My round 1 judgings are up. I felt like I was a bit harsher this time than I usually am; the scores were all in the general area of 18-20, with plenty of interesting ideas...tied to weird rules/flavor interactions. Or solid cards...based off of standard, safe concepts. There was also a heckuva lot of regeneration/pseudo-regen in my bracket...
Any questions or concerns, feel free to PM me.
EDIT: Forgot: Congratulations, Shineko!!! Very cool!
I'm definitely in the -.25/minor error camp. I've seen cards posted, sometimes by non-native speakers, that have upwards of 6 or 7 grammar, punctuation, and spelling errors, and I'd rather point them out and use the occasion as a learning tool rather than a club over the head: YOU BAD SPEAKTYPE, YOU GET -3 PT DQ!!!
October Round 1 will be posted by the end of the day; I think you'll enjoy it. We have a pretty awesome design team this month.
Just because this example worked out counter to expressed concerns doesn't mean that the potential is any less. It's not even a matter of "questionable" judging, as some judges just naturally score cards higher/dock less than others. I think we had a really mid-range batch of judgings this round (in score outcomes, not in quality), but there are some judges that normally judge really high or low. Two players who happen to get two high-scoring judges have potential advantage over players who get a regular-range or low-range set of judges. The average-of-judge-scores between two players still seems like the fairest possible.
And, hey, the previous method did have flaws of its own. Most notably the fact that you might get paired with the "best" card, and then get knocked out, no matter how good your card is. For example, and let us just assume for a moment that there were no "judge preference" issues this round and that the positions are an accurate representation of opinion (well, I'd like to think that), then how would you feel if you were Jimmy Groove, had the "second-best" card in the round, and still failed to get through?
Yes, but this is always a risk. Even in the early rounds, you can get thrown into a random mix of high-caliber card designers and come out with a score higher than the elimination line of all cards submitted, but still be eliminated because the other submissions in your pod were really good. The only way I know of to get around that is:
the "everyone judges everyone" method, which is pretty unwieldy outside of Round 4.
And I would argue that "unwieldy" should be replaced by "impossible within the time constraints we set".
EDIT: I suppose the other option would be to treat round 3 as we do rounds 1 and 2, with "pods" of 2-3 players, and say the top 1 from each pod makes the final. That's essentially what we're aiming for, we're just spreading that out over multiple judges, which, in theory, should add accuracy.
Well, a similar thing was done back in March, but for that one, there were no "pairings" assigned. No two competitors had the same two judges.
Yeah, that was my fudgebucket, but the concept is the same. Taking the top X scores from the results is only fair when only one judge is judging the "pod" or when all judges are. One judge across five players will (as consistently as possible) apply the same set of criteria, but two judges on a group of 2 or 4 or 8, with the top scores advancing means that players assigned to an uber-liberal judge will get scores in the range of 23-25, beating out those assigned to (only) harder judges who score in the 16-19 range.
We just need to consitenly apply the concept of matched pairings. It's not an issue when two judges judge the same pair and both sets of scores are totaled (or averaged) and the winner advances.
Well, speaking as someone who was a casualty of this little experiment, I can say what I find to be most unfair about the new system: the reason myself and The Man In The Box didn't advance wasn't because our judges eliminated us, but rather because someone else's judge was more generous with his point allocation.
The MCC doesn't have an "official" standard for point allocation, nor should it. Example: some judges deduct 0.25 of a point per Quality error, others deduct 1 point--and that's just the way it is. But it's fair as long as every player affected is judged by the same standard. This new system does not guarantee that and is therefore fundamentally unfair.
But what's done is done, so good luck to those who moved on! I just hope that we return to the normal system next month.
I regret that I didn't catch this a little sooner, but what enLight is indicating is correct, based off a similar whoops that I did a few months back. The method used for round 3 this month is unfair because it only works under a standard grading system (and assumes all elements are noted by all judges the same). Any round that uses multiple judges either needs to use pairings, where one of any given set advances, or all judges need to judge all entries in the group (like the final round).
That doesn't change this month, however, but the more we go through similar processes, the more we'll know for the future.
I've been trying to compile a "good practices" guidebook for organizers. I have some procedures down, but this kind of example should be included. I'm just finding it hard to catch everything. (That, and I don't have a lot of extra time these days.)
I'm leading the organization of October's MCC; if you are interested in helping design the rounds and answer questions for that month, please PM me. Participation as an organizer will, of course, disqualify you from playing for the month, so we encourage all organizers to also judge, but that is not a requirement.
turn 1 - Ideology Breaker
turn 2 - Honor of The Pure, attack with 3/3
Then, follow that with Journey to Nowhere, Oblivion Ring or any other card that works in similar way and see what happens.
Um, T2 Honor of the Pure would allow you to attack with a 2/2, not a 3/3, and I don't see how a Journey or O-Ring helps.
EDIT: Ah. I got it. He gets the +1/+1 counter regardless of whether or not the art/ench is destroyed. That feels very counterintuitive to me.
Does "nonartifact" count for artifact? (crossing fingers)
Sorry, BB; I'm not judging this month, but I am one of the organizers, and prolly shouldn't shirk all my duties. I'll back AI's indication as accurate:
Well, I'm not the head judge, so I'm not 100% sure, but I'd go with yes; in normal grammar terms (though not Magic terms), this would be written as "non-artifact", which would suggest as including the word.
Unless Shineko suddenly appears with reason why it's a no-go, "nonartifact" is fine for satisfying the round requirement.
But that makes things too easy and ruins the fun of stumbling for random art until you hit pay-dirt.
This. There's nothing quite like the feeling of finding the art you need after 23 hours of searching. But still, it's a very nice resource, and I guess I could put up with a 4-hour search in one spot instead.
How long until you're done with the keyword cross-reference so that I can search for "scantily-clad babe battling red and/or green worm-like monster with (at least) three teeth"?
Shineko has indicated to me that while he's still working on judgings, his scores won't be significantly offset enough to dislodge our current frontrunner. I, unfortunately, have too many things on my plate to contribute this final round, so I am calling the July MCC Winner:
Congratulations KHANanaphone!
The first post will be updated by the end of the week, and I will ask Moss_Elemental to set the wheels in motion to get you a trophy!
Question, for enchantment - auras, is the resulting text that states what the aura can attach to considered reminder text?
i.e.
Blah 2r
Enchantment - Aura
Enchant Creature
Blah.
I would probably say that all auras automatically have two or more lines of rules text, and are therefore excluded from the round, but I'll leave it up to Shineko.
Bah, this last round seems fun, although if I had made it to round 3 I don't think I would have advanced. Could we make MCC August's cards less wordsy? That modal and coin-flipping business left a bad taste in my mouth, and I didn't even participate in round 3!
I'm in the organizer's group, and I think we can accomodate. Similar to card design, the round requirements and challenges for July were much more flavor-driven than sense-driven, and I learned a lot from it (I hope).
Any questions or concerns, feel free to PM me.
EDIT: Forgot: Congratulations, Shineko!!! Very cool!
October Round 1 will be posted by the end of the day; I think you'll enjoy it. We have a pretty awesome design team this month.
I read it, but because I'm slow like that, I didn't quite understand it. Can you expound?
Yes, but this is always a risk. Even in the early rounds, you can get thrown into a random mix of high-caliber card designers and come out with a score higher than the elimination line of all cards submitted, but still be eliminated because the other submissions in your pod were really good. The only way I know of to get around that is:
And I would argue that "unwieldy" should be replaced by "impossible within the time constraints we set".
EDIT: I suppose the other option would be to treat round 3 as we do rounds 1 and 2, with "pods" of 2-3 players, and say the top 1 from each pod makes the final. That's essentially what we're aiming for, we're just spreading that out over multiple judges, which, in theory, should add accuracy.
Yeah, that was my fudgebucket, but the concept is the same. Taking the top X scores from the results is only fair when only one judge is judging the "pod" or when all judges are. One judge across five players will (as consistently as possible) apply the same set of criteria, but two judges on a group of 2 or 4 or 8, with the top scores advancing means that players assigned to an uber-liberal judge will get scores in the range of 23-25, beating out those assigned to (only) harder judges who score in the 16-19 range.
We just need to consitenly apply the concept of matched pairings. It's not an issue when two judges judge the same pair and both sets of scores are totaled (or averaged) and the winner advances.
I regret that I didn't catch this a little sooner, but what enLight is indicating is correct, based off a similar whoops that I did a few months back. The method used for round 3 this month is unfair because it only works under a standard grading system (and assumes all elements are noted by all judges the same). Any round that uses multiple judges either needs to use pairings, where one of any given set advances, or all judges need to judge all entries in the group (like the final round).
That doesn't change this month, however, but the more we go through similar processes, the more we'll know for the future.
I've been trying to compile a "good practices" guidebook for organizers. I have some procedures down, but this kind of example should be included. I'm just finding it hard to catch everything. (That, and I don't have a lot of extra time these days.)
Um, T2 Honor of the Pure would allow you to attack with a 2/2, not a 3/3, and I don't see how a Journey or O-Ring helps.EDIT: Ah. I got it. He gets the +1/+1 counter regardless of whether or not the art/ench is destroyed. That feels very counterintuitive to me.
Sorry, BB; I'm not judging this month, but I am one of the organizers, and prolly shouldn't shirk all my duties. I'll back AI's indication as accurate:
Unless Shineko suddenly appears with reason why it's a no-go, "nonartifact" is fine for satisfying the round requirement.
HaHAH!!!
Hotmail now includes a preview of the first scene of all linked videos, so no rickroll for me!
Sucka.
On-topic: I really hope you're kidding about taking a break from the keyword cross-ref; that would be insane...
Yeah, I caught it.
This. There's nothing quite like the feeling of finding the art you need after 23 hours of searching. But still, it's a very nice resource, and I guess I could put up with a 4-hour search in one spot instead.
No, no, that's quite alright.
However...
How long until you're done with the keyword cross-reference so that I can search for "scantily-clad babe battling red and/or green worm-like monster with (at least) three teeth"?
Congratulations KHANanaphone!
The first post will be updated by the end of the week, and I will ask Moss_Elemental to set the wheels in motion to get you a trophy!
I would probably say that all auras automatically have two or more lines of rules text, and are therefore excluded from the round, but I'll leave it up to Shineko.
I would say that your card meets the criteria.
"CMC N or less" is still fine.
I'm in the organizer's group, and I think we can accomodate. Similar to card design, the round requirements and challenges for July were much more flavor-driven than sense-driven, and I learned a lot from it (I hope).
What are you, a mind reader? This is almost verbatim to August's first round!!!
Glad to hear it. For awhile, a slightly different version was round 2, with the modal challenge being round 4.