I think the main problem is that the criteria are too vague and one-sided.
They mostly evaluate how annoying, confusing, painful, or impractical the project is. That fits the joke of the jam, but it does not really evaluate the actual quality of the idea or the design.
For example, a completely random and messy project could score higher just because it is more painful to use, while a more original and well-designed project could score lower because it is inconvenient in a more thoughtful way.
I do not think “confusing” or “annoying” are bad criteria by themselves, but they need clearer descriptions. And I think there should also be criteria like originality, functionality, completeness, and how well the project fits the theme.
Otherwise, it becomes hard to tell whether a project is actually well designed, or just randomly uncomfortable.
Impracticality -> How hard it was to use
Annoyance -> How annoyed you felt. It's purely subjective
Evilness -> If it has elements with literal malicious intent to work against you
Confusion -> If it was hard to understand.
Pain level felt while using -> Again, purely subjective. But significantly different from annoyance.
The higher the score -> the worse it is. The worse it is -> the better.
So yeah, basically all of those are negative characteristics and it's supposed to be as negative as possible. As you said, it's just the whole joke, to be completely opposite of regular competition where you judge by "greatness".
