Thank you!! Being a judge is sure is tough work. The previous system was okay for the most part! That's why I haven't changed the criteria all that much, just the point distribution. It just needed more polish to make it more adequate for judging image-based cards. As it was, it felt like a carbon copy of the text-based rubric. For example, Aesthetics only being worth 10% makes literally no sense for an image-based contest. I didn't want the visual aspect to be too powerful, though. That's why I've made a 50-50 system to remain fair. Oh, boy. You were so moved as to make graphs! XD As a visual person, I love those! Yay! They seem to be inaccurate, though. Let me check real quick *zoom* Yeah, my system is definitely different from the way you depicted it. Keep in mind this is just the most approximate estimate: Creativity is in Art, Blank, SFX, Effects, Flavor. Wording is in Text, Effects, and possibly other categories. Fonts/Placements is in Blank, Text, and possibly other categories. Believability/Playability is in Art, Blank, SFX, Gameplay, Effects, Flavor. Aesthetics is in Art, Blank, SFX, Flavor. The categories are part of each other in a way. This is how I managed to balance things out. I reckon is hard to make any outside analysis without knowing the inner workings like I do. Basically, I took apart playability from believability/authenticity and sprinkled the latter over most other categories. I did the same with creativity/originality. As you can see, the system I use hasn't substantially changed creativity and authenticity point distribution. However, I did take most of the power of fonts/grammar/syntax and gave it to more important areas in my opinion: aesthetics (obviously, it's an image-based contest), and playability (what use is a fine card if I can't never play it and expect to win?) That is partially true. I should favor effort, shouldn't I? Otherwise, half-baked cards would be worth the same as carefully crafted cards. However, I don't think I favor EXs/GXs or anybody's exes all that much if that's your concern. I have a check for what is conventional for a particular kind of card. But I'll review and test this more just in case. SFX refers to special visual effects, actually. I would agree on you if it weren't the case that AlphaLad's and FourteenAlmonds's cards scored pretty good on mechanics and art, respectively. I have explained more about how I judge blanks in my previous post. I do have checks and balances for this kinda stuff. Don't you worry. Bottom line, nothing on its own is decisive because I look at the card as a whole. That's my main focus. Well, if you are going to make the case that art is subjective, then docking X points for anything is also arbitrary and subjective. I don't agree at all that art is subjective. There's objectively good art out there. I know this because I've been tasked to measure it in the past without art style bias. I've always been considered fair when it comes to judging art. There's more to it that than quality as well, that's why I check for creativity/originality and believability/authenticity in most categories, including art. This is just not correct. But that's because you made an analysis with inaccurate information. Let's see... Wording has been distributed and mixed with other categories I wouldn't say it has little presence at all (judging by how it was judged in the past). For that reason, it's difficult to draw conclusion like you do, even if I'm the creator of the system. Though, I think poor wording and creativity are balanced with each other for the most part. The scale could be slightly tipped towards creativity but that might need more testing. However, I don't think that's a bad thing. No. They lost points for balance reasons as far as I know. Accuracy is not all that matters. The rubrics are supposed to be different. You can't judge image-based entries as text-based entries. That should be a given. If you're able to make image-based cards already there's no transition to go through. You just do it. Besides, the new rubric is more similar to the text-based one than the old-image based one. Believability/Playability: old (10% vs 30%), new (38% vs 30%). Creativity/Originality: old (30% vs 40%), new + aesthetics (48% vs 40%). Also, if I understood correctly, are you proposing beginners should score the same as experts? I think I addressed all your concerns. Thanks for the feedback! There's still things to iron out and tweak but I'll need more testing for that. I don't want to get too specific on how I grade stuff because it's kinda complex (the previous system was, too). I'm writing a guide of my own, but it's not ready yet lol And it's not like the old rubric's explanation was that detailed anyways (unless you have the guide ). Besides, that's stepping a boundary, as judges don't ask how participant make their cards. Hopefully my clarifications can shed more light, nonetheless. Cheers!