[IFComp] Proposed change to the comp discussion rule
Stephen Granade
competition, and wanted to see what people think of the change. The
short version: I want to abolish the "judges shouldn't talk about the
games" rule, while leaving the "authors can't talk about the games"
rule in place.
The "no discussion" rule was meant to keep judges judging in a
vacuum. To a large extent, it is a relic of the days when the
community lived in this Usenet group, and there were few avenues of
discussion other than Usenet or email lists. It was common to read
every message, and was potentially harder to avoid spoilers.
Now we have blogs, fora, MySpace/Facebook, LiveJournal, and countless
other places to discuss the games. In addition, we've evolved decent
methods of discussing spoilery topics such as TV shows and movies for
all of those locations.
At this point, asking judges to keep quiet is like demanding that all
walkthroughs be taken off the archive because someone might choose to
spoil themselves. It also has a number of downsides. Authors are
starved for feedback. It's hard to get sustained interest outside the
community since our sole method of publicizing the event is to say,
"THE GAMES ARE OUT! But don't talk about them for six weeks!" The
bolus of reviews at the end of the judging period is overwhelming, and
serves in part to stifle discussion, since many times judges respond
to discussions of their reviews by saying, "Well, I played the game
five weeks ago, but from what I remember...."
To make it easier both to avoid spoilers and to find archived
discussions of games, I recommend we use a defined subject tag for
spoiler-laden discussion, such as "[Comp07 Discussion]". While
unwieldy, it would allow those judges who want to avoid seeing any
such messages to filter the posts, and to find them later on when
they've finished a given game. Other fora could set up something
similar, or could use separate sub-boards or other specified
discussion areas like the channels on ifMUD.
If you've got thoughts on this, please let me know as soon as
possible. If I go through with this rule change, I'd like to change it
early in the judging period.
Stephen
--
Stephen Granade
stephen...@granades.com
Mike Snyder
news:wnir5q9...@sargent.dyndns.org...
>
> To make it easier both to avoid spoilers and to find archived
> discussions of games, I recommend we use a defined subject tag for
> spoiler-laden discussion, such as "[Comp07 Discussion]". While
> unwieldy, it would allow those judges who want to avoid seeing any
> such messages to filter the posts, and to find them later on when
> they've finished a given game. Other fora could set up something
> similar, or could use separate sub-boards or other specified
> discussion areas like the channels on ifMUD.
The square brackets are removed by Google Groups posting, I think -- either
that, or not shown when reading in Google. Some spoilery discussion could
inadvertantly show up. Maybe a more reliable start tag would be helpful.
Something without the square brackets, or something in addition to them?
> If you've got thoughts on this, please let me know as soon as
> possible. If I go through with this rule change, I'd like to change it
> early in the judging period.
I've been bouncing back and forth between "good idea" and "not so good idea"
ever since it was brought up at the intfiction forum again. As an author in
past years, I hated the thought that my games might rank lower if a couple
outspoken judges were to criticize them publicly to others who hadn't yet
formed an opinion. At the same time, some praise might have *helped*, so it
could have gone either way.
We talked about a by-request "private" discussion area (basically, people
would be added to the members list upon request) -- to kind of make it less
likely that people who didn't want to be involved would see *anything* by
accident. A change to the discussion rule means it could be a public board,
right? I wouldn't mind making it private still, but that might make it
entirely unused (with public discussion elsewhere requiring no membership).
Hmmm.
I would just need to practice restraint. I'm still a fan of playing (and
judging) in a vaccuum, but I think I might be tempted to check discussions
early to avoid missing something (my newsreader doesn't archive messages
once they're older, so I'd have to load up Google Groups). Hmm....
---- Mike.
Daphne Brinkerhoff
wrote:
> To make it easier both to avoid spoilers and to find archived
> discussions of games, I recommend we use a defined subject tag for
> spoiler-laden discussion, such as "[Comp07 Discussion]". While
> unwieldy, it would allow those judges who want to avoid seeing any
> such messages to filter the posts, and to find them later on when
> they've finished a given game.
I like your concept. But, this particular tag (any tag in []
brackets) is going to be problematic for those of us posting through
Google Groups. If you reply to a post through GG, it deletes from the
subject line anything in brackets, so people would have to go back in
and add it by hand. It's not impossible to do; indeed, I have just
done it for this post. I'm just saying, it's likely that people would
forget and leave it out, which might be annoying to readers. So,
maybe leave out the brackets?
--
Daphne
Mike Snyder
> discussions of games, I recommend we use a defined subject tag for
> spoiler-laden discussion, such as "[Comp07 Discussion]". While
A teensy tiny additional suggestion...
Even if it's not strictly enforcable, how about asking that people avoid
spoilers even in the topics? It might make the topics less meaningful
*after* the competition, but it could help (me, if nobody else) to not see
topics like "[Comp07 Discussion] Game XYZ is horrible!" or "[Comp07
Discussion] Game XYZ is buggy, but still great!" and the like. Or maybe
start a topic with just the ifcomp tag and game name but no text, and start
the actual reply (with the real topic) under it? That'd help me with tree
views in Outlook Express, although it wouldn't matter if you were getting
your news differently.
---- Mike.
Stephen Granade
> On Oct 1, 10:07 am, Stephen Granade <stephen-use...@granades.com>
> wrote:
>> To make it easier both to avoid spoilers and to find archived
>> discussions of games, I recommend we use a defined subject tag for
>> spoiler-laden discussion, such as "[Comp07 Discussion]". While
>> unwieldy, it would allow those judges who want to avoid seeing any
>> such messages to filter the posts, and to find them later on when
>> they've finished a given game.
>
> I like your concept. But, this particular tag (any tag in []
> brackets) is going to be problematic for those of us posting through
> Google Groups. If you reply to a post through GG, it deletes from the
> subject line anything in brackets, so people would have to go back in
> and add it by hand.
Huh, wacky. Are there tag markers that it doesn't delete? We could
certainly just start subjects with "Comp07 Discussion: " if we had to.
Andrew Plotkin
>
> The "no discussion" rule was meant to keep judges judging in a
> vacuum. To a large extent, it is a relic of the days when the
> community lived in this Usenet group, and there were few avenues of
> discussion other than Usenet or email lists. It was common to read
> every message, and was potentially harder to avoid spoilers.
My memory says the rule was more about *discouraging* judges from
indulging in spoilers (although of course it didn't try to forbid it).
The impetus behind the rule -- or my reason for liking it, anyway --
is that popularity is easily influenced by group standards. (Look at
the shifts between IFComp results and XYZZY results.) I worry that if
a large percentage of the judges were in constant conversation before
voting, they'd wind up with a strong concensus early in the voting
period, and that would swing the opinion of latecomers -- or even
people who got to that particular game late.
Also, whatever other symptoms of groupthink one might worry about.
Concensus on the judging standards ("I guess that well-done element
wasn't really important, so I'll forget about it"). Concensus on what
to play ("Everyone's talking about X, so I'll play it first, and never
get around to Y and Z"). Etc.
Now, the "relic" part of the argument: since I feel this way, I
carefully avoid spoiler posts on R*IF. (And the game-specific channels
on the MUD, etc.) So I don't know how much of this sort of thing goes
on *now*. If everybody is chatting it up already, and is comfortable
with keeping their own opinions stable, then this is a non-complaint
and you should ignore it.
> Now we have blogs, fora, MySpace/Facebook, LiveJournal, and countless
> other places to discuss the games.
I still think in terms of R*IF -- that is, I expect everybody who's
reading to be involved in judging. This is obviously not true on other
forums, and I *do* see the value in (e.g.) lots of livejournal buzz;
that draws in newcomers.
> In addition, we've evolved decent methods of discussing spoilery
> topics such as TV shows and movies for all of those locations.
We had those twelve years ago too. A spoiler tag on a LJ page serves
the function of letting people decide, for themselves, whether read
the spoiler. That's not the issue with IFComp, or at least it wasn't
back the beginning of things.
--Z
--
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
When Bush says "Stay the course," what he means is "I don't know what to
do next." He's been saying this for years now.
Mike Snyder
news:fdr5vc$891$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>
> The impetus behind the rule -- or my reason for liking it, anyway --
> is that popularity is easily influenced by group standards. (Look at
> the shifts between IFComp results and XYZZY results.) I worry that if
> a large percentage of the judges were in constant conversation before
> voting, they'd wind up with a strong concensus early in the voting
> period, and that would swing the opinion of latecomers -- or even
> people who got to that particular game late.
>
> Also, whatever other symptoms of groupthink one might worry about.
> Concensus on the judging standards ("I guess that well-done element
> wasn't really important, so I'll forget about it"). Concensus on what
> to play ("Everyone's talking about X, so I'll play it first, and never
> get around to Y and Z"). Etc.
These are my concerns as well, and I admit to being more easily influenced
than I would like. We've ("we" being the two or three of us who've actually
visited the intfiction forum recently) talked about a private area where all
discussion would be hidden unless a visitor requests to be added. I think
there's less a chance for unintentional spoilers and group opinion, but
still the chance that it could happen *intentionally* (or, the chance that
judges would put themselves into the group mindset willingly).
---- Mike.
James Jolley
use...@granades.com says...
>
> If you've got thoughts on this, please let me know as soon as
> possible. If I go through with this rule change, I'd like to change it
> early in the judging period.
Al
wrote:
> I am planning on changing the "no discussion" rules for the
> competition, and wanted to see what people think of the change. The
> short version: I want to abolish the "judges shouldn't talk about the
> games" rule, while leaving the "authors can't talk about the games"
> rule in place.
>
> The "no discussion" rule was meant to keep judges judging in a
> vacuum. To a large extent, it is a relic of the days when the
> community lived in this Usenet group, and there were few avenues of
> discussion other than Usenet or email lists. It was common to read
> every message, and was potentially harder to avoid spoilers.
Would it make more sense to have a new newsgroup or subgroup of rgif?
something like rec.game.int-fiction/comp postings or the like.
Stephen Granade
I remembered discussions along the lines of "People don't always think
about how to handle spoilers, it's really easy to be paging through
every message on the group and see spoilers, and not every newsreader
behaves properly in the presence of ctrl-L," which is why I mention it
as a possible negative.
As for the groupthink, that's certainly a potential negative, but I
a) don't know that it outweighs the positive, or that b) we shouldn't
trust people to avoid discussions as they see fit.
PTN
> The impetus behind the rule -- or my reason for liking it, anyway --
> is that popularity is easily influenced by group standards.
I agree on this point as well.
What if you split the difference -- three weeks of radio silence, at
which point early players are encouraged to turn in their votes. Then,
three weeks of discussion, while everyone else turns in theirs. Then a
look at the vote results may suggest either that groupthink (or some
other unknown factor) does indeed strongly change the distribution of
votes, or it doesn't.
Stephen Granade
I think this is a lot of work for little to no gain. Given voting
distributions and anecdotal information on when people play the games,
I expect few people would enter votes in the first three weeks, with
most of the votes coming at the end. That would keep us from being
able to mine the data effectively.
Mike Snyder
news:1191261160.4...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
>
> Would it make more sense to have a new newsgroup or subgroup of rgif?
>
> something like rec.game.int-fiction/comp postings or the like.
For those without an aversion to message boards, there will likely also be
an IFComp discussion area at http://www.intfiction.org/forum.
---- Mike.
Maureen Mason
> I am planning on changing the "no discussion" rules for the
> competition, and wanted to see what people think of the change.
I like the "no discussion" rule the way it is, though I'm open to
experimenting with a change if enough people speak up in favor of it.
No question it's a long wait, for players and authors both, before the
11/15 reviews get posted here but one of the things I like about the
comp is that I come fresh to the games, and probably play more entries
when I haven't been influenced ahead of time by other people's opinions
("don't bother with that one") and am more likely to speak up about a
game I loved or hated when I don't know beforehand that some influential
reviews are out or some group consensus has already been formed.
If the Google/brackets issue gets worked out, I guess I'll filter out
*all* Comp07 discussion -- I think I'd have to, because just seeing
subject lines would give me a sense of which games were the most
interesting/controversial/annoying etc -- even though I'd prefer to read
about games I've already played. Last year's comp worked well for me
because, once I finished a game (and decided how to vote) I could always
(1) peek at a reviewer's website or blog to read about that game -- much
easier to do than trying to pick one game out of a discussion thread;
(2) write the author with my impressions; or (3) discuss the game in
email with other players. That was enough to hold me over until the
bell rang at midnight on 11/15 and the newsgroup lit up :-)
Also, what I enjoy about this comp is that, once the 6 weeks is over,
everyone is here discussing the games together, and I'm probably more
engaged with the newsgroup then that at any other time. It would be
disappointing if all discussion about a particular game had been played
out before the voting was even over.
Maureen
Bob
> I am planning on changing the "no discussion" rules for the
> competition, and wanted to see what people think of the change. The
> short version: I want to abolish the "judges shouldn't talk about the
> games" rule, while leaving the "authors can't talk about the games"
> rule in place.
Yes, I definitly like the idea.
Bob