I like the idea of rating aethetics, but not the bias of having self-interested players making the call. If I need the next photo to Satisfy my criteria to win an Award and/or the dynasty, that’s going to subconsciously influence my reaction when I see it.

And more cynically, as humans we all have some scope to control our feelings about something, at the point of publicly commenting on it. If someone posts a photo which at first blush seems very beautiful or ugly, but I need to score it as the opposite to win, I can spend time finding other levels on which to appreciate or dislike it, or setting up juxtapositions that change how I feel about it in context.

As much as I want to see only pretty pictures, I have to agree with Kevan.

There’s LOADS of board games that rely on assessors making subjective judgements! The argument that players can’t be trusted to accurately report their own subjective experience, or to avoid suborning those judgements to gameplay outcomes, flies in the face of decades of development of social game design - not to mention that the reward being proposed for it is relatively minor.

Some tactical fudging is still grist to the mill for that kind of social game, isn’t it? If in a game of Apples to Apples I’m clearly only one card away from winning, the judge can make a thing of trying not to pick my card, if they want to.

The main reward here is scoring private criteria, which can be the difference between attaining and ruining something like the final eighth step of Conceptual Balance.

I agree that the main reward is private criteria - which is why I’m a little nonplused at the striping out of subjectivity from them.

Ah, wait, I misread the first step of this as applying to invented private criteria! From the proposal title I assumed it was partly rolling back It’s Not About Your Feelings, with the 2 point bonus being a balance to it.

then.