I've seen a great deal of discussion about when and why to flag items for rules violations on several threads, so I thought I'd centralize this issue in its own thread. My understanding is that we should only flag entries that do not conform to the following list:
DISQUALIFICATION: Submissions may be disqualified for the following reasons:
•Submission is not a wondrous item.
•Submission is not anonymous.
•Submission exceeds 300 words.
•Submission does not conform to the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game (From Vic's post below "If you leave out one required game mechanic (for example, you put price, but not cost), we're not going to DQ you. If you use a 3.5 skill that's not in Pathfinder, but everything else conforms, we're not going to DQ you. But if you make 2 or more of these types of error, we will DQ you.").
•Submission is copied from a previously published source (Also paraphrased from Vic's post below "IP infringement is DQ'd, bad copies of non-IP content is not DQ'd").
•Submission uses rules, monsters, or copyrighted material from publishers other than Paizo.
If I'm missing something, please add it below. If I got something wrong, let me know.
Thanks. :)
This is accurate. We have an FAQ entry for this.
Basically by clicking that link, you're asking the judges to review the item to be disqualified and removed from the voting. Clicking it for items that are merely bad makes more work for the judges, when voting against them can serve the same purpose.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
,
Marathon Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8
aka Jiggy
|
•Submission is copied from a previously published source.
•Submission uses rules, monsters, or copyrighted material from publishers other than Paizo.
Are these two limited to other RPG material, or is an item flag-worthy if it's a direct rip-off of TV/movies/video games?
Chief Technical Officer
|
It's also in the Voting FAQ.
To clarify a couple of points, though...
As far as conforming to the Pathfinder RPG rules, the judges leave some room for error. If you leave out one required game mechanic (for example, you put price, but not cost), we're not going to DQ you. If you use a 3.5 skill that's not in Pathfinder, but everything else conforms, we're not going to DQ you. If you have all the required information, but it's in the wrong places, we're not going to DQ you. But if you make 2 or more of these types of error, we will DQ you.
There's at least one entry that people keep reporting because it's very clearly an adaptation of a plot device from a popular TV show. It's almost certainly not going to win over voters looking for originality, but it doesn't technically infringe on anyone's intellectual property, so it's not actually against the rules.
If you see these types of problem in an item, and you think that's reason enough for it not to succeed, by all means, don't vote for it... but don't bother reporting it, either.
I wanted to chime in with feedback. When I reviewed my first two submissions, I was initially confused by the "This item breaks the contest rules" link at the bottom of each submission. I think the function of those links could be clarified a bit better. Something like "Click here if this item breaks contest rules" or something similar to that.
EDIT: Went back to voting and I noticed the language was changed.
Wasn't "over 200,000 gold" a dq?
If an item is too cursed - like a ring that appears to be a ring of swimming but instead paralyses you when you go into the water, or a tome that draws the attention of all vampires in 100 miles, then I think it should be flagged.
If, on the other hand it has a really severe drawback, but still does other stuff like "this ring allows you to see through walls, but drains 1 Con a round", then it may just be bad design and should be voted against.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wasn't "over 200,000 gold" a dq?
As discussed elsewhere... it's not directly a DQ. At that price, in 3.5e, it became an epic item - which before epic existed were artifacts.
So, an item that's over 200,000gp should probably be an artifact, yes. But unless it can't be crafted, technically it's only really bad design.
Judges, feel free to make a more official ruling on that.
...entry that people keep reporting...
if the same items come up repeatedly (3x, 10x, 50x??) Could you put a note saying this has been 'checked and confirmed legal' or 'code 2319' or 'these aren't the droids your looking for' or something? Just to keep y'all from redoing the same task ad infinum.
Contributor
,
Dedicated Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
aka Steven T. Helt
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I asked for a blatant joke item to be reviewed, but then I realized maybe the writer was just really inappropriate and unprofessional and maybe didn't mean it as a joke. But, come on. When it gets to the point you're trying to split those hairs...
I'm just checking, does doing sneaky things like collapsing "3,000 gp" to "3,000gp" to make it one word to slip in under the limit count as grounds for reporting?
I've flagged a few and I have to apologize because I thought formatting was an official rule, but I can see why it might not get a great item banned - on that basis alone.
i did see one that used a spell name that pre-dates pathfinder - though there is an equivalent in pathfinder, that was one legitimate flag in my opinion - but I'm sure I did a few that were just terribly formatted.
I'm sure (or at least I'd like to believe I'm not the only one flagging format issues) the judges are being asking to view almost as many flagged items as if they were reviewing the whole pile, so,
I'd like to recommend that some comment re formatting be added to the voting page:
something akin to:
If adding the title into the body of the text makes it go over 300 words, then yeah that's a rule breaker. Otherwise, it's just kind of sloppy and should be taken into consideration when voting but it's not flag-worthy.
from this thread: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2paqv?Breaks-the-Rules-question-Formatting
|
Marathon Voter Season 7
|
I have reported two items. Both failed to conform to template in rather significant ways, such as having a paragraph about construction (and not even in proper form) before the description, or failing to have construction requirements at all.
Are those valid flags, or should I just not vote for them.
Minor infringments on template, such as a failure to italicize I am not reporting, though considering when vote.
I've flagged an item that was, in fact, a living creature (and it actually said so in the entry). That should go in the Bestiary.
Wicht, I'd say that's worth flagging and letting the judges decide. I've flagged one entry that wasn't a wondrous item, going so far as to not use the Craft Woundrous Item feat.
Edited: Because Create Wondrous Item is not an actual feat (but not grounds for DQ!)
...going so far as to not use the Create Woundrous Item feat.
I'm sure you mean "Craft Wondrous Item" feat...right? ;-)
I flagged a blatant joke item. There's no point in wasting people's votes ranking against something that will immediately be tossed aside by judges with no remorse.
We saw explanatory text in item submissions during previous years. It's not a disqualification-worthy event. Just ignore that text and assess the remainder of the submission. If you've got an equal submission to compare it to that didn't use explanatory text, vote for the one without it.
Just my two cents,
--Neil
...going so far as to not use the Create Woundrous Item feat.I'm sure you mean "Craft Wondrous Item" feat...right? ;-)
Ouch... That's what I get for not editing myself... : (
On the bright side, it's not too late to edit that now! : )
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Answering some specific questions, for next year (assuming we do the same thing):
Yes, if it's really a cursed item/weapon/artifact/other thing that's not a wondrous item, it's appropriate to flag it, as that's against the rules.
If it's a joke item, or a real-word item, or has all of the required info but in the wrong place, none of those things are against the rules. They are unlikely to be rewarded by the voters, but they're not DQ-worthy offenses.
I'm just checking, does doing sneaky things like collapsing "3,000 gp" to "3,000gp" to make it one word to slip in under the limit count as grounds for reporting?
It does. "Doing things wrong" is not a valid method for getting more than the allotted word count, and items close to max word count will be examined closely for that sort of thing.
If you find something that you really think is a problem, you can PM me with the name of the item and I'll take a look at it.
...entry that people keep reporting...if the same items come up repeatedly (3x, 10x, 50x??) Could you put a note saying this has been 'checked and confirmed legal' or 'code 2319' or 'these aren't the droids your looking for' or something? Just to keep y'all from redoing the same task ad infinum.
"These are not the DQ's you're looking for."
I asked for a blatant joke item to be reviewed, but then I realized maybe the writer was just really inappropriate and unprofessional and maybe didn't mean it as a joke. But, come on. When it gets to the point you're trying to split those hairs...
Perhaps we are seeing what it is like to be a judge.
...going so far as to not use the Create Woundrous Item feat.I'm sure you mean "Craft Wondrous Item" feat...right? ;-)
Are you sure you're talking to the right Jacob? Because I just found out there are 3 of them.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
I'm just checking, does doing sneaky things like collapsing "3,000 gp" to "3,000gp" to make it one word to slip in under the limit count as grounds for reporting?It does. "Doing things wrong" is not a valid method for getting more than the allotted word count, and items close to max word count will be examined closely for that sort of thing.
..which, by the way, is an important lesson. A minor mistake that would have no effect on a 250-word entry could get a 300-word entry disqualified. Playing close to the word limit is a dangerous choice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you sure you're talking to the right Jacob? Because I just found out there are 3 of them.
Only 3...for now. Prepare to be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you sure you're talking to the right Jacob? Because I just found out there are 3 of them.Only 3...for now. Prepare to be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
OH SHOOT! I just checked my birth certificate... You guyz are good.