Quote from falknirhumm ..dunno ..if i was judge i probably would do a little more dmg ...like a slap in the wrist because of something so basic that should always be checked ...
Anywyas ..that's why i'm not a judge and it's always subjective
(i didn't check any scores actually)
It would be pretty boring to be the "spell checking" polish judge.
At least in the previous 3rd rounds we've got 2 judges for each card
and all judges judging each card in last round, when there's less cards to judge.
I personally spent 3-4 hours for my judging bracket.
Most of it on gatherer checking previous similar cards for wording and
Yeah, well it's annoying that everyone seems to feel "what's done is done" after the bracket was turned upside-down (and, by the way, after the Round 1 judging deadline passed). No one seemed to share that sentiment yesterday.
This whole episode has left a very poor taste in my mouth.
Quote from SvennihilatorI think If a player can logically explain the flavor of a card within reason, then that player should get high score in flavor.
Quote from qqpqQuestion that should be addressed in the open:
Isn't a text card required? I can't find anything saying so in the FAQ for MCC (didn't follow the FCC links), and I don't see it in the round thread either.
One of my players didn't submit a text card, but I'm not going to DQ them it wasn't listed anywhere that it was required. (If this hasn't been discussed before, I'd like to bring it up now--while renders are optional, I don't think you should be allowed to skip the text card just because you provided a render).
Quote from qqpq »(Aside: The FAQ could use some editing. If someone PM's me on Tuesday or Wednesday, I'll see if I can take a look at it and PM the results to one of the Hammer team. One example, the last FAQ item says "in edition" which should be "in addition".)
Quote from WhisperedThunder@Sven et al: While I understand what you're saying, you should realize that this has been discussed since the beginning of time. There's no objective way of judging. At all. We try, we really do. And we try to have feedback going around to help judges improve, but the fact of the matter is that no amount of tweaking rubrics is going to allow you to score the same amount with all the judges. If you read articles by WotC you'll realize this is even true at R&D, Maro gets in arguments with people all the time. Suggestions are always welcome, but this is one of those situations where there's really not much that can been done about complaints unless you have concrete ways in which the situation could be improved. We all wish it was an easier problem to tackle.
Quote from SvennihilatorWhat if you had different judges judging each card in a different catagory. For instance, what if design, flavor and polish were seperated among different judges. Instead of one judge judging 8 different cards for all subsets, what if that one judge judged 24 cards, but only in the flavor catagory. That way each person has three different eyes on their card and it isn't any more work for the judges. You'll probably only have 3 or four brackets that way aswell. I haven't delved into it much, and it's probably riddled with holes.
Quote from falknirEDIT: OK ...i'm sorry to do this ..but this is one of the things i was talking about. It's in enlights brackets! I just remenbered it now. There was a card with an existing name! And as i recall it i went to see if the judge caught it up...it didn't. THIS PROBABLY SHOULD BE DISCUSSED AT THE ORGANIZERS LEVEL.
Quote from qqpqYes, it's bad to use an existing card name. The penalty I give varies with how obvious it should have been that the name was taken. If you make a card called Living Airship, I might figure you haven't been playing that long, and simply didn't realize WotC had already used the name. You still should have checked Gatherer, but that's only a "forgot to check Gatherer" minus. If you make a card called Force of Will or Path to Exile, I'm liable to give you an extra "geeze, do you play this game?" deduction.
Quote from qqpq »However, the whole thing is moot, because judges should never change their score because they overlooked something. Odds are that the judge overlooked something on several (or even all) cards they judged, so just because someone noticed a flaw in the judging doesn't mean there aren't other flaws that that person didn't notice.
Here are times when a judge should change their score:
1) When they didn't understand the rules correctly. (Judge - "This card creates an auto-win 1-card combo, -10", Someone Else - "It doesn't work that way, see the comp-rules section xyz.5". Judge - "My bad", changes score.)
2) When a judge makes a math error. (Development 8, Design 8, Polish 5, Total = 16).
3) The judge decides they were too tired/drunk/excited/distracted and made lots of mistakes. In this case, they should throw out ALL of their judgings and start over from scratch. This should NOT happen when someone criticizes their judging of one card, because it is likely to have a greater effect on the score of that one card than any other.
As far as I'm aware, that's about it. And #3 should almost never happen.
Quote from enLightYeah, well it's annoying that everyone seems to feel "what's done is done" after the bracket was turned upside-down (and, by the way, after the Round 1 judging deadline passed). No one seemed to share that sentiment yesterday.
This whole episode has left a very poor taste in my mouth.
Quote from SvennihilatorEven if the system doesn't get altered to reduce subjectivety, there should atleast be a system for repealling flavor issues. I think If a player can logically explain the flavor of a card within reason, then that player should get high score in flavor.
Quote from KoolKoalYou are very wrong on this point. A card needs to be able to speak for itself. In real magic, you don't open a booster pack and open the first card to have a magic writer pop up on your shoulder and explain the intricacies and nuances of the flavor text. A card that requires an additional explanation in flavor has not got good flavor. Period. The only time a judge should ever change their score for flavor is when they feel they made a really stupid mistake that no one else could make.
Quote from Svenn »Another point is about whether or not a judge should be allowed to judge the cards effect in standard or if they need to do it in a vacuum. Ruination would be ridiculous in standard now, but when it was printed, it was fine. Who's to say that card should get a low score just because we're in a multicoloured block? These are the ikinds of things that I'm talking about that there are apparently no answers to. I see very simple solutions to them.
Quote from BurntChomskyCan someone tell me what is happening to the people who were supposed to be judged by Krtzero this past week in the MCC? He was a no-show for judging and I'm wondering what the plan is for this.
You are very wrong on this point. A card needs to be able to speak for itself. In real magic, you don't open a booster pack and open the first card to have a magic writer pop up on your shoulder and explain the intricacies and nuances of the flavor text. A card that requires an additional explanation in flavor has not got good flavor. Period. The only time a judge should ever change their score for flavor is when they feel they made a really stupid mistake that no one else could make.
This, too, has been discussed, in detail, if you cared to look up the history (I know it's a little more work to search two old discussion threads, but the info is there). The general concensus is that Standard is king, Limited should be considered, and multiplayer, legacy, etc. get nods when appropriate.
Er, without getting into it: no. We're a friendly card competition, not the United Nations. You makes your cards and you takes your chances. Over time, we hope that established, experienced, insightful judges will emerge, but that's not the primary purpose of the competition.
Quote from ManascrewE.g. A card is submitted with mechanics and flavor that contridict each other. In this case, which judge would be deducting points? The flavor judge, the mechanics judge, or both?
Quote from SvennihilatorYou both took that entirely wrong. I meant if for some reason they didn't understand the flavor. This happens. A lot. You open a pack and you don't entirely understand the flavor of a card and so you ask your buddy and then suddenly it becomes very obvious. I hate the internet. You can't say I'm wrong without thinking aobut what I was talking about. Flavor text is the exact same thing as telling someone the flavor of the card. Take our last round in the CCL for instance. The round requirement was to make a card that had to do with scouting and there ended up being two camps. One that decided scouting meant looking for lands and one that said scouting meant looking at anything. Who's right? Who's wrong? You can't tell me that each of the players don't have the right to argue their flavor if they got a judge that wanted thei card to have somethig to do with lands. While this contest has nothing to do with the CCL, I'm just trying to make the point that sometimes flavor isn't simple. Different people have different views on what makes sense.
Flavor text is the exact same thing as telling someone the flavor of the card.
Quote from MCC Hammer
But that's just me. Let's hear from others.
Quote from SvennihilatorI just feel that a more objective rubric is possible with a little work.
Quote from enLight Each category must be judged, but the exact number of points awarded would be left up to the judge (except for Bonus and Quality points).
Quote from MagicProfessor28For this round, are words like "earthly", "earthen", "earthquake", "earthworm" permissable? If so, how about words like "hearth"?.
Quote from Altaurus321I'm pretty sure it's just like the last round. As long as earth is in your word uninterrupted ie. Earthen, Earthling, Hearth. They should all be fine.
Quote from qqpqIf a card meets the round requirements, it should possible for it to get a perfect score. If you *must* meet the bonus in order to get all the points, then a perfect card that doesn't meet the "bonus" can't get a perfect score.
Quote from enLightBonus conditions have always been a part of the MCC (and its ancestor, the FCC). If it is possible to get a perfect score in this competition by ignoring the bonus conditions, then why bother having bonus conditions at all?
I think some incentive should remain in place to encourage players to incorporate the bonus conditions into their cards. 1 point per bonus condition seems to work fine...unless you can think of a better, "point-less," way to reward bonus conditions.