Fairly simple, and avoids situations where a guy who just attracts fucktonnes of immigrants and then locks them in a drowning chamber gets a significant advantage. The fort should be good enough that its destruction is epic.
That is worth almost no points.
Wealth: 5
Functionality: ?
Subtlety: 0
Complexity: 0
Thoroughness: 5?
Speed: 5
Originality: 0
Style: 0
15+ (30 max) out of a possible 70.
I'm really just talking about work arounds in general, a more detailed example, that's just designed to hack the system:
Have cooks working around the clock producing syrup roasts = 5 points for wealth
Seal off fort from outside world completely, engrave every inch of the (fairly small/one room) fort = at least 3/4 points for fortress functionality (this one is difficult to hack)
Have an easy to make cave-in = Maybe 0-1 points subtlety and maybe 1-2 points complexity (again difficult to hack)
Lock everything in the cave-in room = 10 points thoroughness
Cave in = 5 points speed
Originality = 0 points (difficult to hack)
Style = 0 points (difficult to hack)
So I'd say that'd get a minimum of 24-27/70 under the judging system that was suggested by the OP and maybe a maximum of 20/100 under my proposed judging system. I'm just saying that it is a good idea to set up the criteria so that the most awesome, original, aesthetically pleasing fort of death wins. I personally wouldn't want participants churning out engravings and food products just so they could compete on the wealth criteria, or use instantaneous cave-ins to just fulfill the speed criteria, or have a dull, enclosed fort just so they could get some extra kills.