Originally posted by algae5
I don't have any problems with any of the judges for this contest.
My only 2 cents- it actually is potentially problematic (at least from a theoretical standpoint) for there to be differing scoring ranges from judges. For example, if judge A gives every level between 50% to 100% of the possible points, and judge B gives from 0% to 100%, then judge B's personal scoring is worth double the points (assuming point totals are average without weighting, such as in this contest).
Along these lines, one of the things I kinda thought about is comparing the scoring here to the academic grading scale.
The average score Pyro gave was 22.08 out of a possible 60 points — or a 36 on the standard 100-point grading scale (in the U.S. at least). That means that not only did most of the entrants "fail," but failed pretty miserably. In fact, going by academic grading, only 7 entries out of the 50 non-DQed entries got above an F (above 59%) at all. And only 4 of these got 75% or above.
Granted, everything here is water under the bridge at this point; but maybe in the future the judges could come to a closer agreement about the sort of score scaling they're using, and/or what it means to have created an acceptable entry. It's certainly possible that most of us "failed" in our objective to make a viable, worthy level. But I find it a bit unlikely.