[The Official RPN Character Challenge 2015]Competition Feedback!

[SkyGinge]

Spoiler

@Dark Severus @The Servant @Aldur Forgehammer @The Servant )


~Non-Judged IC Threads~

• Make Non-Judged IC threads more cohesive
  
  We had scenarios in the early rounds where the round would finish, and then people would return to the lobby, only to magically be warped away. This nullifies the threat of the challenges, and hence I would stop people from posting in these thread until after the results are up, ensuring that if people leave, they leave properly.
  

~Judging~

• Implement a way for judges to also have player characters
  
  Ok, so this is perhaps largely wishful thinking, but me and Aldur have both said countless times how much we wished we could participate too. Maybe we could have it so that judges, if they are also playing characters, can't vote in the groups they are in? I dunno; the idea opens up a lot of questionability. Nevertheless, I'd love to make it happen. I WANNA JOIN IN TOO After consideration, it was decided that judges would be able to include characters, but they would technically be participating in the challenges, and hence they would not be able to win or anything.
  

[*]Implement an element of public voting

• This year's competition saw a move away from the public polls of last year's competition due to how much trouble they caused. However, I personally think that we could make things work by having things 50/50 public/judges. The public would have a set amount of votes to send privately to the GM, to ensure no public offence is taken. I actually had a good system for this split but the majority of those involved in the planning rooted for just having judges. Nevertheless, an element of public vote would bring more publicity to the competition, and I am confident that we could make it work if enough careful thought is put into it. After public feedback, the majority of people were actually fine with things as they were, or would perhaps wish for a 80/20 judges/public split, or with the public as a final judge.
  

[*]Add an eliminated character feedback thread

• I've always been up to feedback eliminated players this time, but never really said so anywhere; making a thread for it would encourage people to take feedback. (suggested by @Sunbather )
  

So yeah, those are what I've come up with. React to them and make your own suggestions down below!

​

​

 

[Aldur]

Enforce the completion of challenges

• In some of these latter rounds, we've ended up with characters directly ignoring the proposed challenge and just doing their own thing. This has been natural to their IC behavior, admittedly, but nevertheless, it's lead to some challenge ideas being completely wasted. Therefore, something needs to be implemented to force challenge completion, either some kind of overpowering motivation, or the threat of punishment and disqualification/IC death for failing to comply with the challenge.
  

Good thinking. We gotta kill' em dead if they don't comply. I also would have wanted to see more challengers use the "Death Thread" more frequent and accordingly. I mean come on! Gimme that satisfaction. I put your characters up against a horde of monsters and whatnot. What's an orc gotta do to have his bloodlust sated? Come in personally and do some damage? :C


Actually... that might not be such a bad idea. But thankfully, for your guys' characters, I didn't get to.

Implement a way for judges to also have player characters

• Ok, so this is perhaps largely wishful thinking, but me and Aldur have both said countless times how much we wished we could participate too. Maybe we could have it so that judges, if they are also playing characters, can't vote in the groups they are in? I dunno; the idea opens up a lot of questionability. Nevertheless, I'd love to make it happen. I WANNA JOIN IN TOO
  

Yes, please!

 

[BDark]

Oh, what a nice mushroom hat do you have ! ._.


I suggest each round being the opposite of the first. Goridoc had to fight in both rounds he was in. Don't you think that was a bit....tiring ?

 

[spectro]

Ginge! Hello! I thought the competition was extremely fun and definitely gave me opportunity to develop my creativity and writing.


I think perhaps that next year, there should be a posting order, so for example, you could have it in alphabetical order. Character A posts first then Character B and so on. But, you have a certain time limit to get your posts in or you're skipped. Or an alternative could be that you can only post so much in a day, because this year, some people added a ton of posts and I personally got lost in them and had to skip over some details. That's the only thing I can think of to make it better, because it was certainly brilliant.


Also, the public vote idea is brilliant, but I think that some way or another, it would turn into a popularity contest. People would still ask around for people to vote for them, unless this was made a rule that it was not allowed, (But, hey, free will would take over) I personally liked the idea of a single judging panel, because I felt secure in the idea that professional-ish people were viewing my posts and considering them, other than my friends looking at them and being like 'Hey, it's Spectro, Imma vote for her.'


The judges being involved would also be amazing, but I think they would have to have a sort of detachment from the players, so people won't solely focus on cosying up to them. But I think it would be great to have the judges there so they could add more direction to game, as sometimes I felt slightly lost in what we were doing.


But yeah, thanks for having me participate in this wonderful event. It was fun, and I cannot wait until next year!
​

 

[SkyGinge]

[QUOTE="Dark Severus]Oh, what a nice mushroom hat do you have ! ._.
I suggest each round being the opposite of the first. Goridoc had to fight in both rounds he was in. Don't you think that was a bit....tiring ?

[/QUOTE]
This was a mixture of the luck of the draw and you putting down combat as your preference for the challenge. Nevertheless, mixing up the challenges to be less primarily focused on fear and darkness would probably mitigate the amount of combat-centric rounds anyhow, so that would help to solve this. Reading over the original form, I also asked 'would your character be suited to combat scenarios', which is somewhat misleading in wording, so I've added something related to that to the suggestions

Ginge! Hello! I thought the competition was extremely fun and definitely gave me opportunity to develop my creativity and writing.


I think perhaps that next year, there should be a posting order, so for example, you could have it in alphabetical order. Character A posts first then Character B and so on. But, you have a certain time limit to get your posts in or you're skipped. Or an alternative could be that you can only post so much in a day, because this year, some people added a ton of posts and I personally got lost in them and had to skip over some details. That's the only thing I can think of to make it better, because it was certainly brilliant.


Also, the public vote idea is brilliant, but I think that some way or another, it would turn into a popularity contest. People would still ask around for people to vote for them, unless this was made a rule that it was not allowed, (But, hey, free will would take over) I personally liked the idea of a single judging panel, because I felt secure in the idea that professional-ish people were viewing my posts and considering them, other than my friends looking at them and being like 'Hey, it's Spectro, Imma vote for her.'


The judges being involved would also be amazing, but I think they would have to have a sort of detachment from the players, so people won't solely focus on cosying up to them. But I think it would be great to have the judges there so they could add more direction to game, as sometimes I felt slightly lost in what we were doing.


But yeah, thanks for having me participate in this wonderful event. It was fun, and I cannot wait until next year!
​

Posting orders are something I have dabbled with in the past and found highly unsuccessful. From my experience, they just end up slowing everything down to ridiculous lengths, and whilst it probably doesn't play into everyone's hands, the post frequency is something I have loved about the competition this year, so I wouldn't consider changing that, I'm afraid.


You raise very good points though! The whole popularity contest thing was one of the main worries that lead to us not implementing public voting. Making a rule against asking for votes would be good, but also very hard to enforce, as people could still plug things in private RPs and PMs. However, I do think it would be balanced out by the judges too. Sticking with the judges would be fine also, but I'd also prefer to broaden the panel, if anything. The judges have all been fantastic this time, but the more judges you get, the less potential for inevitable bias there is And you make a solid point as well there with the judges being involved. My idea would be that we would just be like player characters; with how unbiased we have been this year, I don't think people cosying up to use would be too much of a problem. But there are a load of other problems which accompany said idea, so unless there's a very clever fix, it was probably more wishful thinking than actual seriously thought out suggestion, aha :')

 

[simj26]

prefer quality>quantity, and sometimes, slogging through monster posts can be a bit of a nightmare.

yes, please implement this. There's not a lot of problem with this, though, since up until i got eliminated, the quantity posts also have quality while not detracting from the intent of the post.


Then I got disqualified, so I stopped reading, and I don't know what else happened!

• Improve and clarify time period rules
  

yes. Personally, I found it unfair that people submitted characters even after the deadline, because some of us really rushed it. I know you guys had your reasons to accept them, whether through bribing some personal problems they informed you of prior, or whatever reason, but still, datelines are datelines. It's just not fair for the rest of us.


I would suggest stringing up announcers or casters for the events of the future competitions, who are not related to the judging in any way at all. You could use those guys as your 'avatars', I guess?

 

[Servant]

~The Submission Process~


Improve and clarify time period rules


While this rule wasn't an issue for me I can see while others would see it as such. I personally think that as long as the character isn't any of the following they wouldn't be a problem: OP, solely created for the competition or a cannon character from a show (I could be forgetting something)


Make the 'genre category' universal


I remember running myself into this issue, though it was more of a personal misunderstanding since I thought it meant the character's genre, not the genre of the RP from where it originated. I don't feel this was in need of much change, but heh that's just me.


~Competition Threads~


Implement a word/paragraph limit for posts:


While I feel a word limit was very much needed I also feel like a quantity one is also required. My character managed to pass through the first round with nothing more than a single post. While I appreciate this very much I think it could be unfair for some of the other RPers who managed to balance both quantity and quality. Maybe make a two posts per week also a thing?


Enforce the completion of challenges


This sort of ties up to my previous statement since my character simply stood in a single spot without facing off a single enemy. Not much to say about this, only that I agree with it.


Make a few more friendly challenges


All of my yes! In the short time that I spent in the competition I would've loved to see challenges that weren't simply centered around action. Don't get me wrong, action challenges are a thrilling addition, but a bit of diversity would also be nice.


Make Non-Judged IC threads more cohesive:


Nothing to say about this, sorry!


~Judging~


Implement a way for judges to also have player characters:


Yes, simply yes.


Implement an element of public voting:


Again, I have nothing to say about this, sorry!


I am sorry for not saying much and not extending my thoughts, I didn't spend too much time in the RP to notice many of the addressed issues (And I am using my cellphone). Anyways, I really enjoyed the little time I had involved in this RP, keep up the good work!

 

[Sunbather]

*cracksknuckles* Alright, let's see... I'll go through all the suggested changes and add my own towards the end:


Improve and clarify time period rules


This is perhaps the biggest change that really needs to be made, as said rule was extremely vague and ended up getting rather ridiculous. The rules was: All characters must have been created for an RPN RP at some point since September 1st 2014, and before June 12th 2015. But then the question was, what if a character had been created before that period but still used? How about NPCs, could you use them? And what about characters who'd been created for an RP which never even started? This lead to some characters getting rejected that probably should not have, and I apologise profusely for how ridiculous some things got. Therefore, this rule will be severely clarified next time so that a character just has to have been used in an RP post made after September 1st, said character has to be a central character with a visible original CS, and said character's RP must have started so that they've made at least one IC post. This should make things less silly; and I apologise once more.


My thoughts: Agreed on all ends. No additions from my side, sounds perfect.




Make the 'genre category' universal


I asked people to fill out a genre category, but seeing as I'd failed to specify the type of RP I thought encompassed each genre, I basically just ended up reading said RPs and deciding on the genre anyway, hence making that part of the form redundant. Next time, it would make more sense to describe the features of each genre.


My thoughts: That sounds good, though I think certain traits would be more important. Maybe, instead of genre, you could ask for a basic, short summary like "Magic? What kind of magic? Powers? Which ones?" etc. Depending on the answers, combined with their picture reference, the genre should be somewhat clear and the judges would have the ability to group/mix powerful beings with normies as they see fit without much hassle.




Clarify combat 'preference' as a preference that will set up the kind of challenges you face


My thoughts: Not sure if it's meant like that already, but I'd implement two things with this. I'd set it up like so:


Combat? Yes/No


If yes; weapons/guns/physical


Then, those who say yes could cross off those that don't fit their character.




Implement a word/paragraph limit for posts


Now, this might be a controversial suggestion, but hear me out. Everybody has their own RP schedule. Some people like to post shorter posts more frequently, others prefer making infrequent but very long posts. This had the potential to lead to these former people posting really quickly posts of like two paragraphs length, and then being unable to post for a week until the latter posts a monster, 17 paragraph post which, obviously, has a lot more detail and content than the former. The former, in that weeks time, would most likely have amassed 17 paragraphs worth of content, but in shorter, more frequent posts, as is their preferred style; and hence they'd be disadvantaged. Additionally, we have stressed that we prefer quality>quantity, and sometimes, slogging through monster posts can be a bit of a nightmare. Hence, a post limit would be implimented to stop these discrepancies. A post limit of, say, six paragraphs/750 words per post. People would still be able to portray big, long scenes if they wanted, but they'd have to break them up, allowing the more frequent posters time to react in their own style.


My thoughts: YES PLEASE! I can say out of my own experience, in the second round, where almost nobody responded, I was very fearful of being eliminated because my first and only post wasn't THAT long, but then nobody replied. If three people had entered ten + paragraph posts I most likely would've been eliminated by being stalled out. Six paragraph limit sounds excellent. Enough to bring in plenty of information, but it limits these 20 minute reads, and really blocks out the ability to impress through sheer mass. I'd actually cut it to a 5 paragraph limit, honestly.




Enforce the completion of challenges


In some of these latter rounds, we've ended up with characters directly ignoring the proposed challenge and just doing their own thing. This has been natural to their IC behavior, admittedly, but nevertheless, it's lead to some challenge ideas being completely wasted. Therefore, something needs to be implemented to force challenge completion, either some kind of overpowering motivation, or the threat of punishment and disqualification/IC death for failing to comply with the challenge.


My thoughts: I wouldn't do that. You may think "Why?" but I'll explain. Abiding by the rules and adjusting should be an element of the challange itself. If someone doesn't have the ability to do so, one should not advance. Well, what I mean by "I wouldn't do that" is lead the characters towards completion. I'm 100% in favor of eliminating people because they didn't comply with the challenge. But I would simply announce that in the OP along with the other rules and see if people actually pay attention.




Make a few more friendly challenges


As fun as most people have said the challenges have been, a lot of them have tended to challenge darker sides of the characters, which obviously does not comprise a fully rounded character. Characters are capable of positive emotions like love and enjoyment too, and it would be good to have some rounds that challenge portrayal of these too.


My thoughts: That sounds great, really. I know I had this convo with you, Ginge, but for everyone else: I flipped flop with my character quite a bit. Mostly because the nature of most challenges directly played into my character's hands and I REALLY didn't want to be overpowered. So I tried to create some flaws to make it more tense. That lead to me breaking character a lot, which eventually lead to me being out. My fault, of course, but love and harmony would have been a true challenge for my character, so I'm 100% in favour of a more diverse set of tasks.




Implement a way for judges to also have player characters


Ok, so this is perhaps largely wishful thinking, but me and Aldur have both said countless times how much we wished we could participate too. Maybe we could have it so that judges, if they are also playing characters, can't vote in the groups they are in? I dunno; the idea opens up a lot of questionability. Nevertheless, I'd love to make it happen. I WANNA JOIN IN TOO


My thoughts: I have mixed feelings about it, but I'm leaning towards make it happen. The thing is, I trust you guys 100%. I'm relatively new to the side, so I can't and won't claim to know each of you well, but my impression is that this community is amazing and the judges have done a wonderful job. I don't even think you'd give yourself the advantages, really. What I do see as a possible problem though, is subconscious bias for next-round-match ups. By that I mean: Judge X vs. Player Y. The winner will face Player A or Player B from the other group. Judge X advances (without voting his own match up, of course) and considers Player A weaker from the other match up. He votes for A, despite B being stronger, so that the match up is easier for him. Again, I do NOT think this would actually happen as a conscious choice but there's two problems: 1.) It may happen subconsciously, as I mentioned and 2.) A lot of decisions like this could cause arguments and unhappiness, feeling betrayed. Now my solution, I already scratched on that, but I'll explain it at the bottom of the page.




Implement an element of public voting


This year's competition saw a move away from the public polls of last year's competition due to how much trouble they caused. However, I personally think that we could make things work by having things 50/50 public/judges. The public would have a set amount of votes to send privately to the GM, to ensure no public offence is taken. I actually had a good system for this split but the majority of those involved in the planning rooted for just having judges. Nevertheless, an element of public vote would bring more publicity to the competition, and I am confident that we could make it work if enough careful thought is put into it.


My thoughts: I would like the public vote, but that would mean the risk of popularity votes comes back, which I really would like to never have happen. And secondly, it would make results a little skewed. I guarantee you, not everyone would read every challenge. Of course not. But that would mean people would only affect certain groups, which makes it for a really shaky affair. I prefer the impartial judge panel 100%. Public vote could come in if there's a tie or something like that, but other than that, a strong, resounding no from my side.




SUGGESTIONS:


As for the judging thing, I think my earlier suggestion of public votes from the judge would be good. Now I know, some if not all judges may have only so much time on their hands, but I'm not talking about detailed, intricately put 30 minutes reads. I'm talking along the lines of: "Character 2 has shown some great emotional depth, stayed true to their character and felt like a cohesive personality. Addtionally, Player 2 has shown creativity in how their character reacted without being unreasonable. Descriptions were vivid and varying, grammar was good but could be better." That's about one paragraph if you do it for two players which SHOULD be in the realm of possibility if you guys read through so much text anyways I just can't see these 5-10 additional minutes be that much of a dealbreaker. Plus, of course, it would only come into affect once the group stages are over. 'cause such things are MUCH more crucial when it's 1vs1.

 

[RubyRose]

I think that all of these suggestions have pros, but definitely the one about post length because that would even the playing field a little more. And good writers are adaptable to length, so that shouldn't be too much of a problem :3


I'll give better feedback once I'm home from work, but for now it's off to housekeeping! (I never had so much respect for a work force in my life. And I miss working at the front desk now xD )

 

[SkyGinge]

yes. Personally, I found it unfair that people submitted characters even after the deadline, because some of us really rushed it. I know you guys had your reasons to accept them, whether through bribing some personal problems they informed you of prior, or whatever reason, but still, datelines are datelines. It's just not fair for the rest of us.
I would suggest stringing up announcers or casters for the events of the future competitions, who are not related to the judging in any way at all. You could use those guys as your 'avatars', I guess?

For this, I think you've misinterpretted what I meant by 'timescale'. I was talking about the RP the character's from, not actually failing to meet the submission deadline, which I do believe only one of people who were accepted did. Rushing wasn't particularly a problem anyhow as the forms themselves weren't ever judged apart from me checking them to see if they were OP and had filled in all the categories. However, you're right, being tighter on deadlines would be good - and I was in the preliminary round


For the second suggestion, do you mind explaining yourself? I'm not sure I understand what you mean




[QUOTE="The Servant]
Implement a word/paragraph limit for posts:
While I feel a word limit was very much needed I also feel like a quantity one is also required. My character managed to pass through the first round with nothing more than a single post. While I appreciate this very much I think it could be unfair for some of the other RPers who managed to balance both quantity and quality. Maybe make a two posts per week also a thing?

[/QUOTE]
This is a good suggestion, though I've a feeling being so specific could inadvertently encourage people only posting that many times? Either way, I'm all for upping the amount of posts you need in the early rounds to be in contention for judging, and I've added something of that vein to the OP (and I do recall you posted twice, not just once, though your good point still stands )

Combat? Yes/No
If yes; weapons/guns/physical


Then, those who say yes could cross off those that don't fit their character.

This might be good, but the whole point of said category was to discern who would end up in what challenges. As the draws, aside from that, have been done completely randomly, specifying how people combat wouldn't really add much other than another category to satisfy my data obsession xD

My thoughts: I wouldn't do that. You may think "Why?" but I'll explain. Abiding by the rules and adjusting should be an element of the challange itself. If someone doesn't have the ability to do so, one should not advance. Well, what I mean by "I wouldn't do that" is lead the characters towards completion. I'm 100% in favor of eliminating people because they didn't comply with the challenge. But I would simply announce that in the OP along with the other rules and see if people actually pay attention.

Yup, that'd be how we'd handle things there!

My thoughts: I have mixed feelings about it, but I'm leaning towards make it happen. The thing is, I trust you guys 100%. I'm relatively new to the side, so I can't and won't claim to know each of you well, but my impression is that this community is amazing and the judges have done a wonderful job. I don't even think you'd give yourself the advantages, really. What I do see as a possible problem though, is subconscious bias for next-round-match ups. By that I mean: Judge X vs. Player Y. The winner will face Player A or Player B from the other group. Judge X advances (without voting his own match up, of course) and considers Player A weaker from the other match up. He votes for A, despite B being stronger, so that the match up is easier for him. Again, I do NOT think this would actually happen as a conscious choice but there's two problems: 1.) It may happen subconsciously, as I mentioned and 2.) A lot of decisions like this could cause arguments and unhappiness, feeling betrayed. Now my solution, I already scratched on that, but I'll explain it at the bottom of the page.

Very much this. This is one of the problems I would envision, and whilst I know myself and Aldur (who, for a big, nasty orc, actually felt extremely guilty just for eliminating people ) wouldn't take advantage of this, suspicions could easily be passed around.

SUGGESTIONS:
As for the judging thing, I think my earlier suggestion of public votes from the judge would be good. Now I know, some if not all judges may have only so much time on their hands, but I'm not talking about detailed, intricately put 30 minutes reads. I'm talking along the lines of: "Character 2 has shown some great emotional depth, stayed true to their character and felt like a cohesive personality. Addtionally, Player 2 has shown creativity in how their character reacted without being unreasonable. Descriptions were vivid and varying, grammar was good but could be better." That's about one paragraph if you do it for two players which SHOULD be in the realm of possibility if you guys read through so much text anyways I just can't see these 5-10 additional minutes be that much of a dealbreaker. Plus, of course, it would only come into affect once the group stages are over. 'cause such things are MUCH more crucial when it's 1vs1.

An eliminated player feedback thread might be a good call, yup, and I've now added that to the OP! The only tricky thing is, I've wanted to avoid saying anything about players still remaining in the competition, as that could give them an advantage, so we'd have to word things very specifically.


Thank you for the strong resounding feedback so far!

 

[Sunbather]

I mean, I'm glad that I was able to provide a new point, but I actually meant explanation by the judges as to why they eliminated/advanced someone. (^U^) If that was something that would happen in evey match up once it goes into the 1v1 stages, it would - of course - great enhance transparency, but most, it would eliminate unfair voting accusations against participating judges.


I mean it like this. Say, you, Sky, play the third round against Player B. You advance (obviously without voting your own match up) and your next opponent is either Player C or Player D. In the end, Player D gets the advancement. Now, because every judge - including you - gives a brief summary as to why you decided to give the point to Player D (Example: Great grammaer, creatively handling the challenge etc.) noon can say you just voted for Player D to get the easier opponent.


And like I said, it wouldn't have to be super long, so it'd only take about 5-10 minutes for both players, really. I hope this was more clear.

 

[SkyGinge]

@Sunbather : That kind of falls under feedback, does it not? ;P Still, mixing the two ideas would work very well as you suggested. Still, I'm thinking asking every judge would still be fairly unrealistic due to business and such, even in later rounds, so I would not make it a requirement of judging. However, I would ensure that a reasonable amount of judges give their opinions to each willing eliminee. And also, I hope that this-

Example: Great grammaer,

-was intentional ;P

 

[Kaerri]

Make it so that you can't just post once and qualify in the early rounds

• So perhaps have it so that you need, say, at least three posts per early round to be taken into contention
  

I think this would work better in the early rounds that last multiple weeks. I don't think it would be fair in the one-week rounds because not everyone has the ability to post every day, especially during the work week.

[QUOTE="The Servant]
Implement a word/paragraph limit for posts:
While I feel a word limit was very much needed I also feel like a quantity one is also required. My character managed to pass through the first round with nothing more than a single post. While I appreciate this very much I think it could be unfair for some of the other RPers who managed to balance both quantity and quality. Maybe make a two posts per week also a thing?

[/QUOTE]
Maybe; see above. I use a system in my judging that keeps it fair between those who post several times and those who are only able to post once (see below), so for me as a judge, there doesn't need to be a minimum number of required posts from the RPers. Well, we do need at least one, of course, but you're disqualified if you don't post at all in the round, so there's that.

Implement a way for judges to also have player characters

• Ok, so this is perhaps largely wishful thinking, but me and Aldur have both said countless times how much we wished we could participate too. Maybe we could have it so that judges, if they are also playing characters, can't vote in the groups they are in? I dunno; the idea opens up a lot of questionability. Nevertheless, I'd love to make it happen. I WANNA JOIN IN TOO
  

Ooo, that would be fun! Although I actually haven't been reading them (except the exit threads) because I was trying to stick to just the posts I was judging so that even my subconscious would only be able to use those.

Implement an element of public voting

• This year's competition saw a move away from the public polls of last year's competition due to how much trouble they caused. However, I personally think that we could make things work by having things 50/50 public/judges. The public would have a set amount of votes to send privately to the GM, to ensure no public offence is taken. I actually had a good system for this split but the majority of those involved in the planning rooted for just having judges. Nevertheless, an element of public vote would bring more publicity to the competition, and I am confident that we could make it work if enough careful thought is put into it.
  

I'm rather against the idea of public polls, for all of the reasons that have been listed. If you do want to put it in, I suggest a more unequal split (30/70? 10/90?) to weight the judges' votes more heavily, since they're presumed to be impartial.

SUGGESTIONS:
As for the judging thing, I think my earlier suggestion of public votes from the judge would be good. Now I know, some if not all judges may have only so much time on their hands, but I'm not talking about detailed, intricately put 30 minutes reads. I'm talking along the lines of: "Character 2 has shown some great emotional depth, stayed true to their character and felt like a cohesive personality. Addtionally, Player 2 has shown creativity in how their character reacted without being unreasonable. Descriptions were vivid and varying, grammar was good but could be better." That's about one paragraph if you do it for two players which SHOULD be in the realm of possibility if you guys read through so much text anyways I just can't see these 5-10 additional minutes be that much of a dealbreaker. Plus, of course, it would only come into affect once the group stages are over. 'cause such things are MUCH more crucial when it's 1vs1.

As a judge, I'd really prefer to give that sort of feedback after the finals rather than after each stage. It seems to me that it would give the continuing players an unfair advantage over those who leave. For me, it's not about the time it would take, but about the fairness of it.


In general, though, I refer back to the judging criteria that Ginge posted at the beginning of the challenge and in the intro to each matchup, and use those as the main guidelines. I then read through each post and give it a "rating" based on those, then average out each player's post "ratings" to get their "score." I believe this helps keep it fair between those who have time to make many posts and those who only have time for a few, though of course the more posts you make, the more chances you get of a higher (or lower) "rating." Then I compare the "scores" in each match and make my picks accordingly. That's my personal system; I don't know how the other judges are doing it.

 

[Lioness075]

I guess one of my biggest things would be that I'm a bit of a grammar nazi myself and I often found it hard to read other's posts due to amounting grammar and sometimes even spelling mistakes. I'm not sure what to say about this beyond perhaps when you read someone's CS and see a lot of grammatical errors, maybe don't allow them to join? Or ask them to correct it and if they correct it but it's still pretty rough then don't allow them in. It just took a lot out of the storytelling and competition for me to be trying to read past the mistakes.


Another thing was that I myself, maybe it was just me, maybe not, found the competition to be a bit unfair as well. Granted, being a competitor makes me a bit biased in this, but I have really fleshed out my own character over the several months I've worked with her and when I asked for constructive criticism for why I was disqualified, I was told that my character wasn't unique enough and that she didn't stand out from the crowd. It's likely that I did truly end up failing to properly portray her in that aspect, but I made each post with her very similarly to how I do it in the RP that she features in. I guess the hard part would be that she wasn't in her normal environment or around people she knew so she became very quiet and kept to herself for the most part because she has a dark history and thus, doesn't trust anyone she doesn't know. Granted, she could trust you in time, but it's not immediate with her. With the way the competition was set up, there was no way she'd ever have enough time to trust anyone unless she was ever put in the same group as Kallin, who happens to be her love interest in the RP that they both come from.


 
Well, not that she was specifically unique enough, but mostly because of the fact that I guess I wasn't portraying her in a unique enough way? I dunno, it just felt a bit unfair to me since I felt like I'd been standing out amongst the competitors in the end.

 

[Kaerri]

Each judge likely has their own subjective criteria beyond the official ones. I don't recall using uniqueness myself, if only because every character in here seems different from the next. However, we each have to use something, and judging can be particularly difficult when the group is full of excellent writers. We can't pass everyone onto the next round, however much we may want to, and it sometimes comes down to tiny differences that make one post "better" than the next ("better" is in quotes because it may just be that a particular post appeals to a particular judge more than another for subjective reasons, and the next judge may have the opposite opinion).

 

[Atom]

Idea towards judge involvement.


They're there but they're not. We have characters, they're going through the challenges, but when it comes time to vote they just don't exist.


Because imho I don't think the judges should compete, just rather play along. If I was a player and somehow a judge won or such I'd be pretty steamed. But that could just be me.


And you could have them compete up to a certain round and pull them, using the excuse that it was the 'gods' of the competition deciding to mingle with their competitors.


I'm sure this idea could use some work and refinement as well, so if anyone else can contribute to it then shoot


I'll reply to the rest later ginge, just gotta finish some stuff but I wanted to get this idea out.

 

[Aldur]

Idea towards judge involvement.
They're there but they're not. We have characters, they're going through the challenges, but when it comes time to vote they just don't exist.


Because imho I don't think the judges should compete, just rather play along. If I was a player and somehow a judge won or such I'd be pretty steamed. But that could just be me.


And you could have them compete up to a certain round and pull them, using the excuse that it was the 'gods' of the competition deciding to mingle with their competitors.


I'm sure this idea could use some work and refinement as well, so if anyone else can contribute to it then shoot


I'll reply to the rest later ginge, just gotta finish some stuff but I wanted to get this idea out.

That's kind of a cool idea. Have the GMs make characters that are not actual competitors but they're there in the competition, perhaps to aid or to mingle with them. I like that. I just wanted a way to interact with the other characters, not necessarily win.

 

[Atom]

[QUOTE="Aldur Forgehammer]That's kind of a cool idea. Have the GMs make characters that are not actual competitors but they're there in the competition, perhaps to aid or to mingle with them. I like that. I just wanted a way to interact with the other characters, not necessarily win.

[/QUOTE]
Same, I really wanted to go through some of the challenges too. Like that shadow challenge hnnnnggg!

 

[Aldur]

Same, I really wanted to go through some of the challenges too. Like that shadow challenge hnnnnggg!

Well, my handsome friend... we gotta wait another year for all that. Shame that we didn't come up with this earlier yo.

 

[Kaerri]

Idea towards judge involvement.
They're there but they're not. We have characters, they're going through the challenges, but when it comes time to vote they just don't exist.


Because imho I don't think the judges should compete, just rather play along. If I was a player and somehow a judge won or such I'd be pretty steamed. But that could just be me.


And you could have them compete up to a certain round and pull them, using the excuse that it was the 'gods' of the competition deciding to mingle with their competitors.


I'm sure this idea could use some work and refinement as well, so if anyone else can contribute to it then shoot


I'll reply to the rest later ginge, just gotta finish some stuff but I wanted to get this idea out.

I like this idea! Like Atom, I don't really want to compete, exactly, just interact.

 

[SkyGinge]

I think this would work better in the early rounds that last multiple weeks. I don't think it would be fair in the one-week rounds because not everyone has the ability to post every day, especially during the work week.

I agree; hence why I specified 'in the early rounds' in the very part you quoted ;P

Maybe; see above. I use a system in my judging that keeps it fair between those who post several times and those who are only able to post once (see below), so for me as a judge, there doesn't need to be a minimum number of required posts from the RPers. Well, we do need at least one, of course, but you're disqualified if you don't post at all in the round, so there's that.

I think we all do, to some extent. But then the thing is that some players make tons and tons of posts, only to get knocked out by someone who only made a single post, which can feel a little unfair. We have stressed from the very start that it's quality>quantity, both in terms of amount and length of posts, but nevertheless, raising it to a few posts would mitigate this slightly, and also give us a little more material to vote from.

As a judge, I'd really prefer to give that sort of feedback after the finals rather than after each stage. It seems to me that it would give the continuing players an unfair advantage over those who leave. For me, it's not about the time it would take, but about the fairness of it.

Very, very much this.

I guess one of my biggest things would be that I'm a bit of a grammar nazi myself and I often found it hard to read other's posts due to amounting grammar and sometimes even spelling mistakes. I'm not sure what to say about this beyond perhaps when you read someone's CS and see a lot of grammatical errors, maybe don't allow them to join? Or ask them to correct it and if they correct it but it's still pretty rough then don't allow them in. It just took a lot out of the storytelling and competition for me to be trying to read past the mistakes.

I'm not really that sure what you're trying to get at here. As part of the submission process, I asked anybody with particularly atrocious grammar to try and neaten up their form, which all did. However, just because somebody struggles with spelling, it does not mean that they should be unable to join the competition. There were some competitors who, whilst their grammar wasn't particularly brilliant, managed to portray very well rounded characters and wonderfully creative posts. They'd be marked down in the first judging category, 'Quality of Writing', but they could still excel in others. For example, not everybody in this site has English as their first language, but they still have ideas. Nevertheless, I don't recall there being a character in the competition who's grammar was so atrocious that it took me out of the entire competition.

Granted, being a competitor makes me a bit biased in this, but I have really fleshed out my own character over the several months I've worked with her and when I asked for constructive criticism for why I was disqualified, I was told that my character wasn't unique enough and that she didn't stand out from the crowd.

Well, not that she was specifically unique enough, but mostly because of the fact that I guess I wasn't portraying her in a unique enough way? I dunno, it just felt a bit unfair to me since I felt like I'd been standing out amongst the competitors in the end.

I am sorry if I offended you, but I am fairly certain I gave you a little more to work with than 'she wasn't unique enough', and if you have further questions, you can always ask some of the other judges (I'm sure @Kaerri wouldn't mind). Nevertheless, I'm unsure what you're asking of me here. You say it's unfair, but how? Elimination is always going to be part of a competition.

Idea towards judge involvement.
They're there but they're not. We have characters, they're going through the challenges, but when it comes time to vote they just don't exist.


Because imho I don't think the judges should compete, just rather play along. If I was a player and somehow a judge won or such I'd be pretty steamed. But that could just be me.


And you could have them compete up to a certain round and pull them, using the excuse that it was the 'gods' of the competition deciding to mingle with their competitors.


I'm sure this idea could use some work and refinement as well, so if anyone else can contribute to it then shoot


I'll reply to the rest later ginge, just gotta finish some stuff but I wanted to get this idea out.

Unlike the others, I am actually very competitive and would love to compete as well as interact; however, I'm well aware of the problems this would pose, and this is an absolutely fantastic idea, Atom, so I would be more than happy to just participate noncompetitively. I too would probably be pretty annoyed if a judge won (if I wasn't on the judging panel, of course ), so yeah, this seems like the fairest way of handling things.


Folks seem largely happy keeping judges as they are, which is good with me; if anything, it'd make collecting votes more simpler than having to juggle a hundred PMs from other people. In all honesty, I proposed the idea and was willing to work at it so much because I figured it would be what the public would want, but if you don't, that's great!

 

[Kaerri]

I agree; hence why I specified 'in the early rounds' in the very part you quoted ;P

Whoops, I must have missed that part. ( )

I think we all do, to some extent. But then the thing is that some players make tons and tons of posts, only to get knocked out by someone who only made a single post, which can feel a little unfair. We have stressed from the very start that it's quality>quantity, both in terms of amount and length of posts, but nevertheless, raising it to a few posts would mitigate this slightly, and also give us a little more material to vote from.

Good points.

if you have further questions, you can always ask some of the other judges (I'm sure @Kaerri wouldn't mind).

Absolutely - in a couple weeks, when the judging's done. ( )

 

[Invisible monster]

Friendly challenges sounds like a fantastic idea. Personally, I had a lot of trouble with my character because I really wanted to show that he had a kind of juvenile, happy-go-lucky energy, but I couldn't because I was too busy having him yelp at, faint from, and run away from things.

 

[Lioness075]

I'm not really that sure what you're trying to get at here. As part of the submission process, I asked anybody with particularly atrocious grammar to try and neaten up their form, which all did. However, just because somebody struggles with spelling, it does not mean that they should be unable to join the competition. There were some competitors who, whilst their grammar wasn't particularly brilliant, managed to portray very well rounded characters and wonderfully creative posts. They'd be marked down in the first judging category, 'Quality of Writing', but they could still excel in others. For example, not everybody in this site has English as their first language, but they still have ideas. Nevertheless, I don't recall there being a character in the competition who's grammar was so atrocious that it took me out of the entire competition.
I am sorry if I offended you, but I am fairly certain I gave you a little more to work with than 'she wasn't unique enough', and if you have further questions, you can always ask some of the other judges (I'm sure @Kaerri wouldn't mind). Nevertheless, I'm unsure what you're asking of me here. You say it's unfair, but how? Elimination is always going to be part of a competition.

Sorry, um, I wasn't trying to come across negatively or anything, but you asked for criticism and so I gave you what I saw as criticism from my viewpoint. Also, I never mentioned anyone's grammar being atrocious. I opened up saying that I'm a grammar nazi so I just happened to notice things here and there. Like I said, that's just me and so I was giving my opinion. Again, giving my opinion here, I did notice a few CS that stood out to me as perhaps not being as strong as others. BUT I am not trying to say you or anyone in charge ever did anything wrong with the submission process. I never said that. I simply said that grammar seemed to stand out to me and so I decided to point it out to you. I know firsthand that not everyone on here has English as their first language. Maybe it makes me sound rude or ignorant, or whatever, but even if it's not their first language, it still can irritate me when I see a lot of mistakes. That doesn't mean I can't stand that person or want them kicked out of the competition. Maybe just take note of those people and even offer them someone to 'tutor' them or something in a PM so as to give them useful advice in handling writing English. I've personally helped someone like that before on here and it doesn't hurt to do so if you see someone standing out and then you find out that they may not know English as well as the native speakers.


Also, I know you gave me more to work with, that was just what I said to sum it up. I guess I might've misinterpreted it, but that's what I got out of what I'd been told. I can read up on it again, but that was what I mostly remembered. Also, I know elimination is a part of the competition. I never said that I shouldn't have been disqualified. I guess I just didn't feel like what I'd been told was perhaps enough valid points for me to have been eliminated. NOT that I'm trying to put myself above others. I never do that. I just didn't agree with what I'd been told, I suppose. I'm really not trying to argue or anything here. Just clearing things up, as I really hadn't planned for what I said to have come across in any negative fashion. It was just criticism, after all. As for how I declare it to be unfair, I simply said that I felt the reasons given to me didn't amount to enough reasoning for me to have been kicked out. Again, I can always try next year and perhaps even with a different character. I was just offering my thoughts on the subject.


I hope that clears things up. I wasn't trying to set up any potential arguments or anything here. >.<

 

[Kaerri]

I prefer "grammar queen" to "grammar nazi," has fewer unpleasant associations. (^.^) And I can be one myself, if I'm not careful! However, I interpreted the judging criteria to mean that as long as I can understand what's being said, it's good enough to get by. Better grammar, spelling, and word usage will lead to more clarity, and thus to better understanding, of course, but I try not to weigh it heavily in my judging.


It might be more helpful to look at judging results as "picking what we felt was the best" as opposed to "kicking someone out." It's not that your posts were so bad, just that a majority of the voters felt someone else's were better. This isn't one of those reality shows where someone is chosen as the loser. Quite the contrary - on our side of things, it frequently feels like choosing the best ice-dancing team out of a group of Olympic-class skaters!