Which game do you hate the least?

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

That's the question posed by the comp. I can see three things that are
wrong with this.

a) It reinforces an already thriving atmosphere of bickering and petty
vindictiveness. ("Man, do I wish I hadn't entered this year just so
that I would have had the pleasure of voting this a 1." Emily Short on
a 2001 comp entry)

b) It rewards the games that are the least offensive, where "least
offensive" is a euphemism for "most inane". In practice this means
that Luminous Horizon (9 ten-votes) wins over Blue Chairs (16
ten-votes) and that Splashdown (2 ten-votes) wins over The Great Xavio
(10 ten-votes). There were 5 games that got more than 9 ten-votes,
which makes me wonder if the winner was in fact a good reflection of
the voters' intentions.

c) It encourages reviewers to review every single entry, even the ones
they obviously don't like, which often serves as an excuse for
pursuing a personal vendetta. ("Content apparently written by A. P.
Hill's younger brother." Emily Short on a 2000 comp entry that appears
to have had nothing to do with A.P. Hill, nor his "younger brother")


I propose that instead of having as many votes as there are entries,
voters should have only three votes: Best (3 points), Second Best (2
points) and Third Best (1 point).
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

One specific problem with the "only three votes: Best (3 points),
Second Best (2 points) and Third Best (1 point)" idea is that it
prevents people from participating in the judging if they don't have
time to play every one of the submitted games.

It's true that those people (including myself) can skew the
results--for example, I might have been either more or less critical
than most, skewing the games I did play to one side or the other. But,
I think it's worthwhile to allow a larger audience to feel involved in
things. This is the first year that I was actually paying enough
attention to get in when the competition started, instead of just
learning about it after the fact. And, I have to say, this has
encouraged me to try to get more involved in the community. Perhaps
even try my own hand at writing.

If the rules of the competition had required me to play each and every
game or have my votes not count at all, well, I still would have played
as many as I had time to during the competition. But I certainly would
not have felt as happy about having done everything I could do.

For myself, I'd say that having the ifcomp be a "popular award" isn't
that bad. Sure, it adds a certain "lowest common denominator" factor.
But any judging rules are going to impact that. So, the ifcomp is
really a popular competition for fairly short IF. The XYZZY awards are
more of a reward from "the academy". And, of course, people can always
look at individual game reviews and make their own judgement.

Trying to make the ifcomp into a "perfectly balanced" competition is
rather pointless, as any competition will have its own skew.

Do I agree with many peoples' opinions that "Luminous Horizon" probably
should not have been first place? Well, yes. Do I think that means
the competition is dreadfully flawed? Well, no. And really, I thought
I was doing my part in judging the competition just as well when I
voted low on entries that I found to be awful as when I voted high on
entires that I thought were great. (And personally, I reserved 1s and
2s for things that I found well-nigh unplayable, and games that I felt
were well-crafted but unenjoyable rated higher.)

So anyway, it's kind of silly to change things in the way you describe.
Instead, consider setting up a separate award if you think there's a
need.

John.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

That's actually a really good idea. It seems to me that some people have
been intentionally giving low scores to undeserving games just to tip the
scales in favor of the one they want to win.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

"lemonalle" <lemonalle@nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:72c3472c9762ddc9fe026eeb17482465@localhost.talkaboutgaming.com...
> That's actually a really good idea. It seems to me that some people have
> been intentionally giving low scores to undeserving games just to tip the
> scales in favor of the one they want to win.

Without knowing what each person voted, how would you know, though? Of those
who posted reviews, none seemed unbalanced in that way. The weighting would
have to be done by judges lurking in the shadows. Maybe I'm naive, but I'm
not seeing as much in the score distribution as others might. I can't tell
that any game was purposely sabotaged, or that any game was purposely voted
up. It seems that it would take a pretty large group effort to keep these
individual attempts from being engulfed by the remainder of votes,
anyway....

Did you have a specific example from this year's comp?

---- Mike.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004, Tomasz Pudlo wrote:

> Assuming that a ten-vote equals 3 points, a nine-vote 2, and an eight-vote
> 1, (and counting total votes, not average) this is how the top-ten would
> look like.

Unfortunately, the existing data cannot be retro-fit into this new
proposed model, since there were no restrictions on the numbers of 10's,
9's, or 8's that judges were allowed to award under the existing system.
There's simply no way to tell how the Comp 04 games would have fared with
this revised scoring.

==--- --=--=-- ---==
Quintin Stone "You speak of necessary evil? One of those necessities
stone@rps.net is that if innocents must suffer, the guilty must suffer
www.rps.net more." - Mackenzie Calhoun, "Once Burned" by Peter David
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004, Sidney Merk wrote:

> Hmmm... Xavio bumps Punches, and they're a little shuffled around.

Actually, you can count on Punches dropping a lot further if everyone went
back and revoted using the proposed (but poorly thought-out) system. Why?
Trading Punches was coded in Hugo and saw fewer votes because of it.
Under Waltroll S's system, the fewer judges play your game, the less
likely you are to score well. This means that any game not coded in
Inform or TADS2 is at an immediate disadvantage. Adrift? Hugo? Alan?
All screwed from the start. When you look at the numbers, you actually
see that Glulx, TADS3, and yes, even TADS2 games fail to bring in as many
votes as the z-code games. Under the proposed system, judge count is
everything. With the existing system, non-votes aren't factored.

==--- --=--=-- ---==
Quintin Stone "You speak of necessary evil? One of those necessities
stone@rps.net is that if innocents must suffer, the guilty must suffer
www.rps.net more." - Mackenzie Calhoun, "Once Burned" by Peter David
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

"Quintin Stone" <stone@rps.net> wrote in message
news:pine.LNX.4.58.0412291744260.17020@yes.rps.net...
> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004, Sidney Merk wrote:
>
>> Hmmm... Xavio bumps Punches, and they're a little shuffled around.

> Actually, you can count on Punches dropping a lot further if everyone went
> back and revoted using the proposed (but poorly thought-out) system. Why?
> Trading Punches was coded in Hugo and saw fewer votes because of it.

Yeah, I caught on to that in another portion of the thread. Even with a 1,
2, and 3 voting scheme, you'd still have to average the votes to make it
fair to all entries. So.... I'm officially opposed to the idea. :)

My first replies probably sounded like I'm not open to change at all. It's
not really that. It's just that I'm not sure things would be easier, better,
or more fair if the judging worked differently. In fact, hasn't this come up
every year, with the same conclusion?

---- Mike.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

Walter S. wrote:

> c) It encourages reviewers to review every single entry, even the ones
> they obviously don't like, which often serves as an excuse for
> pursuing a personal vendetta.

This is, of course, completely humorous given that it's readily apparent
that you have a personal vendetta against someone who you just happened
to single out twice in your post. (Is that "double out", then? But, I
digress.)

Assuming that your post is a valid query (which it's not, but I'm
in a humoring mood), I'd only say that it's pointless to wish for what
could have been. Did games get lower rankings than I think they
deserved? Ya, you betcha. Did games give higher rankings than I think
they earned? Yup, that too. Different people like different things.
You can either accept it or you can whine incessantly about how life
isn't fair. Speaking from experience, the latter option is the most
boring.

Joshua Houk
jlhouk@comcast.net
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

Tomasz Pudlo wrote:
> The only game that could be suspected of falling victim to "sabotage"
is
> Gamlet and (perhaps) Xavio. As far as I can see, the only significant
change
> would be that the comp would seize to be a means of pursuing a
personal
> vendetta. I'm not sure, however, if that would necessarily be a good
thing.
> The so-called "IF community" has always been a mighty tempest inside
a tiny
> tea-pot. What better expression of this than a competition where you
can
> have the "pleasure" (Emily Short) of voting 1 for a game whose author
you
> detest?

Okay, Tomasz. I sense a genuine concern here, and on a subject I've
been wanting to talk to you about since you left ifMUD.

I didn't vote on Gamlet; I didn't play it. I only had time this year to
play about a third of the games. You should know this, because we
discussed it while you were hanging about ifMUD under the name of
Vektor. (No, I didn't have time to play after our conversation; no, I
didn't vote on any games I didn't play.)

As I also said, I don't detest you. In fact, I find this situation
frustrating, since as far as I can tell you have talent as a writer and
a good grounding in IF. I won't say I am happy to have you trolling the
group, but considering that few people have been taking the trolling
seriously for the last few years, it doesn't seem a huge problem any
more, either, except inasmuch as polarizing the community may
discourage people from posting legitimate criticism of games they found
flawed. That would be bad, but it's hard to assess how much it's
happening. I *am* distressed to know that a potential author of
considerable skill and reviewer of considerable insight is wasting his
time on the not-very-interesting-or-difficult enterprise of pissing
people off.

I did, once, expose your sock-puppet personae and suggest that people
not respond further to your jibes; I did notify Google and Telia, once,
that you might be breaking their terms of service by generating so many
fake IDs. That's the sum total of things I have done to you, and I told
you what I was up to and why. (Not exactly "personal vendetta"
territory even then -- you hadn't said much to offend me personally.
But you were setting innocent people against each other by
impersonation; you were causing mass confusion and refusing to quit
when people asked you to. I wanted to put a stop to that if possible.
If I hurt your feelings, I'm sorry for that side-effect, but I still
think what you were doing was wrong and that revealing your method was
the most effective way to limit the damage. It was also my assessment
at the time that you had no intention beyond stirring up bile and that
if people ignored you, you would be too bored to go on; obviously I was
incorrect about that part, but the fact that you do have an active
interest in upsetting people makes it hard to respond fruitfully to any
of your newsgroup remarks.)

Still, I am not sabotaging your IF work. To the best of my knowledge,
neither is anyone else. I saw one person had marked you down on the
grounds that Gamlet was a troll game, but I'm not sure whether that was
because it was you who wrote it, or because he didn't like the ending,
which (as I gather from reviews) might have come across as a slap at
the player. If it's the former, I think that's not a common reaction.
Indeed, several regulars beta-tested for you in good faith.

For the record, I've never voted on or reviewed anything negatively out
of personal dislike for the author. Kallisti was magnificently and
(here's the key) intentionally bad; I knew nothing about James
Mitchelhill other than that he'd written a good IF-Review piece, which
is hardly likely to fill my heart with wrathy flames, but the *game*
practically begged to be colorfully shot down. (He admitted as much
later -- there was a thread about this on alt.games.x-trek, as I
recall.) As for Coffee Quest, it reminded me of the writing in
Amissville, with the same flaws and most of the same virtues -- minus a
bit of the vigor. Hence that comment, which may have been too curt, but
wasn't arbitrary. However, if it would make you feel better, I'll
promise not to vote on or review any of your work. If you choose not to
exercise that option, then you'll just have to have faith in my
integrity -- and since my single vote isn't worth much, you'll have to
have the same faith in the community at large, if you're going to be
involved at a productive level. In my opinion, it's a safe gamble, but
if you're deeply concerned, you can use (heh) yet a different pseudonym
for any future entries.

You clearly have something to contribute here. I hope you'll do so, and
not waste energy on the fear that your efforts are being undercut.
-- Emily
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

Sidney Merk <sid-ney-merk@hot-mail.com (remove dashes)> skrev i
diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:boCAd.4234$2_4.3590@okepread06...
> "lemonalle" <lemonalle@nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:72c3472c9762ddc9fe026eeb17482465@localhost.talkaboutgaming.com...
> > That's actually a really good idea. It seems to me that some people
have
> > been intentionally giving low scores to undeserving games just to tip
the
> > scales in favor of the one they want to win.
>
> Without knowing what each person voted, how would you know, though? Of
those
> who posted reviews, none seemed unbalanced in that way. The weighting
would
> have to be done by judges lurking in the shadows. Maybe I'm naive, but I'm
> not seeing as much in the score distribution as others might. I can't tell
> that any game was purposely sabotaged, or that any game was purposely
voted
> up. It seems that it would take a pretty large group effort to keep these
> individual attempts from being engulfed by the remainder of votes,
> anyway....
>
> Did you have a specific example from this year's comp?

Assuming that a ten-vote equals 3 points, a nine-vote 2, and an eight-vote
1, (and counting total votes, not average) this is how the top-ten would
look like.

1. Blue Chairs (131)
2. Luminous Horizon (106)
3. All Things Devours (85)
4. Gamlet (83)
5. Sting of the Wasp (77)
6. Square Circle (70)
7. The Orion Agenda (68)
8. The Great Xavio (63)
9. MingSheng (52)
10. Splashdown (42)


The only game that could be suspected of falling victim to "sabotage" is
Gamlet and (perhaps) Xavio. As far as I can see, the only significant change
would be that the comp would seize to be a means of pursuing a personal
vendetta. I'm not sure, however, if that would necessarily be a good thing.
The so-called "IF community" has always been a mighty tempest inside a tiny
tea-pot. What better expression of this than a competition where you can
have the "pleasure" (Emily Short) of voting 1 for a game whose author you
detest?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

"Tomasz Pudlo" <tomaszp@nycmail.com> wrote in message
news:E8FAd.125639$dP1.451965@newsc.telia.net...

>> Did you have a specific example from this year's comp?
>
> Assuming that a ten-vote equals 3 points, a nine-vote 2, and an eight-vote
> 1, (and counting total votes, not average) this is how the top-ten would
> look like.
>
> 1. Blue Chairs (131)
> 2. Luminous Horizon (106)
> 3. All Things Devours (85)
> 4. Gamlet (83)
> 5. Sting of the Wasp (77)
> 6. Square Circle (70)
> 7. The Orion Agenda (68)
> 8. The Great Xavio (63)
> 9. MingSheng (52)
> 10. Splashdown (42)


Hmmm... Xavio bumps Punches, and they're a little shuffled around. Granted,
there are prize and prestige differences that result from that, but in
general, the best games still came up as being voted the best games. I'm not
sure it works by using the actual results (10's, 9's, and 8's), though. It's
likely that many judges voted the same score for multiple games, and that
many judges started (for example) at 8 or 9 and went down from there. The
only way to see a real picture would be if we knew every voter's top three
games, and gave 3, 2, or 1 point accordingly. Presumably the info exists
(since the votes were compiled), but I'm not sure it's worth nagging the
comp coordinators about it. :)

> The only game that could be suspected of falling victim to "sabotage" is
> Gamlet and (perhaps) Xavio. As far as I can see, the only significant
> change
> would be that the comp would seize to be a means of pursuing a personal
> vendetta. I'm not sure, however, if that would necessarily be a good
> thing.
> The so-called "IF community" has always been a mighty tempest inside a
> tiny
> tea-pot. What better expression of this than a competition where you can
> have the "pleasure" (Emily Short) of voting 1 for a game whose author you
> detest?


Honestly, I wasn't even thinking about your game when I asked. You and I
talked about it before the results were even announced, so you probably
remember that I was confused even as to who really wrote it. I initially
thought somebody might be taking a one-sided jab at you, via the competition
entry. On this point, though, you might be right. You (not the game) may
have been voted down regardless of the merits of Gamlet. I'd like to think
those people simply refrained from casting a vote at all, though. Some
probably did. The Gamlet histogram isn't too bottom-heavy, evidenced by a
placing in the top 10.

One way or another, there will be friction. It's a very sedate group in
which there isn't. Further, entering the comp (or releasing a game at all,
for that matter) is an open invitation for all manner of criticism. Even a
3-2-1 scoring guildeline might not have that big an impact on the results.
Instead of getting 1's and 2's, a game would simply receive no votes at all.
The game that gets more votes will still beat the game that gets fewer, just
like the game that gets more 10's than 1's will beat the game that gets more
1's than 10's. I think it works as well as it can, right now.

Fortunately, the comp already allows people to avoid sabotage; enter under
an alias, and don't use subject-matter that links the game back to you. If
you remove the reason for grudge-voting, grudge-voting can't happen. :)

---- Mike
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

Tomasz Pudlo wrote:
>
>
> The only game that could be suspected of falling victim to "sabotage" is
> Gamlet and (perhaps) Xavio. As far as I can see, the only significant change
> would be that the comp would seize to be a means of pursuing a personal
> vendetta. I'm not sure, however, if that would necessarily be a good thing.
> The so-called "IF community" has always been a mighty tempest inside a tiny
> tea-pot. What better expression of this than a competition where you can
> have the "pleasure" (Emily Short) of voting 1 for a game whose author you
> detest?
>
>
>

I can't imagine anyone voted to sabotage The Great Xavio. Some voters
were more impressed with what I hoped was a good idea; some were less
tolerant of the relatively weak implementation. Short of getting one
judge to do it all, different judges are just going to have different
criteria.

I should have implemented better. Oh, well. Next time. I know a lot more
now than I did then.

Reese


--
http://www.reesewarner.com/writing/
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

Michael Lonc wrote:
> bickering and petty
> vindictiveness [...] an excuse for
> pursuing a personal vendetta.

Don't worry, maybe _Gamlet_ will do better in the XYZZYs.

Stephen.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

Here, Walter S. <sisulu@africamail.com> wrote:
> [...]

Here, vincenzo vinciguerra <vvinci@milano.uu.it> wrote:
> [...]

Here, Tomasz Pudlo <tomaszp@nycmail.com> wrote:
> [...]

Same troll, new fake names, new attempts to fool people by arguing
with himself.

--Z

"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
I'm still thinking about what to put in this space.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

Here, Andrew Plotkin <erkyrath@eblong.com> wrote:
> Here, Walter S. <sisulu@africamail.com> wrote:
> > [...]
>
> Here, vincenzo vinciguerra <vvinci@milano.uu.it> wrote:
> > [...]
>
> Here, Tomasz Pudlo <tomaszp@nycmail.com> wrote:
> > [...]

And Graham Grant, I suppose, considering the evidence.

> Same troll, new fake names, new attempts to fool people by arguing
> with himself.

(Or by agreeing with himself, whichever he's in the mood for.)

--Z

"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
I'm still thinking about what to put in this space.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

Perhaps there's a case for anonymous entrys, like the dwellingduels
music contest does (http://dwellingoduels.rock-out.net). In that
contest, everyone enters anonymously. You might think that most people
can guess an author they know by their style, but it's surprisingly
difficult when all the entrys are anonymous... Once voting is over, the
authors are revealed.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

In article <E8FAd.125639$dP1.451965@newsc.telia.net>,
Tomasz Pudlo <tomaszp@nycmail.com> wrote:
>Assuming that a ten-vote equals 3 points, a nine-vote 2, and an eight-vote
>1

Don't you bastards dare.

I'm *never* going to write a top-ten game.

I *might* sieze the mighty Golden Banana of Discord by its fleshy shaft
one day, if I, I dunno, get fired and suddenly have oodles of time and
whiskey in order to write _Mentula Macanus: Apocolocyntosis_.

But in order for that to work, I need a bunch of 10s from people who
think this is a spectacular abuse of the z-System, or who think that
Classical Roman Pr0n is really great, and *also* a bunch of 1s from
people who aren't into antler jobs or dead languages, let alone a
combination of the two. Obviously a simple 1-2-3 system isn't going to
help me there.

Adam
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

Here, Chaotic Harmony <blinkthedarkness@gmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps there's a case for anonymous entrys, like the dwellingduels
> music contest does (http://dwellingoduels.rock-out.net). In that
> contest, everyone enters anonymously. You might think that most people
> can guess an author they know by their style, but it's surprisingly
> difficult when all the entrys are anonymous... Once voting is over, the
> authors are revealed.

With the IFComp, if everyone entered anonymously, it would be
difficult to guess *many* of the authors, but easy to guess some.
("Earth and Sky 3 -- by Anonymous!" doesn't work.) And if someone
wanted to leave clues about his identity, it would be impossible to
prevent.

So, in practice, it would wind up being the same as the current
situation -- people enter anonymously if they want to, or not.

--Z

"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
I'm still thinking about what to put in this space.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

> Amissville, with the same flaws and most of the same virtues -- minus
a
> bit of the vigor. .....

Ahhh, Amissville, doesn't the name ring bells and a host of angels
singing upon hearing? It does for me.

Wow! (notices Emily's skirt is crooked)
*yanks skirt back on straight making sure seem is perfectly aligned
with buttcrack*

Closed eye and Raising hand.."NO need to thank me"

Santoonie.com has a celebratory movie in honor of New Year's eve. A
little music and some hilariousness:

Tomasz! *Tips Hat* My apologies for intruding on your host with an
ashameful santoonie plug. Perhaps this will defer any ill
repute..*tosses a hefty gold purse*.


http://www.santoonie.com/videos/bash.wmv
http://www.santoonie.com/videos/aphill.wmv

I received a most glorious box of Biltmore Estates Wines this past
holiday to which I am currently enjoying. A toast to all.
*raises glass*

A.P. Hill
Happy 2005
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

"Walter S." <sisulu@africamail.com> wrote in message
news:3c4994a3.0412290438.7ca664df@posting.google.com...
> I propose that instead of having as many votes as there are entries,
> voters should have only three votes: Best (3 points), Second Best (2
> points) and Third Best (1 point).

Do you think a majoritarian method would help? It would consider
whether more judges ranked A to be better than B than vice versa,
instead of considering an average ranking, which can be sunk or elevated
by a minority of judges.

Tideman's method seems particularly useful since it necessarily
generates a ranking of all the alternatives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_Pairs

Kevin Venzke
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

The Prophet Tomasz Pudlo known to the wise as tomaszp@nycmail.com, opened the Book of Words, and read unto the people:
>tea-pot. What better expression of this than a competition where you can
>have the "pleasure" (Emily Short) of voting 1 for a game whose author you
>detest?

Emily Short already said a lot of this, but it's worth emphasizing
one side point which was critical for me.

I encountered three games by authors I had prior negative
preconceptions of: Ninja, Zero, and Gamlet. The former two were
reasonably easily judged on their own merits (and I doubt my low
opinion was actually significantly affected by their authors'
reputations), but I chose specifically not to rate Gamlet for one
reason: the appearance in-game of your identity. Your name, and your
agenda as a poster on this group, are extrinsic information. I may
have a strong feeling on them, but they're not part of the game. But
putting yourself (or your identity, or some sort of pastiche like the
one you've assembled as your identity here) in the game necessarily
broke that down, and basically _asked_ people to import their
preconceptions. I didn't think I could do so impartially, and
refrained from voting.

I'm not saying that self-insertion is forbidden -- Chris Klimas did it
subtly enough that almost nobody actually noticed -- but if you have a
strong real-world personality and you associate a game character with
the name attached to that character, you're basically _asking_ people
to judge, not just your work, but you. Some of us surely felt
uncomfortable doing so and like myself refrained from voting. Others
may not, but I can hardly speak for them.

To reiterate one of Emily's points: you've established that you have
significant talent and imagination and interesting ideas to share. Why
are you wasting your energy on the trivial and pointless task of
pissing people off? I for one would be interested in seeing your next
work of IF.

--
D. Jacob (Jake) Wildstrom, Math monkey and freelance thinker

"A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into theorems."
-Alfred Renyi

The opinions expressed herein are not necessarily endorsed by the
University of California or math department thereof.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

"Jake Wildstrom" <dwildstr@zeno.ucsd.edu> wrote in message
news:cr4f3g$enb$1@news1.ucsd.edu...

> To reiterate one of Emily's points: you've established that you have
> significant talent and imagination and interesting ideas to share. Why
> are you wasting your energy on the trivial and pointless task of
> pissing people off?

For the same reason that all trolls troll: they get a kick out of annoying
people.
 

Mol

Distinguished
Oct 6, 2001
8
0
18,510
Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

David Whyld wrote:
> For the same reason that all trolls troll: they get a kick out of
annoying
> people.

I don't think it's quite that simple. Most trolls I've encountered have
some
sort of agenda. Pudlo seems to have at least two.

(Of course, having - or seeming to have - an agenda is one thing that
tends
to annoy people).


--
Magnus Olsson (mol@df.lth.se)
PGP Public Key available at http://www.df.lth.se/~mol
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

It's real simple, this community just needs a panel of bipartisan
judges, People who care less about IF but possess common karnal
knowledge enough to judge games. People like the staff at the Weather
Channel could judge our games, or.. editors from Sports Illustrated.
Voting, judging and dancing amongst ourselves simply spins in circles.
That's why I don't hide behind a psudeonism, I come to the party pants
off.

A.P. Hill
 

pj

Distinguished
Apr 12, 2004
205
0
18,680
Archived from groups: rec.games.int-fiction (More info?)

Mike Snyder wrote:
> "Magnus Olsson" <mol@df.lth.se> wrote in message

> > This is also why I don't like sequels: anybody seeing that a
certain
> > entry is a sequel to a previous entry (or sharing the same world or
> > characters) is going to get certain expectations, good or bad.
>
> Yikes -- I'm working on a Trading Punches prequel for Spring Thing
'05...
> although it'll be a non-issue if I don't get cracking on it again.

I think a good rule would be that you can't do prequels or sequels in
the same comp, but you could enter them in different comps, of course.
Since a sequel from the IF Comp to the C32 comp would be quite
different, it wouldn't matter that it was a sequel. The same thing for
Spring Thing vs. IF Comp -- they are supposedly different enough in
their format that there shouldn't be a problem. But if someone wrote
one really long, good game, divided it into thirds (a la Zork) for the
IF Comp, then won every year, the question would be, why not just enter
it into the Spring Thing as a single entry? A no sequel/prequel idea
for each comp would also foster the goal of getting people to develop
new ideas, not just expanding on old ones.

> > And, for the record: I don't think the expectations or
preconceptions
> > are a bg problem per se. The big problem is that the very
possibility
> > of prejudice makes the judgin process suspect. If, say, Zarf wins
the
> > next Comp, there will be people saying that he won just because
he's
> > Zarf. If the game was entered anonymously, people wouldn't be able
to
> > say that.
>
> Point taken (although I think his prior entries have been anonymous,
> anyway).

There really is no way to make the authors anonymous. The anonymous
entries always seem to be known by some of the judges and people can
always think of ways to let folks know they have an entry and which one
it is. I don't think the top authors get more benefit from their names
as much as the scoring seems to contribute not to identifying the
"best" game, but an "optimax" game being selected. People have
commented over and over how EAS3: LH won because it was most people's
2nd or 3rd choice. I don't think Paul's name got votes that high, but
rather it was the quality of the game that led most folks to put it in
their top three.

On the other hand, either ATD or Blue Chairs arguably could've,
should've won, maybe. So considering how the voting system should be
weighted is probably the real solution. I'm not familiar with the
current algorithm, but if it's just highest average score then
obviously that's going to hurt otherwise superb but challenging games
like those two. Introducing a partial pairs or similar scoring scheme,
or weighting 10 votes higher than 9 votes, etc., would cure a lot of
that problem.

PJ
 

TRENDING THREADS