How The Acc Judges

I am just starting to get back into the swing of things, but I've noticed that people still don't know how ACC battles are rated - more specifically; what they're rated on. All the CM's since the position came into existence, have tried to relay their vision of the method - some were good, some not so much. I tried to make the process more concise, and yes - people felt their "creativity" and "originality" had to suffer - though that was far from the case. The fact is, creativity and originality are too open for opinion to be a primary rating factor (for a whole 'staff') - what you might think is creative or original, I might think is stupid and vice versa. No ACC combatant should ever feel that their battle would have had another outcome with a different judge.

Now, I am not the CM - and don't pretend to be, but at present, these are the elements listed for criteria in the ACC (top of the training hall). Yes, they are still of my hand, but-from what I've seen-haven't been done away with. I've added a few notes

Writing
Spelling and Grammar
Spelling errors, common or otherwise *everyone has spellcheck
Poor sentence structure, bad syntax, run-on sentences etc. *this is NOT doctorate level but which clearly effect readability
Style
How well the writer entices the reader, language that is used, descriptive ability *this is creativity/originality
The flow of the writing from post to post; seamless storytelling
Distracting elements in the writing, i.e. OOC's, non-pertinent/overdone histories, overly flamboyant language (primarily, that which doesn't fit) etc.
Detail
Are elements drawn upon that expand the story to more than just mere combat *this is creativity/originality
How is the combat addressed, is it clear and concise; does it "paint" a good picture *this is creativity/originality
Are long posts written just for the sake of length, or do they add to the story
Is the structure of the post neat and readable

Realism
Post Realism
Is the story 'realistic' even for the SW Universe
Are moves and fighting scenarios, from sequence to sequence, 'realistic' *i.e. did a fighter escape from an impossibly escapable position?
Are potentially restrictive or hazardous venues/terrain elements written as such or ignored
Does the combatant "write in" NPC's in a way that fits the story (if applicable)
CS Realism
Are sequences and feats, performed by the combatants, consistent with their CS's *did a guy with 3 STR throw a boulder?
Is Force use 'realistic' when compared to the user's ability (as defined by the CS) and their opponent *JH Force Lightning, anyone?

Continuity
Post Continuity
From post to post, are significant elements recognized, addressed and maintained *did missing arms reappear?
Is damage addressed and/or dealt with and/or maintained *was a physical confrontation, in a previous post, mentioned in the next if it needed to be
Have the weapons, venue or terrain changed and been addressed accordingly *started with a sword, now you have a blaster
CS Continuity
Is described damage consistent with the combatants CS's *a guy with a 26 CON gets knocked out by a feather
Is 'reaction' or 'effect' of Force powers consistent with their CS's


I hope this helps, if it's read. Any CM can trash it and deviate if they want to - but honestly, without getting into too much 'opinion' I don't see where else one could go. The ACC was at a point -once- where combatants would request a particular judge; one whom they knew would either a) rate the battle fairly or b) be allied with their idea of "originality", hoping for an easy win (when 'originality' was a primary rating criteria)...it shouldn't be that way. The ACC Staff should be completely transparent, IMO - no combatant should be wary of who judges it because of how that judge "feels"...but now I'm babbling