I don't know. Maybe the "idea" has been floating around. But when I enter a competition I do look at what else has been posted so that I make sure I avoid it and do something different. Its annoying to know that my card is going to be judged along side his when they have virtually similar effects (but where mine is more global) and more balanced since it can't be abused.
As I mentioned, I go the opposite route so that even if I come up with something similar, I can rest assured that I didn't copy anyone.
Quote from gumOnShoe »
I think within the scope of a competition its perfectly fine to be perturbed over something that skates so close to the spirit of your card; but I'm a writer at heart so this stuff gets to me.
Perturbed? Sure. But I feel that most of the regular participants in this competition are either too proud or too honest for the kind of shenanigans that you're accusing seratonin of, and it seems a dark leap to simply assume his guilt.
Nope. I posted mine first... its close enough to plagiarism to bother me. Cost change, and 2 type changes. I'll just voice my disgust and leave it at that.
The practice that I adhere to is that I don't even scope the competition until I've posted the card that I plan to use. That way I'm assured in my own mind that I didn't even sorta copy ideas. I wouldn't be surprised if many players follow that practice.
And I hate to break it to you, but that kind of idea has been floating around these forums since suspend debuted; seems a bit presumptuous to "lay claim" to it as proprietary and suddenly inspired.
The question was posed in the round thread, but I figured I'd post it here in case it was missed: Does the card have to include the character string "5/8", or can the 5 be in one place and the 8 be somewhere else?
Thanks to both my judges for the advancement, and I completely agree with pretty much everything that was said about my card. I justified the low cost/high power with the argument of "to get the pump T4/5/6, you have to spend a majority of your mana those turns, drastically reducing your efficiency." What I failed to consider is that if you're hitting for 6 and returning a body, you don't need to be playing much else.
I also was under the misunderstanding that the mana cost had to BE one of the color combinations, not include one of the color combinations. A 3/3 probably should have cost 2BGW, but the optimal card probably would have been a 2/2 for 1BGW. Maybe only returning a creature upon attacking OR blocking.
Could someone please explain to me, how it is determined, who will go on to the fourth Round? Do you need to have the better card in the opinion of both Judges, or are your points added up and the points total will be compared? Or sth. entirely else?
I can go back I guess........ If I need to I'll do them starting next round.
What I like about the numbers is that it keeps me honest and prevents me from just picking my favorite card(s) to advance (or prevents others from thinking that I just picked my favorite cards). There have been several times where a card that I would have loved to see in print didn't make the cut because I was holding myself to the rubric.
The status is...I'm calling it. I really wanted to provide feedback on the cards, but I continue to not have any time, so I've tallied the scores on 6 judges' worth and we have a December 2010 winner:
Congratulations to Altaurus321 for his first MCC win!
Glad to hear that people are enjoying these! (The emblem idea was...Surge? Kraj? One of the two smart organizers this month, anyway...)
Just as a reminder, there are no "pods" or "pairings" for the final round. In approximately another 4 hours, players will no longer be allowed to edit their posts and judges can start judging as soon as the deadline is reached. My judgings, sadly, may not occur until Monday.
Since I'm one of the judges for his bracket, I'm judging the first card. That's what we've been doing every round. Besides, players should not be able to post two cards and then pick one at the deadline.
Yeah, sorry...I meant for that to be rhetorical, but rereading it, I'm not sure how anyone else was to pick up on that.
This may not come as a big surprise, but Round 3 will be delayed a day. I'll have it up in the morning, along with the second half of my judgings. Sorry.
We're already doing one-on-one pairings for Round 2? What happens on R3 then?
Every judge judges all 9 cards and our heads explode.
Ideally, every round would be multi-judge pairings-based, but there are too many cards early rounds for that. We'll do another multi-judge pairings-based round for round 3.
You'll be added...eventually. You hadn't posted when I made my first pass, but everyone who posts by the deadline (tomorrow, at midnight) will get in.
As I mentioned, I go the opposite route so that even if I come up with something similar, I can rest assured that I didn't copy anyone.
Perturbed? Sure. But I feel that most of the regular participants in this competition are either too proud or too honest for the kind of shenanigans that you're accusing seratonin of, and it seems a dark leap to simply assume his guilt.
Hybrid is multicolor, thus does qualify for the challenge.
The practice that I adhere to is that I don't even scope the competition until I've posted the card that I plan to use. That way I'm assured in my own mind that I didn't even sorta copy ideas. I wouldn't be surprised if many players follow that practice.
And I hate to break it to you, but that kind of idea has been floating around these forums since suspend debuted; seems a bit presumptuous to "lay claim" to it as proprietary and suddenly inspired.
I also was under the misunderstanding that the mana cost had to BE one of the color combinations, not include one of the color combinations. A 3/3 probably should have cost 2BGW, but the optimal card probably would have been a 2/2 for 1BGW. Maybe only returning a creature upon attacking OR blocking.
In any case, thanks again!
Points are added and the better total advances.
Traditionally, disqualification is the result.
What I like about the numbers is that it keeps me honest and prevents me from just picking my favorite card(s) to advance (or prevents others from thinking that I just picked my favorite cards). There have been several times where a card that I would have loved to see in print didn't make the cut because I was holding myself to the rubric.
The status is...I'm calling it. I really wanted to provide feedback on the cards, but I continue to not have any time, so I've tallied the scores on 6 judges' worth and we have a December 2010 winner:
Congratulations to Altaurus321 for his first MCC win!
Just as a reminder, there are no "pods" or "pairings" for the final round. In approximately another 4 hours, players will no longer be allowed to edit their posts and judges can start judging as soon as the deadline is reached. My judgings, sadly, may not occur until Monday.
Yeah, sorry...I meant for that to be rhetorical, but rereading it, I'm not sure how anyone else was to pick up on that.
Shall we follow the pattern and judge the first one listed?
What are you complaining about? Only three cards to judge...
I hope that this method is ok; 3x viewpoints (or 2x for a few players, sorry) means more feedback, and that's why I participate...
Every judge judges all 9 cards and our heads explode.