Thank you. I've also been toying with the idea to write such a note regarding myself for years, but I've never actually done it so far, and it seems pointless to me to do it right before the contests (and myself with them) migrating to Nexus. Anyway, one of the intents behind the current rubric (which I happen to be one of the creators of, by the way) was that no such things would have been needed because we thought that this rubric would have improved uniformity among judgments, which hasn't actually happened in the measure we were hoping for.
I say "one of the intents" because there were also other ones, like getting a full zero in the Main Challenge category being the only way a submission could ever get DQ'ed, but I don't want to bring up that recent discussion now (which I followed from behind the scenes willingly restraining myself from commenting, so I do know what you're talking about).
For clarity, I'll say it now as the host for this month: a card will only be DQ'ed this month if it gets a zero in the Main Challenge category, and that should only happen if it completely fails the Main Challenge (for example if the Main Challenge asks for a monowhite card and the player designs a monored one, I know this is a bad example but it's the first that came to my mind), and the rubric will be applied with all the original intents behind it, which, again, I know as one of its creators.
All of this is meant only as information, I'm not scolding you or anything like that. I'm always at discomfort in such things, because it's impossible to convey tone in writing. Please just read this as if I was talking in a friendly tone. I'm actually looking forward to work with you this month, and I'm sure you will do an excellent job. Putting you in as a judge right now.
I understand that it's difficult if not impossible to convey tone just by words, and thank you for your candor. I'll follow the guidelines as set forth.
Also as promised, here is my personal view of the rubric, please say something if you have questions or concerns.
Appeal: 1 point for each psychographic if they would like the card. Half-point deduction if they would go "I like this but..." or would warm up to the card eventually. Full point deduction if they hate it. (e.g. Timmy having to pay life, Johnny being completely locked out of combos, Spike seeing severe overcost/undervalue)
Elegance: Full points if I can explain what it does to someone who knows nothing about magic. If I have to reread it to understand how it works, half point deduction for each time I have to work through and re-read it until it makes sense. (re-reads to check on viability and rules text are excluded from this count)
Viability: I lean heavily on Scryfall to see how already printed cards use the closest approximation to the abilities. Half-point deduction for wrong rarity and/or color for effects, will cite cards to show why it's wrong. If the card has effects that are paradoxical or create clearly unintended consequences, deductions up to 2 points may be applied based on severity. An additional half-point deduction will be applied here if the error was specifically tied to a subchallenge. (e.g. making a card that should be mono-red a red/white card because "is multicolored" is a subchallenge)
Balance: Balance is judged based on Limited, Standard, Modern, and Commander aspects - Is this a card I'd want for a deck? Does it do something better than what's already in the deck for that purpose? Is it a card I groan every time my opponent plays it? Can I imagine people saying it should be banned? Full marks unless there's a convincing "NO" for the first two questions or a convincing "YES" for the last two - and an explanation why. Generally a half-point deduction for a moderate error, up to 2 point deduction for a gross error (Talking cat combo levels of screwup here)
Uniqueness: How immediately do comparisons come to mind? Up to half-point deduction if the card falls into a known or easily established pattern of previous cards, 1 to 2 point deduction for variant reprint (It's the same as [card] but for [different card type]) or effectively functional reprint, 3 point deduction for a word-for-word reprint. Generally waived if part of the main challenge.
Flavor: Half-point to 1 point deduction for name/typeline mismatch, (Named person/place/thing but not Legendary, card type contradicts naming schema) half point to 2 point deduction for ignorance or breaking of currently established canon, depending on how severe or obvious the flavor fail is. Half-point deduction for flavor text with no space, or no flavor text when the card doesn't explain itself well on its own. Content of the flavor text will only be penalized if it's grossly inappropriate for the card.
Quality: In general, half-point deduction per error (multiple instances of the same error count as a single error.) Reminder text should be appended for all non-evergreen keywords.
Main Challenge/Sub-challenges: Points if you did them, no points if you didn't. A half-point deduction will be applied if by fulfilling a challenge you made the card less viable.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Top 16 - 2012 Indiana State Championships Currently Playing: GBStandard - Golgari Safari MidrangeBG RBWModern - Mardu PyromancerWBR RLegacy - Good Old Fashioned BurnR
I'm willing to judge again. When I get off work I'll write up how I use the rubric to grade cards and what deductions I usually apply in what amounts, since that seemed to be a source of confusion last month.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Top 16 - 2012 Indiana State Championships Currently Playing: GBStandard - Golgari Safari MidrangeBG RBWModern - Mardu PyromancerWBR RLegacy - Good Old Fashioned BurnR
I understand that it's difficult if not impossible to convey tone just by words, and thank you for your candor. I'll follow the guidelines as set forth.
Also as promised, here is my personal view of the rubric, please say something if you have questions or concerns.
Elegance: Full points if I can explain what it does to someone who knows nothing about magic. If I have to reread it to understand how it works, half point deduction for each time I have to work through and re-read it until it makes sense. (re-reads to check on viability and rules text are excluded from this count)
Viability: I lean heavily on Scryfall to see how already printed cards use the closest approximation to the abilities. Half-point deduction for wrong rarity and/or color for effects, will cite cards to show why it's wrong. If the card has effects that are paradoxical or create clearly unintended consequences, deductions up to 2 points may be applied based on severity. An additional half-point deduction will be applied here if the error was specifically tied to a subchallenge. (e.g. making a card that should be mono-red a red/white card because "is multicolored" is a subchallenge)
Balance: Balance is judged based on Limited, Standard, Modern, and Commander aspects - Is this a card I'd want for a deck? Does it do something better than what's already in the deck for that purpose? Is it a card I groan every time my opponent plays it? Can I imagine people saying it should be banned? Full marks unless there's a convincing "NO" for the first two questions or a convincing "YES" for the last two - and an explanation why. Generally a half-point deduction for a moderate error, up to 2 point deduction for a gross error (Talking cat combo levels of screwup here)
Uniqueness: How immediately do comparisons come to mind? Up to half-point deduction if the card falls into a known or easily established pattern of previous cards, 1 to 2 point deduction for variant reprint (It's the same as [card] but for [different card type]) or effectively functional reprint, 3 point deduction for a word-for-word reprint. Generally waived if part of the main challenge.
Flavor: Half-point to 1 point deduction for name/typeline mismatch, (Named person/place/thing but not Legendary, card type contradicts naming schema) half point to 2 point deduction for ignorance or breaking of currently established canon, depending on how severe or obvious the flavor fail is. Half-point deduction for flavor text with no space, or no flavor text when the card doesn't explain itself well on its own. Content of the flavor text will only be penalized if it's grossly inappropriate for the card.
Quality: In general, half-point deduction per error (multiple instances of the same error count as a single error.) Reminder text should be appended for all non-evergreen keywords.
Main Challenge/Sub-challenges: Points if you did them, no points if you didn't. A half-point deduction will be applied if by fulfilling a challenge you made the card less viable.
Currently Playing:
GBStandard - Golgari Safari MidrangeBG
RBWModern - Mardu PyromancerWBR
RLegacy - Good Old Fashioned BurnR
Clan Contest 3 Mafia - Mafia Co-MVP
Currently Playing:
GBStandard - Golgari Safari MidrangeBG
RBWModern - Mardu PyromancerWBR
RLegacy - Good Old Fashioned BurnR
Clan Contest 3 Mafia - Mafia Co-MVP