I don't really self serve any more. Only because I want to challenge myself to hit a good run first time in circles - no ethical or moral reasons.
But yeah that's an interesting idea. I think though, it's better to use the systems that other freestyle type sports use.
Technical and artistic work well for me - I just think the problem is that there isn't enough examples of what those words mean. This is basically my interpretation:
Technical.
Technical merit is how skilled you are as a footbagger - it's about your variety of moves, the difficulty of moves and how well executed those moves are. More variety shows a broarder range of skills. More difficulty obviously shows higher technical skill as does the execution of those moves. I would include both sidedness as part of variety. So for example you look at Honza's routine from worlds where he only hits 1 genuine toe move ending on his left foot and no genuine moves off his left foot and I still think he should get a good score because he still hits a good range of variety - one component missing isn't a big deal. I also think you only really need to hit a component once to show that you can do it. So if a person only hits one or two spinning moves - I think that's enough to show the judges that the person can hit that technical component. Hitting a long spinning run shows technical merit in the difficulty of the moves and the links - as well as artistic merit if it's done well to the music (like Vasek's spinning run) but doesn't really show any better variety.
Artistic.
Artistic is really about the performance of the routine. The important things are how the routine looks to the music. Playing on the beat is the first part of this. Then you have playing with a style that suits the music. For example I didn't think Peter Irish's routine suited the music too well - especially the very first moves. Then there is doing moves with particular parts of the music - ie. Tina's last combo. This shows that the player really knows the music well and aren't just playing to the music but are playing with the music - I hope that makes sense. And with that is sections based on parts of the music - ie. Vasek's spinning music. How the player performs is also important - things like looking at the crowd, dramatic gestures etc - if they work well as a performance are also part of artistic. Hitting unusal or different moves - like sole stalls, squeezes, cloud kicks and flyers definitly has nothing to do with artistic merit. What a move is is clearly a technical thing. If those moves are hit with the music - ie. flyers on a particular note or whatever - that's artistic but it's just as artistic as hitting a reverse whirl with the music. It depends on how good the move looks as a performance - not what the move is. I think it's entirely possible to do a completely guiltless 2 minute routine with a high level of artistic merit.
Regarding scores - these are about what I'd expect.
Technical:
0-1
Very little technical ability - no technical moves and a very high amount of drops.
1-2
Either a very very easy routine - mainly kicking and toe stalling or a small amount of technical difficulty - but probably only tiltless links, maybe the odd three or four and with a great deal of drops. I would not expect any open competitors in the finals at worlds to score with in this range.
2-3
This is the scores I'd expect from players who are borderline open/intermediate. There are some hard moves and mild links - maybe the odd tripless combo - like ripwalk>ripwalk but nothing amazing - probably over 6 drops.
3-4
This is an average routine. Some hard moves and links Probably some range of variety and at least one technically difficult move (5 add level - although not neccessarily a 5 add). Probably about 3- 6 drops.
4-5
A strong routine with good technical skill and variety. Some impressive moves or links and longish technically skilled runs (ie. over 5 genuine contacts). Less than 5 drops.
5-6
An excellent routine. Strong technical links and skill - mainly guiltless level (I should say by guiltless level I mean that kind of difficulty - the actual add ratings are insignificant). I would definitly expect some fairly difficult technical moves and links - i'm talking 5>5 type level or 6+ add moves. Also a very wide range of variety and some solid combinations. 3 drops or less.
Artistic
0-1
Basically the player does not look like they're routine has any relation to the music playing - not in time at all, no choreography, a lot of drops.
1-2
Most likely player has chosen music they like playing to but has not choreographed anything. Might be sometimes in time with music. Also a lot of drops.
2-3
Plays in time with music but only very basic choreography. Mostly just looks like making the moves up on the spot. 7+ drops
3-4
Plays in time with music, some choreography present - stuff like pausing with the music. Waving hands at crowd - probably has the odd move at particular parts to the music. 4-6 drops.
4-5
Good choreography and timing. Clearly has some sections choroegraphed well with the music. Has an ok stage presence and appears to play well with the music. 3 drops
5-6
Excellent - almost entire routine choreographed to the music - strong stage presence and timing. Style perfectly matches music. Less than 3 drops.
All these are approximates. So it's possible for results to differ - especially on the drops but that's about the standard I'd expect for each rating. I think the system should be such that it doesn't matter what the level of the other competitors is. For example if Toni Paakonen is going to get a score of 1.3 for artistic merit at worlds - the very same routine should score 1.3 at the Turku Footbag Championships or any other event.
Of course this means that at worlds in the finals you'd expect 10 scores all around the same mark - which is why you give decimal points. There's still a lot of range between a score of 5.0 and a score of 5.9.
Anyway those are my basic thoughts on the current judging system
or was that most random? i'll have to try harder next time 
(the dynamics of fake friends and 'groups' give me the shits)
. I would have liked to have a chat with her later but she had class.
