Spoiler for Hidden:
The task was to design but not create a tool. I voted based on that criteria. A particular tool being actually created should not and did not influence whether I would vote for it or the code generator. However, you let the appearence of the submission to influence your vote. Except if Forum Expert is an Artist submission and aesthetics matter... Furthermore, my program, if you run it, has greater aesthetics than AWA submission, so even in aesthetics my sub has a plus, which you haven't taken it at your account for some reason...Please be careful with your accusations. I did not let aesthetics influence my vote. Recognition of a problem does not necessitate being part of the problem. (Did you mistakenly think I voted for AWA?) I did not run your program because benefiting from its utility might have biased my voting. For those influenced by aesthetics, usually the aesthetics on the cover have a greater impact than those inside.
The Automated War Auction tool was more aesthetically pleasing. This should not but did influence voting. This shows that people like me and Calindu are right of voting unfairness. This actually is a plus of my opinion and not of yours (see above). Have you read my opinion? I do think aesthetics played an unfair role. However I am for removing all potential biases rather than merely the ones that favored Nyan Sharks.
I do think the Automated War Auction would have provided more benefit to more players than the Catapult Damage Calc (war players vs gravity players that don't have the wiki chart at hand). That said I have seen many more people struggle with coding tables, links and other forum post options. False, people participating in War are just a small part of people who hang around in forums, while players who play Catapult-based decks are both in the community and beyond it. Furthermore, the calculations made with CDC are much better than wiki's chart, since you can buff you creature, poison it, freeze it etc. and calculate its cost thereafter. Finally, Catapult's damage isn't an easy thing to calculate by yourself without using a program (all these things I've just mentioned are within the description, not the tool). So, seriously, CDC >>> AWA. You consider the small fraction of the Gravity players that play catapult decks is larger than the small fraction of players than try to enter War. I think it is reversed especially when you consider the organizers would implement the AWA while the Catapult tool would only be used by a fraction of Catapult players. This causes me to disagree with your conclusion. (Using 3 ">" implies to me that you are still not sufficiently compensating for either the authorship bias or the frustration you have towards Nyan Sharks.)
I have read your posts carefully, Oldtrees. "The Automated War Auction tool was more aesthetically pleasing. This should not but did influence voting.", this was your saying. Voting for AWA or not, it doesn't really matter. What really matters is that the aesthetic pleasure of sub A is taken into account while the aesthetic pleasure of sub B is not. However, the most annoying fact is that aesthetics are taken into account even more than the actual submission itself. And yes, I believe that '>' I have put, but it is not bias against Nyan Sharks or something. I am pissed of because of the voters, not because of Nyan Sharks. Nyan Sharks are a great team and it deserves a lot of 1st positions, but not as many as it has indeed taken, and I also know how many 1st (or 2nd, or 3rd) places deserve the rest of the teams too. I know where I have actually surpassed the other teams and where I was utterly defeated, not matter what the voting shows. Because of the above, I consider the voters 'immature', 'unfair' and 'biased', and they indeed are even more biased than me. Finally, even a non-gravity player will play with a catapult deck once in a while and he/she is going to need the tool, but how many ETG players are ever going to participlate in wars? ETG players are overall far more than those who actually visit the community frequently.
