Swindon (M0nkeyz) [9/10]
>Permission good (Blanket)
>Folder contents, metadata good
>Sync good

Playtest Impression, 1.0x Rate - Yes. God this chart is great.

18.407 - might want this as a jump
58.807 - missing hi-hats, compare 1:01.047
1:30.647 - white note? To keep consistent move 1:30.314 to green too
1:45.847 - similar case to 58.807, kind of makes sense though so /shrug
2:49.207 - .847 - (subjective) might be a bit much for the right hand. Maybe move the minijack to 2?

Unironically one of the best 🆚charts I’ve ever seen. Very nicely done.

39.447: this not being a minijack is confusing because the repeated patterning at 39.687 implies that it's repeated sound but it's not. either this should be a minijack or 39.687 should be changed
40.167: i think it's worth sacrificing PR here to include this 16th note, it's really noticeable imo
41.927 (NIT): there is technically a 16th here but it's hard to notice because it gets lost in the mix, so i don't think it's a problem to omit it
42.807: this note is a lower pitch than the previous 4th note so it should be patterned a bit differently since this is melody is the current focus
47.287/3:11.447: change either this note or 47.447/3:11.607 to a different column since it's not the same sound and there's a trill pattern here
56.407: missing 8th note that is pretty important to emphasize the pitch change here. probably shouldn't chart following 16th if you chart this
58.887/1:12.247: missing notes here that you charted @ 1:01.127
1:15.447/1:19.927/1:22.167: these patterns could sound match more effectively with the cymbals. as is, they share the same columns with the other sounds and it's not very intuitive
1:26.087: missing note
1:28.487: i would change this to something like [12]4[12][34][34][123] (or [12] if you want to avoid the 3 note jack). not only is this more accurate because you can layer the kick but it's a much more friendly pattern to play
1:33.687: no jump here?
1:42.807: not the same sound as the previous jump
1:44.327: missing note
2:03.127: previously charted with a 3 note anchor but not here
3:21.527: why not the same jump here?
3:23.527: ghost note
3.23.847: missing note
3.30.807: this seems like it should be a minijack

6/10: this file has a lot of structural issues -- mostly pertaining to columns representing certain sounds conflicting with other ones. i cut this review short because i spent a lot of time on it but many of the ideas from the earlier feedback appear later on in the file. there's too many of these types of errors for this to be acceptable for ffr right now.

Since the there is a 2+ point disparity between judges' ratings with one above the accept barrier and one below, this file is getting another opinion from a third judge. Hang tight.v

@Fissure

39.447: I can but then I'd have to change a bunch of other patterns too to be minijacks(this sound occurs frequently), I don't want the earlier part of the file to be too minijack heavy. I changed the pattern around though.
40.167: I think the sound is being drowned out by the crash.
41.927: Yeah, not worth including as it's being overshadowed by the crash.
42.807: Changed.
47.287: Changed.
56.407: Changed.
58.887/72.247: Nice call, changed.
75.447/79.927/82.167: Changed the patterns around.
86.087: Hard to hear because of the clap.
88.487: Changed it around.
93.688: Don't think it's quite jump ''worthy'' for this section.
102.807: Changed it to [34].
104.327: I am focusing on the toms here, I think including it would create a continuous pattern with the toms that doesn't feel right to me.
123.127: A bit nitpicky imo, I can't make an ascending 3-note anchor here starting on [23].
201.527: Changed.
203.527: Removed.
203.847: Because it's so low in volume and the next minijack is way more prominent. Putting 2 minijacks so close to eachother when one is more intense than the other would confuse the player. Added a 16th note though.
210.807: It could, but then I'd have to change 210.968 into a minijack as well, which would make this
section too minijack heavy for my taste. I made them [2][1],[3][4] instead.

@Tru

18.407: Changed.
58.807: Changed.
90.647: Changed.
105.847: I changed all the others, but in this particular case I think it would confuse the player since they're so focused on the white notes.
169.207: Yea, changed it around.

@Fission thanks for the notes, some of them were a bit nitpicky, but please keep doing it this way. It's the way I judge files as well. Personally wouldn't haven given the chart a 6 based on complexity and length, but I definitely appreciate the notes.

@Tru thanks for the compliment, one of the better VS songs I've heard as well.

A new chart file was uploaded with the following changes:
----------
Note Count changed: 3817 => 3820
AVG NPS changed: 11.83811 => 11.84741
Hand Bias changed: -15 => -30

After discussing with other judges I realize 6 was the wrong rating and it should have been 7. Many years ago, a 6 put a file in CQ range and pressured the charter to make changes. I realize now that people usually act in good faith with "changes recommended", so I will avoid rating a 6 in the future for this reasons given in my review. Thanks for understanding, I'm still navigating how judging works in the current year.