Banned decks: Alt-win conditions and meta (Current Meta: Geargia and Mermails).

All tests are conducted using TCG format

Testers are:
C.C.
Pride
DarkSoul
Sasukat
Hero


Tester Name (Deck) v.s Testee Name (Deck)

Match Results: x/4:
+2 for each win. Bonus +2 if went 2-0

Use of Cards x/20:
How well did the testee use their cards? A duelist must be able to make the best of the cards they have, and as such that's what this section is.

Duel Control: x/15:
Rate the amount of control the testee held during the match. Were they able to make comebacks? Or did you hold control for the entire match?

Creativity: x/5
Did their deck have cool techs that seperated it from other decks like it? Was it a type of deck you don't see often? Or was it a cut and paste copy of most decks like it, and a deck everyone uses?

Attitude: x/2:
Did they keep a good attitude throughout the test, or did they argue at every turn?

Ruling Knowlege: x/16:
8 questions about rulings, each worth 2 points.

Concentration and Misplays: x/8:
Did the testee pay attention to the duel, or were they constantly asking what you just did, or forgetting effects? Did they play well, or did they make mistakes when using effects?

Deck Build: x/20:
How good was the build of their deck? Was it able to work well towards a win condition, or was it not able to do much? Was it consistant? Did it actually work?

Side Deck: x/10:
How good was their side deck? Did it look like it could handle anything the deck would suffer against? How well did they side against you? If there was nothing in their side to help against your deck, than that is a problem unless they have a reason not to.



Total points: x/100


Slifer Red = 0-65


Ra Yellow = 66 - 89


Obelisk Blue = 90 - 100

I told you to remove attitude @_@ put the points to concentration.

PimpinEveryNubInSlifer wrote:

I told you to remove attitude @_@ put the points to concentration.

Too bad .-.

Good attitude needs to be promoted to make members friendly.

You shouldn't AWARD points for attitude though. Simply deduct some if they are dick-faces, otherwise it shouldn't impact the score.

Meh. Neither is superior to the other. They both have equal faults and strengths.

Both are pretty much the same but having one test makes the job easier for testers. Plus are Ra rubric was waay to generous, it was like most academy's slifer standards.

Oooh i demand a free retest

Nikosan wrote:

Oooh i demand a free retest

You want to be in slifer?

Sure, pay in the shop and contact a tester.

Rly though, if im testing an asshole you're definetly going to see it in the grading. There's no need to have attitude.

Quote :

Banned decks: Alt-win conditions and meta (Current Meta: Fire Fists and Mermails).

i would suggest updating that

iAmFlam3ezZ wrote:

Superion Maximus wrote:

Quote :

Banned decks: Alt-win conditions and meta (Current Meta: Fire Fists and Mermails).

i would suggest updating that

I would suggest waiting for the new format to start.

theres always a format to be updated to XD

Geargia and mermails ? Should be geargia and HAT

No Pride, no. No. No. One more time. No. Lol. Reason being: Alternate win-condition decks, meaning any deck that wishes to cause the opponent to lose in some way other than depleting life points to 0, cannot and should not be played. They have a minimal amount of interaction with the other player's cards and deck, and what is >USUALLY< going to be tested, is how well a player uses their cards in a situation, and what cards they HAVE. The first can't be judged with one of these decks, because in any situation, the same cards, plays, and end-game are in use in any situation.

And no on the net-decking liability and commonality on the score cuz... must I explain this?

Sorry for being so blunt about that btw.

I agree. Ban alternate win condition since as Evil said, it makes it hard to check thier skill but meta should still be allowed.

Well that's debatable. I am not saying it should be but all I am saying is maybe it can be lowered. Its still telling an outcome of they played. I mean I know bad luck and hands effects this but stuff like that always happens. If you go into a tourny and lose, you can't say "Oh, I had a bad hand". Your deck should be consistent enough to win or you should side better or even if you lose game 1, try and win the other 2 games.

The problem I see with including match results for points is it is entirely too subjective. Matchups of decks, as well as testee and tester play a huge role in this. Someone who played and demolished me 2/0 would get full points, but what if Sasu could 2/0 that person? Is it fair that they will get different scores simply based on how lucky they were to pull which tester?

The testers should learn to play in a way that'll actually test the testee then.
I test using control decks which will almost never otk, simply because i want to drag out a match and see everything someone has up their sleave.
Whereas other testers will play mermails or karakuri and give you 1 turn to do something, or they could play total control like bujins in which you can't really do anything. Good tester will be able to test well and if anything they're more then welcome to fake the match results for the testee's sake.