Not necessarily arguing with your choices, but I think that a tiering system really needs to be founded on either a bunch of objective data (which you should present if you're using it as a basis for this thing), or at least a bunch of somewhat objective logic and explanation. Your explanations for why certain decks are in certain tiers are sort of circular.
For example, 1CD growth is in in diamond tier (best decks in the game) because it is the "best deck in the game in my opinion". So... 1CD growth is the best because it is the best?
In addition, I really think that you need to identify what exactly the decks that you are talking about are. For example, I haven't played against a deck I could describe as "DE Jolt". You should either link to an example deck, or at least just say "DE Jolt is a combo deck that uses languid, infectious blight, energy siphon, and other negative enchantments inc combination with feedback jolt" or whatever.
For an example of a really good and detailed tier list (albeit for a completely different game with few similarities with scrolls) you could take a look at this
Even though I have a lot of gripes with the implementation, I'm glad that someone is attempting to make some sort of tier list of deck archetypes. If a tiering system is built that is updated, and has some degree of community consensus, it would let players and Mojang keep a closer eye on the state of the metagame and deck diversity.