[alt-comp] dfan has joined the channel.
[alt-comp] zarf has joined the channel.
[alt-comp] DorianX has joined the channel.
[alt-comp] Limax has joined the channel.
[alt-comp] dfan says, "There hasn't really been much discussion"
[alt-comp] Sargent says, "One argument about dfan's structure I have is a selfish one: it's a lot 
    more work on organizers."
[alt-comp] Jearl has joined the channel.
[alt-comp] DorianX asks, "Reader's digest version of the proposeds structure?"
[alt-comp] dfan says, "markm said he liked the idea, but liked your yes/no system better than the 
    regular rating one I had"
[alt-comp] dfan says (to DorianX), "OK, let me summarize, because markm found a good way to 
    summarize my proposal"
[alt-comp] dfan says, "8-week comp (say)"
[alt-comp] (from DorianX) dfan says "The End"
[alt-comp] Limax says (to DX), "Ha."
[alt-comp] dfan says, "After 5 weeks, the votes are totalled (secretly) and places 11-37 are 
    announced"
[alt-comp] Limax says, "Wait.. this sounds like the Hugos."
[alt-comp] dfan says, "From then on, people may only rate the ten remaining games"
[alt-comp] zarf says, "alt-comp I was specifically thinking of the Hugos when I was replying, yes."
[alt-comp] DGlasser has joined the channel.
[alt-comp] Sargent asks, "Hugos?"
[alt-comp] Sargent says, "Oh, the science fiction Hugos. Not the IF Hugo."
[alt-comp] Limax says (to Sarge), "The Hugo awards."
[alt-comp] dfan says, "So, the idea is, people who don't want to play all the games can jump in at 
    that point and just vote on the best stuff"
[alt-comp] Limax says, "Hmm.. that's kind of bad for those that aren't in that group."
[alt-comp] DorianX says, "Hm. Not sure I like it that much"
[alt-comp] Limax says, "I think people enter this contest to get their games played, as much as 
    anything."
[alt-comp] DGlasser asks, "I presume that you just posted something about this to rgif?"
[alt-comp] dfan says (to DGlasser), "raif, I think"
[alt-comp] zarf says, "I decided that it was okay because there could still be lots of reviews and 
    discussion of the non-finalists, after the first round."
[alt-comp] Rob has joined the channel.
[alt-comp] dfan says, "Right"
[alt-comp] Limax says, "Hm."
[alt-comp] zarf says, "I'm still not sure if I think this is a *good* idea, but it's the first major 
    comp change that I haven't hated."
[alt-comp] DGlasser waits for his rgif index to rebuild.  Maybe I should only keep a year or so of 
    backlog
[alt-comp] zarf says, "(Sincewe dropped the TADS and Inform division.)"
[alt-comp] dfan says (to Limax), "I think a bunch of people would still play all the games"
[alt-comp] Limax asks, "What about those authors who enter the first part, but are not in the top 
    10?  Do they get to vote then?"
[alt-comp] Sargent says, "The main arguments I see over and over re: the comp are 1) too many games 
    to play in the competition, and 2) people end up playing lots of bad games."
[alt-comp] DGlasser asks, "Is this a comp change or a new comp?"
[alt-comp] dfan says, "This is a theoretical proposed comp change"
[alt-comp] Sargent says (to DG), "Comp change."
[alt-comp] Sargent says, "The solutions to 1) that are always proposed are to limit the # of games 
    or make the judging period longer, neither of which I find palatable."
[alt-comp] dfan says (to Sargent), "Right, this tries to address both"
[alt-comp] DorianX says, "I reccomend publicly humiliatign the authors who write bad games, so that 
    people will think twice before enterign a bad game"
[alt-comp] Sargent says, "My feeling is that the solution to 1) is to get people to realize that 
    they don't *have* to play all the games to vote, and shouldn't feel the need. Play a few and 
    vote, for goodness' sake."
[alt-comp] Limax says, "Ryebread already gets that, DX."
[alt-comp] Sargent says, "Of the solutions to 2) I've heard, dfan's is one of the ones I've liked 
    best."
[alt-comp] Sargent says, "The question for me becomes whether or not the added complexity will be 
    more trouble than the problem the solution is fixing."
[alt-comp] dfan says, "Also, for people who have a problem with 1), they can jump in when the field 
    narrows"
[alt-comp] Rob asks, "Hasn't this been proposed before?"
[alt-comp] inky has joined the channel.
[alt-comp] Rob says, "Then again, I'm not sure exactly what the proposal is."
[alt-comp] inky asks, "what is this?"
[alt-comp] DGlasser says, "The thing is, I don't like finishing the competition and finding out that 
    that P game with the silly name actually was decent"
[alt-comp] Sargent says (to inky), "dfan's proposed 2-tier comp change."
[alt-comp] DorianX says, "Yeah, but I play the games in random order"
[alt-comp] DGlasser says, "so I try to play a lot"
[alt-comp] dfan asks, "Should I recap for the newcomers?"
[alt-comp] DorianX says, "Which means that I either have ot still play all the games, or I might 
    short-change a good game by not playing all of them in the first five weeks"
[alt-comp] inky says, "i like the comp the way it is, personally. I'd like to see the xyzzys 
    changed"
[alt-comp] DGlasser asks (of dfan), "This isn't by experience, is it?"
[alt-comp] Sargent says (to dfan), "Please do."
[alt-comp] dfan says, "8-week comp (say)"
[alt-comp] dfan says, "After 5 weeks, the votes are totalled (secretly) and places 11-37 are 
    announced"
[alt-comp] dfan says, "From then on, people may only rate the ten remaining games"
[alt-comp] dfan says, "So, the idea is, people who don't want to play all the games can jump in at 
    that point and just vote on the best stuff"
[alt-comp] Limax says, "How much longer would it make the contest?  I mean.. as far as I can see, 
    the comitment for the organisers is already 6 months, at the least."
[alt-comp] DorianX says, "So, it only changes the voting for people who jump in late"
[alt-comp] dfan says, "Right"
[alt-comp] DGlasser asks, "What if you want to vote on all the games but just take a while to do 
    so?"
[alt-comp] DorianX says, "I'd rather that before we started, a seekrit panel just disqualified the 
    10 worst games :-)"
[alt-comp] zarf says, "I further proposed that the initial round should be a bit different 
    (pass/fail votes instead of numeric rankings) but that's a sort of a side issue."
[alt-comp] DorianX says, "Objectively worst, of course :-)"
[alt-comp] Limax asks, "How about we make the voting out of 100 instead of 10?"
[alt-comp] DGlasser says, "Oh, hmm.  I like zarf's version."
[alt-comp] inky asks, "consider that every game in the comp got at least a 7 from somebody, yes?"
[alt-comp] DGlasser says (to inky), "Whoa.  I really need to read the newsgroups."
[alt-comp] Jearl says, "Skyranch topped out at 5, I think."
[alt-comp] inky says, "http://www.textfire.com/comp99/results.html"
[alt-comp] dfan says (to DorianX), "Actually, things like that have been proposed, I think, but I 
    really dislike the seekrit panel concept"
[alt-comp] Limax says (to inky), "You would have a problem there, then."
[alt-comp] Sargent says, "Oh, also, everyone who's not an author, take a look at 
    http://www.textfire.com/comp99/results.html. The figures found there may make a difference in 
    the discussion."
[alt-comp] Sargent says, "And I am four-square against a cabal weeding out games."
[alt-comp] DGlasser says, "oh, cool, the proles get stats"
[alt-comp] inky says, "which seems to suggest from me that virtual every game will find someone who 
    really likes it and would want to vote on it"
[alt-comp] Sargent says, "The other thing the stats show is that even the DOS games got 1 of 3 
    votes."
[alt-comp] zarf says (to sarge), "definite agree, no cabal."
[alt-comp] DGlasser says, "A cabal sucks, but maybe a Beta Tester Board to make recommendations to 
    authors"
[alt-comp] dfan says (to DGlasser), "If you want to vote on everything, you have to do it within the 
    first five weeks, in this system.  Which is only one week different from now"
[alt-comp] inky says, "I like a cabal as long as I'm in charge."
[alt-comp] DorianX says, "I might like to require official beta testing"
[alt-comp] Sargent says, "I did everything in my power to get authors to beta-test short of forcing 
    them to go through an evaluation process."
[alt-comp] zarf says (to inky), "You'd have to say, the top N (=10?) vote-getters in the first round 
    become finalists. Not just every game that gets a vote."
[alt-comp] Sargent says, "And I'm not prepared to run a competition *and* a beta-testing thug 
    squad."
[alt-comp] Limax asks, "cabal?"
[alt-comp] Sargent says, "That also means that authors won't be able to make changes to their games 
    upt o the deadline. They'll have to stop a week or three before then to let the beta-test board 
    have a whack. not to mention the fun of finding 37 * 4 beta testers."
[alt-comp] inky says, "I think the comp works well be short and uncomplicated"
[alt-comp] DGlasser asks (of Sarge), "Did you recommend *IF* people to betatest or just friends and 
    stuff?"
[alt-comp] inky says, "well being."
[alt-comp] Sargent asks (of DG), "What do you mean?"
[alt-comp] zarf says, "We're already a little past 'short', unfortunately."
[alt-comp] inky asks, "are we?"
[alt-comp] inky says, "six weeks is pretty short"
[alt-comp] zarf says, "I think so."
[alt-comp] Sargent says (to inky), "short in time, long in games."
[alt-comp] DGlasser asks (of Sarge), "Well, did you make it clear that just your friends and family 
    won't find all the bugs?"
[alt-comp] Sargent says (to DG), "No. I pointed them to the official beta-testing page and let them 
    go at it."
[alt-comp] DGlasser says, "Well, that's pretty important I think."
[alt-comp] Sargent says (to DG), "Giving a course in finding and using beta-testers is beyond my 
    time."
[alt-comp] DGlasser says, "Maybe you should have somebody whose job is organizing testing.  (Well, I 
    guess there's lps)"
[alt-comp] Sargent says, "Right. And many authors chose not to take advantage of that."
[alt-comp] zarf asks, "How many beta-testers were there in this year's official group?"
[alt-comp] Sargent says, "You'd have to ask lps."
[alt-comp] DGlasser says (to zarf), "I'm not sure (lps would know probably) but not all of them 
    actually tested"
[alt-comp] DGlasser says, "for example, I really really sucked and didn't test a single game despite 
    getting email for lps every few days"
[alt-comp] zarf says, "Well, lacking data, I bet there weren't enough to test 37 games."
[alt-comp] Limax says, "I ended up with no time to betatest at all."
[alt-comp] dfan says, "Anyway, I'm anti-cabal and anti-forced-testing and anti-"these games are 
    deserving of being considered and these ones aren't"-decision-making, which is why I tried to 
    avoid all of those things in my idea"
[alt-comp] Limax says, "I betatested lurd's because he asked me to directly."
[alt-comp] Sargent asks, "Okay, going back to dfan-plan. I think the two-tiered plan may not solve 
    the perception that there are too many games to play. Will people feel that they still must play 
    every game in round one?"
[alt-comp] dfan says, "I got some good beta-testing from the page, but it wouldn't have been enough 
    had I not had other sources"
[alt-comp] DGlasser says, "I'm making up for that by offering most of the authors my services for a 
    second version.  (Well, at least those that might not know what they're doing; I figure Groc and 
    zarf are set)"
[alt-comp] DGlasser asks, "So dfan's plan gives a "sneak peak" at the results?"
[alt-comp] zarf says (to sarge), "Hm. Good question."
[alt-comp] DorianX says (to sarge), "I would ,yes. SHould I not rate a game I haven't played, so it 
    places 11, and I later play it and find that it's the best game I've ever played, I'd be a right 
    bit upset."
[alt-comp] Sargent says (to DG), "It weeds the field to 10 games which people can then play, knowing 
    that they are (hopefully) playing the better games."
[alt-comp] dfan asks (of Sargent), "So you're talking about people who are in between "I'm fine with 
    playing just the top ten" and "I have no problem playing them all"?"
[alt-comp] DGlasser says (to Sarge), "There's a difference between "must because I will be beaten 
    otherwise" and "must because I don't want to miss a gem"."
[alt-comp] Sargent asks (of dfan), "Right. The rules state that you only have to play 5 games to 
    vote, yet many people feel guilty about that. They feel they have to play all games to be fair. 
    Will your system really absolve them of that internal guilt?"
[alt-comp] dfan says, "I think that this system would explicitly approve of jumping in at phase two 
    and playing the top ten"
[alt-comp] Sargent says, "But the current system explicitly approves of playing just five games and 
    voting."
[alt-comp] Sargent says, "Right."
[alt-comp] DGlasser says, "by the way, somebody log this"
[alt-comp] DGlasser says, "Also, I'm amazed that 59% of the games got 1-10.  Wow."
[alt-comp] neild has joined the channel.
[alt-comp] dfan says (to DGlasser), "OK"
[alt-comp] neild asks, "Can I get a recap? Also, a witness?"
[alt-comp] Ender has joined the channel.
[alt-comp] dfan says, "Four-line recap of my idea coming:"
[alt-comp] dfan says, "8-week comp (say)"
[alt-comp] dfan says, "After 5 weeks, the votes are totalled (secretly) and places 11-37 are 
    announced"
[alt-comp] dfan says, "From then on, people may only rate the ten remaining games"
[alt-comp] dfan says, "So, the idea is, people who don't want to play all the games can jump in at 
    that point and just vote on the best stuff"
[alt-comp] neild says, "Hmm."
[alt-comp] zarf says, "I think I'd feel even more guilty about not playing every game, if it was a 
    matter of pushing games on to the final round."
[alt-comp] Limax says, "Hmm."
[alt-comp] neild asks, "What problems would this solve?"
[alt-comp] Limax says, "I feel guilty enough for playing as little as I did."
[alt-comp] Ender says, "Of all the half-assed comp changes that were ever proposed, the two-tiered 
    idea is the only one I've ever liked."
[alt-comp] DGlasser says (to neild), "Also, zarf wants round 1 to just be pass/fail"
[alt-comp] Duchess has joined the channel.
[alt-comp] neild says, "I have a half-assed comp suggestion, actually."
[alt-comp] zarf says (to neild), "It solves 'Ack, there are 37 games in front of me, and IF isn't my 
    life and soul, so I'll just skip it.'"
[alt-comp] Duchess asks, "a quick summary, if you please?"
[alt-comp] zarf says, "'...and a bunch of them are probably crap.'"
[alt-comp] Ender says, "Sorry: two-stage idea.  The two-tier idea was different, and awful."
[alt-comp] neild asks, "Should I make my suggestion now, or wait till we're finished discussing this 
    one?"
[alt-comp] zarf says (to dfan), "You should probably @create an object. :-)"
[alt-comp] neild says (to dfan), "Or put it in the channel info."
[alt-comp] Ender says, "I think that emphasizing 'play them in random order and let statistics sort 
    it out' in the comp readme would be a good idea."
[alt-comp] Sargent says (to dfan), "I've got to go. Do me a favor & mail me a URL where I can see 
    this transcript when it's all done."
[alt-comp] DGlasser says, "My main problem is that, as I just noticed and mentioned, 59% of the 
    games got 1's and 10's this year.  So the second stage may not work too well."
[alt-comp] DGlasser says, "also, N should be a fraction of the amount entered, not a constant"
[alt-comp] dfan says (to Sargent), "OK"
[alt-comp] DGlasser says, "Also, we could just have Sargent rate them all for us and write seventeen 
    reviews of each"
[alt-comp] DGlasser says, "he's doing about that much work already"
[alt-comp] zarf asks (of dg), "Reasoning?"
[alt-comp] inky says, "um yeah"
[alt-comp] inky says, "basically I don't think people will agree that the best 10 are the best 10"
[alt-comp] DGlasser says (to zarf), "Because the conditions of a 10-game comp are different from a 
    60-game comp"
[alt-comp] inky says, "which means they'll want to vote on them all"
[alt-comp] DGlasser says (to zarf), "Or are you referring to my 1-10 comment"
[alt-comp] DGlasser asks, "?"
[alt-comp] DGlasser says, "Maybe you should allow the players to vote on any at any time but give a 
    sneak preview at some point."
[alt-comp] DGlasser says, "Except that voting isn't continuous."
[alt-comp] neild says, "I still want to know what benefit there would be from this system."
[alt-comp] inky says, "m'yeah"
[alt-comp] zarf says, "...neild More people voting."
[alt-comp] inky asks, "are people actually not voting because there's too many games?"
[alt-comp] neild asks, "Is there a problem with not enough people voting. I.e., what inky said?"
[alt-comp] inky asks, "or are they just griping about it?"
[alt-comp] zarf says, "Griping is not insignificant."
[alt-comp] neild asks, "How many voters were there this year?"
[alt-comp] inky says, "I agree"
[alt-comp] inky says, "but people do gripe about lots of stuff."
[alt-comp] DGlasser says, "It would be interesting to have running stats on textfire.com that anyone 
    can look at.  No, probably not.  It would be interesting to see how it went this year though"
[alt-comp] zarf says, "Also, some of the griping is about being handed very buggy games, which this 
    also addresses."
[alt-comp] DGlasser says (to neild), "156 or 163, I'm not sure"
[alt-comp] inky says, "hmm"
[alt-comp] dfan says, "I know there were people here who said 'There are too many games and I bet 
    they're mostly crap, so I'm only going to play a couple by people I know'"
[alt-comp] inky asks, "if we had a system that identified buggy games in the first round, would that 
    fix anything?"
[alt-comp] DGlasser says, "Also, the other thing is that people should be encouraged to release 
    non-comp games."
[alt-comp] DGlasser says, "Also, perhaps people this year should have pulled a Doe."
[alt-comp] inky says (to dfan), "but those people are always grumpy"
[alt-comp] zarf says, "And I don't entirely think of it in terms of 'do we have enough voters'. I 
    want complete IF newbies to show up and voete and get into IF, and that woks better if we have a 
    list of ten good games instead of 37 variable ones."
[alt-comp] Duchess asks (of dg), "pull a doe?"
[alt-comp] dfan says (to inky), "Well, we can theorize about it, but we're all just guessing.  My 
    guess is that it would make a difference"
[alt-comp] inky says, "yank her leg firmly"
[alt-comp] DGlasser says (to Duchess), "Doe withdrew her game from comp97."
[alt-comp] Limax asks, "So out of the 156 different voting groups, only a few of those voted for 
    more than a few games?"
[alt-comp] neild says, "My idea would hopefully take care of buggy games."
[alt-comp] neild says, "Well, of *really* buggy games."
[alt-comp] inky asks (of neild), "sorry, what's your idea?"
[alt-comp] Duchess asks (of inky), "wouldn't a screening of buggy games be a bit like a preliminary 
    judging, though?"
[alt-comp] neild says, "Have a pre-deadline of September 1, for authors to submit a winnable beta."
[alt-comp] dfan says (to Limax), "Most games got around 100 votes"
[alt-comp] neild says, "It'd keep people from rushing stuff to completion at the last minute, at 
    least."
[alt-comp] DGlasser says, "What about a two-week or so round of specifically assigned people (OK, so 
    it's a cabal) who could email bug reports to the authors ... and the authors could change the 
    games?  (wait one second for my justification, must do something)"
[alt-comp] neild says (to DG), "That was tried. In '96, I believe."
[alt-comp] DGlasser says, "The difference would be that this round would be *required*, and that 
    there would be a specific time period"
[alt-comp] inky says, "'96 doesn't really prove anything, I don't think."
[alt-comp] DGlasser asks (of neild), "recap please?"
[alt-comp] DGlasser came to the IF scene right after comp96.
[alt-comp] inky says, "mm"
[alt-comp] neild says, "There were official beta-testers in '96."
[alt-comp] DGlasser asks, "Also, that year had what, 20 games?  And how many really bad ones?"
[alt-comp] zarf says, "I don't know if we have the resources to put every game through a mandatory 
    inspection, without inviting the wpublic in on it."
[alt-comp] inky says, "so would a new system be more hassle for me? because that's annoying."
[alt-comp] neild asks (of inky), "For you?"
[alt-comp] inky says, "yes"
[alt-comp] neild asks (of inky), "You as author, player, what?"
[alt-comp] Duchess asks, "who is in charge for comp2000?"
[alt-comp] inky says, "like, I finished in a couple weeks. but I don't know if I finished in three 
    weeks."
[alt-comp] inky says, "either."
[alt-comp] inky says, "more as a player, since I'm going to play every year"
[alt-comp] inky says, "afaik sarge isn't handing off the hat"
[alt-comp] neild says, "I don't think the voting period should be changed, no. There's no way to 
    condense it much beyond six weeks, and longer than that will bore everyone to death."
[alt-comp] Limax says, "Hm."
[alt-comp] DGlasser says, "Oh!  And have the beta-round assign (randomly) each game to a few 
    beta-dudes, so each only has to work at maybe two and each game is handed to more than one."
[alt-comp] Ender asks, "Would it make sense to give more concrete voting guidelines?"
[alt-comp] Ender says, "ie. 'Thou shalt mark buggy games low.'"
[alt-comp] DGlasser exclaims (at Ender), "Yes~!"
[alt-comp] Limax says, "I am considering entering a game next year, but I don't want to add to the 
    headache of the number of games."
[alt-comp] DGlasser exclaims (at Ender), "No!"
[alt-comp] zarf says (to ender), "That's one of the ideas I hate."
[alt-comp] Ender asks, "Whaddaya mean no?"
[alt-comp] DGlasser says (to Ender), "I thought you meant when.  Never mind."
[alt-comp] DGlasser says (to Ender), "Thou shalt mark good games highly, bad games low"
[alt-comp] Limax asks (of Ender), "The game may be very good, prosewise and just have one bug... do 
    you want to mark it way down for that?"
[alt-comp] Ender says, "No."
[alt-comp] DGlasser says (to Limax), "Nah, as long as you test it well, that should be ok"
[alt-comp] Duchess asks (of limax), "what if that bug is a doozy though?"
[alt-comp] zarf says, "All games are buggy."
[alt-comp] Rob says, "Ok, I have to go. Definitely someone post the transcript later."
[alt-comp] Ender says, "I want people who finish a game that is extremely buggy to think, 'Better to 
    wait and polish it off' instead of 'well, might as well enter it - it's better than not entering 
    it'"
[alt-comp] Limax says (to Duchess), "If the bug makes the game unwinnable, then the author should be 
    hung up by his/her thumbs and be shot."
[alt-comp] zarf says, "They *can* think that."
[alt-comp] inky says, "part of the problem is the attention for non-comp games thing"
[alt-comp] Ender says, "I'm not talking about one bug.  I'm talking about stuff like Waterbird."
[alt-comp] DGlasser asks, "Did we get any explanation for WaterBird?"
[alt-comp] Ender says (to zarf), "Right. So I'm thinking about ways to get that message across."
[alt-comp] zarf says (to ender), "I think the results from this year show authors very clearly that 
    entering a buggy game is bad."
[alt-comp] DGlasser says, "You know, I might give up on any hopes of actually writing decent IF (I 
    have no ideas) and become a full-time beta (and faq, etc) guy.  Like whatsisname, Mike Kinyon"
[alt-comp] Ender says (to DG), "The author mailed me after I posted my review and said that he had 
    an original version, which was tested, then tried to expand it."
[alt-comp] DGlasser says (to zarf), "But still practically every game got a nine or ten."
[alt-comp] DGlasser says, "Look at Chicks.  Many loved it, but it was *clearly* buggy.  Very much 
    so"
[alt-comp] Ender asks, "So maybe we should, when announcing the comp next year, draw attention to 
    that fact?"
[alt-comp] neild says, "What inky said. There needs to be more reward for non-comp games, so people 
    don't throw unfinished crap into the comp just to win a prize/attention."
[alt-comp] DGlasser asks (of neild), "Maybe some 'sponsorship' program?"
[alt-comp] zarf says (to dg), "The high and low scores are meaningless; one person's vote doesn't 
    ount that much."
[alt-comp] DGlasser says (to neild), "Something like this book-of-the-month club."
[alt-comp] DGlasser says (to zarf), "But positive reviews do."
[alt-comp] neild says, "I'd suggest prizes for the Xyzzies, but then I'm worried *that* would become 
    as competitive and fraught as the comp is."
[alt-comp] neild asks (of DG), "IDG the book of the month thing, actually. Esplain?"
[alt-comp] DGlasser says, "Perhaps the xyzzys should have categories only for non-comps"
[alt-comp] DGlasser says (to neild), "I forget.  It wasn't my idea."
[alt-comp] zarf says, "(I am, by the way, in favor of non-comp-attention programs no matter how the 
    comp2000 works.)"
[alt-comp] dfan says, "What zarf said"
[alt-comp] Limax says, "The thing is, no matter what the contest becomes, people are still going to 
    dislike the format."
[alt-comp] zarf says (to limax), "And those people, we can stake out for the ants. :)"
[alt-comp] Limax asks (of zarf), "With molasses or honey?"
[alt-comp] DGlasser says (to zarf), "only with hard hats"
[alt-comp] DGlasser says, "Hmm.  I'm almost considering the all-anonymous rule, but I don't think 
    so"
[alt-comp] Duchess says, "like rob said, post the transcript. i am on my way out."
[alt-comp] Ender says, "I liked the all-anonymous rule."
[alt-comp] Ender says, "I'm not sure if it accomplished much, given that Big Names tend to enter 
    anonymously anyway."
[alt-comp] Ender says, "But I don't think it hurt anything, either."
[alt-comp] zarf says, "I am grouchy when told to enter anonymously."
[alt-comp] Ender says, "In fact, maybe we should have a 'no titles' rule, too: "Game #1" by 
    Anonymous.  "Game #2" by Anonymous."
[alt-comp] zarf says, "This seems to have slowed down, so I'm going home too. Thanks for chatting, 
    all."
[alt-comp] Ender says, "That's force everybody to play in random order!"
[alt-comp] DGlasser says, "yeah, that's why I don't actaully like it"
[alt-comp] Ender says, "(I'm kidding now, BTW)"
[alt-comp] neild asks, "Again, what problem is the all-anonymous rule designed to solve?"
[alt-comp] neild asks, "Have people been only playing games by 'big names', and ignoring the rest?"
[alt-comp] Ender says, "People being swamped by the 37 games and saying, 'Well, I'll just play the 
    ones by the big names.'"
[alt-comp] Ender says (to neild), "No.  That's why I said it didn't accomplish much."
[alt-comp] neild exclaims, "Yay!"
[alt-comp] DGlasser says (to neild), "I strart doing that about 60% through, I must admit"
[alt-comp] DGlasser asks, "by the way, somebody *is* logigng, right?"
[alt-comp] neild says, "I gotta go. But I'll leave my connection scripting, so I can kvetch at you 
    all later."
[alt-comp] dfan says, "Yes"
[alt-comp] DGlasser says, "well, not big names, but good first scenes"
[alt-comp] dfan says, "I'm logging"
[alt-comp] Ender says, "See, I'm in favour of enforcing the 'Play em all in random order' rule.  (Or 
    at least encouraging it.)"
[alt-comp] DGlasser says (to Ender), "So am I.  But once I"
[alt-comp] DGlasser says (to Ender), "So am I.  But once I'm near the end, I don't have time to 
    finish them all and I'm weak"
[alt-comp] DGlasser says, "I recognize that it is bad."
[alt-comp] Ender says, "That way people won't feel so guilty about not playing them all, because 
    someone else'll vote on the ones you didn't play."
[alt-comp] inky says, "I have instinctive crankiness at being told I can't choose which to play"
[alt-comp] DGlasser exclaims, "HEY!"
[alt-comp] DGlasser says, "(er, that's not directed, you know.  just an epiphany)"
[alt-comp] Ender says (to DG), "The point of the 'random order' strategy is that when you don't 
    finish, it doesn't matter."
[alt-comp] inky says, "the book of the month club is just we pick a game we're going to play this 
    month and a bunch of people play it, then someonme starts a discussion about it"
[alt-comp] DGlasser says, "Y'all know how the beta site lets the player download the l... never 
    mind, because this suggestion will screw over people exactly like me."
[alt-comp] Ender says, "Better to encourage people to play a couple of games ("at least 5" is good), 
    as long as they choose em randomly, and not worry about finishing a lot."
[alt-comp] inky asks, "what if we capped the number of games you could vote on?"
[alt-comp] Ender says, "That'll cut down on people feeling swamped."
[alt-comp] inky asks, "like, what good is it to say you don't like a game?"
[alt-comp] Ender says (to inky), "Mmmm... That's an idea."
[alt-comp] Ender says, "Actually, it's a bad idea.  It's probably more useful to know just how bad 
    your game is than it is to know just how good it is."
[alt-comp] DGlasser says (to Ender), "But, see, (and I know that this is wrong) I mostly judge the 
    comp for me: so I can have fun playing.  Not for the voting and stuff.  And I realize that goes 
    against the means"
[alt-comp] inky asks, "useful in what sense?"
[alt-comp] DGlasser asks (of inky), "so the all-kudos system?"
[alt-comp] DGlasser says, "(means == intention of the comp)"
[alt-comp] inky says, "say, you rank five games one-five"
[alt-comp] DGlasser says, "five not enough"
[alt-comp] Ender asks (of DGlasser), "How do you choose which games you like before you play them?"
[alt-comp] andyf has joined the channel.
[alt-comp] DGlasser asks (of Ender), "Wait, which suggestion is this re? the all-kudos or what I 
    do?"
[alt-comp] Ender says, "Hang on a sec."
[alt-comp] Ender says, "Ok - my rules of comp voting:"
[alt-comp] Ender says, "1: play em in random order, so that you don't just play the ones with cool 
    opening scenes."
[alt-comp] Ender says, "2: Once you start playing a game, vote on it.  Don't scan opening paragraphs 
    looking for good games."
[alt-comp] DGlasser says (to Ender), "It's pretty obvious that that's the correct thing to do.  But 
    the soul is weak."
[alt-comp] inky says, "I should mention btw that feedback != voting != reviews"
[alt-comp] DGlasser says, "Also, it's ironic that I do this since the game I was going to enter was 
    conceived to have a really really bad first scene"
[alt-comp] Ender says, "3: Play until you decide how much you like the game, or until 2 hrs. is up.  
    Then vote.  If you know you hate it after 5 minutes, vote then."
[alt-comp] DGlasser says (to Ender), "Hmm.  See, some games get better later.  I dunno."
[alt-comp] inky says, "I do that, except I look at all the games and play the ones with cool opening 
    scenes first"
[alt-comp] DGlasser says, "I think that the rules of voting should be more solidified"
[alt-comp] Limax asks, "I think I'll use a pseudonym for all games... hmm.. 'Sourdough Farenheith'.. 
    what do you think?"
[alt-comp] DGlasser exclaims (at Limax), "Don't tell us!"
[alt-comp] Limax says, "Oh.  Damn."
[alt-comp] Ender says, "4: Don't worry about getting to all the games.  Play when you feel like it, 
    and when you get to the end of the comp, submit the votes you've done.  Don't worry if you 
    didn't play 'enough'."
[alt-comp] Limax says, "Fergit I said anything."
[alt-comp] DGlasser says (to Ender), "I don't think anybody has responded to my comment that my 
    version of 'enough' is 'didn't miss any gems', not 'sarge won't beat me'."
[alt-comp] Ender says, "The point of this is to get far enough into each game to get a feel for it, 
    but not feel like you're locked into playing a stinker for 2 hours before you're allowed to 
    vote."
[alt-comp] Ender asks (of DGlasser), "You won't miss any gems.  Cause when the ratings come out, 
    you're gonna go back and play the top rated ones, right?"
[alt-comp] Ender says, "It's not important that you play all the good games *during the comp*."
[alt-comp] DGlasser exclaims (at Ender), "But I want to be a syncophant on November 15th!"
[alt-comp] DGlasser says, "seriously though, mudders will start discussing the good ones early"
[alt-comp] Ender says, "Tough.  This isn't about you.  It's about the poor, starving artists!"
[alt-comp] Ender -)
[alt-comp] Ender says, "Bah. :-)"
[alt-comp] inky says, "also, I'd like to reiterate this not being allowed to vote on more than X 
    games idea"
[alt-comp] Ender says, "Anyway, I gotta go.  To reiterate: I think it'd be good to encourage a 
    voting environment which is stress-free (because there's no pressure to do everything) but fair 
    (because each games gets the same number of people giving it the same amount of atterntion)."
[alt-comp] DorianX says, "I don't like that"
[alt-comp] dfan asks (of inky), "Could you re-iterate again?"
[alt-comp] DorianX says, "It reminds me of the plan someone had to make people log into a server 
    every time they wanted to know what their next game was, and had to rate each game before thye 
    could be allowed to play the next"
[alt-comp] Alex has joined the channel.
[alt-comp] inky says (to dfan), "you can submit votes for up to ten games"
[alt-comp] dfan says (to inky), "Eeeagh"
[alt-comp] inky asks, "what's the gripe?"
[alt-comp] DGlasser says, "ten good votes, I hope"
[alt-comp] dfan asks, "Oh, I see, you mean play as many as you want and then choose which ones to 
    vote for?"
[alt-comp] inky says (to dfan), "right"
[alt-comp] dfan asks, "And you vote yes/no or 1-10?"
[alt-comp] inky says (to DG), "I'm not sure how that compares to a system where, like, if you really 
    hate a game you vote it a 1"
[alt-comp] DGlasser asks, "hmm, what if each person has N points (N == some number times the amount 
    of games in the competition) and has to divvy them up among the games?"
[alt-comp] inky says (to dfan), "I don't know either"
[alt-comp] inky says (to DG), "that seems annoying as a voter"
[alt-comp] inky says, "although great if you're generating your character stats"
[alt-comp] dfan says, "I think we may be drifting away from addressing specific problems with the 
    current system and into 'it might be cool if'"
[alt-comp] inky has changed the topic to: Discussion of new designs for next year's comp
[alt-comp] inky says, "I think my suggestion would address the problem that people feel obligated to 
    play all of them"
[alt-comp] DGlasser says (to dfan), "Yes."
[alt-comp] dfan says (to inky), "I think it would annoy me, though, as someone who does play them 
    all"
[alt-comp] inky asks (of dfan), "wouldn't it be just like the current system, only you only send in 
    your top ten scores?"
[alt-comp] dfan says, "Also, picking what you vote for and ranking 1-10 don't mix well, I think"
[alt-comp] DorianX says, "Um. I percieve only two problems with the comp: 1) People submit buggy, 
    unfinished games, and 2) THe voting period is 2 weeks too short."
[alt-comp] HairBrain has joined the channel.
[alt-comp] inky says, "so, say, people submit up to five "good" games and up to five "great" games"
[alt-comp] dfan says, "I like rating 1-10.  I like picking a winner on my ballot."
[alt-comp] dfan says, "It seems weird to restrict everyone so that some people don't feel lame"
[alt-comp] inky says, "I'm not sure that it really restricts anyone, is the thing"
[alt-comp] inky says, "hmm"
[alt-comp] inky says, "alternate alternate plan"
[alt-comp] inky says, "would be to use that thing adam suggested as his ideal voting scheme"
[alt-comp] inky says, "which, IIRC, is you rank as many of the candidates as you want in order"
[alt-comp] dfan says, "OK, I'm wrapping up the log (if you know what I mean)"