A new chart file was uploaded with the following changes:
----------
Hand Bias changed: -14 => -4

Thanks for your notes. Obviously won't be sending edits because there's no need for me to, but I'll address your points as if I have to:

- The chordjack sections are quite trivial playability-wise; there are much harder sections. It's a bit overdone given the additive layering but I think the parts are still neatly differentiated regardless. Also I wouldn't peg this at 103+ at all, and I've asked Matthias about this and he would easily peg this at about high 90s or so. Many playtesters I've had who are within low to high D7 range agree with that sentiment.
- 21.563 is an error so thanks for the catch, but I avoided a hand on 21.153 because of the difficulty spike it'd cause because of the burst right before it.
- 24.453 doesn't use a hand for playability purposes. Minijacks starting with a hand are not very fun!
- 37.560 goes to the weird "woo" sample. The 48th flam is for the second syllable and the 32nd burst goes to the first syllable. It's a bit on the heavy side, but it's well within the conventions of dump charting.
- 1:16.466 seems to be a subjective concern I think. This section is pretty colourfucky indeed, but I think colour streams are generally fine. I think most people would have more concerns if chords were coloured in different ways (e.g. a red/white/orange triple), rather than singles. This is because most players anticipate those chords to be split but they're not and they have to actively suppress that assumption. There's no conflict here.
- Minitrills at 2:22.716 seem pretty benign to me -- these bursts are 36ths (which would convert to 18th minijacks). Most players do find them to be challenging but certainly far from a spike. The general difficulty of this chart comes from sustaining these rhythms for long periods rather than individual sections.
- I don't see the issue with copypaste at 2:37.716.
- I don't hear anything at 2:47.872 worth stepping. I didn't step any of the hi-hat rhythms throughout the entire file, so there's no point for me to do so.

Your points are very minimal and boil down to consistency errors and/or playability concerns. Some of the conisistency errors are valid, but it really doesn't lead to the verdict and score that you've given. There's also the fact that your playability concerns are generally unfounded or exaggerated (and the difficulty that you pegged is completely off), and you didn't point out the difficulty spikes that arise from placing a double at sounds like 2:31.783 because of the hand right before it. And again, the ones you've pointed out are generally quite minor and wouldn't be substantial points against the chart.

You seem to have a pretty strong prejudice against dumps in general given your past rejects and CQs (and you've admitted it yourself), and this seems to be another case of it. Whether it'd be You Don't Know, Ideal Ratio (Pizza's), or my chart for that matter, I feel that your notes are too unsubstantial to really justify the ratings that you've given any of them (I've seen all three files, and I think Halogen told me something about how he would've given YDK at least an 8 if he were judging while trying it). The prejudice against dumps, I feel, is a lot more apparent when the scores that you've given to these files are also massive deviations from what other judges have given for the other simfile artists' files.

I ultimately don't mind the reject (and I've made some changes based on your suggestions along with some difficulty reductions in a few parts), but I'd strongly rather you pass these kinds of files to a different judge if you're going to give notes these scant and give such damning ratings with no chance of appeal for some files. It is very frustrating to read through these notes and you saying that the file "needs a lot of work" when you gave barely anything to work off other than the general context that you hate charts like these conceptually.

Hi, thanks for the appeal, and I appreciate the CQ. I'm assuming that the CQ is for metadata, so I fixed it.

Beyond that:
- Missing 32nd was accounted for.
- Shortened the vocal burst at 37.560, I don't think it really works as a 4-note burst linked to the flam.
- Changed a bit of the copy-paste to avoid super blatant repetition.
- Minitrill was indeed mistimed, but it's hard to create a minitrill later on with a similar effect unfortunately since the chord is a [34] chord, so I'd have to do something like [34]2131 which I don't think has a very good impact.
- Did some structural changes for the section starting at 2:30.268; particularly I omitted the double right after triples like in 2:35.233 to avoid this being the hardest part of the chart by some distance.

A new chart file was uploaded with the following changes:
----------
Note Count changed: 2652 => 2646
AVG NPS changed: 14.73061 => 14.69728
Hand Bias changed: -4 => -6

A new chart file was uploaded with the following changes:
----------
Note Count changed: 2646 => 2645
AVG NPS changed: 14.69728 => 14.69172
Hand Bias changed: -6 => -7