I understand you, Pat,
This table is very sophisticated. So much, that person, who never played this game can easy judge maps. But for well experienced judge (we have) it may be too binding. Maybe they would like to have more "free hand".
On the other hand, now it is very easy to watch judge's thinking and compare different maps in different elements.
So, I am ok with both ways of rating. But If I was a judge, I would like to have rating system suggested by Pat.
I think the chart is a good way for us mappers to recieve feedback and to keep it in check for further mapping.
It also gives an insight for non-participants how the ranking of the maps came together.
For judging i think the judges can come to correct ranking without any chart...
The chart just makes it transparent for non-judges.
Congratulations to the Q3 mapping scene survivng for this long, you guys are the glimmer of hope in the sea of Q3dm17/Q3DM1 edits and Q2toQ3 conversions 
Some good points there Pat. Judging is always going to be subjective, but we try to be as fair as possible. I think what we wanted to prevent is too many undefined points floating around without any clear guidelines on how to use them. In the same way, this can cause equal imbalances, do we give full points to someone with amazing texture work but ignore the fact that their lighting is weak? They do need to be docked points for things they do poorly. I'm not saying one way of judging is better than the other, just that both methods have their inherent flaws.
On the flip side, the Creativity section is kind of a point free-for-all, if a map displays amazing lighting and atmosphere, a judge can easily award full points for lighting as well as full points to Originality of Design and Outside of the Box, resulting in a total of 15 points.
[Blocked Image: http://i.giphy.com/Xickl5YZKUx68.gif]
Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!
