runouw.com

Well, I'm going to say this one last time because I'm already tired of all this: If you have an opinion as a judge, and can defend it with valid reasons, then why should the discussion be a problem for you? This discussion is not really to settle scores that were not rating according to the majority, but rather to prove that your score was fair. This shouldn't only apply to the judges whose scores don't match, it should apply for all them.

This is an official competition, guys. Of course the fun you have with the level counts. But remember to rate not only on what you feel, but on what you actually see (or play in this case). Of course you can still say "This level was not really fun to play" as long as you still point out the "However, I noticed this level had this and this", and "But this level felt fresh because of its concepts", if that's the case. If you don't have fun playing a level, yet it's a noticeably good level, then you should take everything, not only your fun in consideration, or vice-versa.

Maybe your alternative with the host checking the scores and then asking the judges about the discrepancies, could be a good one too, since it'd be easier. As long as the host takes the responsibility for this from now on as well.

Yurimaster wrote:Well, I'm going to say this one last time because I'm already tired of all this: If you have an opinion as a judge, and can defend it with valid reasons, then why should the discussion be a problem for you? This discussion is not really to settle scores that were not rating according to the majority, but rather to prove that your score was fair. This shouldn't only apply to the judges whose scores don't match, it should apply for all them.

Except judges already give (sometimes really detailed) justifications inside their ratings exactly for that reason. A discussion after that just sounds redundant. Unless necessary for only specific cases, but not all levels and all judges in every LDC.

Yurimaster wrote:This is an official competition, guys. Of course the fun you have with the level counts. But remember to rate not only on what you feel, but on what you actually see (or play in this case). Of course you can still say "This level was not really fun to play" as long as you still point out the "However, I noticed this level had this and this", and "But this level felt fresh because of its concepts", if that's the case. If you don't have fun playing a level, yet it's a noticeably good level, then you should take everything, not only your fun in consideration, or vice-versa.

I never said you should ONLY judge based on what you feel, as I pointed out in my post, there are also rules that apply to levels. Also, to be honest, "freshness" in a level is a pretty subjective topic, it depends on the judge, how easily impressed they are, but also how many levels they play: the concept could have appeared in another level that he hadn't play. Just saying.

If the level isn't enjoyable it's failed to carry any of its good concepts.

If we're required to have your train of thoughts we're better off having a code of how many points you're required to give each and every element of a level rather than having judges.

MessengerOfDreams wrote:If the level isn't enjoyable it's failed to carry any of its good concepts.

It's not because you don't find it enjoyable that it doesn't have good concepts.

Star king wrote:Except judges already give (sometimes really detailed) justifications inside their ratings exactly for that reason. A discussion after that just sounds redundant. Unless necessary for only specific cases, but not all levels and all judges in every LDC.

I said in my post that your alternative where the host checks the scores and talk with the judges whose score is a bit off might be better because it is easier. And isn't it much better to have the whole discussion before the results then after everybody knows the results causing more actual conflict than it should?

Yurimaster wrote:I said in my post that your alternative where the host checks the scores and talk with the judges whose score is a bit off might be better because it is easier. And isn't it much better to have the whole discussion before the results then after everybody knows the results causing more actual conflict than it should?

This is actually what I did in the 23rd LDC and assumed that was what every host did too, up until now. That is how it should be as ultimately it's the host's responsibility to organise and fix any issues as it's their LDC.

Yurimaster wrote:

MessengerOfDreams wrote:If the level isn't enjoyable it's failed to carry any of its good concepts.

It's not because you don't find it enjoyable that it doesn't have good concepts.

See? This is exactly what I'm talking about. Different opinions like these are what causes different scores. It's normal, it's common.

Yurimaster wrote:And isn't it much better to have the whole discussion before the results then after everybody knows the results causing more actual conflict than it should?

I can only agree with that.

If you make a level with a good concept but you've broken it beyond repair I cannot effectively take part in its good concepts b

host checking once wouldn't be bad, we know what happened with me and Omniquet







woof

If concepts and difficulty are effectively broken indeed, all judges should normally recognize this. It's just the question how highly you value the thoughts the author still had behind what he has done. If a level was very hard, or even insane to play, but still was very innovative and interesting and could have been absolutely brilliant if done right, I'd still give it around 6 points at least in Gameplay. If a judge is too driven by emotion, he'll give it only 2 or 3 or such. To be objective, keep trying to differ between good and bad and don't let emotions like frustration or anger about the difficulty carry over too much to the score you give.

Host check? Well, as staff members hosts can truly be expected to be competent enough for it. But I'd still prefer a dialogue between all judges about a level with "off" scores. Pretty much I stick to what I've proposed here.

The fact of the matter is that each judge specializes in noticing different things or have different viewpoints, something this objectivity ordinance is effectively working to crush. It isn't a conspiracy theory against people based off of emotion. Even in the 25quared LDC, I've noticed I'm more big picture and willing to forgive non game breaking flaws, others believe that if a level has flawed gameplay it fails at its purpose. And some view it from a more artistic angle. Trying to force objectivity, which is essentially like I said giving a guideline of how much each level is forced to obtain in its score, turning judges into market testers, is fruitless and destructive to allowing people to form opinions about levels.