Request for Transparency

[SuperMIC]

I think there's a little bit of miscommunication going on here: What Yuri's trying to say (correct me if I'm wrong bae) is that if a situation occurs such that an outlier score exists, then that judge just needs to talk with the others about why and provide a strong reasoning for the score. Which is still what Doram and Ven are saying: if it's justifiable, fine, but outlier points have a potential to be caused by some faulty reasoning.

However, there is something that I have to agree with MoD on here: and that is that "I didn't have fun" is indeed a valid reason to give a score. Obviously, the judge would need copious details on why they didn't have fun: breaking down their experiences with specific level sections, etc. But again, the category is literally called "Fun" for a reason. The point of a game is for it to be actually fun. To say "I didn't enjoy this, but it looks like I should enjoy this" is not solid reasoning, and in fact, the discussion would cause that judge to lower their points (yes this happened during our discussion, sorry fellow peoples yes the discussion can cause judges to lower scores as well).

[~Yuri]

I think there's a little bit of miscommunication going on here: What Yuri's trying to say (correct me if I'm wrong bae) is that if a situation occurs such that an outlier score exists, then that judge just needs to talk with the others about why and provide a strong reasoning for the score. Which is still what Doram and Ven are saying: if it's justifiable, fine, but outlier points have a potential to be caused by some faulty reasoning.

Yup, that's exactly what I was trying to say (ty <3).

However, there is something that I have to agree with MoD on here: and that is that "I didn't have fun" is indeed a valid reason to give a score. Obviously, the judge would need copious details on why they didn't have fun: breaking down their experiences with specific level sections, etc. But again, the category is literally called "Fun" for a reason. The point of a game is for it to be actually fun. To say "I didn't enjoy this, but it looks like I should enjoy this" is not solid reasoning, and in fact, the discussion would cause that judge to lower their points (yes this happened during our discussion, sorry fellow peoples yes the discussion can cause judges to lower scores as well).

The category's name has changed for that exact same reason actually. It's not "Fun" anymore, it's "Gameplay", because the judge should be telling what he thinks about the gameplay. If there's any kind of innovative gameplay, good execution of a concept, and of course, if the level is fun should be counted on this category.

[MessengerOfDreams]

That was an official change? I still call it fun. And again you seem to talk like there's a gameplay criteria we are required to meet the standards of.

[~Yuri]

Yeah, we talked about that on the LeMod forums before, and everybody supported the new names. So yeah, it's an official change yup.

And what I was trying to say is that you should not only consider your personal fun now. You should consider the difficulty, the innovation in the gameplay, the execution, and again, fun.

[-BY]

The Fun/Gameplay section is indeed not just one thing. It can and should be split up into it's different sections. Afterwards it can of course get summarized again.
While reading through the most recent posts, I've kind of a feel that there are people who actually missed the part that the "Fun" score is more than just one single thing, but is rather a collection of those. Furthermore I personally see my general feel of it as a part of said collection rather than the whole thing in general. Now I'm like wondering if this whole misunderstanding originates from the sole definition of the gameplay/fun score actually.

[Harmless]

I always assumed 'fun' was gameplay actually.

[-BY]

Inb4 we need to get down to the roots and explain what every aspect actually is supposed to cover.

[Supershroom]

This entire "blowout" solely originated from me just asking about how things go, and then certain people suddenly feeling the need of destructively provoking and to get their own back on me while I've already made the concessions the staff and others wanted to hear all the time. Some people (including me) tried to mediate and hold a constructive discussion, but others kept jumping on that train of venting all their ressentiments and aggressivity, instead of giving me a chance to keep my promises.

And to those who say "everything justifiable is alright". You're all lacking a concrete definition of "what is justifying", because in general it's not possible to justify scores simply by your own stamp of infallibility or something like that.

Also Doram, I seriously disapprove of your accusation of my complaints about "unfairness" (or what appeared to be unfair to me) being an INSULT, and of your reasoning, "the judge tried to be as fair as possible". He is still fallibe. Referees also try to be as fair and as unbiased as possible. And still they make mistakes, sometimes even very embarassing mistakes. There is the thing about the so called "factual decision", but everyone supporting the irrevocability of judgings / a ref's decision forgets that judges / refs not only decide facts, they also create facts.

I'll say it again if it's necessary, quit your ressentiments.

I actually think that if you're reading through the Judging style topic, it's already pretty much clear what's to be covered in Gameplay and Graphics. There may just be some explanation needs on the Other tier, as judges actually have very diversified ranges of plus / minus points, and also sometimes put things in Other that are already covered else-where. I'd maybe give an extra deduct for lots of cutoff or enemy spam, as well as a +0.5 for extremely well done gameplay mechanics or a very beautiful tiling / decoration scheme, but I'd never dock off a -0.5 saying "The level is far too hard" as I've already covered that in Gameplay. Some more unification could help to prevent that one judge gives 4/5 in Other and another only gives 1/5.

[Doram]

This post by Asterocrat was thumbed up by:

Doram (May 28th, 2015, 2:13 pm)

[Konradix]

This post by Konradix was thumbed up by:

Asterocrat (May 28th, 2015, 6:46 am)