I see only one numeral that is wrong: The "IIII" should be "IV", as Roman numbers always use the shortest possible combination, anything else is wrong.
For the card: Weak, silencing yourself is a huge backdraw. Remove it and raise the cost by a bit, and it should be okay.
I was certain of the same thing. However:
"Roman inscriptions, especially in official contexts, seem to show a preference for additive forms such as IIII and VIIII instead of (or even as well as) subtractive forms such as IV and IX. Both methods appear in documents from the Roman era, even within the same document. "Double subtractives" also occur, such as XIIX or even IIXX instead of XVIII. Sometimes V and L are not used, with instances such as IIIIII and XXXXXX rather than VI or LX.[8][9]
An inscription on Admiralty Arch, London. The number is 1910, for which MCMX would be more usual
Such variation and inconsistency continued through the medieval period and into modern times, even becoming conventional. Clock faces that use Roman numerals normally show IIII for four o’clock but IX for nine o’clock, a practice that goes back to very early clocks such as the Wells Cathedral clock.[10][11][12] However this is far from universal: for example, the clock on the Palace of Westminster in London (aka "Big Ben") uses IV.[11] Similarly, at the beginning of the 20th century, different representations of 900 (commonly CM) appeared in several inscribed dates. For instance, 1910 is shown on Admiralty Arch, London, as MDCCCCX rather than MCMX, while on the north entrance to the Saint Louis Art Museum, 1903 is inscribed as MDCDIII rather than MCMIII"
Basically both are correct on clocks
