The MCC Discussion Thread

[bravelion83]

Who would host/judge the entries other than bravelion83?

@Ryder for sure I believe. If other people with high rules knowledge would be interested, they're more than welcome to speak up.

But I would play if it ever became true, like a 2025 dream.

If there are enough people interested, maybe even before 2025.

@Ryder @marioguy3 I've had an idea earlier today and I wrote it down on a local text file, which I'm copy/pasting in the spoiler below. This is a hypothetical highly rules technical contest, with everything open up for discussion, it's nothing more than an idea that I'm posting for discussion. I believe the two of you would be interested in discussing it, but everyone's thoughts are welcome of course.

Leo's idea for a high rules knowledge contest with blind submissions

Show

Hide

Roles:

- Keeper (hosts, creates all threads and challenges, CAN also play, knows the identity of each submission)
- Judges (CAN also play, do NOT know the identity of each submission)
- Players


How a round goes:

1. The Keeper creates one challenges, the more technical the better, requiring a high amount of rules knowledge. Some additional optional requirements might be there for bonus points, the number and value of which might be variable or fixed (TBD based on further discussion). The high rules knowledge is the defining trait of this contest, so players are expected to have an adequate familiarity with the CR for sure, maybe the policy documents too (JAR, MTR, IPG)?

2. The Keeper posts the round thread with the challenge and the eventual additional requirements.

3. The players, within a speficied deadline, send blind submissions directly to the Keeper via pm (or any other suitable means TBD with more discussion), who keeps them hidden for the moment (from which the name Keeper). The Keeper might add their own submission too and all Judges can also send a blind submission to the Keeper. Each player may (or may be required to, that's TBD based on discussion) make a post in the round thread saying that they have sent their submission to the Keeper, but WITHOUT posting what their submission is. The Keeper might be required to confirm that they received that player's submission by posting such confirmation in the round thread.

4. After the deadline has passed, the Keeper reveals all the submissions they've received by posting them in the round thread but, and this is key to this hypothetical contest, OMITTING who designed each card, no names yet. Only the cards. At this point, judging begins, according to a given rubric (which may or may not be the same as the MCC one, that's TBD). A judge shouldn't be assigned their own submission to judge in their bracket, but they can be assigned other judges' submissions, and one judge will necessarily be assigned the Keeper's submission. Each submission may need to be assigned to more than one Judge, again, as long as no Judge is assigned their own card to judge. In this case, all submissions must be assigned to the same number of Judges, and at the end of the round (in step 5 below) all the scores received by each submission will be added up to determine the advancing players. Again, the key to make all of this work is that Judges do NOT know who designed the cards they're judging. Only the Keeper knows the identity of the designers at this point, and they must still keep it secret to anybody else (another reason for the Keeper's name: they keep the players' identities secret). The Keeper CANNOT also be a Judge, as they know the identity of the designers. Each Judge judges all cards in their bracket within a specified deadline and posts their scores.

5. Only after all scores for all cards are public, the Keeper reveals who designed each card, and the top N (value of N still TBD) from each bracket advance. If multiple judges have judged the same card, all the scores received by that card will be added up to determine who advances to the next round.

6. Return to 1. for the next round. How many rounds are needed is TBD based on discussion, I can personally see having three rounds each month (one less than the MCC) to allow more time for designing and judging, which will be both inevitably more difficult than in the MCC due to the high rules knowledge required.

[Ink-Treader]

That does look like a reasonable set up. Would certainly require honor on the part of the Keeper, but I expect of anyone you certainly would be trustworthy.

I am curious why the policy knowledge you mentioned might be relevant, after taking a look at what they are.

[bravelion83]

I am curious why the policy knowledge you mentioned might be relevant, after taking a look at what they are.

It's just that many times rules and policy are mentioned together and I was essentially brainstorming and just spitting out ideas. That's why I wrote "maybe". The CR are more than enough for such a contest, the policy documents could easily just be ignored.

[marioguy3]

I definitely think that three rounds should be a max, although if time becomes a problem, I think two rounds might be suitable. I like the ideas presented here, reiterating that I'd only want to be a player. How much consideration should flavor (story, name, flavor text) be considered for this? Personally, I'd think very little, but other players might have differences. Like the MCC, quality should be a factor in the judging of the card.

[Ryder]

This is very much how I envisioned the blind submission style I was talking about.

I'm not sold on the contest being specifically about technical rules - removing the limitations MCC has would be enough, other than that the challenges should be up to the host/keeper. An idea that is coming back to me is, challenges based on a given board state. You present a specific setup and a task to accomplish - ex. "Prevent the next activation of ability X" or "Ensure you take no combat damage this turn".

Also, we'd need a new scoring rubric. MCC one is fine, but this should be more tailored to what the contest is about.

[bravelion83]

I definitely think that three rounds should be a max, although if time becomes a problem, I think two rounds might be suitable.

Agree. I had already written three rounds, but probably going down to just two is even better. If we want to use split weekends here too, it's impossible with three rounds. With two rounds it's perfectly doable instead, and it gives both players and judges more time, up to a whole week, which I believe would be a good thing given the high difficulty level.

I like the ideas presented here, reiterating that I'd only want to be a player.

Yeah, I knew that, and there are no problems with that. I pinged you just because you had expressed interest in such a hypothetical contest. I knew you would want to be just a player.

How much consideration should flavor (story, name, flavor text) be considered for this? Personally, I'd think very little, but other players might have differences.

Agree. Flavor should count a little anyway, as it's a needed part of any Magic card, custom or real, but this new contest would be specifically about the mechanical side. This contest I'm proposing is first about mechanics and only much later about flavor.

Like the MCC, quality should be a factor in the judging of the card.

And a very important one, I'd dare to say. I just didn't think about it while I was writing it down, I essentially took that for granted.

This is very much how I envisioned the blind submission style I was talking about.

I knew it would have appealed a lot to you. I believe that if this hypothetical contest ever becomes reality, someone like you would need to be involved in a big way. I can easily see you in the role of the Keeper or as a judge in what I wrote.

I'm not sold on the contest being specifically about technical rules - removing the limitations MCC has would be enough,

Here I'm sorry but I can't understand what you mean in the second part of the sentence, and it's certainly my own fault. Which limitations are you referring to here?

other than that the challenges should be up to the host/keeper.

Another thing that I took for granted as it looked obvious to me, but saying it explicitly is always a good idea. The Keeper has complete freedom in creating the challenges as they wish.

An idea that is coming back to me is, challenges based on a given board state. You present a specific setup and a task to accomplish - ex. "Prevent the next activation of ability X" or "Ensure you take no combat damage this turn".

This could be a good implementation, and it would also give this new contest its own identity, different from the MCC, which is a big plus in my opinion. It reminds me (in a good way) of the old Magic: the Puzzling that Maro did on the Duelist, and we have nothing like that among our main contests here. Would other people also like this implementation of the idea?

Also, we'd need a new scoring rubric. MCC one is fine, but this should be more tailored to what the contest is about.

Yes, at this point I'd say this is evident. This new contest would need a rubric that's much more about mechanics than flavor, though both should still be there. The mechanical side needs to be worth more points than the flavor side of the card here, and that does indeed require a new rubric. No problem, if this idea sticks, we'll make one.

More thoughs are welcome, from everybody but especially from people who haven't spoken up yet and that might be interested.

[Lorn Asbord Schutta]

I have to say, I expected "Design a legendary noncreature with "can be your commander" in its rules text." for the main challange in the finals. The whole month kept surprising me, honestly, which is good. Being kept on your toes is part of what makes a challange itself in the first place.

[Ink-Treader]

I have to say, I expected "Design a legendary noncreature with "can be your commander" in its rules text." for the main challange in the finals. The whole month kept surprising me, honestly, which is good. Being kept on your toes is part of what makes a challange itself in the first place.

I too was expecting Commander. This is definitely going to be interesting to judge, as I'm much less familiar with drafting. (Though I have done a Conspiracy draft once)

[slimytrout]

@void_nothing, just to clarify for Round 4, my assumption is that you mean only the meaning of "draft" from the two Conspiracy sets, and not the meaning of "draft" from the various Alchemy cards -- is that accurate?

[void_nothing]

@void_nothing, just to clarify for Round 4, my assumption is that you mean only the meaning of "draft" from the two Conspiracy sets, and not the meaning of "draft" from the various Alchemy cards -- is that accurate?

Actually, you're free to design a card with "draft from spellbook" as per the letter of the challenge, and that was my intention.

[bravelion83]

You must include the name of the watermark your card has, e.g.:
Watermark: Boros

You may include a brief description of the visual appearance of your watermark, e.g.:
A raised fist inside a sunburst

Alternatively, you may mock up and include an illustration of your watermark if that appeals to you more.

@slimytrout I'm asking a clarification that will probably be of interest of both players and judges: are these elements supposed to be part of the criteria a submission is judged against this month? I guess not as one is just a name that's probably going to be part of the flavor text anyway given Subchallenge 2 and the others are optional, but asking this anyway just to be sure.

As for myself, I still have to decide which role I want to play on May, the theme turned out not to be what I was thinking of, but I'm not saying what I was thinking of as it might come in handy for me to host in the future, you never know. What I do know is that I already have an idea for a submission, one that immediately came to me, but I want to think about it a little more and I also want to have an idea of how player participation is going to be this month and understand whether I'm more needed as a player or a judge. I'll let you know.

[slimytrout]

The optional parts are definitely not part of the criteria, you can think of them as you would a card render -- if you feel like a description or illustration really ties your submission together and/or you just want to include it you can do so, but I don't plan on adding or deducting any points as a result. The watermark name is part of the submission, so could factor into your score in some scenarios. I agree that if you just make up a new faction name and use it as a watermark then it probably won't matter much, but I could imagine a number of different ways in which the watermark name might have more meaning than that.

And sounds good, plenty of time before the submission deadline so no rush to decide right away.

[void_nothing]

Sorry, spent too much time putting the May MCC together and didn't leave enough time for this -- would love 24 hours if that's okay.

And you shall have it. Technically you don't even need to state a reason for requesting a short extension, especially in the finals, but this is a worthy one. Updating the deadline now.

[slimytrout]

@Rithaniel don't forget to put the name of your watermark in your May Round 1 submission -- it seems fairly obvious from the flavor text but it does need to be explicitly named.

[Raptorchan]

@slimytrout: are Universes Beyond custom cards with related watermarks acceptable?

[Lorn Asbord Schutta]

Quality - 11 lines of text with 4 breaks is well beyond microtext, where the limit with 4 breaks is 9 lines, or 1 break for 11 lines. Should be "if it has" not "if it is with"

Huh. I have checked my submission before posting with local Nexus card creator and I had exactly nine lines in render, as could be seen in spoiler below. I admit that I was positively surprised seeing that I was within limit, but I thought that this was correct nonetheless.

SPOILER

Show

Hide

Regarding the "if it is with" wording, I have based it on three cards that I could find, that were referencing other drafted cards by the noted name: Aether Searcher, Noble Banneret, Smuggler Captain. Obviously they are not one-to-one applicable to the wording of my submission's ability, but all of them use "with a name" instead of "that has a name" for some reason.

[slimytrout]

@slimytrout: are Universes Beyond custom cards with related watermarks acceptable?

Hmm, I'd be interested in other folks' opinions on this, but my inclination is that it depends on your definition of "acceptable." I would not personally disqualify someone for making a Universes Beyond card for a non-UB round (assuming they satisfied the main challenge), but I do think they would receive at least a 1-point flavor penalty from me to help account for the fact that judges are not expected to be familiar with non-MtG flavor.

[Ink-Treader]

Quality - 11 lines of text with 4 breaks is well beyond microtext, where the limit with 4 breaks is 9 lines, or 1 break for 11 lines. Should be "if it has" not "if it is with"

Huh. I have checked my submission before posting with local Nexus card creator and I had exactly nine lines in render, as could be seen in spoiler below. I admit that I was positively surprised seeing that I was within limit, but I thought that this was correct nonetheless.

SPOILER

Show

Hide

Regarding the "if it is with" wording, I have based it on three cards that I could find, that were referencing other drafted cards by the noted name: Aether Searcher, Noble Banneret, Smuggler Captain. Obviously they are not one-to-one applicable to the wording of my submission's ability, but all of them use "with a name" instead of "that has a name" for some reason.

That is interesting, regarding the text, since I did also use the Nexus card creator. I'll doublecheck, and see if there's maybe something else going on; that is an unusual amount of blank space on your render for the text being as small as it is.

EDIT: Alright, I've figured out what was going on; I hadn't actually input P/T. That radically changes the card. I'm curious if that's what should occur, but I was using the same understanding of microtext as you, so I will give that point back.

As for the "if it is with", the critical difference appears to be that the Sphinx allows for the tutored card to not be a noted card, and I don't see a pleasant way to allow for both that and trying to use the "with" wording. Your examples all only utilize the noted cards for their effect.

[Ink-Treader]

And my April MCC Round 4 judgments are complete. There is still time to ask questions, of course.

I will say, this was a very interesting month to judge, and fun too.

[bravelion83]

@slimytrout: are Universes Beyond custom cards with related watermarks acceptable?

Hmm, I'd be interested in other folks' opinions on this, but my inclination is that it depends on your definition of "acceptable." I would not personally disqualify someone for making a Universes Beyond card for a non-UB round (assuming they satisfied the main challenge), but I do think they would receive at least a 1-point flavor penalty from me to help account for the fact that judges are not expected to be familiar with non-MtG flavor.

Answering this as author of the guidelines document as always. Given that the guidelines have been written back when Universes Beyond didn't even exist, that say nothing about it, but given that the aim of this contest is to generate cards as they would appear in boosters in regular black-border sets, I would personally treat Universes Beyond exactly like silver border/acorn: that is, forbidden unless explicitly requested by the round challenges. For example, Raptorchan hosted a specific Universes Beyond month last February, where all the challenges were about Universes Beyond. That month was special specifically because Universes Beyond cards are not normally allowed, but that month they were required instead, and that was the theme of the month. If we just allow Universes Beyond cards at any time, months like that either couldn't be done at all or they would lose the specialness of their theme. Then there is also the problem of judges knowing other IPs beyond Magic. For example I would have big problems as a judge, as I essentially know no other fantasy IPs other than the fact that they exist, and the very few I know very few facts about, I know far worse than Magic. I could have never judged February, no way. If we allow Universes Beyond cards in every round, I would have to essentially retire as an MCC judge, which is the last thing I want. We can't expect judges to know every other IP that exists so that they are ready to judge the one random Universes Beyond card that might pop up in an ordinary round. I also know that there are precedents in real Magic, such as Transformers cards in BRO and Jurassic Park in LCI, but if you daily read Blogatog, like I do, you know that Maro has explicitly said that mixing Universes Beyond with Magic IP sets is now considered a mistake by them, and in the foreseeable future they will keep Universes Beyond and Magic IP as fully separated products.

TLDR: My own line for "acceptable" is that Universes Beyond and silver border/acorn cards are NEVER acceptable in the MCC unless explicitly requested by the round challenges.

EDIT: Seeing the very low participation in May so far, and also that the design deadline is tomorrow, for now I'll remove the spoiler from my submission, and I will play in May. If we have a sudden influx of submissions on the last day, that might change, but as of this moment, I believe I'm more needed as a player in May rather than a judge.

[void_nothing]

Congratulations again to @Lorn Asbord Schutta, the winner of April's MCC.

[slimytrout]

Seems like Ink-Treader and I both have at least draft versions of our judgements ready and posted. The judging period doesn't officially end for another day and a half, so if you have concerns/questions about your score now is the time to ask them, since once the period ends the scores will be official and I will post the next round.

[Ink-Treader]

My May MCC Round 1 judgments are finished.