19 users logged in
Proud partner of GDC 2025
Before posting, review our community guidelines.
Support GameDev.net with a monthly GDNet+ subscription!
Writing Competition 2005, Round 2 Entries
1,370
October 04, 2005 03:46 PM
Let's just for arguments sake say that the submitter of Entry 8 happened to be me [smile].
As has been said, the rule states between 1 and 2 pages. If say, you don't own a copy of Microsoft Word, you don't own a printer, and you are unsure of the font size and line spacing that is used, you might try your own metric, such as cutting and pasting your entry from plain text into LaTeX, turning that into an Adobe Acrobat LaTeX PDF file with your default settings of single spaced, 10 point font (whcih also incidently strips out newline characters due to the nature of LaTeX) and measuring the pages, under which entry 8 comes out to be 2 pages long. To take a purely hypothetical case and assuming that all that applies to me and that I were the person that submitted entry 8, I might have included an explanation in the PM to TechnoGoth explaining all this, and stating that since I have no objective way to measure the length of the piece to determine whether it was too long I would submit it as is, and that the history section can be cut at the two page limit if it were deemed to be over, or be willing to take a large hit in the scoring.
And as for "seeing this content as a game of chance", it could be possible that writer of entry 8 was objectively comparing the payoff of winning this contest (a small amount of kudos from the community), and the payoff of winning another writing competition with a page limit that he or she was working on at the same time (in this case lets say the submission of a paper to an international conference where the "prize" is the chance to visit Europe), and so did not deem it necessary to hunt down a more precise method of determining page length for a friendly competition (since time is not infinite). It is also possible that the writer of entry 8 has some other reason for submitting his or her work than winning, such as getting some practice in creative writing, some constructive criticism from other people, and possibly just having fun.
Also, it is very, very rare for someone to be able to objectively judge their own work against that of others. People will either judge their work too highly, or will overcompensate and judge it too harshly. That's why I'm uncomfortable with allowing people to vote for themselves in competitions; it's too big a conflict of interest.
Edit: Few typos, and added a line to the last paragraph.
[Edited by - Trapper Zoid on October 4, 2005 5:46:04 PM]
Quote:
Original post by Estok
You paste it on word and see how long it is. It was 1866 words.
You guys are making the rules meaningless just. The rules simply said, "don't write too long" and it was too long. It is just common sense. The person who submitted it probably knew that it was too long, but was gambling that it would be accepted. That is not the right kind of mentality.
As has been said, the rule states between 1 and 2 pages. If say, you don't own a copy of Microsoft Word, you don't own a printer, and you are unsure of the font size and line spacing that is used, you might try your own metric, such as cutting and pasting your entry from plain text into LaTeX, turning that into an Adobe Acrobat LaTeX PDF file with your default settings of single spaced, 10 point font (whcih also incidently strips out newline characters due to the nature of LaTeX) and measuring the pages, under which entry 8 comes out to be 2 pages long. To take a purely hypothetical case and assuming that all that applies to me and that I were the person that submitted entry 8, I might have included an explanation in the PM to TechnoGoth explaining all this, and stating that since I have no objective way to measure the length of the piece to determine whether it was too long I would submit it as is, and that the history section can be cut at the two page limit if it were deemed to be over, or be willing to take a large hit in the scoring.
And as for "seeing this content as a game of chance", it could be possible that writer of entry 8 was objectively comparing the payoff of winning this contest (a small amount of kudos from the community), and the payoff of winning another writing competition with a page limit that he or she was working on at the same time (in this case lets say the submission of a paper to an international conference where the "prize" is the chance to visit Europe), and so did not deem it necessary to hunt down a more precise method of determining page length for a friendly competition (since time is not infinite). It is also possible that the writer of entry 8 has some other reason for submitting his or her work than winning, such as getting some practice in creative writing, some constructive criticism from other people, and possibly just having fun.
Also, it is very, very rare for someone to be able to objectively judge their own work against that of others. People will either judge their work too highly, or will overcompensate and judge it too harshly. That's why I'm uncomfortable with allowing people to vote for themselves in competitions; it's too big a conflict of interest.
Edit: Few typos, and added a line to the last paragraph.
[Edited by - Trapper Zoid on October 4, 2005 5:46:04 PM]
104
October 04, 2005 05:26 PM
I know that I got you guys all psyched up to have a logical argument. But you need to retain your common sense. Logics is not a toy to trick, it is a tool for reasonable causes.
Re: Page Limit
A page limit in a competition is based on an honor system. It is based on the integrity of the submitter. This isn't highschool. Integrity. Rules. Fairness. So that no entry is misportionally informative due to the advantage of length. Use your common sense. TechnoGoth even gave a sample of a character profile.
Trapper Zoid's argument is unsound if he was assumed to be the submitter, because he in the other thread already said that he saw his own entry as 4 pages long, and he was concerned. And that was way before the deadline. Integrity dictates that the submitter knew that he was breaking a rule. The submitter would be submitting the entry in dishonesty because he would be submitting the entry consciously knowing that a rule is broken, yet trying to convince himself otherwise. Why don't we see research papers printed in font 6 when there is a page limit? Integrity. It was an honor system. The host gave the freedom, given that the entrants have the integrity to follow.
Trapper Zoid's argument made the entrant sound like a spineless creep trying to get by by beating around the rules. It is not hard to say something like ahw said when a piece apparently (to himself) doesn't satisfy the requirement. That was unjustified. It is not about tricking the system. It is about integrity.
Re: Voting
All of you that said it is very difficult to judge your own entry against others need to grow up. If you say that it is difficult, then maybe you should learn how to do it. Instead of avoiding it. At a certain level of development, it is sensible to vote for your entry. But the full voting system doesn't take that judgement away. If you firmly believe that your entry is the best then vote for it, otherwise, verbalize why something else is better. It was just common sense. Weren't there a time when you doodled and you would say, "Oh my, what beautiful drawing you have!"
Where does all the resistants come from? It is very normal to rate your own stuff against other stuffs. That should be what is going on all the time when you read the entries. The question is, when you are reading, did you:
1) Try to compare the entries equally; or
2) Try to create reasons to justify your own superiority?
A full voting system is good not mainly because it promotes 1, but because it destroys 2. If you stubbornly vote for you own entry without real justifications, you will look like a despicable moron full of excuses. Your closed-mindedness will be exposed, and your integrity will be questioned. A full voting system destroys the hidding ground for cowards. And it doesn't contradict 1. It promotes the entries to be judged fairly by the entrants.
The arguments by Trapper Zoid and S/S have no meaning against a full voting system. It is designed with the same values and motivation, plus something more. If you want fairness, a full voting is a fair choice. If you vote for yourself, you better have a list of objective reasons to defend your choice. And we will give the 10-20% margin, because it is reasonable. Not all the entries are within 10-20% of one another. If you believe that you are an reasonable objective person, there is nothing to lose to simply exercise your objectivity.
It is a skill to judge your own work. If you either judge it too harshly or to highly, then you need practice, to judge, with integrity*.
* When you judge your piece too harshly, you show no integrity because you are afriad to be accused. Modesty is not always valued. Honesty.
Re: Vote or not
From the way things go, you better vote. You can do both ways. But TechnoGoth have to use the one without your entries.
It is not a choice for TechnoGoth right now. Unless we do a revote.
10 entries, 4 votes. Probably everyone voted was an entrant anyway. So what the hell.
Re: Polling
I think this is a good idea. We can leave the poll open. (An actual poll, with the poll option) In that case people just vote for the best entry. Otherwise TechnoGoth will get too many PM.
About other suggestions:
1) Scoring (100)
This is too detailed. And it is not really applicable because most of the times the entries aren't directly comparable.
2) A paragraph about each entry. This is reasonable, but we can already do this. This is what the discussion portion is supposed to be. By definition, if you enter the contest you have asked for criticisms, so what s/s said in round 1 (that to only give criticism when asked) was unreasonable (because apparently they all asked to be critiqued, otherwise how could there be a winner? It is unreasonable to imagine that someone would enter a contest and doesn't want to be critiqued. It doesn't make sense: I want to win but I don't want to be criticised.Criticisms can be harsh to me, but I want to win.).
[Edited by - Estok on October 4, 2005 5:26:54 PM]
Re: Page Limit
A page limit in a competition is based on an honor system. It is based on the integrity of the submitter. This isn't highschool. Integrity. Rules. Fairness. So that no entry is misportionally informative due to the advantage of length. Use your common sense. TechnoGoth even gave a sample of a character profile.
Trapper Zoid's argument is unsound if he was assumed to be the submitter, because he in the other thread already said that he saw his own entry as 4 pages long, and he was concerned. And that was way before the deadline. Integrity dictates that the submitter knew that he was breaking a rule. The submitter would be submitting the entry in dishonesty because he would be submitting the entry consciously knowing that a rule is broken, yet trying to convince himself otherwise. Why don't we see research papers printed in font 6 when there is a page limit? Integrity. It was an honor system. The host gave the freedom, given that the entrants have the integrity to follow.
Trapper Zoid's argument made the entrant sound like a spineless creep trying to get by by beating around the rules. It is not hard to say something like ahw said when a piece apparently (to himself) doesn't satisfy the requirement. That was unjustified. It is not about tricking the system. It is about integrity.
Re: Voting
All of you that said it is very difficult to judge your own entry against others need to grow up. If you say that it is difficult, then maybe you should learn how to do it. Instead of avoiding it. At a certain level of development, it is sensible to vote for your entry. But the full voting system doesn't take that judgement away. If you firmly believe that your entry is the best then vote for it, otherwise, verbalize why something else is better. It was just common sense. Weren't there a time when you doodled and you would say, "Oh my, what beautiful drawing you have!"
Where does all the resistants come from? It is very normal to rate your own stuff against other stuffs. That should be what is going on all the time when you read the entries. The question is, when you are reading, did you:
1) Try to compare the entries equally; or
2) Try to create reasons to justify your own superiority?
A full voting system is good not mainly because it promotes 1, but because it destroys 2. If you stubbornly vote for you own entry without real justifications, you will look like a despicable moron full of excuses. Your closed-mindedness will be exposed, and your integrity will be questioned. A full voting system destroys the hidding ground for cowards. And it doesn't contradict 1. It promotes the entries to be judged fairly by the entrants.
The arguments by Trapper Zoid and S/S have no meaning against a full voting system. It is designed with the same values and motivation, plus something more. If you want fairness, a full voting is a fair choice. If you vote for yourself, you better have a list of objective reasons to defend your choice. And we will give the 10-20% margin, because it is reasonable. Not all the entries are within 10-20% of one another. If you believe that you are an reasonable objective person, there is nothing to lose to simply exercise your objectivity.
It is a skill to judge your own work. If you either judge it too harshly or to highly, then you need practice, to judge, with integrity*.
* When you judge your piece too harshly, you show no integrity because you are afriad to be accused. Modesty is not always valued. Honesty.
Re: Vote or not
Quote:
Original post by Beige
Uh, so, can we vote for our own stuff or not?
From the way things go, you better vote. You can do both ways. But TechnoGoth have to use the one without your entries.
It is not a choice for TechnoGoth right now. Unless we do a revote.
10 entries, 4 votes. Probably everyone voted was an entrant anyway. So what the hell.
Re: Polling
Quote:
Original post by evelyn Quote:
post by TechnoGoth
Currently we are at 4 I'd like to see at least as many as last time if not more.
Wouldn't putting a thread in the lounge, asking for votes, be a good idea at all?...just a thought :)
I think this is a good idea. We can leave the poll open. (An actual poll, with the poll option) In that case people just vote for the best entry. Otherwise TechnoGoth will get too many PM.
About other suggestions:
1) Scoring (100)
This is too detailed. And it is not really applicable because most of the times the entries aren't directly comparable.
2) A paragraph about each entry. This is reasonable, but we can already do this. This is what the discussion portion is supposed to be. By definition, if you enter the contest you have asked for criticisms, so what s/s said in round 1 (that to only give criticism when asked) was unreasonable (because apparently they all asked to be critiqued, otherwise how could there be a winner? It is unreasonable to imagine that someone would enter a contest and doesn't want to be critiqued. It doesn't make sense: I want to win but I don't want to be criticised.Criticisms can be harsh to me, but I want to win.).
[Edited by - Estok on October 4, 2005 5:26:54 PM]
1,370
October 04, 2005 05:57 PM
Quote:
Original post by Estok
Trapper Zoid's argument is unsound if he was assumed to be the submitter, because he in the other thread already said that he saw his own entry as 4 pages long, and he was concerned.
Actually, if you are referring to this quote:
Quote:
Original post by Trapper ZoidThat option doesn't really work if your four pages are about the same character.
then that was in reference to a post that was in reference to this quote:
Quote:
Original post by Beige
four pages already :(
I hate making cuts.
At that stage I had written nothing, since I was busy writing something else.
Reading through everything I had written in that post, it might some across that I was trying to weasel my way through the requirements of the competition to get my entry in. However, what I was actually doing was trying to get a fix on exactly what that limit was before I started writing so I could guage the length accordingly in the little time I had to write my submission.
Quote:
Integrity dictates that the submitter knew that he was breaking a rule.
Actually, it could also be that the submitter thought that he or she might inadventantly break a rule that the submitter did not wish to break. And after getting a reply such as this from TechnoGoth:
Quote:
Original post by TechnoGoth
As to how many words it should be I’m not really concerned about that I’m more interested in your ability to present the information in a clear and concise format. If that takes 100 words or 1000 doesn’t matter as long as the reader feels they have all the information on the character they need to know.
the submitter might have thought that the page limit a strong guideline but not something to spend another couple of hours tracking down a better method for estimating the size of the submission, or asking another series of questions on the recommended font size and spacing a few hours from the submission deadline.
Quote:
The submitter would be submitting the entry in dishonesty. Why don't we see research papers printed in font 6 when there is a page limit? Integrity. It was an honor system. The host gave the freedom, given that the entrants have the integrity to follow.
The reason why you don't see research papers printed in font 6 when there is a page limit is that they define more than just a page limit. They also define the expected format that it has to follow, such as the font size, spacing limits, and provide an exact template that you are expected to follow. It is nigh impossible to work your way around these constraints. That might explain why someone who is more used to writing research papers might have requested a more stringent requirement on the size of the entry since that is what they would be used to.
Quote:
Trapper Zoid's argument made the entrant sound like a spineless creep trying to get by by beating around the rules. It is not hard to say something like ahw said when a piece apparently (to himself) doesn't satisfy the requirement. That was unjustified. It is not about tricking the system. It is about integrity.
As opposed to someone who seems to spending most of their time stomping on everyone else's creative work, and then firing off requests to see other entries be disqualified?
Sorry if that seems a bit harsh, but there's precious few insults that can assault me, but attacking my integrity is one of them. I have tried to maintain what I felt to be the spirit of this competition, which I thought was a friendly chance to work on my languishing creative skills, help other people with theirs, and have a bit of fun. I'm not entirely sure what you think it is for, but frankly your barbs and the way you have demonised the entries from round 1 have cut into my enjoyment of this competition immensely.
Look, if it's that much of a problem to your ego, and since I am the writer of entry 8 (if you haven't figured this out [smile]), I'll pull the entry from the competition. While I'd still like it to run and not be disqualified as I would like to see the numerical score, and while I submitted my entry in good faith, I don't want the competition to get mired down in this pointless debate over the rules. Since the entry is out there I can still see people's critique of the writing style, which is what I want.
Quote:
It is a skill to judge your own work. If you either judge it too harshly or to highly, then you need practice, to judge, with integrity*.
I know how to judge my own work, thank you. I also know that it is a conflict of interest to allow voting for your own work. Every competition that I know of recognises this. That's why scientists put their work up for peer review, and do double-blind experiments. It's because they know that they will subconsciously skew their results one way or another. There are scores of examples of bad science where leading scientists failed to acknoweldge this and their results were biased.
And please Estok could you stop insulting people? You are spoiling the mood of this whole competition with your present manner.
[Edited by - Trapper Zoid on October 4, 2005 6:57:54 PM]
7,435
October 04, 2005 06:55 PM
Trapper Zoid - Personally I don't give a damn if the entry ran a little bit over the requirements, and I maintain that since they were so vague they can't be used to disqualify a piece. Also, some people will have already voted for entry 8, so pulling it now would totally screw the voting, so please don't.
Estok - Personal insults, e.g. calling people names like "spineless creep" is against GameDev's rules, and you have been warned for this before. Don't do it again or I'll raise your warning level again. >.< I am really not pleased with the hostile attitude you are bringing to this contest. This is supposed to be a fun learning experience and we want as many people as possible to participate, while you seem to be intent on driving away the competition with your overly-harsh criticism and zeal to disqualify entries. Don't forget that if TechnoGoth thinks you are damaging the contest he can ban you from entering future rounds.
Estok - Personal insults, e.g. calling people names like "spineless creep" is against GameDev's rules, and you have been warned for this before. Don't do it again or I'll raise your warning level again. >.< I am really not pleased with the hostile attitude you are bringing to this contest. This is supposed to be a fun learning experience and we want as many people as possible to participate, while you seem to be intent on driving away the competition with your overly-harsh criticism and zeal to disqualify entries. Don't forget that if TechnoGoth thinks you are damaging the contest he can ban you from entering future rounds.
I want to help design a "sandpark" MMO. Optional interactive story with quests and deeply characterized NPCs, plus sandbox elements like player-craftable housing and lots of other crafting. If you are starting a design of this type, please PM me. I also love pet-breeding games.
1,370
October 04, 2005 07:03 PM
Quote:
Original post by sunandshadow
Trapper Zoid - Personally I don't give a damn if the entry ran a little bit over the requirements, and I maintain that since they were so vague they can't be used to disqualify a piece. Also, some people will have already voted for entry 8, so pulling it now would totally screw the voting, so please don't.
Thanks, but I'm not so sure whether keeping my entry in the comp. is the best solution. I value the integrity of the competition more than I value winning this round, so I've already asked for the entry to be pulled in order to not drag the whole competition into further controversy. In the off-chance that my entry was to win, I don't particularly want people to think it was because of a laxness in enforcing the rules, or due to cheating.
Frankly, while I thought my entry might have been pushing the limits somewhat, I didn't realise how far over the expected limit it was until I read all the other entries. I've never entered a creative writing competition like this before so I didn't know what was expected, and as I've said I don't really have a good way to measure page lengths. If I'd known I'd have cut back the background history to just a couple of lines, since that bit is a bit superfluous (I got a bit carried away; I was enjoying myself a bit too much).
Edit: By the way, "spineless creep" is nowhere near as damning an insult to me as attacks on my code of ethics, which is why I got a bit riled up (I usually try to keep my cool online, but I might have lost it a bit there).
104
October 04, 2005 07:29 PM
Re: Page Limit
The way you argue will call for a jury. Note that this is no long a logical discussion, this is a rational consideration.
Evidence0 - actual events
Evidence1: The approximate wordcount of E8, submitted by Doe1, is 1866, which is 182% as long as the second longest entry, E3 with 1026 words.
Evidence2: The host of the competition had given a sample of a character profile. Which was denoted by TG, and was 506 words.
Evidence3: Doe1 had provided a reasonable example of character profile, denoted by TZ, which was 333 words.
Evidence4 - Contest Rule: Entries must be between 1 and 2 pages. Entries that don’t satisfy this criteria will be disqualified.
Evidence5 - Host Explanation: As to how many words it should be I’m not really concerned about that I’m more interested in your ability to present the information in a clear and concise format. If that takes 100 words or 1000 doesn’t matter as long as the reader feels they have all the information on the character they need to know.
Is it reasonable to believe that Doe1 had consciously broke a rule?
Doe1: [It] might [come] across that I was trying to weasel my way through the requirements of the competition to get my entry in.
Doe1's Defenses
D0: [At the moment Evidence0 took place], I had written nothing, since I was busy writing something else.
(Objection: This defense has nothing to do with the argument)
D1: [To explain the scenario], what I was actually doing was trying to get a fix on exactly what that limit was before I started writing so I could guage the length accordingly in the little time I had to write my submission.
(Objection: This defense has nothing to do with the argument, the motivation behind Evidence0 is obvious, yet irrelevant.)
D2: [After reading evidence5, I decided that Evidence4 is only a strong guideline, and not worth] spending another couple of hours tracking down a better method for estimating the size of the submission, or asking another series of questions on the recommended font size and spacing a few hours from the submission deadline.
Counter Argument: Doe1 understood the requirement. Doe1 had confirmed the understanding in Evidence0, last line. And Doe1 has expressed the understanding that two pages doesn't sound like a lot (Evidence0, Line2). Based on these, it seems reasonable to believe that Doe1 wrote the entry, it was too long, and simply had no time or made no effort to correct the mistake. In this argument, the defenses of Doe1 thereafter seem like excuses, in an attempt to, (quoting Doe1's own words), "weaseling around requirements like this".
Is it reasonable to believe that Doe1 had consciously broke a rule?
Is it reasonable to believe that Doe1 had consciously broke a rule due to the lack of competitive effort?
Do the defending arguments by Doe1 appear reasonable, or created after an accusation was made?
Did Doe1 offer advice in one end and on the other rejected the same advice as it should have applied to his own entry? (Doe1 advised Bystander1 to break a long entry apart)
If you don't dig the research paper analogy, just go back to your high school English classes. When the teacher gives the freedom that an essay should be about a certain length, it is a rule based on common sense and the faith that the students will honor their integrity.
As opposed to someone who seems to spending most of their time stomping on everyone else's creative work, and then firing off requests to see other entries be disqualified?
There is a reason to speak because there are flaws. In my original post about E8, I simply said that E8 can be disqualified because it is too long in a way matching the description of disqualification (evidence4). You don't believe that any entry should be disqualified unless someone expresses a request? Not to mention that it wasn't a request. I was pointing out a flaw in the contest-entrant system.
I said that the motivation you imposed on the unknown author was unjustified because it made the author unreasonably spineless. I wasn't insulting you. I said that you were insulting the unknown author when you imposed your assumptions.
I don't know the true motivations behind E8. But if the entrant was just trying to get by, and trying to argue his way around afterwards, it was a lack of integrity. If that is the case, it is not an insult, it is a fact.
The numerical score cannot reflect E8 because it is reasonably disqualified. The entry itself was well-writing. So it was tragic that the entrant did not play within the rules. If this is the case, the author had merits, but lacks integrity.
It is not about MY ego. It is the normal, reasonable decision to pull out, just like what ahw suggested.
I also know that there is a conflict of interest. That was my original argument against any entrant from voting at all. What were you trying to say? The comment was obviously not targetted at anyone specific. My point was that a full voting system is fair because vote count is low.
If you are wondering what I am talking about, when I posted that E8 Can be disqualified, I was actually trying to pose a question, that whether we can include any explanations in the piece that is not related to the actual content of the contest. I was expecting the author of E8 to defend the entry by saying that the History protion wasn't really part of the profile, that it was just a reference attached, but not part of the competition. That was the argument what I was expecting. That was why your comment was unjustified and seemed like an unnecessary insult on the author.
If you feel insulted, it was your own fault.
I was trying to set up the discussion on a rule that allows the contestant to provide a short description to align the perspective of the entry, so that the viewers can see in what context should the entries should be judged more clearly.
The way you argue will call for a jury. Note that this is no long a logical discussion, this is a rational consideration.
Evidence0 - actual events
Quote:
Bystander1: four pages already :( I hate making cuts.
Doe1: I know, two pages doesn't sound like a lot to me . That's why, since I'm thinking of giving it a go this round, I'd like to know what's usually required for this kind of thing so I don't waste a lot of space on unnecessary stuff.
Doe1: By the way, [Host], what do you consider to be a "page" worth of length? I'm a seasoned veteran of weaseling around requirements like this, so you'll have to be a bit more specific, unless you are willing to accept two sheets of A0 paper from me .
ByStander1: Yeah, is that two pages front and back? :D
ByStander2: You can always enter more than once I do believe that that is another option if you can't narrow all your ideas to the required length.
Doe1: That option doesn't really work if your four pages are about the same character. I'm just asking because I haven't done much creative writing since I left school, and I don't think I've ever formally written a character profile. I'm not sure if there's an "official" template of what a writer means when they talk about character profiles, so I wouldn't know what was required. As I've got some time off this week I plan to try to write something for this round, and I have an idea for a character, but I could write pages and pages of stuff. And possibly include pictures, music, suggested voice recordings, cel animation, 3D models, claymation film, etc. (okay, maybe not)
Doe1: I'm sorry that I seem to be filling this up with my questions, but for a character profile is something like this brief description of "Sly" from Anachronox the sort of thing that's expected from a writer? It seem a bit short and not detailed enough to me, though.
Host: *Gave an example*
Doe1: Thanks [Host]! Your sample profile seems similar to what I thought was expected.
Evidence1: The approximate wordcount of E8, submitted by Doe1, is 1866, which is 182% as long as the second longest entry, E3 with 1026 words.
Evidence2: The host of the competition had given a sample of a character profile. Which was denoted by TG, and was 506 words.
Evidence3: Doe1 had provided a reasonable example of character profile, denoted by TZ, which was 333 words.
Evidence4 - Contest Rule: Entries must be between 1 and 2 pages. Entries that don’t satisfy this criteria will be disqualified.
Evidence5 - Host Explanation: As to how many words it should be I’m not really concerned about that I’m more interested in your ability to present the information in a clear and concise format. If that takes 100 words or 1000 doesn’t matter as long as the reader feels they have all the information on the character they need to know.
Is it reasonable to believe that Doe1 had consciously broke a rule?
Doe1: [It] might [come] across that I was trying to weasel my way through the requirements of the competition to get my entry in.
Doe1's Defenses
D0: [At the moment Evidence0 took place], I had written nothing, since I was busy writing something else.
(Objection: This defense has nothing to do with the argument)
D1: [To explain the scenario], what I was actually doing was trying to get a fix on exactly what that limit was before I started writing so I could guage the length accordingly in the little time I had to write my submission.
(Objection: This defense has nothing to do with the argument, the motivation behind Evidence0 is obvious, yet irrelevant.)
D2: [After reading evidence5, I decided that Evidence4 is only a strong guideline, and not worth] spending another couple of hours tracking down a better method for estimating the size of the submission, or asking another series of questions on the recommended font size and spacing a few hours from the submission deadline.
Counter Argument: Doe1 understood the requirement. Doe1 had confirmed the understanding in Evidence0, last line. And Doe1 has expressed the understanding that two pages doesn't sound like a lot (Evidence0, Line2). Based on these, it seems reasonable to believe that Doe1 wrote the entry, it was too long, and simply had no time or made no effort to correct the mistake. In this argument, the defenses of Doe1 thereafter seem like excuses, in an attempt to, (quoting Doe1's own words), "weaseling around requirements like this".
Is it reasonable to believe that Doe1 had consciously broke a rule?
Is it reasonable to believe that Doe1 had consciously broke a rule due to the lack of competitive effort?
Do the defending arguments by Doe1 appear reasonable, or created after an accusation was made?
Did Doe1 offer advice in one end and on the other rejected the same advice as it should have applied to his own entry? (Doe1 advised Bystander1 to break a long entry apart)
If you don't dig the research paper analogy, just go back to your high school English classes. When the teacher gives the freedom that an essay should be about a certain length, it is a rule based on common sense and the faith that the students will honor their integrity.
Quote:
[quute]Trapper Zoid's argument made the entrant sound like a spineless creep trying to get by by beating around the rules. It is not hard to say something like ahw said when a piece apparently (to himself) doesn't satisfy the requirement. That was unjustified. It is not about tricking the system. It is about integrity.
As opposed to someone who seems to spending most of their time stomping on everyone else's creative work, and then firing off requests to see other entries be disqualified?
There is a reason to speak because there are flaws. In my original post about E8, I simply said that E8 can be disqualified because it is too long in a way matching the description of disqualification (evidence4). You don't believe that any entry should be disqualified unless someone expresses a request? Not to mention that it wasn't a request. I was pointing out a flaw in the contest-entrant system.
Quote:You need to understand that I did not originally attack entry 8, I was attacking the rules based on the contest-entrant combination. No one asked you to stick your head in to comment on the motive of the author of E8. Your comments pointed to a reason that displayed the lack of integrity of the author. And I said
Sorry if that seems a bit harsh, but there's precious few insults that can assault me, but attacking my integrity is one of them. I have tried to maintain what I felt to be the spirit of this competition, which I thought was a friendly chance to work on my languishing creative skills, help other people with theirs, and have a bit of fun. I'm not entirely sure what you think it is for, but frankly your barbs and the way you have demonised the entries from round 1 have cut into my enjoyment of this competition immensely.
Quote:
Trapper Zoid's argument made the entrant sound like a spineless creep trying to get by by beating around the rules. It is not hard to say something like ahw said when a piece apparently (to himself) doesn't satisfy the requirement. That was unjustified.
I said that the motivation you imposed on the unknown author was unjustified because it made the author unreasonably spineless. I wasn't insulting you. I said that you were insulting the unknown author when you imposed your assumptions.
I don't know the true motivations behind E8. But if the entrant was just trying to get by, and trying to argue his way around afterwards, it was a lack of integrity. If that is the case, it is not an insult, it is a fact.
The numerical score cannot reflect E8 because it is reasonably disqualified. The entry itself was well-writing. So it was tragic that the entrant did not play within the rules. If this is the case, the author had merits, but lacks integrity.
It is not about MY ego. It is the normal, reasonable decision to pull out, just like what ahw suggested.
I also know that there is a conflict of interest. That was my original argument against any entrant from voting at all. What were you trying to say? The comment was obviously not targetted at anyone specific. My point was that a full voting system is fair because vote count is low.
Quote:I didn't insult you. I said that your assumptions on the author was insulting. Technically it wasn't me spoiling the mood. I start with someone objective and neutral, some simple statements, and the people involved just explode.
And please Estok could you stop insulting people? You are spoiling the mood of this whole competition with your present manner.
If you are wondering what I am talking about, when I posted that E8 Can be disqualified, I was actually trying to pose a question, that whether we can include any explanations in the piece that is not related to the actual content of the contest. I was expecting the author of E8 to defend the entry by saying that the History protion wasn't really part of the profile, that it was just a reference attached, but not part of the competition. That was the argument what I was expecting. That was why your comment was unjustified and seemed like an unnecessary insult on the author.
If you feel insulted, it was your own fault.
I was trying to set up the discussion on a rule that allows the contestant to provide a short description to align the perspective of the entry, so that the viewers can see in what context should the entries should be judged more clearly.
1,370
October 04, 2005 07:48 PM
I'm not sure why I'm replying to this, but in the interests of explaination I feel compelled to reply.
I've read through all that transcript, and I can see how you might think that I was trying to bend the rules, but in reality I was trying to get a feel of what was expected. This is the first time I have written a character profile, and the competition details were a little vague. That's why I put all those questions in there. I also often put my posts in a light-hearted and occasionally self-depreciating manner which might make me look, to someone who is not used to it and is looking to see the worst in everyone, as if I was slightly more shady than I actually am. Plus, as a mitigating circumstance, I was in the final few days of a two week crunch-time paper writing session where I was working 16 hours a day (and regularly posting on GameDev.Net as a series of breaks due to writers block on my paper) and frankly, I was a little insane (that happens sometimes when I work too hard).
You do realise the the author of entry 8 is me, right? I thought that was implicit in the first post, and I did explicitly state that in the post you are quoting from.
Since I feel justified to explain, you essentially called me a cheat and a liar without any integrity. Since my integrity is a core part of my ethics, and that's essential part of what makes me me, to me that's one of the worst insults you can fling in my direction. It's also a critical part of being an academic, which is what I'm working towards (I'm presently a postgrad. student). Academic reputations live or die on their level of integrity, since they are expected to not plagarise other people's ideas, and not to falsify their results. That's why I was so insulted by your post.
This is a classic line from a bully, Estok. Either you are blissfully naive about what other people feel, or you are unable to deal with your own faults.
That argument is right there in my first post defending entry 8, Estok (by the way, I feel that I am justified in attacking the author of entry 8, given that it's me and all that.) I think I have justified my decision making process enough in the posts so far.
Edit: In addtion, I'm not going to get further drawn into a huge debate over this. Estok, if you reply with another post implying motives on my part that I honestly did not have then I will ignore it. It's really just down to my words versus yours here, and it's pointless to be arguing over something so trivial.
I've read through all that transcript, and I can see how you might think that I was trying to bend the rules, but in reality I was trying to get a feel of what was expected. This is the first time I have written a character profile, and the competition details were a little vague. That's why I put all those questions in there. I also often put my posts in a light-hearted and occasionally self-depreciating manner which might make me look, to someone who is not used to it and is looking to see the worst in everyone, as if I was slightly more shady than I actually am. Plus, as a mitigating circumstance, I was in the final few days of a two week crunch-time paper writing session where I was working 16 hours a day (and regularly posting on GameDev.Net as a series of breaks due to writers block on my paper) and frankly, I was a little insane (that happens sometimes when I work too hard).
Quote:
Original post by Estok
I didn't insult you. I said that your assumptions on the author was insulting.
You do realise the the author of entry 8 is me, right? I thought that was implicit in the first post, and I did explicitly state that in the post you are quoting from.
Since I feel justified to explain, you essentially called me a cheat and a liar without any integrity. Since my integrity is a core part of my ethics, and that's essential part of what makes me me, to me that's one of the worst insults you can fling in my direction. It's also a critical part of being an academic, which is what I'm working towards (I'm presently a postgrad. student). Academic reputations live or die on their level of integrity, since they are expected to not plagarise other people's ideas, and not to falsify their results. That's why I was so insulted by your post.
Quote:
If you feel insulted, it was your own fault.
This is a classic line from a bully, Estok. Either you are blissfully naive about what other people feel, or you are unable to deal with your own faults.
Quote:
If you are wondering what I am talking about, when I posted that E8 Can be disqualified, I was actually trying to pose a question, that whether we can include any explanations in the piece that is not related to the actual content of the contest. I was expecting the author of E8 to defend the entry by saying that the History protion wasn't really part of the profile, that it was just a reference attached, but not part of the competition. That was the argument what I was expecting. That was why your comment was unjustified and seemed like an unnecessary insult on the author.
That argument is right there in my first post defending entry 8, Estok (by the way, I feel that I am justified in attacking the author of entry 8, given that it's me and all that.) I think I have justified my decision making process enough in the posts so far.
Edit: In addtion, I'm not going to get further drawn into a huge debate over this. Estok, if you reply with another post implying motives on my part that I honestly did not have then I will ignore it. It's really just down to my words versus yours here, and it's pointless to be arguing over something so trivial.
104
October 04, 2005 08:30 PM
Quote:You need to understand that I didn't pose my suggestions as arguments. There is no logical reason for anyone to be defending against them. In first round I opposed any voting by the entrants for the exact same reason you gave here. It wasn't posed as an argument. But what you guys said afterwards didn't make sense. However, the contest itself exposed weaknesses of the contestants as contestants. That is a motivation to change the voting system.
Original post by sunandshadow
In point of fact, I think the difference between our own judgement of our work and others' judgement of our work is exactly why contests like this and critique groups are so important. We only have access to our own judgement while creating a piece, so if we want to write something that pleases an audience we have to learn what the average difference between our own opinion and the audience's opinion is. Maybe I thought I clearly made some point, but if more than half the audience didn't get it I must be wrong. One of the major purposes of this forum is for all of us to learn to improve our own writing by considering others' comments on it. The purpose is _not_ to practice arguing why we think our own pieces are the best.
Quote:I think they are pretty cliche, too. What is your point? We aren't scoring them on an absolute scale, we are ranking them.
BTW Estok here's something I would like your opinion on. I though all the entries in this second round were pretty cliche. Every single one, including my own. Why do you suppose that is? Are they actually all cliche, or is it just my own bias against sword and sorcery settings, or against the theme of revenge, or even against the underlying implication that the game will be all about combat?
Quote:
Trapper Zoid - Personally I don't give a damn if the entry ran a little bit over the requirements, and I maintain that since they were so vague they can't be used to disqualify a piece. Also, some people will have already voted for entry 8, so pulling it now would totally screw the voting, so please don't.
You can't pull out votes. And I didn't suggest that. If you believe that an entry is disqualified, you would just stick it at the end of the ranks. There is nothing about screwing up the voting. That was a misunderstanding. It was exactly how you ranked E8.Corn in Round1 because it was a 'troll'.
Quote:This I need to defend, given that you are a moderator. I did not insult anyone as spineless creep. You need to read what I posted. I said that to simply believe that the author of E8 was trying to get by was unjustified. You are reading the wrong thing. The posts I made were neutral. You guys started defending against nothing, and when I pointed out the flaws in the reasonings, you feel hostile. It was neutral. How could you, as a moderator, justify my 'zeal' to disqualify entires?
Estok - Personal insults, e.g. calling people names like "spineless creep" is against GameDev's rules, and you have been warned for this before. Don't do it again or I'll raise your warning level again. >.< I am really not pleased with the hostile attitude you are bringing to this contest. This is supposed to be a fun learning experience and we want as many people as possible to participate, while you seem to be intent on driving away the competition with your overly-harsh criticism and zeal to disqualify entries. Don't forget that if TechnoGoth thinks you are damaging the contest he can ban you from entering future rounds.
I said E4 is disqualified. No one contested that.
I said E8 can be disqualifed. TechnoGoth said he would have to read it in order to decide. I said it was unnecessary because if the content can waive a piece from disqualification, then what is the point of having rules?
I don't see how you can justify my damaging of the contest. I was the only one initiating changes to improve the contest. If you consider the debates over the quality of writings, then you need to judge which was reasonable, and which side was misinterpreting the other side. There were causes for what I said. And the things I said were reasonable and logical. I don't think that a ban from entering future rounds has any deterrent effect. I hope you understand the implication of this statement you made. You think that the fear of being banned is good reason to shut up? What is the definition of integrity?
[Edited by - Estok on October 4, 2005 8:30:03 PM]
7,435
October 04, 2005 09:39 PM
Quote:
Original post by Estok
However, the contest itself exposed weaknesses of the contestants as contestants. That is a motivation to change the voting system.
Contestants can't have weaknesses as contestants. The operation of a contest should be objective and not affected by any particular contestant or entry.
Quote:
BTW Estok here's something I would like your opinion on. I though all the entries in this second round were pretty cliche. Every single one, including my own. Why do you suppose that is? Are they actually all cliche, or is it just my own bias against sword and sorcery settings, or against the theme of revenge, or even against the underlying implication that the game will be all about combat?
I'm not talking about scoring or ranking. I am asking what you think the cause of this phenomenon of universal clicheness is. I am puzzled by it.
Quote:
Trapper Zoid - Personally I don't give a damn if the entry ran a little bit over the requirements, and I maintain that since they were so vague they can't be used to disqualify a piece. Also, some people will have already voted for entry 8, so pulling it now would totally screw the voting, so please don't.
You can't pull out votes. And I didn't suggest that. If you believe that an entry is disqualified, you would just stick it at the end of the ranks. There is nothing about screwing up the voting. That was a misunderstanding. It was exactly how you ranked E8.Corn in Round1 because it was a 'troll'.
If you stick entry 8 at the end of the ranks that is the same as ignoring all the votes of the people who voted for it as one of the top 3. Those people would then effectively have only gotten to vote for 2 entries while other voters got to vote for 3. Thus, screwing up the voting.
Quote:
Estok - Personal insults, e.g. calling people names like "spineless creep" is against GameDev's rules, and you have been warned for this before. Don't do it again or I'll raise your warning level again. >.< I am really not pleased with the hostile attitude you are bringing to this contest. This is supposed to be a fun learning experience and we want as many people as possible to participate, while you seem to be intent on driving away the competition with your overly-harsh criticism and zeal to disqualify entries. Don't forget that if TechnoGoth thinks you are damaging the contest he can ban you from entering future rounds.
I did read what you posted. Although you and Trapper Zoid were both speaking in the hypothetical, you clearly said that you though anyone who would do what Trapper Zoid was implying he had done would be a 'spineless creep'. In no way were all the posts you have made in response to the contest rounds neutral, but I can't impose any penalty on you just for being aggressive and irritating to other posters. However, any sort of name calling is explicitly considered to be flaming and against GameDev policy. I am obligated to prosecute it if is is continued after a warning, it's not even my choice, it's an official part of my assigned moderator duties. So this is your warning, don't do it again.
Quote:
I said E8 can be disqualifed. TechnoGoth said he would have to read it in order to decide. I said it was unnecessary because if the content can waive a piece from disqualification, then what is the point of having rules?
How many times do I have to say that in my opinion the rule wasn't clearly definied and thus is dysfunctional? It's TechnoGoth's call whether to disqualify the entry or not, but you asked me for whatever reason, and my personal opinion is that the entry should not be disqualified.
Quote:
I don't see how you can justify my damaging of the contest. I was the only one initiating changes to improve the contest. If you consider the debates over the quality of writings, then you need to judge which was reasonable, and which side was misinterpreting the other side. There were causes for what I said. And the things I said were reasonable and logical. I don't think that a ban from entering future rounds has any deterrent effect. I hope you understand the implication of this statement you made. You think that the fear of being banned is good reason to shut up? What is the definition of integrity?
I'm not telling you to shut up, I'm telling you to be nice. Integrity is important, but civility is equally important - your attitude and approach have been hurting and offending other posters. 5 Minute Gaming has said so, Trapper Zoid has said so, I am saying so - are you going to ignore all of us?
You are not open to criticism of your work, yet you expect us to just accept your criticism of ours? If you go around saying that our arguments are nonsense and we are defending against nothing, you must not have much respect for us as intelligent adults who have logical reasons for our opinions. And if you don't respect us and aren't open to learning from our criticism, why the heck are you here? This is a dialectic community for the purpose of helping each other become better writers. Let me emphasize that word COMMUNITY. If you think people can objectively critique themselves, perhaps you should start by critiquing yourself as a community member. If you want to help people by giving them advice, you need to keep in mind that people never take advice from someone they're mad at and phrase your advice a bit more diplomatically.
I want to help design a "sandpark" MMO. Optional interactive story with quests and deeply characterized NPCs, plus sandbox elements like player-craftable housing and lots of other crafting. If you are starting a design of this type, please PM me. I also love pet-breeding games.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
Recommended Tutorials
Advertisement