UnitedCardists.com - The forum for Cardistry, Magic, Custom Decks and All Things Playing Cards.

While I think it is up to the person who runs the scoring this year, I still think a nomination system makes the best sense as filtering tons of decks for all categories is really a challenge. My thought was everyone can nominate decks. Personally, I don't care how many nominations are involved as long as they aren't silly. I don't even have a problem with write-in votes. I like the idea of Survey Monkey as it just makes the voting and scoring that much easier for whoever is running the Contest this year. Anyway, my two cents.

The pros that I can see for having a nomination system:

- Makes more votes count. I may feel like Deck A is the best in a category, but if nobody else does I would rather spend my vote on decks B, C, D or E which actually stand a chance of winning.
- Extends the time period in which members need to participate in the contest. This is good because (A) it means the effort in voting is less of one big task you keep putting off, (B) makes everyone more involved and passionate about the process, and (C) it ensures a higher quality of the participation of members regardless of how new to the forum they are.

TwoPiece wrote:If someone wants the Poop Emoji Deck (made up) to win Best Back Design, then it shouldn't be eliminated from final count.

Bad news: it's real. Good news: it's definitely not in the running for Best Back Design.

Merlebird wrote:

TwoPiece wrote:If someone wants the Poop Emoji Deck (made up) to win Best Back Design, then it shouldn't be eliminated from final count.

Bad news: it's real. Good news: it's definitely not in the running for Best Back Design.

Son of a b-...

I would buy them if they weren't plastic...

I only joined UC this year so missed the 2017 voting, but I feel that a nomination round would be worthwhile as more and more decks are released each year. If you don't begin with nominations you could end up with so many decks up for voting in any one category that each deck only gets a couple of votes with no clear front runner.

Bradius wrote:How about members nominate decks for consideration? That could significantly limit the number of decks to consider per category? Members maybe could still "write in" a deck if we want. I am just trying to find a way to improve the voting process so we may get more people voting. Again, I am all for reducing the number of categories. I know I like best Kickstarter campaign, but that appears to have little support. As such, I am fine with eliminating it. Again, I think we need to get the pruning sheers out on the categories. I also like combining Best Pip/Ace/Joker into one category.

I really like this idea of nominating decks. Perhaps we could set up brackets, like professional sports (i.e. March Madness) do. Let's face it, the average Bicycle deck, even one as cool as Unicorns or Mermaids, doesn't stand a chance of winning any category and it's a waste of time to even consider. Limit the total number of decks for consideration to about 50. From that 50 members would nominate 5 or 10 per category to choose from. This would make them much easier to research and compare head to head. I would like to see a given deck nominated in only one category, but this is probably not realistic. With so many innovations, it wouldn't be right to limit Lotrek's decks to only one category, like Best Tuck Box, when there so many other outstanding features. However, if we could see the top five in each category, it might be easier to make an informed choice. If Lotrek should win every category he was nominated in, then so be it. The people have spoken. I know this means having to vote twice but I think it might be worth it.

Honestly though, such a system could still be gamed. Just vote for Lotrek in every category he is in and you'll probably be right 90 % of the time. I don't own any of the super limited edition $100 decks so how can I compare them to others. If I'm honest, I can only vote for the decks I actually own. Otherwise, I just blindly vote for the most popular decks/designers and score pretty well. With a limited number of decks to choose from in a given category, I could look online to see which one I thinks is best, even if I don't own them.

I would also like to see a way to separate the super exclusive decks from the others. For example, I think this year's Bicycle Strigiforms is one of the best designed decks for the money. Does it have a chance to beat a fully custom, foiled back and front, gilded deck for $100? No way. Why should I waste my vote on it, even though I think it is awesome. Lotrek, Giovanni, Jackson, etc make incredible decks, granted. I just wish there was a way to level the playing field a bit.

flashcards wrote: I would also like to see a way to separate the super exclusive decks from the others. For example, I think this year's Bicycle Strigiforms is one of the best designed decks for the money. Does it have a chance to beat a fully custom, foiled back and front, gilded deck for $100? No way. Why should I waste my vote on it, even though I think it is awesome. Lotrek, Giovanni, Jackson, etc make incredible decks, granted. I just wish there was a way to level the playing field a bit.

That's a good idea. We could have 2 categories: Best deck below $20 and best deck above $20. That would help distinguish the mass produced decks and those by new artists and those established premier designers. However that opens a new can of worms. How many splits should we do for those by value? Deck and tuck alone? We should just stick with those 2, IMO

UPDATE on the "Accurate Deck List"; as y'all already know, I've lately been in my free time here and there working on getting together a comprehensive list of all the 2018 decks to have been released this year thus far by adding to and updating the 'Upcoming Decks of 2018' google doc for the contest and, even though it was super time-consuming to backtrack the decks from 2017 KS campaigns that were delivered in 2018, I think I've finally got a pretty solid, up-to-date list for everyone to work off of.

With that said, the google doc has A LOT of additional information, most of which I'd agree is not relevant to this year's contest (but most likely will be for next year's and has already gotten us off on a great foot so this long process of backtracking won't be an issue as it was for this year), but that info is included simply because this doc has sorta been a one-stop means of dumping all information into one place and, for the time being, I wouldn't change that since the year is not over and info is still constantly needing to be updated as time goes on - besides, it's easier to update one doc rather than to create another, separate one, and have the extra hassle of update 2 coincidently.

Overall, I'm confident to say that a vast majority of decks that have thus far been released in 2018, starting at the very bottom of the doc with early releases up until now, are included and the best way for people to view each decks, albeit time-consuming, is by clicking through the links provided.

Anyways, vasta has mentioned possibly creating a thread similar to PrincessTrouble's on PCF with pics and such - something like a visual list of all the decks - which, ideally is super awesome and I'm sure many would be in favor of having such a resource available to help out in voting, buuuuttt, since this was not something that had been established at the beginning of the year in which the thread would only need to be updated and added to, it'll also take a considerable amount of time and effort to create - meanwhile others have been debating back and forth on whether or not to just go directly with the nomination route to narrow down choices.

It doesn't really make much of a difference to me - I see the pros & cons of each approach:

A thread that is a visual list is unquestionably time-consuming for one person to initially create, but will present all decks more or less fairly and give each an equal opportunity for consideration and may make it easier for members who rather just spend time browsing and scrolling through pics. Whereas the nomination route could also be time-consuming, but only for the few interested in actually spending that time to click through a master list and putting such decks up for nomination; however, that may lead to accusations of bias since the majority of nominations will be based only on the opinions of a very small number of participating members; but, I think everyone can agree that it does limit down choices which could also encourage overall greater voting participation, especially for those that may have felt too overwhelmed to do so in the past. Of course, a third option could be a combination of both approaches; the creation of a thread/visual list to first help with which decks should be nominated and then a vote based on those in like a 2-wave approach as also suggested before; however, the downside of this option is that it will ultimately be the most time-consuming and require the most effort and, furthermore, may not even be worth it if there still only ends up being low voter turnout.

Anyways, if a "visual list" thread were to be made (and I don't mind starting one myself - actually would prefer doing so since I'm kinda OCD when it comes to comprehensiveness lol) I think it probably should be as unbiased as possible with posts of literally nothing but the name of the deck, designer/producer, and the printer along with a few pics of course.

Now, I guess my question is if it's at all possible to create a thread with posting/commenting capabilities disabled? Just because the purpose of such a thread is not to discuss (we've all been there and done that already lol), but merely as a visual list for members to browse & scroll through in helping to make their decisions about voting. Plus, I wouldn't want comments to dissuade or influence how people vote (even though that's probably not at all an issue, I also don't want it to even be brought up as a hypothetical one either and this might be a way to preemptively mitigate suspicions of such).

Personally, if I alone had reign of control on what approach to take in running this whole shebang, I would volunteer to take the lead on creating the "visual list" thread with pics and information as stated above, but instead of ALL deck, only of those nominated in each of the award categories decided upon for many of the same reasons already expressed by others. I would also encourage anonymous nominations to be made directly to me (or whoever else that'd be interested in taking lead) through PM and ensure the thread is updated accordingly to reflect those choices in an effort to further deter the loudest voices in the room from domineering over the opinions or voting of others. Anyways, I think now that we have an "Accurate Deck List" available to everyone in the google doc (which, by the way, absolutely does not give any deck a biased advantage over another one being that they're all listed in the same manner), I believe this should be enough in presenting all decks the fair opportunity for recognition & consideration and people that are interest in taking the time (or not) to click through the links available to nominate, can do so. Now of course, there's no one perfect approach in how we want this contest to be ran, so this is just my own perspective how we can strike a fair balance between giving recognition to all decks that have been released while also narrowing down the choices and making this process a bit more efficient without having to devote an overwhelming amount of time and energy (because, let's face it, creating a thread with even just 50 nominated decks will take some time, but only a fraction of what one including all 300 would require... so I think it's best if we all try to stay mindful, practical and efficient in deciding what route we all wanna agree upon to take)

PipChick wrote:UPDATE on the "Accurate Deck List";

TL;DR.

Thanks PipChick for all of the hard work. I think you have a really good list, but we do need to check it over some more. I didn't see Cardistry Con 2018 Tally-Ho, Squeezers, Heroes of Japan, Imperial (white and red Editions by Jackson Robinson), 2018 NPCCD decks, The Planets - Uranus, Damask Red and Blue versions by Lotrek, 2018 52 Plus Joker deck by Randy Butterfield, Hudson (Theory 11). Those are what quickly came to mind. My list was filtered from the main list showing that the decks had been delivered, so they may have been in the larger list. The decks above I already have or I know they have been released. Again, I really like the idea of nominating decks to specific categories to keep down the work of considering all of these decks for each category, which is simply overwhelming.

Bradius wrote:Thanks PipChick for all of the hard work. I think you have a really good list, but we do need to check it over some more. I didn't see Cardistry Con 2018 Tally-Ho, Squeezers, Heroes of Japan, Imperial (white and red Editions by Jackson Robinson), 2018 NPCCD decks, The Planets - Uranus, Damask Red and Blue versions by Lotrek, 2018 52 Plus Joker deck by Randy Butterfield, Hudson (Theory 11). Those are what quickly came to mind. My list was filtered from the main list showing that the decks had been delivered, so they may have been in the larger list. The decks above I already have or I know they have been released. Again, I really like the idea of nominating decks to specific categories to keep down the work of considering all of these decks for each category, which is simply overwhelming.

yes, I assure you they are included in the main list; I'll update later to have the filter also recognize all the non-KS decks that you mentioned.

PipChick did a HUGE work...

kudos to her

Hi y'all,

So, I'll be starting a thread for nominations very soon (probably within the next day or so - end of the week at the very latest - so keep an eye out for that lol) and within that thread, I'll be including the various award categories that nominations can fall under for recognition. Before doing so, I just wanted to be sure that we're all more or less on the same page on what exactly those categories are lol

So, I've gone back and re-read many of the concerns and debated pros/cons expressed by everyone for including/excluding award categories and it seems to me that a majority of people have agreed that the following categories absolutely must stay this year:

• Best Ace
• Best Back
• Best Courts
• Best Jokers
• Best Gaff/Extra Card
• Best Use of Colours
• Best Deck for Fanning
• Best Deck for Cardistry/Flourishing
• Best Deck for Magic
• Best Tuck
• Best Innovation
• Best Rookie Deck
• Best Non-Poker Deck
• Best Overall

That means the rest would possibly be excluded (unless there's public outcry from the masses otherwise):
• Best Pips
• Best Uncut
• Best Coin
• Best Crowdfunding project
• Best Deck for Poker Play

All in all, this would streamline our award categories to a grand total of 14 - does this seem suitable for everyone?



Also, a few new categories were also suggested by members; those being:
• Best Branded Deck
• Best Series
• Best Use of Foil

I have my own feelings and reservations about some of these, but I'd like to get a general consensus from everyone else here - yes, or no? should any of these be included?? In consideration, just be mindful of each category's potential for longevity and practicality as an award category.

I just wanna be sure that we're all somewhat in agreement here before moving forward with nominations - Thanks!

IMO "Best Pips" has to stay, but whatever.

I am fine with the list, but I am going to struggle with some as I am not a cardist. What would make a deck good for Cardistry/flourishing, but not fanning? They seem the same thing to me.

Amy - thanks for doing all this work. I am generally happy with the list but would agree with Brad that I do not see much of a difference between cardistry/flourishing and fanning categories.

I would merge them into one and then add the best use of foil category (as foiling is becoming more and more common in decks). I am also on the fence with the best coin category but can probably live without one.

I like most all of the categories. As long as we do not have to nominate/vote for each one. I have no idea what makes a deck great for magic really, besides being easily discernable for the audience.

Sent from my Galaxy 8 using Tapatalk

Bradius wrote:What would make a deck good for Cardistry/flourishing, but not fanning? They seem the same thing to me.

Have to agree with Brad here.

TwoPiece wrote:IMO "Best Pips" has to stay, but whatever.

This one seemed to be the category most people were split on in terms of whether it should remain or be excluded but it also seemed to be the one that most people felt indifferent about if it ultimately were to be excluded so I thought it best to leave it out for now; however, if the majority is in favor of it remaining, than it will

TwoPiece wrote:

Bradius wrote:I am fine with the list, but I am going to struggle with some as I am not a cardist. What would make a deck good for Cardistry/flourishing, but not fanning? They seem the same thing to me.

Have to agree with Brad here.

Magic Tapp wrote:I am generally happy with the list but would agree with Brad that I do not see much of a difference between cardistry/flourishing and fanning categories. I would merge them into one and then add the best use of foil category (as foiling is becoming more and more common in decks). I am also on the fence with the best coin category but can probably live without one.

STLBluesNut wrote:I like most all of the categories. As long as we do not have to nominate/vote for each one. I have no idea what makes a deck great for magic really, besides being easily discernible for the audience.

Personally, I'm also in favor of merging the flourishing and fanning categories into one, but it seems that this has been an issue brought up and debated many, many times before and Sinjin had made a compelling argument defending that a distinction between the two is most appropriate as reflected in two separate categories (as stated earlier in this thread here) - I, myself, can't speak much in regards to cardistry as that's not really my area of expertise in the hobby, but maybe someone else who is more keen to the specific design attributes necessary for a deck to be effective and visually appealing in flourishing and fanning would be so kind to help us all understand what to be looking for in a deck while considering and nominating (and eventually voting for) these particular categories - it'd be very much appreciated! . And again, if the majority feels otherwise in regards to keeping these two categories separate as is, and would rather see them merged into one, then by all means, it will be modified to reflect those expressed opinions.

STLBluesNut wrote:I have no idea what makes a deck great for magic really, besides being easily discernible for the audience.

While yes, standard (or standard-ish) designs that are clearly recognizable and readable for an audience is super-duper important, I think this category is also for considering and recognizing what other key features the deck and/or tuck may offer specifically for magicians and application in particular card routines - ie. reveals, marking system(s), borders, stripper, gaff cards, etc. - and how well they've been inconspicuously incorporated into the overall theme/design. Again though, magic is not really my forte (I love it; I'm just terrible at it lol), so maybe someone else would be so gracious as to give us all a bit more insight into what to specifically be looking for in considering such decks for nomination/voting

Regarding cardistry/flourishing and fanning: Yes, this has been argued many times, and the results were always to keep these separate. But, if you'd like to see whether they really are different categories, look at each of the past years and see how many times the same deck won both categories.

Go ahead. I'll wait.

With regard to best poker deck, I am in favor of keeping this category. It is very much like best fanning, best cardistry, or best magic deck categories: it denotes the best application of key principles in support of very specific-to-playing cards functionality.

What makes a deck good for playing card games is often very different from what makes a deck good for magic, or cardistry. Again, how often do the same decks win both best Poker deck and best Magic deck (or, for that matter, best Cardistry deck or Fanning deck)? A magic deck can be marked or gimmicked in some way, which renders it unusable for poker, while a kick-ass deck meant purely for playing card games may have attributes that do not make it ideal for magic or cardistry (like four-corner indices).

Quick: name one of the best decks to come out in recent years that you think of as a poker deck. For me, Whispering Imps Gamesters leaps immediately to mind. This is a deck that is designed with one purpose in mind, and the execution is flawless. And yet, for all that effort, is there any other category that could acknowledge what this deck achieved?

Edit: If you want to rename "Best Deck for Poker Play" to "Best Deck for Playing Card Games," would that assuage people's issues with this category?

I probably sound more passionate here than I intend to. I don't even have a clear candidate in my head for who I'd vote for this year (well, okay. Now that I think about it, I do. But, still.) But, I respectfully submit that we keep this category unless and until it receives few enough votes that it's clear the category should be dropped. This category is, for me, analogous to the Oscar's "Best Documentary." Not the sexiest category, but still worth acknowledging.

Which brings to mind a couple other things:

Uncuts can be awesome. Yes, they are peripheral to the finished product, but when they stand out, they really do stand out. They acknowledge the art decks and semi-transformation decks, really. Look at past year's winners. Think about decks that have come out this year. Do you think there was a deck that came out this year that may have had a stand-out uncut version? Is it worth acknowledging that some decks are just so pretty you could hang them on a wall for display? For me, this is like the Oscar's "Best Cinematography" category. What is so beautiful that you just want to capture it in a frame and admire it?

The coins category used to be the Best Accessory category, and as such, would have included cover guards, clear card cases, poker chips, daggers, what-have-you. I'm fine with dropping this category outright, since sentiment seems headed that way, but I can also see an argument for reverting back to "Best Accessory."

The proposed new categories are, in general, not grabbing me. Best Series has been done before and didn't work out well. Too much confusion (as highlighted earlier in this thread.) I also agree with others earlier in this thread that Best Use of Foil is likely to become very dated very quickly. However, the Best Innovation category can, for the time being, acknowledge continuing advances in foil (such as this year's groundbreaking use of cold foil on Neo:Ultra, House of the Rising Spade's use of full-bleed foil, or Damask's 5-foil card faces) as this category has in the past (Golden Oath, anyone?). Likewise, Best Branded deck seems... I don't know. I'm not sure how it advances or acknowledges the art. Whatever. It's not my cuppa.

Does it make sense to add a "Best Art Deck" category? This could give transformation & semi-transformation decks, art decks that are otherwise really not good for playing, magic, or cardistry, and Ultimate Deck-style decks a place to be acknowledged. Just a thought.

If others are inclined to keep the best pip category, you can add me to the list in favor of keeping that one, as well. I don't feel as strongly about that as I do about the others I've mentioned above, so take that for what it's worth.

Thanks for rolling forward with this, PipChick. I'm not really paying much attention to this until the end of the year, but I'm glad you're keeping the ball rolling.

hey, Pippy McChicky here again lol

rousselle, my love, I totally understand where you're coming from with "Best Uncut" category, but I beg to differ in regards to its inclusion as a category; not to go off on a tangent, but ultimately, the awards are about recognizing awesome playing cards and, in an effort to streamline the number of categories we have, I just don't think this one should make the cut (no pun intended lol ). Although, I think a fair compromise would be replacing it with a "Best Art Deck" category and personally, I'd be totally on board with that Does anyone else also like this category and would want to see it included??

And again, only focusing on decks is my own primary reasoning behind also cutting the "Best Coin" or "Best Accessory" category - sorry; I know this is one you really enjoy, but we're gunna have to agree to disagree on it's inclusion for awards recognizing playing cards - no hard feelings

I agree that Fanning should be part of Cardistry/Flourishing - maybe just call it Cardistry, period

How many times do we need to do this?

Typical good fanning elements: Full-bleed, corner elements visible in spreads, a back design pattern that blends well with itself.

Typical good cardistry elements: Bold borders and a back design with larger elements (making them look good in cuts and displays), circular center element that lends itself to spins.

There are probably more, but these should be enough to make the point that these are two categories with very different criteria.

I also agree with Amy's proposed keepers and "to be dropped", although Allan does make a good argument for the gameplay category.

Thanks for your hard work in sorting out the categories, PipChick. I am fine with the 14 categories you posted. I think we have to keep 2 things in mind here: 1) We can't make everyone happy. 2) We are trying to reduce the number of categories, not add to them, in order to make the voting process easier so that more people will participate.

Good reminder Sinjin. I think Amy said it best. It's about the best deck of cards. Nothing else.

There should be 2 categories for Caridistry and Fanning. This is because we have 2 categories each for Magic as well. 1 for the Gaff/Extra cards, which is usually geared for magic and 1 for overall magic purpose. (as stated earlier and Amy posted the link)

"Fanning is a major subset of Cardistry as a whole and important enough to merit it's own category. Of all the cardistry moves, fanning is the one aspect of cardistry that is the most specifically affected by playing card design." Just like we consider the tuck or back designs to be only 1 part in the overall deck design. (After all don't we give T11 enough grief over their standard faces? )

I'll just add that the overall design of the cards play a crucial part in cardistry. Just watch a handful of videos on cardistry and you'll see what I mean. Start with the Virt's Liquid Paper and Rise videos to get the full idea. GentlemanWake's reviews mention cardistry appropriate decks as well.

However if you're going for cards only, then Best PIps should also be included in the categories. Not a tough category as not many designers do that. But we should recognize the designers who went the extra mile to design pips that fit their deck theme.

I would request a clarification statement to be made for the Best Non-Poker Deck. What's the criteria for that category? Does it include the cardistry and magic decks as well? Or does it refer to arty decks like the Cartomancer deck by Alain Benoit? For me, it shouldn't include Cardistry and Magic as we already have a specific category for those. So that should be stated clearly to avoid confusion and ensure votes for those decks don't get diluted due to confusion.

I think it would criminal to not include a Best use of Foil category at this point, after some of the decks which have come out this year and given how they will only increase in the future. The many many posts in the thread supporting the category make it inarguable to my mind, a true no brainer, when the times change you must change with them, as they say. Otherwise I'm happy with the categories and agree with all the cuts proposed.

Adonael wrote:I think it would criminal to not include a Best use of Foil category at this point, after some of the decks which have come out this year and given how they will only increase in the future. The many many posts in the thread supporting the category make it inarguable to my mind, a true no brainer, when the times change you must change with them, as they say. Otherwise I'm happy with the categories and agree with all the cuts proposed.

Well, one can argue that we can cover the best use of foil in the best innovation category but then the flipside argument would be that foil is not exactly innovative as it has been around for a couple of years. This year we have seen some outstanding foiled decks: Neo, Arabesque, HotRS and Damask (to name just a few) - I am for the category but, to address the concerns about the category becoming dated, perhaps we can call it “best craftsmanship” or something similar?

Eric Lee wrote:I would request a clarification statement to be made for the Best Non-Poker Deck. What's the criteria for that category? Does it include the cardistry and magic decks as well? Or does it refer to arty decks like the Cartomancer deck by Alain Benoit? For me, it shouldn't include Cardistry and Magic as we already have a specific category for those. So that should be stated clearly to avoid confusion and ensure votes for those decks don't get diluted due to confusion.

From my understanding, this is were such decks as tarots, hanafudas, and basically just any other deck that's not designed for the purpose of playing poker would fit in for their moment of recognition... personally, I'm torn on whether or not to want to keep this category - part of me wants to just replace it with "Best Art Deck" because "Best Non-Poker Deck" is such an incredibly broad spectrum in which this one, vague category covers, but ultimately, those types of decks are playing cards - just different types - and while I might not be an avid collector of such particular decks nor very aware of all the releases of them this past year, it does give the opportunity for those that are a category to get excited about.

sinjin7 wrote:I think we have to keep 2 things in mind here: 1) We can't make everyone happy. 2) We are trying to reduce the number of categories, not add to them, in order to make the voting process easier so that more people will participate.

yes; very, very true; I guess I was just sorta looking for like a thumbs-up/thumbs-down type of general consensus from everyone rather than re-igniting debate lol before officially moving forward with this process. At least now, the majority is somewhat in agreement on the 14 categories that we got - yay!

Although people don't seem excited about the category in general, it seems there's still somewhat of a divide on "Best Pips" and from the sounds of it, "Best Poker Deck" (or, renamed to "Best Deck for Gameplay") and "Best Use of Foil" are two others people seem most interested in including... so let's make a compromise; If we're going to be adding any more to the 14 we've already narrowed down, let's keep it between ONE of these bringing our grand category total to 15 (still a lot, but less than what we started with lol) but I think this is practical and fair. So everyone, this is your last and final chance to let your voice be heard - of the three: "Best Pips", "Best Poker Deck"/"Best Deck for Gameplay" & "Best Use of Foil" - which ONE category are you siding with? No need for debate, just choose one or the other

I'll give y'all until the end of the week to make up your minds and then, I'll be posting the nominations thread with the final award categories we're set on so we can proceed with move forward and finally get this show on the road lol

Thanks everyone - your participation is much appreciated

As earlier mentioned, I'll go for Best Pips. Best overall and best poker deck would overlap quite a bit

Best Use of Foil/Best Craftsmanship