Annual Competition Proposal [FINAL]
dcorn...@my-deja.com
Jarb
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Knight37
>Nevermind.
>
>Jarb
Does this mean that you've thought this over and have come to the
conclusion that it's not such a good idea, or that you still think it's a
good idea and don't think it will fly, or that you're just tired of
discussing it? ;P
--
Knight37
"Blasphemy! Oh, you'll smoke a turd in hell for that one!"
-- Robin Williams in "The Survivors"
Kaia Vintr
>Quoting dcorn...@my-deja.com from Fri, 08 Dec 2000 15:33:58 GMT:
>>Nevermind.
>>Jarb
>
>Does this mean that you've thought this over and have come to the
>conclusion that it's not such a good idea, or that you still think it's a
>good idea and don't think it will fly, or that you're just tired of
>discussing it? ;P
Nevermore
the raven
dcorn...@my-deja.com
knig...@gamespotmail.com wrote:
> Quoting dcorn...@my-deja.com from Fri, 08 Dec 2000 15:33:58 GMT:
>
> >Nevermind.
> >
> >Jarb
>
> Does this mean that you've thought this over and have come to the
> conclusion that it's not such a good idea, or that you still think
it's a
> good idea and don't think it will fly, or that you're just tired of
> discussing it? ;P
My conclusion is that the IF Community is a rather obtuse, albeit
cohesively obtuse, group of people. Change is not welcome. New ideas
are not welcome. There are a few people that have been around RAIF and
IF for about five or six years and their support is probably needed for
any significant changes to the community.
That's the key. This is a community generally driven by a handful of
well-minded people. Other well-minded people that may disagree with
them and wish to seek change are left without a mandate.
This is not intententional by any means. There is no _plan_ per se.
Only a very strong urge to err on the side of caution where change is
concerned.
I don't think you can say that any one persons opinion about changes to
the competition are either good or bad. We all speculate on what
changes would do to/for the community and nothing happens because you
need someone like Zarf to lead these changes.
If Zarf were to come out and say he thought splitting the Comp into a
bi-annual event was an interesting idea and needed more thought, people
would react completely differently to the thread. Not they would _do
it_, but I think the discussion would be more thoughtful and less
emotional.
Jacek Pudlo
> My conclusion is that the IF Community is a rather obtuse, albeit
> cohesively obtuse, group of people.
This is probably a bit off topic. How big is the 'IF Community'? Dozens,
hundreds or thousands of people?
wester...@my-deja.com
dcorn...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> If Zarf were to come out and say he thought splitting the Comp into a
> bi-annual event was an interesting idea and needed more thought,
> people
> would react completely differently to the thread. Not they would _do
> it_, but I think the discussion would be more thoughtful and less
> emotional.
The KEY difference here is that zarf would never suggest it!
--Matthew
dcorn...@my-deja.com
wester...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <90rbn0$vi7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> dcorn...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > If Zarf were to come out and say he thought splitting the Comp into
a
> > bi-annual event was an interesting idea and needed more thought,
> > people
> > would react completely differently to the thread. Not they would _do
> > it_, but I think the discussion would be more thoughtful and less
> > emotional.
>
> The KEY difference here is that zarf would never suggest it!
>
Duh. That's why I started this thread with 'Nevermind.'
Jarb
Tina
idea, and here's twelve reasons why", but I also seem to recall some
saying "but go ahead and do it if you think it will work".
If what you -want- is for everyone to say "Gosh, what a TERRIFIC idea,
sure we'll do it for you!" you ain't gonna get it. But the fact that "a
handful" of people with recognizable names seem to be against it should
not be taken as a threat to eviscerate you if you want to, personally,
organize such a thing. No one is actually stopping you. They're just
saying why they, personally, don't feel it will work.
I will never, never understand this scenario.
Person A: Hey! I have a great idea! Why don't we do this?
Person B: Reason why not.
Person C: Reason why not.
Person D: Well, it might work, but this thing.
Person E: I could get behind that.
Person F: Reason why not.
Person A: Well, bigshots B, C, and F don't like it, so I guess it will
just never get done. Hmph!
This, to me, is more the idea:
Person A: Hey, I have a great idea! Why isn't it done this way?
Person B: Reason why not.
Person C: Reason why not.
Person D: Well, it might work, but this thing.
Person E: I could get behind that.
Person F: Reason why not.
Person A: I understand your objections, but I still think it will work.
I'm going to try it. If you want to participate or help, you'd be welcome
to, and if it doesn't work out, it was at least worth trying.
Why is it those conversations never seem to go this latter way? Can
someone explain this to me?
Gadget
world a better place by saying:
>Why is it those conversations never seem to go this latter way? Can
>someone explain this to me?
I stayed out of the new comp debate, mainly because I am new here. But
I saw the beginning of the thread and the first response was along the
lines of "Oh no! Not another one with this idea!" which sounded a bit
harsh to me.
I don't know much about the comp history. This is the first comp I
passively followed. But I gathered from the posts that the comp has
been relatively unchanged since it's inception (except for putting all
developement systems into the same category, in stead of having
seperate Inform and Tads categories.)
And from observing the discussion as objectively as I could, I
couldn't help but feel that the resistance against changing the comp
felt a bit too strong, and sometimes downright closedminded.
I have no clear picture of the politics within this group. I'm not
here long enough. But I think, that if the reaction to an idea that
has not been tried before is this strong, it shows that it might just
*be* time to change things a bit.
It feels to me that some people here have debated about his issue so
often, they feel like they actually have tried the changes and found
it did not work. But they only discussed it and reached a conclusion
based on that, not on actual experience.
To be clear: I have no opinion yet on whether the comp as it stands
should be split or whatever. This is just my observation as a newbie
and an 'innocent' bystander.
--
"So... you've compiled your own Kernel... Your skills are now complete..."
-----------------
It's a bird
It's a plane
No it's... Gadget?
Village Magazine: http://www.villagemagazine.nl
To send E-mail: remove SPAMBLOCK from adress.
Tina
Gadget <gad...@SPAMBLOCKhaha.demon.nl> wrote:
>On 8 Dec 2000 21:12:57 GMT, ti...@eniac.stanford.edu (Tina) made the
>world a better place by saying:
>
>>Why is it those conversations never seem to go this latter way? Can
>>someone explain this to me?
>
>And from observing the discussion as objectively as I could, I
>couldn't help but feel that the resistance against changing the comp
>felt a bit too strong, and sometimes downright closedminded.
[Hi, Gadget! Nice to meet you. I'm going to direct this response at the
group at large, not you, but it's what you said that made me repeat
myself. Don't you feel powerful, now?]
This is the same answer I get whenever I ask this question, but it
doesn't actually answer my question. Really.
The question is: Why does this stop people from just trying to do
something different? Is there some great fear that Zarf will ride down on
his spectral horse and fling lightning bolts at the heads of those who
want to try something different? Do people believe that 'Whizzard' is
far, far more than a name, and don't fancy waking up one day on a lily
pad? Do you fear that Adam Cadre will put you in his next book in such a
way that you could't possibly sue but everyone, yes, EVERYONE, knew it
was you -- and somehow he managed to find out your most shameful secret
to boot? Are you afraid Rybread will make a personal visit to your home
and drool on your sofa? Come on, folks, what is it?
If the comp isn't to your tastes, put together a new one. No one is
stopping you. No doubt at least -some- people will participate, even if
you can pretty much count out a handful of folks. The only thing that
stands between you and a second IF comp is, as far as I can tell, is
either some mystical fear of one of the aforementioned dooms, or the
inability to do actually put together a cohesive plan and execute it. I'm
trying to be nice and not assume the latter, and I don't get the former,
so I'm in search of a new explanation.
Anyone?
Adam J. Thornton
Tina <ti...@eniac.stanford.edu> wrote:
>Is there some great fear that Zarf will ride down on
>his spectral horse and fling lightning bolts at the heads of those who
>want to try something different?
Well, yes, actually.
>Do people believe that 'Whizzard' is
>far, far more than a name, and don't fancy waking up one day on a lily
>pad?
He might make me take him out for pizza again--and I can't afford it
now!
>Do you fear that Adam Cadre will put you in his next book in such a
>way that you could't possibly sue but everyone, yes, EVERYONE, knew it
>was you -- and somehow he managed to find out your most shameful secret
>to boot?
I would be honored. Except he doesn't know my most shameful secret. No
one except for me, Edwina The Sheep, and the Douglas County Sheriff's
Department knows that...but I've said too much already.
>Are you afraid Rybread will make a personal visit to your home
>and drool on your sofa?
I would be even more honored.
Adam
--
ad...@princeton.edu
"My eyes say their prayers to her / Sailors ring her bell / Like a moth
mistakes a light bulb / For the moon and goes to hell." -- Tom Waits
Kathleen M. Fischer
ti...@eniac.stanford.edu (Tina) wrote:
> I will never, never understand this scenario.
>
> Person A: Hey! I have a great idea! Why don't we do this?
> Person B: Reason why not.
> Person C: Reason why not.
> Person D: Well, it might work, but this thing.
> Person E: I could get behind that.
> Person F: Reason why not.
>
> Person A: Well, bigshots B, C, and F don't like it, so I guess it will
> just never get done. Hmph!
I've wondered that myself. And why is it that the fact the posters are
perceived to be bigshots matter? It seems horrably unfair to the
bigshots that they don't get a plain old ordinary vote, can't write an
ordinary post offering an opinion.
If Joe Nobody says "Your idea stinks", people shrug. If Zarf writes it,
it's a conspiracy.
Kathleen
--
-- Masquerade - http://baf.wurb.com/if/competition00/inform/mask/
-- The Cove - Best of Landscape, Interactive Fiction Art Show 2000
-- ftp://ftp.gmd.de/if-archive/games/zcode/Cove.z5
-- Excuse me while I dance a little jig of despair
Steven Howard
>If Zarf were to come out and say he thought splitting the Comp into a
>bi-annual event was an interesting idea and needed more thought,
"Biannual" means "once every two years." The word you want is
"semi-annual."
========
Steven Howard
mrb...@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~mrblore
Kaia Vintr
>In article <90risp$594$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>,
> ti...@eniac.stanford.edu (Tina) wrote:
>> I will never, never understand this scenario.
>>
>> Person A: Hey! I have a great idea! Why don't we do this?
>> Person B: Reason why not.
>> Person C: Reason why not.
>> Person D: Well, it might work, but this thing.
>> Person E: I could get behind that.
>> Person F: Reason why not.
>>
>> Person A: Well, bigshots B, C, and F don't like it, so I guess it will
>> just never get done. Hmph!
>
>I've wondered that myself. And why is it that the fact the posters are
>perceived to be bigshots matter? It seems horrably unfair to the
>bigshots that they don't get a plain old ordinary vote, can't write an
>ordinary post offering an opinion.
>
>If Joe Nobody says "Your idea stinks", people shrug. If Zarf writes it,
>it's a conspiracy.
Now you're all arguing about arguing.
It's so meta, post-modern, whatever, bleagh!
-K
dcorn...@my-deja.com
ti...@eniac.stanford.edu (Tina) wrote:
> In article <3a317655...@news.demon.nl>,
> Gadget <gad...@SPAMBLOCKhaha.demon.nl> wrote:
> >On 8 Dec 2000 21:12:57 GMT, ti...@eniac.stanford.edu (Tina) made the
> >world a better place by saying:
> >
> >>Why is it those conversations never seem to go this latter way? Can
> >>someone explain this to me?
> [snip!]
> >
> >And from observing the discussion as objectively as I could, I
> >couldn't help but feel that the resistance against changing the comp
> >felt a bit too strong, and sometimes downright closedminded.
>
>
> something different? Is there some great fear that Zarf will ride
down on
> his spectral horse and fling lightning bolts
No. But I think if you've been around for a long enough time you feel a
sense of 'duty' (I do) to adhere to the suggestions of the more
important IF folk, such as Plotkin, Cadre, and Nelson, and others. I
greatly respect these people. I certainly have the means to do 'my own
thing', but I need a better reason (even for myself) than 'just
because'.
The discussion that I would like to have is one of the positive aspects
of splitting the competition. We already know all the reasons not to do
it. I think the very intelligent people of the IF community could, if
they tried really hard, come up with legitimate reasons why the
competition 'could' be better if it was changed or split. I'm not
looking for validation....just a discussion.
dcorn...@my-deja.com
mrb...@earthlink.net (Steven Howard) wrote:
> In <90rbn0$vi7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, on 12/08/00
> at 07:10 PM, dcorn...@my-deja.com said:
>
> >If Zarf were to come out and say he thought splitting the Comp into a
> >bi-annual event was an interesting idea and needed more thought,
>
> "Biannual" means "once every two years." The word you want is
> "semi-annual."
This is the most useful reply I've received so far. Thanks.
OKB
>The discussion that I would like to have is one of the positive aspects
>of splitting the competition. We already know all the reasons not to do
>it. I think the very intelligent people of the IF community could, if
>they tried really hard, come up with legitimate reasons why the
>competition 'could' be better if it was changed or split. I'm not
>looking for validation....just a discussion.
I am 100% cool with this. In fact, I'll even participate. Here are some
reasons FOR doing two competitions:
* People won't have to wait as long to release games, if they write them
without the Comp in mind and then decide they'd like to enter.
* Breathe life into the newsgroups during a time period other than that
immediately following the "fall classic" Comp. (Hmmm, Comp Classic. Does this
mean the new one will have a catchy name and/or slogan? :-) The degree to
which newgroup traffic drops off after the Comp has been debated, but it seems
fairly obvious that a bunch of posted reviews would make for more newsgroup
traffic than there otherwise would be.
* Another showcase for games, from writers experienced and inexperienced.
Last year, as an IF newbie, I would have been far less likely to write a game
if the Comp hadn't existed as a framework for making sure a fair amount of
people saw it. Now, with a bit of experience, I still see the Comp as being as
good a way as any to get my game out there.
* Potentially, judging/organizing workloads could be spread out over two
Comps and/or two sets of people.
* Or, if the previous is incorrect, and about as many games are released
in each Comp as were released in the single Comp Classic, then: Yay! Twice as
many games! More games in the medium is good!
* Set a precendent for more evolution in the scheme of comps. Maybe one
or both Comps will gradually drift toward specialization (e.g., one for long
games, one for short; one for "serious" games, one for jokes), or maybe they
will pave the way for creation of such specialized Comps (which are somehow
different from the current mini-comps).
* If we made the made the deadline April 2nd (April 1st on leap years --
FoolComp?), we could have a nice symmetrical arrangement of comps on the
calendar.
* Stick it to the man. Show all those high-falutin' new-comp-bashers
where it's at and who their daddies are. (Just kidding :-)
* The more the merrier. You never know what might turn up.
--OKB (Bren...@aol.com)
"Do not follow where the path may lead;
go, instead, where there is no path, and leave a trail."
--Author Unknown
John Hill
<pudlo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> This is probably a bit off topic. How big is the 'IF Community'? Dozens,
> hundreds or thousands of people?
This post by Brad O'Donnell really must have lodged in my brain:
Oh good, deja still has it.
Dan Schmidt
| In <90rbn0$vi7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, on 12/08/00
| at 07:10 PM, dcorn...@my-deja.com said:
|
| >If Zarf were to come out and say he thought splitting the Comp into a
| >bi-annual event was an interesting idea and needed more thought,
|
| "Biannual" means "once every two years." The word you want is
| "semi-annual."
All the dictionaries that I can find say that 'biannual' means 'happening
twice each year', and is equivalent in meaning to 'semiannual'. Events
that happen once every two years are 'biennial'.
ems...@my-deja.com
dcorn...@my-deja.com wrote:
> But I think if you've been around for a long enough time you feel a
> sense of 'duty' (I do) to adhere to the suggestions of the more
> important IF folk, such as Plotkin, Cadre, and Nelson, and others.
Do you? I don't. (Maybe I haven't been around long enough.)
It seems to me if you require yourself to adhere to the suggestions of
these people, it is you, not they, who are instituting an elitist inner
circle of powerful IF leaders. No one in this loose community is in a
position to *enforce* much of anything; if, on the other hand, you feel
such strong respect for the opinions of these people that you cannot
bear to go against them, then I suppose you have to accept their
dictates -- inasmuch as you've been able to discern a dictate at all.
Graham hasn't posted for nearly a year, Zarf's newsreader is broken, and
I don't recall Adam saying much about this.
I don't think that they or anyone else who might be perceived as
'central' is attempting to exert control, however.
> I
> greatly respect these people. I certainly have the means to do 'my own
> thing', but I need a better reason (even for myself) than 'just
> because'.
It seems that in your own mind you do have a reason, right? Or why
would this have dragged out so long?
> The discussion that I would like to have is one of the positive aspects
> of splitting the competition. We already know all the reasons not to do
> it. I think the very intelligent people of the IF community could, if
> they tried really hard, come up with legitimate reasons why the
> competition 'could' be better if it was changed or split.
I could, easily. The reason I haven't is that I am not interested in
doing so as a rhetorical exercise, and I saw no particular reason to
marshall arguments on the other side -- ultimately I agree with the
assessment that duplicating the main comp would be a mistake. And I
also think that the simplicity and openness with which it is now run is
an asset and that it should be preserved for as long as is humanly
feasible, without any additional bars to entry. (By humanly feasible, I
mean within the capacity of the organizer to deal with. If at some
point we are getting 250 entries, it may be time to rearrange the
rules.)
> I'm not
> looking for validation....just a discussion.
Well, Jarb, you're in luck. The Emily is now in Verbose mode.
The advantage of having a competition at all, as I see it, is threefold:
to provide people with attention for their games; to give a deadline to
projects for people who otherwise would never declare anything done; and
to generate a certain amount of excitement and discussion within the
community at large.
In respect of the first and second goals, I think the Comp does an
excellent job but is perhaps not adequate for an entire year's worth of
material. Other deadlines and other fora for attention would be good.
In respect of the third goal, I think the excitement would actually pall
if there were to be a second major competition. The energy mustered for
this occasion cannot be reproduced too frequently.
The disadvantage of having a competition is, first, that it produces a
dead period on the newsgroup during the period of judging; second, that
it perhaps acts to the detriment of games released outside of
competitions; third, that through the provision of prizes and rankings
it (maybe) encourages 'dud' entries, and also produces a sense of
stratification and judgement. There is a place in the world for
competitive grading and for trying to assess quality; equally obvious,
however, is that what pleases one person does not please everyone.
Rameses, to pick a much-discussed example, came in lower than some
people felt it should have. While I'm not advocating a redesign of the
competition around any principles other than the relatively democratic
ones it now follows, I think it is worthwhile sometimes to put the focus
on something besides a simple ranked contest.
With respect to the dead period, a second competition would only
duplicate that.
Likewise, there will always be games released outside of competitions (I
hope); having more competitions on the ground that only games released
in competitions get attention would worsen the problem (I think.)
With respect to the prizes and rankings, I would be less than thrilled
seeing a competition that gave one large sum of money to one winner (as
you seemed to be suggesting for your spring competition or selection of
minicomps.)
All that having been said, I think the answer (if one wants to provide
more deadlines and get authors more feedback while avoiding the negative
aspects of comp-duplication) is to have more things-that-aren't-exactly-
competitions. At the risk of, er, shameless self-promotion, this is
more or less what I was trying to do with the SmoochieComp (which would
perhaps be better named SmoochieAnthology, or something.) Deadline,
yes; feedback, yes (through invited reviews). Dead period, rankings,
etc., no. Topic, selected for the totally self-centered reason that I
loved playing Masquerade, that I'd like to see more things in the
general genre, that I'm interested in the problem of NPCs in general and
involving the player emotionally -- and that in conversations with
people about this we inevitably wind up agreeing that there aren't
enough examples out there for us to draw on.
A less self-centered example: I think Doe's Art Show also does something
productive, again by establishing a little deadline and a specific area
for interested people to work on. This stretches the edges of the genre
of IF and encourages creativity. It's not everyone's cup of tea, and it
doesn't dominate the community's attention as the comp does, but that is
I think *a good thing*.
Minicomps of the toaster-comp variety are another thing again, also fun.
I can imagine dozens of variations on how this sort of thing might be
done, including but not limited to: more tightly topic-themed
competitions such as "Games set in New York" or "Games reworking a
classic fairy tale"; games all by agreement set in the same universe
(think Thieves' World); Z-abuse competitions; invitational comps for
non-newbies (which could be a weird thing, but I could imagine someone
doing it -- someone suggested a tiered competition a little while ago,
and this would reproduce that effect, I think.) I could imagine someone
putting together an anthology, a set of games with something in common
designed to be issued together on CD and perhaps with feelies. I could
imagine... lots of stuff. And some of the stuff is even probably a good
idea. Some things would require more preparation than others.
My point here is that a) I really don't think a second competition,
either identical to the one we have or following the revised rules you
propose, would be a good idea; b) I think this not because I have been
brainwashed or belong to some Old School (I only became a visible member
of this community in any capacity about a year ago), but because I
really think it, on due consideration of all the issues I have
mentioned; c) I do think that there are other possibilities, and that if
you really want to be inventive and change things, a different approach
(rather than a copy of the old approach) would be the way to go.
As an entirely separate issue, but I think it is worth mentioning here
because it is the real reason I am posting this rather than simply
putting this concept into practice myself: I take exception to the way
you have been arguing here. If you have arguments of your own, make
them. If you have a competition to announce, announce it. To rail
against a perceived conservative core of the IF community *when it turns
out that they have power only in your mind and because you have decided
that you will act only with the permission of Zarf, Adam, et al* -- THAT
seems poor-spirited.
I'm assuming that you didn't intend it to seem that way, and that you
are genuinely frustrated by the apparent resistance to an idea that
makes sense to you. Fine. But perhaps the frustration is a product as
much of your own attitude than of their action (or inaction). We're a
community, not an institution. There are no hierarchies and no by-laws,
and there is as little bureaucracy as possible. We each have authority
only inasmuch as our rhetorical ability, our artistic craft, our
diligence, and our good manners garner respect. It's a paradoxical
fact, however, that attempting to gain position for position's sake
tends to be ineffective; complaining that no one listens to you will not
make you authoritative. It is in pursuing the thing in itself that
people display their most admirable qualities.
So... write games, if you want to write games; run competitions if
that's your strength and you think you have a good idea. I don't
especially want to see you run a second comp in the spring, but as far
as you're concerned, that needn't matter at all. Do what you think is
best. The rest will come out in the wash. Really.
-- Emily
Gadget
world a better place by saying:
>
>
> * Breathe life into the newsgroups during a time period other than that
>immediately following the "fall classic" Comp. (Hmmm, Comp Classic. Does this
>mean the new one will have a catchy name and/or slogan? :-)
IF COMP, The Next Interaction
IF COMP 2: AGT Strikes Back
IF COMP 2: The Wrath of Plotkin
etc
etc
etc :-)
Andrew MacKinnon
>
> dcorn...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >The discussion that I would like to have is one of the positive aspects
> >of splitting the competition. We already know all the reasons not to do
> >it. I think the very intelligent people of the IF community could, if
> >they tried really hard, come up with legitimate reasons why the
> >competition 'could' be better if it was changed or split. I'm not
> >looking for validation....just a discussion.
>
> I am 100% cool with this. In fact, I'll even participate. Here are some
> reasons FOR doing two competitions:
>
> * People won't have to wait as long to release games, if they write them
> without the Comp in mind and then decide they'd like to enter.
Fine, but that may become a resting place for bad games, less than good
games. You know that people are DELIBERATELY releasing bad games before
they are finished and made good. (Remember the unwinnable Happy?) This
may even reduce this, but maybe only with other factors as well.
> * Breathe life into the newsgroups during a time period other than that
> immediately following the "fall classic" Comp. (Hmmm, Comp Classic. Does this
> mean the new one will have a catchy name and/or slogan? :-) The degree to
> which newgroup traffic drops off after the Comp has been debated, but it seems
> fairly obvious that a bunch of posted reviews would make for more newsgroup
> traffic than there otherwise would be.
There seems to be a lot more traffic in raif than rgif now... probably
because the "Annual Competition Proposal" thread was posted in raif not
rgif. The peak of rgif lasted about a week.
> * Another showcase for games, from writers experienced and inexperienced.
> Last year, as an IF newbie, I would have been far less likely to write a game
> if the Comp hadn't existed as a framework for making sure a fair amount of
> people saw it. Now, with a bit of experience, I still see the Comp as being as
> good a way as any to get my game out there.
Obvious.
> * Potentially, judging/organizing workloads could be spread out over two
> Comps and/or two sets of people.
Definately. Stephen/Mark don't want to do two competitions/year.
--
Andrew MacKinnon
http://www.geocities.com/andrew_mackinnon_2000/
(Please remove NOSPAM from e-mail address above)
Andrew MacKinnon
>
> On 09 Dec 2000 04:03:18 GMT, bren...@aol.comRemove (OKB) made the
> world a better place by saying:
>
> >
> >
> > * Breathe life into the newsgroups during a time period other than that
> >immediately following the "fall classic" Comp. (Hmmm, Comp Classic. Does this
> >mean the new one will have a catchy name and/or slogan? :-)
>
> IF COMP, The Next Interaction
> IF COMP 2: AGT Strikes Back
NO.
> IF COMP 2: The Wrath of Plotkin
NO.
Only the first name is OK. The second name discriminates against Inform
and TADS and the third name discriminates against everyone but Andrew
Plotkin.
NO.
Cody Sandifer
>Are you afraid Rybread will make a personal visit to your home
>and drool on your sofa?
Darnit. I *still* can't get that stain out.
Cody
Adam J. Thornton
>In article <90s5lk$km7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> dcorn...@my-deja.com wrote:
>No one in this loose community is in a
>position to *enforce* much of anything
I could fly to Chicago and eat him. It's not nearly as far from St.
Louis as it was from New Jersey.
Steven Howard
>All the dictionaries that I can find say that 'biannual' means
>'happening twice each year', and is equivalent in meaning to
>'semiannual'. Events that happen once every two years are
>'biennial'.
[Gets dictionary. Looks up 'biannual.'] Huh. My dictionary gives
both meanings, which is stupid. It also says that "biweekly" can mean
either "every other week" or "twice a week", and that "bimonthly" can
mean either "every other month" or "twice a month." That's dumb.
"Bi" means two; "semi" mean half.
Oh, well. It's me against the lexicographers again. Never mind.
OKB
>> * People won't have to wait as long to release games, if they write
>them
>> without the Comp in mind and then decide they'd like to enter.
>
>Fine, but that may become a resting place for bad games, less than good
>games.
The same is true of the current competition, in theory. Why would people
be more disposed to write bad games in spring than in fall?
>You know that people are DELIBERATELY releasing bad games before
>they are finished and made good. (Remember the unwinnable Happy?)
I do not know this.
Tina
Kathleen M. Fischer <green_g...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>I've wondered that myself. And why is it that the fact the posters are
>perceived to be bigshots matter? It seems horrably unfair to the
>bigshots that they don't get a plain old ordinary vote, can't write an
>ordinary post offering an opinion.
Wow, you know, I never really thought to put it it this way,
but you have a good point here.
While I suspect it's nice to be taken seriously because everyone knows
you have the experience to back up your words, it's hard to remember
that there may be a downside to this.
While it's true that I tend to do that -- take people more seriously when
I know who they are etc. -- I tend to not suffer from what I like to
call "Celebrity Worship"; if someone who is a big name and I disagree,
so be it. (To take a specific person's name in vain: I respect Adam Cadre
and feel he is quite talented and take his opinion seriously. On the
other hand, I often disagree with him, and am not shy about doing so.
Hi, Adam!)
But, thinking deeper on this topic, I guess it would get -quite- tiring
to have people hang on your every word and take it as Holy Writ when all
you really want to do is the -same- as anyone else: speak your opinion
and have people give it some consideration.
In fact, this brings to mind a guy I know who just happens to be a
semi-famous author (well-known within the genre he writes in). He -does-
appreciate when people tell him they enjoyed his work. He also seems to
quite like when people just sit down with him and treat him like this
guy who happens to be interesting enough to have a conversation with,
who take him on his merits as a -person-, not an -author-. I have the
majority of this guy's books and he -is- one of my favorite authors, but
you know what? He's still just a pretty ordinary guy, and when I do take
the time to think about such things, I tend to susupect he would rather
be "this guy I know who happens to be a well-known author" than "this
well-known author I know".
[It's very hard to write about someone one knows without using their
name, have you ever noticed that?]
In any event, this is mostly just babbling, but the point is here
somewhere (*rummage*)... ah yes! The fact that someone -is- well-known
and experienced and well-respected may mean that we should take their
opinion seriously, but in doing so, we should not forget about the fifty
or so less well-known folks who also have an opinion.
Which, I guess, is what I already said, but something I learned from
tutoring people in high school is that sometimes, it takes rephrasing
something for it to really make sense.
Branko Collin
>The question is: Why does this stop people from just trying to do
>something different? Is there some great fear that
[Zarf will fling lightning bolts at you?]
[Whizzard will turn you in a toad?]
[Adam Cadre will put you in his next book and shame you?]
[Rybread will make a personal visit to your home and drool on your
sofa?]
Stop sugarcoating those examples!
--
branko collin
col...@xs4all.nl
Branko Collin
>The discussion that I would like to have is one of the positive aspects
>of splitting the competition.
Both to you and to Gadget:
You started the discussion with <903n64$f6s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
> We all know the details. I just have a simple suggestion. Is
> there any reason we shouldn't make the annual competition a
> bi-annual event? Same rules, same time frames, same everything.
> Announce by 3/1, in by 3/31, judged by 5/15. People donate
> prizes. All the same, just a second instance at a six month
> interval.
Then, when people suggested you do the polite way and look up the
arguments against a bi-annual competition, you started 'yelling'.
For instance, in <906i01$pra$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> you wrote:
> I think there is something seriously wrong with a group
> of people that promote creativity but stifle any change
> in the environment in which this creativity is supposed
> to blossom.
If you had started with "We all know the arguments against a bi-annual
competition, can somebody come up with some ideas for such a
competition", the discussion might have followed along somewhat more
productive lines.
--
branko collin
col...@xs4all.nl
Gadget
made the world a better place by saying:
>On Sat, 09 Dec 2000 02:33:24 GMT, dcorn...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
>>The discussion that I would like to have is one of the positive aspects
>>of splitting the competition.
>
>Both to you and to Gadget:
<snip>
The first response to the post, by Joe was:
>NO.
>
>That's an AWFUL idea for many, many reasons which have been rehashed many,
>many times. Let it die already.
>Joe
But let's not get caught in a discussion over who said what. I just
felt the first reactions where kind of harsh.
dcorn...@my-deja.com
col...@xs4all.nl (Branko Collin) wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Dec 2000 02:33:24 GMT, dcorn...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >The discussion that I would like to have is one of the positive
aspects
> >of splitting the competition.
>
> Both to you and to Gadget:
>
> You started the discussion with <903n64$f6s$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>:
> > We all know the details. I just have a simple suggestion. Is
> > there any reason we shouldn't make the annual competition a
> > bi-annual event? Same rules, same time frames, same everything.
> > Announce by 3/1, in by 3/31, judged by 5/15. People donate
> > prizes. All the same, just a second instance at a six month
> > interval.
>
> Then, when people suggested you do the polite way and look up the
> arguments against a bi-annual competition, you started 'yelling'.
>
> For instance, in <906i01$pra$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> you wrote:
> > I think there is something seriously wrong with a group
> > of people that promote creativity but stifle any change
> > in the environment in which this creativity is supposed
> > to blossom.
>
I wasn't yelling. I looked at as much of the history as I can.
Unfortunately, Yahoo is the only archive of such discussions from 1998
through today and they're not making those archives available.
I challenge people look at both sides. That's all. You make it sound
like I'm some sort of activist or something. I'm not. I'm just trying
to hear an even discussion of the issues as opposed to what I _have_
been able to find, which is the latter portions of this discussion from
the past. The only thing in the archives that I could find were people
saying, "We've talked about this. Drop it."
Magnus Olsson
OKB <bren...@aol.comRemove> wrote:
> I am 100% cool with this. In fact, I'll even participate. Here are some
>reasons FOR doing two competitions:
>
> * People won't have to wait as long to release games, if they write them
>without the Comp in mind and then decide they'd like to enter.
This isn't really an argument for or against two competitions, but I
think the problem really is that people shouldn't feel that it's not
worth releasing a game outside of the competition(s). I'm afraid the
comp(s) may actually be counter-productive if this feeling gets to
predominant.
> * Breathe life into the newsgroups during a time period other than that
>immediately following the "fall classic" Comp. (Hmmm, Comp Classic. Does this
>mean the new one will have a catchy name and/or slogan? :-) The degree to
>which newgroup traffic drops off after the Comp has been debated, but it seems
>fairly obvious that a bunch of posted reviews would make for more newsgroup
>traffic than there otherwise would be.
I disagree. In fact, I think the thing I like the *least* about the
Comp is that it effectively *kills* the newsgroups during the voting
period - people are too busy playing hte games to post, and even if
they wanted to post, they are honour-bound not to.
OK, there's a surge of posts immediately after the results are released,
but that's poor compensation.
In fact, I have basically *one* objection to the idea of more
competitions, but that's a fairly big one: we risk ending up with an
IF community that spends all of its time either writing competition
entries (discussion of which is _verboten_ during the writing period)
or judging them (with judges honour-bound to silence).
My horror scenario looks like this: We have so many competitions that
nobody has any time actually to discuss IF, except during the brief
periods (two weeks or so per comp) just after the results are
released. So, several times a year we would get very intense two-week
periods where everybody and their cats are posting reviews of the same
games, essentially rehashing the same opinions over and over. The rest
of the year (ten months or so), we would only see a scattering of
posts from authors asking for help with Inform (but in very general
terms so as not to give anything away), plus the usual flameage about
which authoring system is the best, what's wrong with the comp rules
and how they should be changed, plus, of course, people complaianing
about the closed-minded, self-congratulating clique called the IF
establishment.
(Yes, I'm being satirical, but I'm afraid we may see *something* like
this if the current trend continues).
--
Magnus Olsson (m...@df.lth.se, m...@pobox.com)
------ http://www.pobox.com/~mol ------
Gadget
world a better place by saying:
>
>In fact, I have basically *one* objection to the idea of more
>competitions, but that's a fairly big one: we risk ending up with an
>IF community that spends all of its time either writing competition
>entries (discussion of which is _verboten_ during the writing period)
>or judging them (with judges honour-bound to silence).
And: wouldn't it basically *kill* the larger games, if every game
written is designed with the two hour limit (or any other competition
rule for that matter) in mind?
I hope to see more lage epics and less puzzle-less short stories, but
that's a matter of taste of course. I'm old school, you know ;-)
Peter Polkinghorne
>My conclusion is that the IF Community is a rather obtuse, albeit
>cohesively obtuse, group of people. Change is not welcome. New ideas
>are not welcome. There are a few people that have been around RAIF and
>IF for about five or six years and their support is probably needed for
>any significant changes to the community.
Well as a counter example - what about the Art Show?
That is recent (only 3 competitions) and quite successful.
There is also a certain amount of agonising about the competition and
non-competition games.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Peter Polkinghorne, Computer Centre, Brunel University, Uxbridge, UB8 3PH,|
| Peter.Pol...@brunel.ac.uk +44 1895 274000 x2561 UK |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
okbl...@my-deja.com
> perceived to be bigshots matter? It seems horrably unfair to the
> bigshots that they don't get a plain old ordinary vote, can't write an
> ordinary post offering an opinion.
>
> If Joe Nobody says "Your idea stinks", people shrug. If Zarf writes
it,
> it's a conspiracy.
Worse, it's a papal endorsement or excommunication.
Not too long ago, Zarf made an off-handed observation about a game that
was generating a lot of traffic on r.g.i-f and the response was as if
he, The High Priest, had set out to smash a lowly young artist.
It's unfortunate. And it's really unfair. But it is.
--
[ok]
okbl...@my-deja.com
m...@pobox.com (Magnus Olsson) wrote:
>
> This isn't really an argument for or against two competitions, but I
> think the problem really is that people shouldn't feel that it's not
> worth releasing a game outside of the competition(s). I'm afraid the
> comp(s) may actually be counter-productive if this feeling gets to
> predominant.
It probably is counter-productive already. Have we had 50 games
released this year outside the comp? Or even half?
> I disagree. In fact, I think the thing I like the *least* about the
> Comp is that it effectively *kills* the newsgroups during the voting
> period - people are too busy playing hte games to post, and even if
> they wanted to post, they are honour-bound not to.
That's a side-effect of the comp, not necessarily one of all possible
competitions.
> OK, there's a surge of posts immediately after the results are
released,
> but that's poor compensation.
Agreed. And is it my imagination, or was the surge smaller this year?
> In fact, I have basically *one* objection to the idea of more
> competitions, but that's a fairly big one: we risk ending up with an
> IF community that spends all of its time either writing competition
> entries (discussion of which is _verboten_ during the writing period)
> or judging them (with judges honour-bound to silence).
One of the things that intrigued me about Jarb's proposal was the idea
of a judging panel. It reminds me of the film festivals. Movies are
shown, and *much* discussed.
If IF were to have another comp, following the festival format could be
useful. Submissions would be made to a panel which would accept or
reject them. Then there'd be a period where people would play the games
*and* discuss them, review them, make their opinions known, and so on.
Instead of a period of no activity, like we have now, there would be a
period of heightened activity. Bug fixing could even be done in this
period. Nor would there necessarily have to be a two-hour time limit.
At the end, the judges' votes would be cast and everyone would agree
that they were out of touch and fuddy-duddys and should be replaced next
year by, you know, really qualified people--oops, sorry, I went a little
*too* far into the film-fest analogy.
Anyway. I think the only problem with Jarb's idea was that just because
one comp is good doesn't mean two identical comps would be better.
There's more room for exploration than that.
> [snipped worst-case-scenario]
>
> (Yes, I'm being satirical, but I'm afraid we may see *something* like
> this if the current trend continues).
What trend is that? I'm not sure what you're seeing that would lead you
to where you, em, ended up. :-)
--
[ok]
Duncan Stevens
"Magnus Olsson" <m...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:912bau$hoo$1...@news.lth.se...
> My horror scenario looks like this: We have so many competitions that
> nobody has any time actually to discuss IF, except during the brief
> periods (two weeks or so per comp) just after the results are
> released. So, several times a year we would get very intense two-week
> periods where everybody and their cats are posting reviews of the same
> games, essentially rehashing the same opinions over and over. The rest
> of the year (ten months or so), we would only see a scattering of
> posts from authors asking for help with Inform (but in very general
> terms so as not to give anything away), plus the usual flameage about
> which authoring system is the best, what's wrong with the comp rules
> and how they should be changed, plus, of course, people complaianing
> about the closed-minded, self-congratulating clique called the IF
> establishment.
You forgot about the copyright threads and the people asking about where
they can download Infocom games!
I'm disappointed in you, Magnus.
--Duncan
Magnus Olsson
>In article <912bau$hoo$1...@news.lth.se>,
> m...@pobox.com (Magnus Olsson) wrote:
>>
>> This isn't really an argument for or against two competitions, but I
>> think the problem really is that people shouldn't feel that it's not
>> worth releasing a game outside of the competition(s). I'm afraid the
>> comp(s) may actually be counter-productive if this feeling gets to
>> predominant.
>
>It probably is counter-productive already. Have we had 50 games
>released this year outside the comp? Or even half?
The point is, of course, whether we'd have had 50 games released this
year if there hadn't been a comp. I don't think so, which obviously
means I don't think the comp is counter-productive today, at least not
for small games.
>> I disagree. In fact, I think the thing I like the *least* about the
>> Comp is that it effectively *kills* the newsgroups during the voting
>> period - people are too busy playing hte games to post, and even if
>> they wanted to post, they are honour-bound not to.
>
>That's a side-effect of the comp, not necessarily one of all possible
>competitions.
That's true. A competition that allowed discussion of the games, or even
encouraged it, would of course not have this effect.
>> In fact, I have basically *one* objection to the idea of more
>> competitions, but that's a fairly big one: we risk ending up with an
>> IF community that spends all of its time either writing competition
>> entries (discussion of which is _verboten_ during the writing period)
>> or judging them (with judges honour-bound to silence).
>
>One of the things that intrigued me about Jarb's proposal was the idea
>of a judging panel. It reminds me of the film festivals. Movies are
>shown, and *much* discussed.
>
>If IF were to have another comp, following the festival format could be
>useful. Submissions would be made to a panel which would accept or
>reject them. Then there'd be a period where people would play the games
>*and* discuss them, review them, make their opinions known, and so on.
>Instead of a period of no activity, like we have now, there would be a
>period of heightened activity. Bug fixing could even be done in this
>period. Nor would there necessarily have to be a two-hour time limit.
This sounds very interesting, yes. I think what would have to be
"sacrificed" compared to the current competition is the idea of a
totally fair and unbiased popular vote; rather, the result would have
to be seen as the subjective taste of the panel. Perhaps there shouldn't
be any prizes, except the honour.
>At the end, the judges' votes would be cast and everyone would agree
>that they were out of touch and fuddy-duddys and should be replaced next
>year by, you know, really qualified people--oops, sorry, I went a little
>*too* far into the film-fest analogy.
Note necessarily... :-)
>> [snipped worst-case-scenario]
>>
>> (Yes, I'm being satirical, but I'm afraid we may see *something* like
>> this if the current trend continues).
>
>What trend is that? I'm not sure what you're seeing that would lead you
>to where you, em, ended up. :-)
Well, the trend I'm afraid of is either where the current competition
expands to the point where the judging period takes up most of the
year (scale up comp00 to 250 entries), or where we get a number of
competitions identical to the current one (three comp00's in one
year).
Magnus Olsson
Duncan Stevens <dn...@starpower.net> wrote:
>
>"Magnus Olsson" <m...@pobox.com> wrote in message
>news:912bau$hoo$1...@news.lth.se...
>> My horror scenario looks like this:
(snipped)
>You forgot about the copyright threads and the people asking about where
>they can download Infocom games!
>
>I'm disappointed in you, Magnus.
Sorry, forgot that. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa...
Andrew MacKinnon
> He/she wrote:
> >One of the things that intrigued me about Jarb's proposal was the idea
> >of a judging panel. It reminds me of the film festivals. Movies are
> >shown, and *much* discussed.
Interactive fiction doesn't equal movies.
> >If IF were to have another comp, following the festival format could be
> >useful. Submissions would be made to a panel which would accept or
> >reject them. Then there'd be a period where people would play the games
> >*and* discuss them, review them, make their opinions known, and so on.
> >Instead of a period of no activity, like we have now, there would be a
> >period of heightened activity. Bug fixing could even be done in this
> >period. Nor would there necessarily have to be a two-hour time limit.
What panel? Who would do it? I think the bug fixing should be done by
the authors and:
Don't write these "joke" games with deliberate misspellings, they're not
funny; write games with good funny jokes instead.
BETATEST the GAMES. BETATEST the GAMES.
I think that authors should start their games soon after the competition
and then they will write them and have a while to betatest them.
I have an idea to get betatesting done. Release the game without its
name. Ask for bug reports. Then re-insert the name at competition time.
> This sounds very interesting, yes. I think what would have to be
> "sacrificed" compared to the current competition is the idea of a
> totally fair and unbiased popular vote; rather, the result would have
> to be seen as the subjective taste of the panel. Perhaps there shouldn't
> be any prizes, except the honour.
Prizes. I don't know if fewer prizes means fewer bad games or not.
--
Andrew MacKinnon
andrew_mac...@yahoo.com
http://www.geocities.com/andrew_mackinnon_2000/
Neil Cerutti
>Don't write these "joke" games with deliberate misspellings,
>they're not funny; write games with good funny jokes instead.
I don't see what the big fury over these games is about. They
don't take long to program, release, down-load, assess, or
ignore--and some people like them. Even though Comp00tr Game
deserved a low score, I enjoyed it.
--
Neil Cerutti <cer...@together.net>
"This fog is as thick as peanut butter!"
-- Yukon Cornelius
Rich Pizor
<andrew_mac...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Magnus Olsson wrote:
> > He/she wrote:
> > >One of the things that intrigued me about Jarb's proposal was the idea
> > >of a judging panel. It reminds me of the film festivals. Movies are
> > >shown, and *much* discussed.
>
> Interactive fiction doesn't equal movies.
Nor, in what I read, was it ever suggested that they were. Seems to me
that the film festival approach was being used as a metaphor or model.
> > >If IF were to have another comp, following the festival format could be
> > >useful. Submissions would be made to a panel which would accept or
> > >reject them. Then there'd be a period where people would play the games
> > >*and* discuss them, review them, make their opinions known, and so on.
> > >Instead of a period of no activity, like we have now, there would be a
> > >period of heightened activity. Bug fixing could even be done in this
> > >period. Nor would there necessarily have to be a two-hour time limit.
>
> What panel? Who would do it?
Well, a laundry list of names that represent the supposed elite of the
IF community has been bandied about this thread liberally. That would
seem to be a logical starting place. Or put it to the popular vote: let
anyone who wants to be a judge put their name in the running, and let
the will of the voters decide who ultimately sits on the panel. And
there's no reason that process couldn't be repeated for every comp.
> I think the bug fixing should be done by
> the authors and:
The original post as I read it said only that "bug fixing could be done
in this period." No suggestion of who was to do it. We have to consider
what the point of the festival approach is -- is it to reward specific
authors, or to generate a large body of work for fans of IF to sink
their teeth into? If the latter, all that's really important is that
the bug fixes get done, not whether they get the author credit in a
contest. Such trophies become a byproduct of the contest under that
scenario, not the goal.
> Don't write these "joke" games with deliberate misspellings, they're not
> funny; write games with good funny jokes instead.
>
> BETATEST the GAMES. BETATEST the GAMES.
One would suppose that the panel's acceptance of a game for the
festival competition in the first place would address this problem to
some degree. I'm also someone who is hesitant to assume that a game has
or has not been beta tested. I entered a game in the 99 comp that was
tested by six different people, who all found errors in the initial
draft that I corrected before my final comp submission. Errors still
existed.
> Prizes. I don't know if fewer prizes means fewer bad games or not.
It's an interesting question, but my gut feeling is that *no* prizes,
not fewer, will reduce the bad games. No prizes means you're not
getting anything but the honor of the title and the admiration of the
community for a well-crafted game.
Rich, delurking
okbl...@my-deja.com
I'm stifling the urge to say "Duh" here. I guess I haven't entirely
suceeded. :-)
> What panel? Who would do it? I think the bug fixing should be done by
> the authors and:
An arbitrary panel of respected cheese tasters, I suppose. It doesn't
really matter. I would lean toward respected reviewers like Duncan
"First April" Stevens, respected authors (who didn't want to submit
their own works for the fest), other legendary IF people (like Graham
Nelson, Eileen Mullen, Crowther and Woods, Mike Berlyn or Michael
Roberts), and random celebrities, maybe Emeril Lagasse or Gilbert
Gottfried.
The Art Show does fine with its panel. Those who felt it was a violation
of their artistic principles to submit their work would be free not to.
In no way did I mean to suggest that someone other than the authors
should do bug fixes; only that authors would be allowed to do bug fixes.
> [snipped rant about joke games and beta-testing]
The IF Comp thrives on anarchy. That's as it should be. There's no
reason to change it. There's also no reason to duplicate it. These are
time-sensitive comments. (There may be some reason someday to change or
duplicate the comp.)
> Prizes. I don't know if fewer prizes means fewer bad games or not.
That's not really the point. The point is that an IF author has one
basic unit of currency: Attention. Magnus' point seems to focus on the
danger of all attention in IF revolving around the comp, which itself
creates a dead period. It's a valid point. There have been many
attempts recently to rectify this. None of them have yet persisted.
Doe's Art Show gives a venue and attention to things that don't
necessarily fit in the comp. This is good.
An IF Festival could give a venue and attention to things that might or
might not fit in the comp, without the dead period. And it could easily
evolve into the thing that some people really want to see: The review
panel could reject games that had not been beta-tested, that were just
jokes (although it could just as well have a short-subject-type
category), and so on.
okbl...@my-deja.com
m...@pobox.com (Magnus Olsson) wrote:
>
> The point is, of course, whether we'd have had 50 games released this
> year if there hadn't been a comp. I don't think so, which obviously
> means I don't think the comp is counter-productive today, at least not
> for small games.
If quantity is the only measure, you're probably right. Not to get into
an abstract discussion about quality (with regard to "joke games" et
al) but I think a great many of those games are far buggier than they
would be if there was another venue for them that *wasn't* a year off.
Hard to say, though, if six months would be any better.
> This sounds very interesting, yes. I think what would have to be
> "sacrificed" compared to the current competition is the idea of a
> totally fair and unbiased popular vote; rather, the result would have
> to be seen as the subjective taste of the panel. Perhaps there
shouldn't
> be any prizes, except the honour.
Prizes are irrelevant. And there is no unbiased vote now, since the
comp allows author's name to be attached to the project.
> Well, the trend I'm afraid of is either where the current competition
> expands to the point where the judging period takes up most of the
> year (scale up comp00 to 250 entries), or where we get a number of
> competitions identical to the current one (three comp00's in one
> year).
Another attention-getting event, like the aforementioned festival, could
help stem the tide. In a situation like the one you mention, it could
also lead to turning the current comp into a landfill.
In theory, an event with more rigorous controls would turn away the
"worst" games of the comp, and the comp might end up with a
preponderance of games that were buggy or jokey or whatever.
All this is theoretical, of course. The first thing you'd have to do is
find someone crazy enough to put this much effort into organizing such
an event. Such people are in tragically short supply. ;-)
Andrew MacKinnon
> Andrew MacKinnon <andrew_mac...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Interactive fiction doesn't equal movies.
<snip>
>
> An IF Festival could give a venue and attention to things that might or
> might not fit in the comp, without the dead period. And it could easily
> evolve into the thing that some people really want to see: The review
> panel could reject games that had not been beta-tested, that were just
> jokes (although it could just as well have a short-subject-type
> category), and so on.
That's like the mini-comps. One narrow subject, few entrants... no judging
just reviews... you know.
Kathleen M. Fischer
Rich Pizor <rich...@home.com> wrote:
> In article <3A3686FB...@yahoo.com>, Andrew MacKinnon
> <andrew_mac...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > BETATEST the GAMES. BETATEST the GAMES.
>
> or has not been beta tested. I entered a game in the 99 comp that was
> tested by six different people, who all found errors in the initial
> draft that I corrected before my final comp submission. Errors still
> existed.
When beta testing, I discovered (somewhat the hard way) that there are
at least 5 distinct types of beta testers:
1. GRAMMER GURUS: Know the difference between its and it's and have the
patience to pick out each instance. Can spot a spelling error at a
thousand yards.
2. PLOT PICKERS: Unresolved plot threads? Missing/unfulfilling endings?
These types can pick apart the best laid plot with heartless efficiency.
3. PUZZLERS: These are sorts that rightly feel you should be able to
unscrew the control panel lid with your screwdriver (thus bypassing the
lock), pick up every item that isn't nailed down and try it out on every
other item in sight, etc.
4. UN-PUZZLERS: Have an uncanny ability to be confused by the simplest
task, are unable to locate the screwdriver (let alone realize it should
be used on the Big Red Screw). Easily felled by Guess-The-Verb puzzles.
These types will do wonders for your help system.
5. COW BLOWERS: These are the sorts that try to eat furniture, sit on
the sofa, talk to the wall, take 1000 tissues from the tissue box...
etc. All games need at least ONE tester of this sort. The weirder, the
better.
The games with the fewest errors were probably the games whose
author/testers best filled those catagories and had enough time for
test/fix/retest cycles. :)
Kathleen
--
-- Masquerade - http://baf.wurb.com/if/competition00/inform/mask/
-- The Cove - Best of Landscape, Interactive Fiction Art Show 2000
-- ftp://ftp.gmd.de/if-archive/games/zcode/Cove.z5
-- Excuse me while I dance a little jig of despair
Vincent Lynch
news:3A3686FB...@yahoo.com...
> Magnus Olsson wrote:
> > He/she wrote:
> > >One of the things that intrigued me about Jarb's proposal was the idea
> > >of a judging panel. It reminds me of the film festivals. Movies are
> > >shown, and *much* discussed.
> Interactive fiction doesn't equal movies.
No one was claiming that it does. What was your point?
> Don't write these "joke" games with deliberate misspellings, they're not
> funny; write games with good funny jokes instead.
Why the emphasis on joke games? Why not just say "write good games"?
> BETATEST the GAMES. BETATEST the GAMES.
>
> I think that authors should start their games soon after the competition
> and then they will write them and have a while to betatest them.
But what if the authors' schedules don't allow this? Given that some people
are giving up a lot of their time during the comp, this isn't exactly
unlikely.
> I have an idea to get betatesting done. Release the game without its
> name. Ask for bug reports. Then re-insert the name at competition time.
Sorry, this one's lost on me. How does removing the name help? Why
"release" and ask for bug reports rather than just asking for testers
pre-release in the usual way?
I'm not sure whether this is relevant to what you're suggesting, but I don't
think shortage of testers is the problem here.
-Vincent
Vincent Lynch
news:916hjj$etr$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> When beta testing, I discovered (somewhat the hard way) that there are
> at least 5 distinct types of beta testers:
[...]
> 5. COW BLOWERS
While I'm flattered by the attention I've received over the past few weeks,
I'm not entirely sure this is what I want to be remembered for. ;-)
-Vincent
Paul O'Brian
> Not to get into
> an abstract discussion about quality (with regard to "joke games" et
> al) but I think a great many of those games are far buggier than they
> would be if there was another venue for them that *wasn't* a year off.
There *is*. It's called "releasing your game outside the comp."
ok, I know this is probably a willful misreading of what you meant --
sorry. I think I'm just getting a little irked with the increasingly
prevalent implication that the only worthwhile way to release a game is to
include it in some kind of competition.
--
Paul O'Brian obr...@colorado.edu http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~obrian
Kaia Vintr
>ok, I know this is probably a willful misreading of what you meant --
>sorry. I think I'm just getting a little irked with the increasingly
>prevalent implication that the only worthwhile way to release a game is to
>include it in some kind of competition.
That's the real problem isn't it, not the insufficiency of the comp. A work
of "IF" is not a 500 lb cabbage. It does have merit outside of the state
fair.
- Kaia
OKB
>A work
>of "IF" is not a 500 lb cabbage. It does have merit outside of the state
>fair.
A 500-lb cabbage has merit outside the fair too, if you like cabbage.
Interestingly enough, I don't like cabbage. What is the hidden meaning
here?
:-)
OKB
>> 5. COW BLOWERS
>
>While I'm flattered by the attention I've received over the past few weeks,
>I'm not entirely sure this is what I want to be remembered for. ;-)
Too bad. When you're gone, this will be your epitaph
R.I.P.
Here lies the body of Vincent Lynch,
who, even, in the pre-comp pinch,
could beta-test your game, thusly
ensuring increased quality.
Each grateful author now avows
the best command is: >BLOW ON COWS
Steven Howard
>[...]
>> 5. COW BLOWERS
You could humbly point out that "BLOW ON COWS" is nothing but a new
application of the general principle epitomized earlier by "SCRAPE
PARROT." And "Parrot Scrapers" sounds both cooler and less dirty than
"Cow Blowers."
========
Steven Howard
mrb...@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~mrblore
okbl...@my-deja.com
Kathleen M. Fischer <green_g...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> 1. GRAMMER GURUS: Know the difference between its and it's and have
the
> patience to pick out each instance. Can spot a spelling error at a
> thousand yards.
Whom I can only presume you are baiting with this spelling
of "grammar". ;-)
--
[ok]
okbl...@my-deja.com
Andrew MacKinnon <andrew_mac...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> That's like the mini-comps. One narrow subject, few entrants... no
judging
> just reviews... you know.
Mini-comps tend to have an arbitrary subject which must (however
loosely) be in them. But that's not really important. The "short-
subject" notion was just a possibility.
You could put all kinds of semi-arbitrary categories in and include
XyzzyNews style awards for best character, best puzzle, etc.
In the fact, the Xyzzys do incidentally create an effect similar to the
one we're batting about. It's just that the Xyzzy list tries to be
comprehensive, like the Oscars, and we're talking about something with
a narrow focus.
okbl...@my-deja.com
100...@ucsu.colorado.edu>,
Paul O'Brian <obr...@ucsu.colorado.edu> wrote:
>
> There *is*. It's called "releasing your game outside the comp."
That's not a venue. That's like sneaking your video box on to the
shelf at blockbuster and hoping someone notices it.
> ok, I know this is probably a willful misreading of what you meant --
> sorry. I think I'm just getting a little irked with the increasingly
> prevalent implication that the only worthwhile way to release a game
is to
> include it in some kind of competition.
It is a willful misreading, just as my response was an inflammatory
exaggeration. ;-)
Like it or not, though, the point is made: We had over 50 games
released during the comp; how many games this year were *not* released
during the comp?*
And haven't we had several attempts made to garner recognition for
(especially) non-comp games which so far have not sustained?
Arguably the base premise is false, but it seems to ring true to enough
to a lot of IF authors. And I think that's apparent in the state of
some of the comp games.
But even if it's not true, that really doesn't reflect on whether
another approach might be a good or bad idea. Since the IF comp
started, we've had the Xyzzy awards, multiple mini-comps, speed-IF and
the Art Show. It seems to me they've all done well by the community.
So could other things. That's all there really is to what I'm saying.
--
[ok]
* Maybe more than 50; it seems like last year had a lot of Speed-IF
and mini-comp entries.
Magnus Olsson
>In article <914svi$7qd$1...@news.lth.se>,
> m...@pobox.com (Magnus Olsson) wrote:
>> This sounds very interesting, yes. I think what would have to be
>> "sacrificed" compared to the current competition is the idea of a
>> totally fair and unbiased popular vote; rather, the result would have
>> to be seen as the subjective taste of the panel. Perhaps there
>shouldn't
>> be any prizes, except the honour.
>
>Prizes are irrelevant.
I think prizes are relevant in at least two ways:
1) Any perceived "unfairness" in a competition would be easier to
swallow for the people who are offended by such, if the unfairness didn't
have anything to do with the redistribution of wealth.
2) It has been argued that people rush games into the Comp because
they have a 100% probability of winning *something*, and a large
probability of winning a substantial prize, no matter how bad and
untested the game.
>And there is no unbiased vote now, since the
>comp allows author's name to be attached to the project.
That's true, but at least anybody (except the authors) can vote. There
can be no (credible) claim that it's some elitist clique which picks
the winners.
J. Robinson Wheeler
>
> Andrew MacKinnon posted:
> >Don't write these "joke" games with deliberate misspellings,
> >they're not funny; write games with good funny jokes instead.
>
> I don't see what the big fury over these games is about. They
> don't take long to program, release, down-load, assess, or
> ignore--and some people like them. Even though Comp00tr Game
> deserved a low score, I enjoyed it.
It's not so much a fury as it is one or two posters repeating
their indignation over and over again in various threads, creating
a cumulative effect if someone isn't paying attention to the
attributions. I think.
And I liked Asendent, so there.
--
J. Robinson Wheeler http://thekroneexperiment.com
whe...@jump.net
okbl...@my-deja.com
whe...@jump.net wrote:
>
> It's not so much a fury as it is one or two posters repeating
> their indignation over and over again in various threads, creating
> a cumulative effect if someone isn't paying attention to the
> attributions. I think.
A sort of r.a.i-f "moral majority". Heh. The people who dislike these
games on principle *really* dislike them. I have to say, though, that
Comp00ter game did *not* amuse me. (And then admit that that is,
in part, because I thought it was the official comp game randomizer.)
> And I liked Asendent, so there.
Oh, so *you're* the one who gave it the "6". ;-)
okbl...@my-deja.com
m...@pobox.com (Magnus Olsson) wrote:
>
> I think prizes are relevant in at least two ways:
>
> 1) Any perceived "unfairness" in a competition would be easier to
> swallow for the people who are offended by such, if the unfairness
didn't
> have anything to do with the redistribution of wealth.
In my experience, people who think things are unfair find unfairness in
the angle the sun is shining or in how rain is distributed during a
storm.
There will always be people around to point out what's wrong. A comp has
not past that did not spur discussion on how the format needs to be
changed. I don't believe the complaints have increased even though
there's cash in this year's prizes. (There were cash prizes in last
year's, too, I think, but not every year since '95. The song remains
the same no matter.)
> 2) It has been argued that people rush games into the Comp because
> they have a 100% probability of winning *something*, and a large
> probability of winning a substantial prize, no matter how bad and
> untested the game.
Might be. The main thing one can hope to get from a movie festival is a
distributor or free press. The closest thing you can get to that in IF
(excepting RedGrendel) is a favorable write-up and link on About or
maybe in SPAG or Xyzzy News.
In a festival situation, prizes could be awarded, but the panel could
just as easily *not* award certain prizes. Again, the Comp is very
democratic and mathematical: Winners pick prizes based on what's left
after the others picked theirs. Nothing wrong with that.
In a festival-type situation you have a screening process, a board,
which would make its selections, and so on. Refer to previous notes on
"fairness". :-) It ain't, it wouldn't be, but participation would be
voluntary after all.
> That's true, but at least anybody (except the authors) can vote. There
> can be no (credible) claim that it's some elitist clique which picks
> the winners.
There have certainly been claims that particular mentalities govern the
winners. I seem to recall considerable fuss back in '96 or '97 about
all "puzzle-less" IF getting all the respect. Credibility is another
issue, of course. :-)
My own view is that the opinions of an elitist clique are not
necessarily any less relevant or important than that of a democracy.
(Nor the other way to.) The clique may be swayed by esoteric
considerations but then again the people may be swayed by a strong wind.
The promoter of such a project would just have to keep the main goal in
mind: To promote the best* IF, to possibly take some stress off the
comp, to provide another venue, and so on. When you look at it like
that, you only end up with plusses.
I don't like "Billy Elliot" less because "it lost at Cannes" but maybe
I'll go see "Chocolat" because it won.
The idea would be to laud good works. Some people will invariably find
fault with that.
Jon Ingold
Vincent Lynch <ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:t3dn5pl...@corp.supernews.co.uk...
And can you imagine how chuffed I am at how many people read that post
about cow blowing???
..it's getting more discussion than my damn game, anyway... n
Jon
Knight37
>"Kaia Vintr" ka...@xoe.com wrote:
>>A work
>>of "IF" is not a 500 lb cabbage. It does have merit outside of the
>>state fair.
>
> A 500-lb cabbage has merit outside the fair too, if you like
> cabbage.
>
> Interestingly enough, I don't like cabbage. What is the hidden
> meaning
>here?
I like cabbage. I do not like going to the state fair.
--
Knight37
"Innocence torn from me without your shelter.
Barred reality. I'm living blindly!" -- Metallica "Dyers Eve"
Kaia Vintr
> Interestingly enough, I don't like cabbage. What is the hidden
meaning
>here?
Actually there IS a hidden meaning, funny you should ask...
2001 Predictions:
Someone will enter a 500-lb interactive cabbage in the 7th Annual
Interactive Fiction Competition
Someone will enter a work of interactive fiction in the Alaska State
Fair.
- Kaia
Knight37
>In article <912bau$hoo$1...@news.lth.se>,
> m...@pobox.com (Magnus Olsson) wrote:
>>
>> This isn't really an argument for or against two competitions, but I
>> think the problem really is that people shouldn't feel that it's not
>> worth releasing a game outside of the competition(s). I'm afraid the
>> comp(s) may actually be counter-productive if this feeling gets to
>> predominant.
>
>It probably is counter-productive already.
That's kinda what I was thinking.
>If IF were to have another comp, following the festival format could be
>useful. Submissions would be made to a panel which would accept or
>reject them. Then there'd be a period where people would play the games
>*and* discuss them, review them, make their opinions known, and so on.
>Instead of a period of no activity, like we have now, there would be a
>period of heightened activity. Bug fixing could even be done in this
>period. Nor would there necessarily have to be a two-hour time limit.
I like this idea a lot. Go with it.
I like it for several reasons. It's different from the annual comp. I
(naturally) like the fact that the panel decides which games qualify. It
gives another incentive/opportunity for authors to put out work.
--
Knight37
"When I'm paid I always see the job through."
-- Angel Eyes, from "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly"
Martin Julian DeMello
> 2001 Predictions:
Someone will state that entering a 500-lb interactive cabbage in the 7th
Annual Interactive Fiction Competition isn't fair.
Someone will enter a three dimensional maze crawl titled 'Who Knows the Way
out of a Cabbage?'. (Whether s/he will exit it again is doubtful :))
There will be a spin-off CabbageComp. 'Being a Brussels Sprout' will be
rejected on a technicality.
--
Martin DeMello
"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of an analogy
involving cabbages approaches one. There is a tradition in many groups
that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the
cabbage has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress"
-- Cole's Law
Knight37
>Graham hasn't posted for nearly a year, Zarf's newsreader is broken, and
>I don't recall Adam saying much about this.
Silly. Everyone knows that the HIDDEN masters are always HIDDEN. ;P
>The disadvantage of having a competition is, first, that it produces a
>dead period on the newsgroup during the period of judging; second, that
>it perhaps acts to the detriment of games released outside of
>competitions [snipity snip]
I think that the only way to definitively prove this one way or another is
to go a year or two without having a comp and see what happens WRT game
releases. And, no, I don't think looking historically at pre-1995 is worth
doing, because there's a lot of "community" that has been built up since
then that won't go away(1) just because a comp isn't run one year. I am not
suggesting that this actually be tried, but it's something to think about.
>I think it is worthwhile sometimes to put the focus
>on something besides a simple ranked contest.
That's what I liked about the IF Festival idea.
Besides, Festival is such a ... festive word.
>With respect to the dead period, a second competition would only
>duplicate that.
Unless the second comp encourages discussion rather than prohibit it.
>Likewise, there will always be games released outside of competitions (I
>hope); having more competitions on the ground that only games released
>in competitions get attention would worsen the problem (I think.)
Still unproven. Having a second comp might, in fact, help prove or disprove
this.
>At the risk of, er, shameless self-promotion, this is
>more or less what I was trying to do with the SmoochieComp (which would
>perhaps be better named SmoochieAnthology, or something.)
I thought this was a good idea.
(1) I am willing to conceed that not having a comp could have a negative
impact on the community.
Knight37
17:18:25 GMT:
>In article <90skn7$v87$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <ems...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>In article <90s5lk$km7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> dcorn...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>No one in this loose community is in a
>>position to *enforce* much of anything
>
>I could fly to Chicago and eat him. It's not nearly as far from St.
>Louis as it was from New Jersey.
Must... resist... urge... to... comment...
--
Knight37
"I've never seen so many men wasted so badly."
-- Blonde, from "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly"
Knight37
17:30:10 GMT:
>In <wkk89at...@thecia.net>, on 12/08/00
> at 11:46 PM, Dan Schmidt <df...@thecia.net> said:
>
>>All the dictionaries that I can find say that 'biannual' means
>>'happening twice each year', and is equivalent in meaning to
>>'semiannual'. Events that happen once every two years are
>>'biennial'.
>
>[Gets dictionary. Looks up 'biannual.'] Huh. My dictionary gives
>both meanings, which is stupid. It also says that "biweekly" can mean
>either "every other week" or "twice a week", and that "bimonthly" can
>mean either "every other month" or "twice a month." That's dumb.
>"Bi" means two; "semi" mean half.
Double-plus good!
>Oh, well. It's me against the lexicographers again. Never mind.
Dictionaries no longer serve to clarify, but to obfuscate. It's another
conspiracy by the Hidden Masters.
Andrew MacKinnon
>
> Vincent Lynch <ma...@csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >Kathleen M. Fischer <green_g...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> >> at least 5 distinct types of beta testers:
>
> >[...]
>
> >> 5. COW BLOWERS
Moo.
> >While I'm flattered by the attention I've received over the past few
> >weeks, I'm not entirely sure this is what I want to be remembered
> >for. ;-)
>
> You could humbly point out that "BLOW ON COWS" is nothing but a new
> application of the general principle epitomized earlier by "SCRAPE
> PARROT." And "Parrot Scrapers" sounds both cooler and less dirty than
> "Cow Blowers."
Well, I often point out things like missing synonyms. I also often try
things like "take sofa" that don't make sense. Or "open door", or "turn
on computer". That kind of thing.
Andrew MacKinnon
>
> OKB wrote in message <20001212234157...@ng-cl1.aol.com>...
> > Interestingly enough, I don't like cabbage. What is the hidden
> meaning
> >here?
>
> Actually there IS a hidden meaning, funny you should ask...
>
> 2001 Predictions:
>
> Someone will enter a 500-lb interactive cabbage in the 7th Annual
> Interactive Fiction Competition
What's the point? Push it? Pull it? Weigh it? Really. (Rather code my
house.)
> Someone will enter a work of interactive fiction in the Alaska State Fair.
Doubt it. More likely a street outside an apartment building.
Stark
wrote:
> When beta testing, I discovered (somewhat the hard way) that there are
> at least 5 distinct types of beta testers:
>
>
> 4. UN-PUZZLERS: Have an uncanny ability to be confused by the simplest
> task, are unable to locate the screwdriver (let alone realize it should
> be used on the Big Red Screw). Easily felled by Guess-The-Verb puzzles.
> These types will do wonders for your help system.
>
I hereby volunteer myself for this type of beta-testing if anyone needs
assistance with their help menus & hints...
Cheers,
Stark
OKB
>Comp00ter game did *not* amuse me. (And then admit that that is,
>in part, because I thought it was the official comp game randomizer.)
Now I get to be like Zarf and truthfully say "That was deliberate." :-)
Greg Ewing
>
> One of the things that intrigued me about Jarb's proposal was the idea
> of a judging panel.
Why does there have to be a panel? I don't see why
a popular vote can't be taken after a film-festival-like
period of discussion.
Suggested model for an IF-Festival:
1) Authors release their games whenever they want
during the year.
2) When Festival time draws near, nominations are
sought. Anyone can nominate any game released
during the last year.
3) A period of discussion follows.
4) A popular vote is taken on the nominated games.
So: Authors can release their games whenever they feel
they are ready, instead of having to either rush them
out or sit on them until next time. Having a list of
nominated games focuses attention on them and gives
people an incentive to play them so they can take part
in the discussion and voting. And at the end of it all,
everyone's opinion is taken democratically into account.
What think ye all?
--
Greg Ewing, Computer Science Dept, University of Canterbury,
Christchurch, New Zealand
To get my email address, please visit my web page:
http://www.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz/~greg
Adam J. Thornton
Greg Ewing <gr...@cosc.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
>Suggested model for an IF-Festival:
>
>1) Authors release their games whenever they want
> during the year.
>
>2) When Festival time draws near, nominations are
> sought. Anyone can nominate any game released
> during the last year.
>
>3) A period of discussion follows.
>
>4) A popular vote is taken on the nominated games.
How does this differ from the XYZZYs?
Adam
--
ad...@princeton.edu
"My eyes say their prayers to her / Sailors ring her bell / Like a moth
mistakes a light bulb / For the moon and goes to hell." -- Tom Waits
Adam Cadre
> What's the point? Push it? Pull it? Weigh it? Really. (Rather code my
> house.)
You have *heard* of humor, yes? This is about the fiftieth joke you've
missed in the short time you've been posting here.
In the future, if you see something that doesn't seem to make sense,
or an suggestion with which you disagree, or anything along those lines
that prompts you to post a reply, ask yourself the following questions
first:
1) Is this a joke? (Assume the answer is yes and don't reply, unless
you're sure it's not.)
2) No, really, is this a joke? (Assume the answer is yes and don't
reply, unless you're absolutely, positively sure it's not.)
3) Is there any way that this could possibly be a joke? (Assume the
answer is yes and don't reply, unless you have incontrovertible
evidence that it's not.)
PS: This post is not a joke. Still, it might do you good in the long
run not to reply. Y'know, practice.
-----
Adam Cadre, Sammamish, WA
web site: http://adamcadre.ac
novel: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060195584/adamcadreac
okbl...@my-deja.com
> a popular vote can't be taken after a film-festival-like
> period of discussion.
There doesn't have to be.
I snipped the rest because, as others have pointed out, that's the
Xyzzys.
Which illustrates why a panel might be a good idea. The Xyzzys and the
Comp both give people a massive, unfettered list of games to play. You
don't know whether the game is a joke or not, for example. Look at this
years confusion with "What IF" (not meant to be a joke) and last year's
"Life On Beale Street" (meant to be a joke).
The current anarchy is fine. The whole point of a panel would be to
offer a less anarchic approach.
Another interesting idea might be group play-throughs and discussions
with authors about particular works.
John Elliott
For some reason I'm imagining the sort of machine that's used to blow
leaves off pavements, except big enough to blow cows into the air.
Or, of course...
You are in a valley in the forest beside a stream tumbling along a rocky
bed.
There is a cow here.
There is a detonator here.
>X DETONATOR
There is a wire leading from the detonator into the cow. The detonator
plunger is up.
>BLOW COW
(up)
You push the plunger down. The cow promptly explodes in the most inelegant
manner.
*** You have won ***
In that game, you scored 1 out of a possible 1, earning you the rank of Cow
Blower.
--
------------- http://www.seasip.demon.co.uk/index.html --------------------
John Elliott |BLOODNOK: "But why have you got such a long face?"
|SEAGOON: "Heavy dentures, Sir!" - The Goon Show
:-------------------------------------------------------------------------)
Bennett Standeven
"Andrew MacKinnon" <andrew_mac...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3A38018E...@yahoo.com...
> Kaia Vintr wrote:
> >
> > OKB wrote in message <20001212234157...@ng-cl1.aol.com>...
> > > Interestingly enough, I don't like cabbage. What is the hidden
> > meaning
> > >here?
> >
> > Actually there IS a hidden meaning, funny you should ask...
> >
> > 2001 Predictions:
> >
> > Someone will enter a 500-lb interactive cabbage in the 7th Annual
> > Interactive Fiction Competition
>
> What's the point? Push it? Pull it? Weigh it? Really. (Rather code my
> house.)
>
> > Someone will enter a work of interactive fiction in the Alaska State
Fair.
>
> Doubt it. More likely a street outside an apartment building.
>
Hmm. ENTER STREET? That's a good one...
Paul O'Brian
> Another interesting idea might be group play-throughs and discussions
> with authors about particular works.
Unless I misunderstand your meaning here, this idea is basically the IF
book club.
--
Paul O'Brian obr...@colorado.edu http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~obrian
SPAG #23 will be devoted to the 2000 IF competition, and is actively
seeking reviews! Submit your comp reviews to me by December 10. Thanks!
okbl...@my-deja.com
Paul O'Brian <obr...@ucsu.colorado.edu> wrote:
>
> Unless I misunderstand your meaning here, this idea is basically the
IF
> book club.
I think you do, or I misunderstand the book club.
When I say group play-throughs, I mean something like a group playing
through a game together. At the same time. The same game. Like a
moderated conference.
> --
> Paul O'Brian obr...@colorado.edu http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~obrian
> SPAG #23 will be devoted to the 2000 IF competition, and is actively
> seeking reviews! Submit your comp reviews to me by December 10.
Might wanna change your sig.
Paul O'Brian
> When I say group play-throughs, I mean something like a group playing
> through a game together. At the same time. The same game. Like a
> moderated conference.
Oh, I get it. Yeah, that could be pretty enlightening. I think ifMUD
has a device that would allow this. Plus, if it happened on the MUD,
someone could log it and then even people who weren't available for the
group event could read the transcript at their convenience.
Of course, somebody actually has to *initiate* this event, and it's not
going to be me.
> Might wanna change your sig.
Whoops. Thanks -- kind of the digital equivalent of an unzipped fly, I
guess.
okbl...@my-deja.com
Paul O'Brian <obr...@ucsu.colorado.edu> wrote:
>
> has a device that would allow this. Plus, if it happened on the MUD,
> someone could log it and then even people who weren't available for
the
> group event could read the transcript at their convenience.
>
> Of course, somebody actually has to *initiate* this event, and it's
not
> going to be me.
What? Are you, like, *busy* or something? ;-)
Lucian Paul Smith
: On Fri, 15 Dec 2000 okbl...@my-deja.com wrote:
: > When I say group play-throughs, I mean something like a group playing
: > through a game together. At the same time. The same game. Like a
: > moderated conference.
: Oh, I get it. Yeah, that could be pretty enlightening. I think ifMUD
: has a device that would allow this. Plus, if it happened on the MUD,
: someone could log it and then even people who weren't available for the
: group event could read the transcript at their convenience.
: Of course, somebody actually has to *initiate* this event, and it's not
: going to be me.
This is a really cool idea. I may co-opt it for the bookclub (and,
actually, I remember vaguely thinking about this idea myself before, too).
-Lucian