You make some good points. It's a little bit alarming that you are able to give an actual response with actual reasons as opposed to the developer who came in here to give a flippant answer to a valid question. The fact that their priorities are such that this question even had to be asked in the first place (along with several other things) suggests that they're out of touch with their customer base, but I don't imagine it was extremely taxing to put together a thoughtful response with valid reasons like you have.
The developers have personal issues with me. Whatever, I think they're wrong but people are allowed to not like me. In spite of that, I've done everything I can to help their software succeed, even with their complete lack of cooperation. I am under no obligation to be professional here, but it seems like I am the one doing so and the developers, who are supposed to be acting in a professional capacity, are doing exactly the opposite.
There is one question you ask that I feel like I should answer, though.
When will you set the point when you say the game "actually emulates Dominion"? I set the point now because I think it's close enough
I develop software for a living. Before doing anything else, we come up with requirements for our software. This is a part of the software engineering process that really can't be skipped, because then you end up with software like this, with no sort of direction whatsoever.
If I was writing requirements for Dominion software, the very first thing I would have put on that list would be to implement all of the cards correctly, with no bugs. Until that happens, I really don't see how anyone can view Shuffleit as a complete product. Until that happens, I really don't think they are justified in asking for money for their product. Yes, they are extremely close, and yes, there is some wiggle room here (MF never actually got Possession/Outpost working the way it's supposed to), but it seems pretty ridiculous to me that they've prioritized a nice-to-have feature (leaderboard) over the basic functionality of the product.
But whatever, not everyone has the same priorities as me. I'm willing to accept that.
There is a list of known issues with cards. It's not just the Enchantress/Champion bug. It's not just Stash. When you can't see your -$1 token without digging through the game log (which doesn't display all of the information needed to follow the game) then cards that use that token simply aren't playable. They are as good as Stash. There are things that have been on that list for quite a while. Yes, things will continue to pop up, but when we're at the point when everything on that list is minor and getting fixed quickly and the list is otherwise empty, that seems like a good place to start the leaderboard.There are other solutions besides resetting the leaderboard as well. Cards or combinations of cards with known bugs could be on the banned list, even if it's just for Pro games.
But giving one-word flippant responses instead of promoting a healthy discussion to come up with what's best for the software doesn't seem like the right thing to do. Maybe showing that you're doing what you can to make the customers' experience as good as possible while the software gets to where it needs to be is a better approach.