I considered proposing all judges cover all players in the case of 5 entries as well. I agree that the advantage is making it easier to advance 3, the disadvantage being it is more work for judges. Judges have it hard enough as is, which is why I proposed what I did, but I have no other objection to that policy.
I don't really see any option for 7 players than the current one. It would not work to have Player 1 judged vs Player 2 by one Judge and vs Player 3 by another judge - regardless of our attempts at impartiality, some judges give higher average scores than others, so the competition must be held constant for everyone. The bracket of 3 is slightly more difficult, sure, but I think it's preferable to the alternative (top scores amongst overlapping brackets).
I did recall that there was some prohibition against posting anything but cards in your MCC posts before, but I couldn't find that listed in the current FAQ in the OP of this thread.
My argument would be that just as including a render is optional (but can be judged under Flavor in my understanding), an art description should be treated exactly the same. Almost none of us can create competent art ourselves, and it takes time and is iffy in copyright terms to use others' art without permission. My argument in favor of art descriptions is that it could virtually expand that last part of the card to people who don't otherwise use it. Again, like renders, it should be totally optional, but should count for Flavor if included.
I don't see how an art description is any different than the card name, flavor text, and stuff like creature types - all of those aspects are determined by the creative team at WotC.
I guess if Rudyard and Marco don't show you have a 5-person problem instead...
I suppose the easiest thing to do there would be one bracket of two and one of three, and two of the judges only judge one bracket.
Judge A - players 1, 2
Judge B - player 3, 4, 5
Judge C - all players
Is it forbidden to post art descriptions? I'm not actually sure why that isn't done more often in this forum - we do all the other card concepting work.
Obviously just asking because I have an idea for my current card.
I guess there is no actual precedent in MTG, but the way it's worded means that each nonland permanent you control gains pseudo-vigilance, which means that when that permanent becomes tapped for the first time your turn, you get to untap it. This is a very open-ended ability that works with multiple things (mana dorks, temple bell-type effects or simply attacking with your creatures) at the cost of Derevi not being able to protect herself in any way in the unfortunate case you don't have creatures on the board/your opponent got more.
Ok, well that makes the hexproof wall slightly harder to get through as well (you can +, stop an instant, and still have it up against sorceries).
Derevi is actually my Bant commander and there's some fun space here, especially the ultimate, but having a couple of unclearly worded abilities and an uninteractive play pattern puts it slightly below the others for me.
I adjusted all the scores. I understand the intent of Viability to break down into 1 point for appropriate rarity, 1 for appropriate color, and 1 for rules. Although no system we come up with will be perfect or free from subjectivity, this is the place that we are most aiming for codified standards of design.
Sorry to pick on the finalists publicly, but it seems clear to me that "slightly ambiguous reminder text" < "one mode of the card doesn't work" < "the card causes an infinite loop and also is a color pie break" in terms of severity of viability infractions and I have ordered them as such.
To analyze further, I think the reason that I have the reaction I do in these cases is that wording the card correctly is one of the few verifiable/objective things we can critique. The Design and Creativity fields are almost completely subjective, Development is the one area where we can line it up against existing cards and say yea or nay (though Balance is fairly subjective also). Clearly in real R&D other people will just fix these mistakes, but I guess philosophically the assumption of most of this forum and certainly the MCC finals is that you are posting a card as close to finalized as possible. I'm not sure how much more innovative or flavorful a functionally broken card would have to be for me to be satisfied with it getting a higher total score than a card that works.
No particular argument for changing the system here, just elaborating for discussion's sake.
Also sorry for missing that Raptorchan, that's why I ask for feedback. I understand there is a norm regarding this contest that we don't argue much with judges, probably because volunteering a considerable amount of time to judge and then getting tons of nitpick feedback is not going to encourage more people to judge, and then the contest falls apart. However, obviously complete misreads should be corrected, and there may be a card wording that supports the choices you made in design that a judge might not be aware of, so at least for my part I am happy to reconsider if you can post here or PM me with evidence.
In the same vein I feel that if I missed an objectively negative aspect (card doesn't work, balance counterexample or something) when judging a card that other judges found, I should edit my own judging to take that into account.
NP, it's an interesting topic. Thinking about it some more, not sure why flying and the strike abilities come where they do. Flying is a blocking restriction like menace and the strikes affect damage so it seems like they should come after trample. I think they are sort of grandfathered into their spots by being common abilities.