas, but can you turn some of your passion into a more friendly manner next time? If people are being belligerent this will only turn others away and have the opposite effect: less participation.
As long as the environment remains positive and courteous around here (we are human, after all, people make mistakes) I will try to participate. But if things turn sour, I’m not going to stick around.
( ancestral on Custom Magic Discord server )
( mproud on reddit )
Nope, the idea is to make all new cards!
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
Civil discourse requires that people interpret charitably the words of others. From the very moment I noted my indignation that someone who did not provide a top 3 and feedback was moving on to the semifinals of the CCL, ulterior motives were continually ascribed to my perspective and my claims were frequently misconstrued. I had to "be combative" to get my argument across. I do not back down, but nor do I condemn others' character, and nor do I read others' words in such a way that turns them into deer during hunting season; I am no sophist.
Although claiming to want peace and civility, you wrote your post in such a way that makes it virtually impossible to respond in a way that does not invite further civil discord. And unlike other posters, you decided to call out only one person who got entangled up in the argument. A week or two ago I messaged Icarii saying that I wanted to move on from the episode. It would be nice if your post didn't derail the three of us from doing so.
Also, void - please give us enough time to read the 45 cards that these three are creating. It takes a lot of work to do something like what you're asking them to do; I definitely want to appreciate the work that they are gonna put into it, and I suspect that the three finalists will want us to appreciate and carefully consider that work as well.
This should be July 8th, not June.
Anyway, I just checked it now as I'm not playing for June, and this challenge is totally crazy! (I mean it in a positive way ) It looks like a lot of fun, but the difficulty is through the roof! And I thought last month's final with me and Flatline designing for custom planes was already crazy... that's nothing compared to this! In these last two months void_nothing has really amazed me with their final rounds! Terrific job as a host! Bravo!
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.)
I̟̥͍̠ͅn̩͉̣͍̬͚ͅ ̬̬͖t̯̹̞̺͖͓̯̤h̘͍̬e͙̯͈̖̼̮ ̭̬f̺̲̲̪i͙͉̟̩̰r̪̝͚͈̝̥͍̝̲s̼̻͇̘̳͔ͅt̲̺̳̗̜̪̙ ̳̺̥̻͚̗ͅm̜̜̟̰͈͓͎͇o̝̖̮̝͇m̯̻̞̼̫̗͓̤e̩̯̬̮̩n͎̱̪̲̹͖t͇̖s̰̮ͅ,̤̲͙̻̭̻̯̹̰ ̖t̫̙̺̯͖͚̯ͅh͙̯̦̳̗̰̟e͖̪͉̼̯ ̪͕g̞̣͔a̗̦t̬̬͓͙̫̖̭̻e̩̻̯ ̜̖̦̖̤̭͙̬t̞̹̥̪͎͉ͅo͕͚͍͇̲͇͓̺ ̭̬͙͈̣̻t͈͍͙͓̫̖͙̩h̪̬̖̙e̗͈ ̗̬̟̞̺̤͉̯ͅa̦̯͚̙̜̮f͉͙̲̣̞̼t̪̤̞̣͚e̲͉̳̥r͇̪̙͚͓l̥̞̞͎̹̯̹ͅi͓̬f̮̥̬̞͈ͅe͎ ̟̩̤̳̠̯̩̯o̮̘̲p̟͚̣̞͉͓e͍̩̣n͔̼͕͚̜e̬̱d̼̘͎̖̹͍̮̠,͖̺̭̱̮ ̣̲͖̬̪̭̥a̪͚n̟̲̝̤̤̞̗d̘̱̗͇̮͕̳͕͔ ͖̞͉͎t̹̙͎h̰̱͉̗e̪̞̱̝̹̩ͅ ̠̱̩̭̦p̯̙e͓o̳͚̰̯̺̱̰͔̘p̬͎̱̣̼̩͇l̗̟̖͚̠e̱͉͔̱̦̬̟̙ ̖͚̪͔̼̦w̺̖̤̱e͖̗̻̦͓̖̘̜r̭̥e͔̹̫̱͕̦̰͕ ̗͔̠p̠̗͍͍̱̳̠r̰͔͎̰o͉̥͓̰͚̥s̟͚̹̱͔̣t͉̙̳̖͖̪̮r̥̘̥͙̹a͉̟̫̟̳̠̟̭t͈̜̰͈͎e̞̣̭̲̬ ͚̗̯̟͙i͍͖̰̘̦͖͉ṇ̮̻̯̦̲̩͍ ̦̮͚̫̤t͉͖̫͕ͅͅh͙̮̻̘̣̮̼e͕̺ ͙l͕̠͎̰̥i̲͓͉̲g̫̳̟͈͇̖h̠̦̖t͓̯͎̗ ̳̪̘̟̙̩̦o̫̲f̙͔̰̙̠ ̹̪̗͇̯t͖̼̼͉͖̬h̹͇̩e͚̖̺̤͉̹͕̪ ͚͓̭̝̺G͎̗̯̩o̫̯̮̟̮̳̘d̜̲͙̠-̩̳̯̲̗̜P̹̘̥͉̝h͍͈̗̖̝ͅa͍̗̮̼̗r̜̖͇̙̺a̭̺͔̞̳͈o̪̣͓̯̬͙̯̰̗h̖̦͈̥̯͔.͇̣̙̝
Please remember that the challenge required the card to be an instant or sorcery when awarding scores. It looks bad to give people points who didn't follow the rules.