Request for Transparency

[Harmless]

I completely agree ven, but my problem is not 'judges don't communicate enough and peer review others for any mishaps', but rather, 'what if the judges completely disagree on a topic already readily checked by both respective judges?'. For all you know, one judge could've thought a platforming segment was the greatest thing they ever played, and another judge could completely disagree and say it was frustrating, repetitive, and was a bad difficulty spike.

[MessengerOfDreams]

Yeah, my problem is the other three trying to mold the one to submission despite having valid points.

[Harmless]

This post by Harmless was thumbed up by:

Oranjui (May 25th, 2015, 9:54 am)

[SuperMIC]

Another problem, although mostly unlikely, is the issue of bias. Given the fact that judges are allowed to enter LDCs, there could be some inevitable bias with judges trying to nudge their levels a little bit. Unfortunately, I can speak from experience during WITBLOAT judgings.

That being said, the WITBLOAT judging process is efficient and effective and everyone's usually happy at the end. So maybe we could give this a try.

[Supershroom]

Another problem, although mostly unlikely, is the issue of bias. Given the fact that judges are allowed to enter LDCs, there could be some inevitable bias with judges trying to nudge their levels a little bit.

I don't think any of our reliable judges would go like "oh, this level will be a strong contender for me, let's look for -0.25's I can dock off".

Even the often-quoted Chau in the 6th LDC didn't do that for his own gain, he just has/had very strict standards and he also had them in other LDC's he didn't enter.

[~MP3 Amplifier~]

I don't think any of our reliable judges would go like "oh, this level will be a strong contender for me, let's look for -0.25's I can dock off".

This is one of the main things, really. People's opinions on the judgings they receive heavily depend on if you trust the judges or not. Personally, I think if someone has been given permission to judge, people need to put their faith in them otherwise it's only inevitable that conflict will break out at some point.




I've entered a lot of LDCs and in nearly every LDC I can remember, there was always one score that I really didn't like and wished could be higher.
This is perfectly natural and it's not the judges' fault, they were just doing their job. If it's a really unfair point reduction, then fair enough, if we go through with these meetings, hopefully we can knock out any of those before releasing the results. But if it's down to pure opinion then I think anything has a right to stay the same if that's how the player feels about that level.

[Harmless]

Now that I think about it, backup judges serve the purpose of judging the Judges's levels so we don't have another accidental chau.

So technically the 6th LDC shenanigans shouldn't be a worry.

[nin10mode]

This post by nin10mode was thumbed up by:

Venexis (May 7th, 2015, 9:20 am)

[Harmless]

That's a good point. So maybe discussion can occur between judges about a level not including the Judge who made the level? I think that's the best course of option.

[-BY]

You guys ok with closing the poll by end of this week?