Quote from kryntheWas in Pittsburgh all weekend, promise judgings by midnight tonight.
Quote from WhisperedThunder
I think they key is that people should raise complaints if they can do it politely in order for there to be as little frustration all around as possible.
My feeling is that krynthe is just somewhat new to this and if anyone has specific notes they should PM him with them to help him develop.
Quote from seratoninIssues came up in my bracket, brought up to contestants, and the standings changed, most notably the fact I have 5 people advancing. I'm willing to accept the responability if I can't decide who to pass.
Quote from SvennihilatorPersonally, I feel there needs to be a sound objective system to certain aspects of judging. Far too many times have I lost a round because I got a flavor junky judge and they tell me, for example, that I should start adding a bit more flavor to my cards. I say to myself that I'll start designing with more flavor in mind so that if I get this judge again, I'll hit their good spot. Next month I'm playing with my updated lexicon of card design and I get the mechanical judge. This guy doesn't so much care aobut flavor, rather, he cares about mechanical purpose. My card is brimming with flavor this time, but he wants it to be more powerful, less flavorful. So again I lose because of a subjective decision making process. When designing a card, I don't want to have to hope I get a certain judge because that judge will think my card's power level is fine, wheras another judge in mind will think it's underpowered, or even another judge will think it's overpowered.
The option for a judge to cross-reference his judgings with another judge doesn't do it simply because the criteria is still subjective. That other judge could say the same thing, or say something completely different. Also, while I've never done it, it feels like it would be quite rude to ask your judge for a second oppinion.
Quote from markinoenLight: I'm sorry for what happened to you. I admit that I actually only looked at the top two scores in the group (yours and Jimmy's) and commented based on those. I expected him to look at the rest of the judgings in the same way and make wholesale changes to his judgings. Has he done so, or has he only penalised your card?
Quote from krynthe...had I discovered Cenn's Enlistment last night during my judging, your score would be similar to what it is now.
I used to think this same way. My conclusion is that you need a card that does both. Spend time on everything. If you have a card strong in flavor, focus on the power-level. If you have a card with an ability that you love, then focus on the flavor of the card. Truely, a well developed card has both in a neat bundle.
Quote from SvennihilatorThis is only an answer to half the problem. It's assuming that I never create flavorful, mechanically sound cards, which I don't think is true. The problem lies in the fact that even if I think the card has it all, or another judge thinks it has it all, one judge might not and that might be the judge I get for that round.
Quote from WhisperedThunderI'll agree with this, although what's done is done as far as Round 1 is concerned.