runouw.com

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).

SuperMIC wrote: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).

SuperMIC wrote: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.

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.

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.

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.

I always assumed 'fun' was gameplay actually.

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

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.

You see Shroom, the problem with your post right here is that you are comparing Level Designing Contests to a sport event, and judges to referees. By that, you are admitting that there is some sort of general guidelines, like lines on the ground and nets at both ends of the court, as how to actually judge a level. Truth is, there is not. To judge a level, there is no clear line on the ground to tell you if the level is right or is wrong for a very simple reason: It's going to sound cheesy, but it's the downright truth: You don't judge a level with your reasoning and counting how many coins there are in a level, but with your heart, with your feelings. You base your scores based on how you felt after playing level, based on the different emotions of joy, frustration or awe you encountered when playing the level, therefore a level is more comparable to a cultural piece (artwork, movie) than a sport match. Therefore, there is no way there is such a thing as a "mistake" when judging a level. Here, let me use an example that is surprising close to Level Designing Contests to illustrate.

My example is Dark Souls. For those who don't know, Dark Souls is a exploration/adventure video game that supposedly is extremely difficult, with unforgiving parts, almost unfair gameplay and extremely rare save points. Jeez, that sounds rather similar to some levels we had to judge in the past, doesn't it? Anyway, to cite an example, probably the most crucial item in the game, necessary to advance, is hidden very deep in the game and the game doesn't give you ANY clue as how to obtain it. Opinions about the game are divided into two groups: one side blames the game for its obviously frustrating gameplay, while the other side claims it to be one of the greatest games because this sense of helplessness is one of the most ingenious game design in any video game. Obviously opinions feel rather different, even complete opposites, but does that necessarily mean that one of the sides is wrong and the other one is right? No. Because everyone's opinion on the game is based on what they enjoy in a video game, their opinion on game design in general, it's how they are, it's how they feel, and because of that they can't be wrong.

Now, let's say we take a sample from everyone that can have an opinion on Dark Souls. Let's say, uh... 5 people, we'll call them judges. Four of them happen to dislike the game entirely, they all give it an average score because it plays well and have decent graphics, but it's still very frustrating. The last one just happens to love the game, because it's exactly what he expected to see in a video game, he gives it a pretty high score. Now, because we only have a smaller sample, because that one guy rated much higher than the others, does that mean he'll have to consider his thought process, question his feelings about the game, reconsider his judging? No! We (hopefully) agreed up there that his opinion was a valid opinion. It's an opinion like any other, but he just happened to be the only one who felt that way about the game in the given sample. Does that mean is opinion is NOW wrong? Still no, because that would be concerning.

What I'm trying to say is, as different as it is from the "pseudo-norm" you guys are defining, an opinion, a score, cannot be wrong because it's more based on our emotions, than on actual facts. I'm not saying that there are no rules a level should follow (for example Dark Souls is still beatable, similarly, a level should be beatable), but a difference, even a drastic one, is more than normal when judging because, as I said in another post, we are only human.

With all that in mind, I think judging should continue as it is right now; however, I think it should be a good idea that the host check the scores before posting the results. If a score is way too different from the average from the other judges (say, 5-point difference) on a specific level, then he should check the justifications for this score. If then the host is not satisfied with the justification, he could have the right (if you guys still think we need it) to ask the judge to either reconsider his judging, or give more justifications. However, as proven by the current 25quared LDC, a systematic process (with the meeting of the judges) in ALL LDCs with ALL judges is most of the times unnecessary and hard to plan (getting all judges online at the same time is pretty hard).

Just my honest and non-aggressive two cents.

Shroom. On paper, judges and referees seem to be the same. However, they're two completely different roles. Referees role is to make sure that everyone follows the rules, clear instructions of how you play a game. If you break the rules, it's his job to call you out, as you broke the rules, making the game unfair for your team. While I'm not gonna imply that the job is simple, his role is founded on something that is either black or white. You follow the rules, or you break them. There is no middle ground.

On the other hand a Judge is someone who will review and rate someone's work based on their preference and opinion. While there obviously are rules of what you should praise and what you shouldn't (like deducting points for no 1UPs in the level), there is also a large gray area in between the "right" and "wrong". There are no clear cut instructions on what is a perfect level, or a bad one. What appeals to one person may not appeal to the other. One, two, million opinion's of judges does not make that opinion fact and never will.

An example: What music do you listen to? I listen to Rock mostly. However in almost all cases, I cannot stand Dubstep. It does not sound appealing and I do not like the weird noises it makes. I also do not enjoy rap. I feel like it's kind of pretentious talking. Or Pop because... I dunno. I just don't like it.

Now tell me, are these justifications invalid because another group of people likes rap/pop/dubstep? Is my opinion wrong because my opinion is different to that group of people? Is their opinion wrong because their opinion differs?

How about another example. Try and rate a piece of abstract art. Like this. To many people it may look very appealing and interesting. To another these will look like someone sneezed on a canvas and sold it for overly large price. It is not interesing or good. Is his opinion wrong because he is the single outlier to the trend?

Referees rely on facts that are listed in the book. Judges do not. And while rules for things like football may be amended, it still doesn't change the fact that their role is to call out the wrong. A Judge cannot do that, since their judging is by nature subjective. There are no clear 'rules' for a perfect level. Perfection is different to everyone.

@EDIT: Also by StarK. He basically said what I said, except you don't need to decrypt his ♥♥♥♥.

StarEDIT: Haha, sorry. Funny how we said very similar things though