This is interesting, but it doesn't feel right.
I mean, Koko or I need certification to judge a contest before we do, if we felt the need to do so. On the other hand, I don't feel Striker should be judging contests at all given his design track record.
For those who know what they're doing, the test, as-is, is pure tedium. And those who don't know can still get past it. It's really hard to keep those that don't know out, even like this, especially with the current cards.
The current cards, at the very least, are really, really simple. Not going to say why, but I see basically every problem with them without even trying. They don't really seem like adequate measures to judge by, though the first one is at least better to do so with. The latter is just f***ing blatant.
Both of these are contest cards. One of them won, the other lost because I stepped in and spelled out how it was a terrible choice to win and then people realized. Neither deserved a win in either of their contests.
If anything, I'd use old 1 v 1 cards as a comparison for this. Have the test be which deserves to come out on top of the other, then have them go on about what the design of the cards entails and why they should be the winner. Even if they say neither should win, in all honesty, that would just show that they know what they're talking about if they explain why neither should win.
Either do it 100% or not at all, I say.