The main task was to take an AI deck and "level it up" so to speak. How people justify that in their submissions is up to them, and it's up to the voters to decide what sorts of justifications they like -- including weak or no justification for a submission they preferred over a submission with lots of sound justification that they didn't. In my view, the only reason for a CO to step in would be if the submission didn't follow the task parameters. If you don't like somebody's submission, don't vote for it. If you feel something is outside parameters, bring it up and we'll take a look at it.
And if you want to sway some more people to favor your submissions over others, well, you can start a conversation about it in the voting thread! One single "called it" isn't going to affect anybody's voting pattern significantly, but a "looking for originality, generic good quality no. 2, and spiciness when I voted" might.
Pretty much copy/paste a FG deck, then write a story about it.... I think there should be clearer rules between a writing competition and a deckbuilding competition.
I'll admit that all the DB comps since after
War Memorial have been cut from the same cloth. We'll try to increase variation the next time one swings around. I'm not too keen on strict labeling, personally, but it's a good point.
