Here are my thoughts on the matter...
Merl brings up a good point that people forget. The KCBS has always had those rogue judges whose scores were inconsitent with the other five judges at the table. This happened under the old system and still occurs under the present system. All of us hate that low scoring judge. One thing I have suggested over the years is that a score of three or less be defended with a short written comment by that low scoring judge. This way the team might learn from their mistake.
One last comment about those rogue judges. IMHO, these type of judges are not restricted to uncertified and untrained judges. They can even be CBJs.
One thing nobody seems to complain about is the inconsitent judge who judges too high. A main for the old system being discarded were the artificially high scores. The common mindset among judges was, if you could not find anything wrong with the entry, you gave it a score of nine.
I used to run KCBS appearance surveys on Ray Basso's forum. Shortly after the change in judging instructions, I reposted an entry we had judged under the old system, using the new system. The readers were unaware they had judged this entry before. Most of the judges who had previously given scores of nine were now deeming the entry with scores of sevens and eights. There even a few scores of six.
My observation and question at the time was, if it was a nine before, why wasn't it a nine now?
I like the descriptors that accompany each possible score. I think that this is a step in the right direction. As to the idea of using decimals, we already have eight possible scores, we don't need more. A score of seven or less is going to knock you out of the top any way.
One last suggestion I would make is to track the CBJs and see if their scores are inconsitent with the other five judges at the table on a regular basis. If this occurs, then these judges should either be retrained or given volunteer duties other than sitting at the judge's table.
Beers for thought,
Juggy