intfiction.org

The Interactive Fiction Community Forum
It is currently Sat Dec 16, 2017 11:21 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 118 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 12  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Oct 03, 2016 9:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:51 pm
Posts: 401
Something that a lot of authors, particularly new authors, may not be aware of is that a non-trivial amount of people have mentioned, in public, that they either plan to or are tempted to automatically vote 1 for every game that updated during the comp, regardless of why they updated. They're buried in page 11 of old forum threads here as well as external forums, but they exist. (The posts are written very much in "oh me, oh my, should I do this terrible thing? Of course I won't, but oh, the temptation! However can one resist?" tone, one that strikes me as rather disingenuous.) Given that several authors have already pushed updates, I thought it best that those who have not should have full knowledge of this, if they would like to avoid 1 votes.

It's instructive to think about just what this would entail. Fixed one typo? 1. Added a tester to the credits who wasn't there before? 1. Got caught by that Quixe interpreter bug (emphasis on interpreter; it has nothing to do with authors' code or effort) that most people hadn't heard of until September 30 and that is only really noticeable once you'd already uploaded a game? 1. All of these are real examples from real updates in this year's comp.

For those of you who weren't following the aforementioned 11-page forum threads, this is a significant piece of unsettled discussion and unfinished community business that is now returning to roost. If the comp provides an option to update one's games during the comp, it is fair to also ask that authors not be penalized for taking that option. I don't think this is an unreasonable stance. The rules for judges don't address this explicitly, but it would seem to fall under the purview of rule 7, "Every rating asserts that the judge who submitted it made a good-faith effort to actually play that game as intended. The competition organizers reserve the right to disqualify any ratings that appear to have been submitted under any other circumstances.""


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Oct 03, 2016 11:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2015 10:41 pm
Posts: 31
Location: Canada
Wait, what? People are saying they'd do that? That's... wow, no.

The only reason I'd vote a 1 is if the game is busted to the point it doesn't work, it's not IF (like... it's an FPS or something), or it's grossly offensive. I'll even try it again and change my rating if it was busted, then the author updates it so it runs.

Now, I don't think it's unfair to play and rate a work based on an older un-updated version if that's what was available when you got around to playing it, but I also don't understand why an update would be considered a bad thing in any way.

This is all news to me. Confusing news. :|


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Oct 03, 2016 11:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 3:58 pm
Posts: 773
Has Rule 7 ever been invoked?

My impression is that Rule 7 is being reserved for only obvious and egregious cases of inappropriate judging. I think the organizers will only use it if the evidence is as clear as a smoking gun, and the number of votes have to be significant as well. I believe Rule 7 won't be used to moderate a minority of community members with prejudices, even if they publicly blog that they hate (and 1-vote) mid-comp updates, or Twine, or non-downloadable games, or whatever.

Here's what I propose:

1) Authors who are opposed to the practice of 1-voting updated games should submit an update today, even if it changes nothing, to stand in solidarity with other authors.

2) I'm a bit surprised/disappointed to see that there's still no way to submit text comments with IFComp votes, which I think could help to move this conversation forward. (Maybe next year.) If authors could point to results and say, "It says here I got eight 1-votes for my mid-comp update," then there'd at least be evidence to discuss, as opposed to speculation.

_________________
At Choice of Games, we sell long-form choice-based interactive fiction games. We're looking for writers, paid in advance.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Oct 03, 2016 11:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 04, 2014 11:35 am
Posts: 229
If anything, an updated game seems to be an indicator of quality; it looks like all the ones I've played and really enjoyed so far have updated, while two games released with serious implementation problems haven't been touched. I would guess that updating the game mid-comp is correlated with paying attention to reviews and player feedback and striving to fix errors at all stages of the process, which is why those games were already in a pretty solid state when they were released.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Oct 03, 2016 11:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2016 7:13 pm
Posts: 203
Lucea wrote:
Something that a lot of authors, particularly new authors, may not be aware of is that a non-trivial amount of people have mentioned, in public, that they either plan to or are tempted to automatically vote 1 for every game that updated during the comp, regardless of why they updated. They're buried in page 11 of old forum threads here as well as external forums, but they exist. (The posts are written very much in "oh me, oh my, should I do this terrible thing? Of course I won't, but oh, the temptation! However can one resist?" tone, one that strikes me as rather disingenuous.) Given that several authors have already pushed updates, I thought it best that those who have not should have full knowledge of this, if they would like to avoid 1 votes.


Other people here are correct, 1 is reserved for broken and unplayable games.

The repercussions of an author entering an unpolished game are already ingrained in the system. Judges are not required to replay/re-vote on games that were updated. Updating the game is only for the benefit of judges who have not played it yet, to enhance their experience, and it also allows an author to increase their potential score. This is a win-win for everyone, while still creating an incentive for authors to enter a fully polished game from the start. It is a very reasonable system, and it disgusts me that people would go around giving 1s without proper justification.

_________________
Born2Clean


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 12:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2013 2:18 pm
Posts: 148
1) I would agree that it's not really reasonable to auto-vote 1 on a game just because the author chose to update it, especially when they are following the rules of the competition.

2) I think I agree with Dan here. This kind of "punishment voting" would probably run afoul of the existing Rule 7. So there's really no reason anyone should be doing this at all, whether or not they think it's a good idea (which again it isn't).

3) Perhaps it'd be worthwhile to add some clarifying wording to the Judge Guidelines, just like we did when the public discussion rule was changed. Something like "You should not be penalizing authors for doing things which are explicitly permitted by the rules (such as updating their games over the course of the competition)." Except written better by somebody smarter at a time other than 1am.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 12:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2016 7:13 pm
Posts: 203
bphennessy wrote:
Perhaps it'd be worthwhile to add some clarifying wording to the Judge Guidelines, just like we did when the public discussion rule was changed. Something like "You should not be penalizing authors for doing things which are explicitly permitted by the rules (such as updating their games over the course of the competition)."



No consideration should be given to these scoundrels, Rule 7 needs to be enforced without mercy.

I think it should be fairly obvious who is doing it based on who is consistently giving 1s to updated games that the majority of judges are ranking as average or above.

_________________
Born2Clean


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 12:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2016 7:13 pm
Posts: 203
Billy Mays wrote:
bphennessy wrote:
Perhaps it'd be worthwhile to add some clarifying wording to the Judge Guidelines, just like we did when the public discussion rule was changed. Something like "You should not be penalizing authors for doing things which are explicitly permitted by the rules (such as updating their games over the course of the competition)."



No consideration should be given to these scoundrels, Rule 7 needs to be enforced without mercy.

I think it should be fairly obvious who is doing it based on who is consistently giving 1s to updated games that the majority of judges are ranking as average or above.



While I still stand firm in my beliefs on what I wrote here, I think you are on to something in that they should make an additional rule next year that states a 1 is reserved for broken and unplayable games. While they could still give a 2, at least it would be a step in the right direction to correcting this problem. They could also give this new rule a nasty name that ridicules the culprits.

Additionally, and I imagine this would be very difficult to coordinate, but if all of the authors and people who run the IFComp were to agree to discard outliers in the judging, I believe this would also help to resolve the problem.

And since I am very tired as well, I feel it is pertinent to wonder why "outliers" is considered a misspelled word here. It is a very reasonable and common word.

_________________
Born2Clean


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 1:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2015 10:41 pm
Posts: 31
Location: Canada
Well, you say a 1 is reserved for broken and unplayable games. I generally agree, except I absolutely would award a 1 for a grossly objectionable game. And I mean grossly objectionable. Something wildly racist, for example. I think that's a perfectly legitimate use of a 1.


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Oct 04, 2016 1:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2016 7:13 pm
Posts: 203
Arclight_Dynamo wrote:
Well, you say a 1 is reserved for broken and unplayable games. I generally agree, except I absolutely would award a 1 for a grossly objectionable game. And I mean grossly objectionable. Something wildly racist, for example. I think that's a perfectly legitimate use of a 1.


You do bring up a valid argument against my proposed 1 rule. I still believe removing outliers in the judging average would satisfy your concern, and the concerns of the authors who got cheated. If something is that grossly objectionable, then your 1 isn't going to be that far off of the average, and would be counted.

_________________
Born2Clean


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 118 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 12  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group