Discussion about a reform on LDCs

[Venexis]

It would be harder because LDCs are slowly losing participants- not as many people are willing to judge these days, and even fewer are able to do it within a reasonable time frame.

[Harmless]

Supershroom, I dunno, I would still like a chance to participate against amp and moy when people need judges.

I already gave my two cents about it in the 27th LDC thread, but still. Quite frankly, I don't think it would work.

The Darkwater Haven entrant for the 2nd 25quared Mini-LDC is a pretty good example as to why this reform would seriously harm the system if this reform was made. Moy and Amp were, surprisingly generous because they liked the exploration, yet KABOOM had a different opinion and gave me a lower score (which I appreciate, I would not like winning with a level that was potentially controversial in the fun category). Thus it secured the place the level deserved, because needless to say, Moy thought the exploration was a unique challenge, KABOOM thought there could have been more than just swimming through a semi-maze. Now if we took your system and cut off Moy and KABOOM's judgings, then Amp would be left and the level would've secured an undeserved 2nd place or something. (The level was made for primarily graphical and mood intent anyway, not so much gameplay.)

Anyways, point is, I don't see a problem with our current method for LDC's. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[Supershroom]

Like I've mentioned, please don't examine the consequences on earlier LDC's, since you can't imagine which scores the additional judges would have given. If we want to know the consequences better, all we can do is test it out in a future LDC or mini-LDC. And if we don't get 5 judges due to absolutely noone being willed, we still do it like we use to right now. And with my idea, like I've denoted, we can kill two birds with one stone: Mistakes and manipulations are curtailed and judges still can participate.

[NanTheDark]

I offer to be a Judge in the next LD... if you guys like. You can forbid me from participating in it if you want to. I don't care.

[MessengerOfDreams]

I'll examine whatever I think is a valid argument. You can't say "we're gonna talk about my idea but you aren't allowed to make these arguments."

[Harmless]

I'll examine whatever I think is a valid argument. You can't say "we're gonna talk about my idea but you aren't allowed to make these arguments."

^

And if we don't get 5 judges due to absolutely noone being willed, we still do it like we use to right now. And with my idea, like I've denoted, we can kill two birds with one stone: Mistakes and manipulations are curtailed and judges still can participate.

How about no. Are you seriously suggesting that mistakes and manipulations have been done consecutively over the years and LDC's in Runouw, including the 27th LDC? I mean, sure, the chau-method might have been one example, but Chau has already apologized and that is, as far as I'm concerned, the only time an accidental 'manipulation' has been done in the judgings. Again, if it isn't broke, don't fix it. Our current judging system is fine as it is, and doesn't need fixing.

If we want to know the consequences better, all we can do is test it out in a future LDC or mini-LDC.

Or we can just not go into a blind experiment and examine the consequences of doing this. To be honest, I prefer my method.

[Chaukai]

I think the anonymous entries is honestly the most effective without going through the falling out thing. Maybe I'm not just reading it right, but what is deciding which score gets chosen to be removed?

Also just because a new idea hasn't been implemented doesn't mean we can't compare it with what happened before. If I make a device that will end the world I can't say that nobody can say anything against it because it's never been done before. We can try things out but that doesn't mean we can't critique it.

[CedarBranch]

I think there's some kind of motive behind this thread. --Just putting that out there.

[Nwolf]

I still don't see the point in doing this - if a level is not fun for a judge and he also can't see technical skill in it, it's a valid reason to give it a low score.


About the anonymous thing: I don't think it really works. At least for me it didn't really change the way (I) judged the levels, MP3 still ended with the highest score etc.

[MessengerOfDreams]

I don't view the Chau thing as a fault of anyone. Chau wasn't intending to rig the LDC- he was a harsh judge, but he knew levels, and things happened as a consequence. That might be a case for the implementation of "stranger" judges where no one from the LDC judges, because it does lead to a bug where the only one who isn't affected by their judging style is themselves. It happened in the 25th LDC- I was a super happy judge so I gave high scores. Nwolf was more middle of the road, so my high score gave him the win, but again, Nwolf has judged 35,000 LDCs with no incident. Nwolf and Aznchau made levels worthy of winning.

The only bug in an LDC result I saw was in the 7th. Blablob won with only two judgings, one of which was from someone who didn't design and therefore was more pleasantly surprised by Blab's level, but didn't judge anyone else's for context, giving Blab the advantage. That's why I think a full lineup of experienced judges is most important, not imaginary biases.