Wild Gazebo's page

This is a very impressive item. Congrats!

1000 - 1200 wpm is the rate at which contestants read at the World Championship speed reading competitions...the average adult reads at approx 250 wpm. Meaning the greater majority of people would take approx 2 minutes to read two entries...I think we are pretty safe.

That being said, I definitely wouldn't complain if it was reduced to 30 seconds.

It will also give an important link to the chain of logic at play...as the voting isn't really just tallying votes.

Bear in mind several spell-in-a-cans and swiss-army-knives have made the final.

I was just going to start his thread. My respect for the judges from the prior years has increased a thousand-fold.

I will say, I don't think the neither option is meant for disdain; but, as a measure to eliminate ties. The items will show up again as you continue with your voting. I think it has been programmed as a reshuffle: not a judgement.

That is because in a Concordet ballot you list more than one preference by rank. This creates paradoxes that are resolved with the logical formulas. Like I said earlier, the voting method doesn't match what we do. There is an alternate Concordet method that collects single ballots...but then there are several more rounds of voting that eventually eliminates the losers...eventually leaving the winner. Which is, I guess, closer to what they are proposing.

All weighting will be done through number of yeses over number of ballots. This will grade the applicant compared to others. If there is a need to subset later, they will start to group like-weighted entries to create a ranking.

What we are doing will work fine.

Yep. That's right! It will work just fine.

This page gives a reasonably plain-english description of how we're planning on ranking the entries.

Hmmm. Another voting system. Why are voting methods being used instead of data gathering methods? I know...we are voting. But, it's not like there are only two or three candidates.

I'm not being clear. A voting method assumes relatively few options (only approx 2 to 10 participants), and weights choices through a linear logic of weight. Example A>B; B>C; therefore A>C. This is a hard logical process to validify on the merit of 'wondrous items.' One could be better due to grammar, content, play-ability, creativity...which could be weighted much differently on a case-by-case difference.

While a data gathering method would employ sampling and cross sampling to create meaningful subsets which could be again sampled and cross sampled...until you get you best 'weighted' or top picks.

Now a true data gathering method would need to employ full sets of permutations; but, statistical methods would allow the creation of significant amounts of permutations (say 30-40%...perhaps even much lower) to create the subsets needed to further progress--and of course each subset would have a smaller number of permutations. But, again, I worry about the sheer amount of participation needed.

Again, not belittling the process or trying to create a problem...just genuinely interested in the process.

I should mention that most camping items are terrible and I'm really glad most of the designers agree. This is because camping items are almost solely designed to facilitate an ease of play over a story told.

I like the campy NPC gag items for camping...if I'm in that type of game. But any item that handicaps a GM is in my mind poor for the game.

That being said, I think items like an immovable rod, portable hole, and rope of entanglement create such an open-ended scope of utility that they are superstar even if used by a player with poor creativity. The potential for creativity makes those items superstar.

A spatula...or a towel...or a 10' pole all have their place: and if we were designing a contest for superstar mundane items...they might be competitors.

But I think the potential for creative utility does.

Wild Gazebo wrote:

Darkjoy wrote:

I meant that the judges act as a balance against your perceived lack data significance.

Oh, Darkjoy, I wasn't calling you silly! I know what you meant. I was calling myself silly. Meaning, even if there was a 15% margin of error it would still be damn close to the subjectivity of a judicial review.

Well, it did work well for 5 years.

It sure did. And they all deserve nothing but respect for it. This contest is great for the gaming community.

Wild Gazebo, we don't need to speculate about how well the voting method will work. Gary's said that they're using a modified Condorcet method for voting, and there is extensive academic research and literature on how that works. To summarise, the method works exceedingly well for exactly this sort of ranking problem, even though most voters only see a tiny subset of the available permutations.

Here is a good starting place if you want to read more, but note you could take graduate level courses in this stuff.

I like to speculate. I'm not trying to drum up a revolution. This is just a conversation.

I'm very familiar with that method, because of some political volunteering I did. Unfortunately, it assumes a different method. Now, as I understand it form some brief reading, outside of Wikipedia, there is another method that employs single tally collection; but, that method would employ multiple permutations...in fact, it would need half of the total amount of entries in permutations of the subsets. So, I don't think they will employ that method.

I imagine they will simply rank 1pt or no point and only allow one view per voter and bracket the randomization based on the subset, or number of votes, so that they get an even field of 'times of votes'. Otherwise they would have to apply a ratio of pts/#votes on the weighting of every entry to properly assign a rank.

I meant that the judges act as a balance against your perceived lack data significance.

Oh, Darkjoy, I wasn't calling you silly! I know what you meant. I was calling myself silly. Meaning, even if there was a 15% margin of error it would still be damn close to the subjectivity of a judicial review.

Wild Gazebo wrote:

What I'm saying is that there is a far wider margin for items of less-than-normal quality to gain more points because of the significance of the data gathering--and the opposite.

I'm absolutely certain it will giver a us a good list of candidates and that many gamers will spend hours combing over the entries. But, I thought, since this was the topic, I would share my thoughts on the significance of the data. I have a feeling the data won't be significant because of the large percent of error it will employ.

There is a reason that we have some judges at the end of the voting.

Hurrah for people!!!!!!

Its funny. This is just a discussion for me. I'm really not worried. Comparing this to the subjectivity of judges is really quite silly--in terms of math.

I'm just interested in what people think...and if it was thought of.

This is where I'll get a little fuzzy...if the algorithm takes into account the preference selected and pair them based on that, then the set of permutations decreases exponentially for each of the sets left.

Yes, I was assuming they weren't doing that because of that. It would be more like a single elimination type of tournament.

What I'm saying is that there is a far wider margin for items of less-than-normal quality to gain more points because of the significance of the data gathering--and the opposite.

I'm absolutely certain it will giver a us a good list of candidates and that many gamers will spend hours combing over the entries. But, I thought, since this was the topic, I would share my thoughts on the significance of the data. I have a feeling the data won't be significant because of the large percent of error it will employ.

I welcome the plagiarism.

I’m a little concerned over the significance of the data set from a public vote. Not that I don’t trust people…I do…it is just that a single pairing system will force voters to be very prolific. I mean if there are just 500 entries…a lowball I assume…that would mean there are approx 124000 (assuming no repetitions) permutations (my math might be a little off—this is going back 20 years). If you limit the data exposure to one view per voter that only allows a single voter 250 votes: meaning you would need 496 people to vote 250 times (or 1240 people to vote 100 times…or more likely …12400 people to vote 10 times) to get a single set of permutations.

Now, I know, you aren’t looking for a full set of permutations because you don’t need it to grade (think of sports tournaments); but, through the randomization, you will seriously skew the caliber of submission through the lack of permutations. If you assume that only 10% of submissions are of short-listing caliber any lack of permutation would increase the possibility of short-listing. Meaning, there is a greater chance of poorer quality items being shortlisted and better quality items being eliminated (goes both ways). You are essentially changing the goal-posts…I can’t do the math without specifics; but, it would be similar to saying instead of any one item having a 10% chance of being shortlisted they now have a 10-15% chance of being shortlisted: not because of the lessening of standards (or ratio…that always stays the same—and probably the reason why this was pitched) but because of the significance of the data. Many models are quite happy to assume a +/- 5% variation…but without at least one set of permutations I’m not sure this model can even get close to 5%.

(Just for another comparison if there are 1300 entries there are 844000 permutations; meaning 1298 people would have to vote 650 times; or 8440 people would have to vote 100 times; 84400 people would have to vote 10 times; for just a single set of permutations)

Thoughts? Am I missing something? My stats class is approx 20 years old…so I’m more than happy to hear where I messed up.

Well...this one might not be that close to an Almost Ran, because of the make-up of the item I only considered it for a second.

I personally love items that have an element of sacrifice and spur role-playing situations. I love items that push back the feeling that magical items are common...or mundane. This item is very close to an artifact in that it breaks rules and basically replaces character-death-by-damage to character-death-by-ability-damage. As well, the bonuses have the ability to stack well beyond what is normal for a magical item: these are things that are generally considered poor design; but, I enjoy the types of situations they create in my games. If I can add suspense to my game...I will.

I'm wondering how it will be significant. It seems to me the number of votes would have to be exponentially larger to cover even a middling amount of permutations. Has anyone done the math?

This question has always bothered me. I would love to be able to use the [table] option. Not just for random tables, for expediency, organization, and concision.

May a bloated yak change the temperature of your jacuzzi

Oh, I thought it would be funny to characterize all four judges as PF character classes...

Ryan is the bard of RPG Superstar judges. He wants to see an exciting performance and doesn't want things to be dull. He'd rather see someone swing for the fences and make something epic and exciting than have a solid item that's dull or even average.

Clark is the paladin. He wants to find the best in everyone's item, he's showing off that shiny aura of courage to get everyone enthusiastic about the competition, but quite ready to smite any item that disregards the holy purpose of the competition--including something submitted only as a joke or to waste the judges' time.

Neil is the wizard. He'll scrutinize every item and write a lengthy scroll about its pros and cons. Given time, he can prepare an appropriate response to any competitor's submission, question, or argument, and back it up with references to one of his many spellbooks.

Sean: I'm the inquisitor. It's my job to find and eliminate problems, and by doing so, I protect the nature of the contest. I preach a lot of advice on how not to make mistakes, and get grumpy when people insist on making those mistakes anyway. Like the wizard, I have a lot of knowledge and access to a lot of books... but inquisitors aren't as forgiving as wizards are when it comes to errors.

Yes, I'm a big gamer nerd. :p

The link in the adventure path Council of Thieves for
The Bastards of Erebus(1 of 6): takes you to the home page instead of the appropriate page.

Thanks.

Couldn't disagree more.

Edit:

I think you are seriously miscalculating the sheer amount of time and energy (volunteered) that it takes to do something like this.

I would even suggest in the following years for the judges to do less so that they don't burn themselves out. Now that they have several threads of critiquing and general examples they could use it as reference for comments.

I don't think some people realize just how luck this community is to have the kind of feedback it receives. Let me be clear: it doesn't happen in other industries.

We are not lacking...we are over-spoiled.

Congrats to Mike and all of the other contestants! What a great showing!

And a special thanks to Paizo and all the volunteers for being gracious hosts and judges. Working weekends to go out of your way to respond to customers and contestants is beyond good form!

This company has done a lot for the community.

Yes. Clarity. Because this is a contest and many people, regardless of reality, feel that the ranking is important.

The deliniation of changed content could be excluded with the inclusion of a disclaimer.

Create a town, village, or city with a map and NPCs.

Create a feat chain (2+ long).

Develop a small plane of existence or demi-plane.

Create a trap (make it higher level).

Develop a religion or cult.

Create an artifact.

Create a spell (make it a certain level)

Give them a map and make them populate it!

As above with monster.

Create an encounter where the environment is the major challenge.

Wild Gazebo, you really need to tone it down. Attacking James is not appropriate.

I've PMed you out of politeness.

In the end... the biggest problem with this adventure is the fact that it uses a setting that is going to be heavily featured in a product a few months before its release. That’s pretty unfortunate, since the adventure itself is pretty nifty, and if it had been submitted in a vacuum, I would be delighted to recommend it for advancement. Alas, the fact that it’s going to be “scooped” means that I cannot recommend it. Again, if this adventure wins, the Leng elements will be changed to another region in the Great Beyond. On one hand, this could be the adventure’s savior, since placing the second half in a region that we’ve already done some work developing can save us a LOT of room explaining how reality works in this new realm, leaving more room for actual adventure content. But on the other hand... we don’t know what that replacement realm is. Which means when you consider your votes for this adventure, you should keep in mind that it’s not a vote for Leng to vote for “The Scarlet God.” And frankly... I think the Leng element is the best part of the adventure... and it's hard for me to say how the plot might fare once all that stuff's cut out.

What a ridiculous thing to say.

The pretext for the use of a wondrous items in the first round is so you can discern the contestant over the item more eloquently than other potential entries. Now the release schedule is more important that the writer?

I thought you were looking for Superstar here; not, most relevant release during our fourth quarter.

Your words have real consequences here. You should be ashamed.

In a contest that has been rife with contestant slips (in terms of comments on the forums) I find it inexcusable to see a judge base a conclusion on the line-up of a product schedule--thus affecting the voting--in the final round.

They are all winners isn't an excuse.

Voters have their own right to choose isn't an excuse.

Product schedule is a fact that writers have to content with is NOT an excuse.

This is a contest!

The contestants don't have access to the information you do. They must write in a vacuum (pertaining to the future).

As a preamble to every contest you may say, in big bold letters if you want, all entries may be changed to conform to our publication standards and schedule.

or

Release it on a different date with updated info. Perhaps the year after...slip it in a bit early...anything to avoid maligning a contestant over a conflict of content.

It's pretty simple. That way you won't have to blackball a contestant on the final round...of a contest in your own house.

I hope I am overreacting, but considering the concern displayed for the contestant's posting during the contest (and comments made on other threads)...I don't think I am.

I hear Clark beat Neil in getting to all four final round submissions today..

I'm just sayin'.

Everybody needs a goal.

You just don't find that kind of commitment in other competitions--regardless of field. And if you do, it is very rare. We are all very lucky to be able to benefit from his commitment.

It really is quite remarkable.

Firefly Headband

What an awesome little item!!!

Oops. I just kinda looked at Neil's first post. Sorry about that Neil. I didn't mean to derail this thing. I'll leave this alone. Continue on my good man!

Obviously. I'm not really suggesting anyone should compromise quality when they see it.

What I do worry about is when judges start measuring the esoteric idea of the contest over the product. I, personally, think that leads to shaky judgement...and you get into the crux of having to defend opinion over content.

I'm not suggesting that is what's happening. Nor am I suggesting there isn't a great deal of subjectivity in these types of challenges.

For example I could use the same arguments as above toward the Raptoring Gloves. There is no creativity or invention just a summon, a buff, and a mobility spell. The only difference is the ability to stay on theme.

But, then again, I can speak toward the clearness of presentation, and the niche the item fills. What's troubling is that there is a sense of non-superstar and superstar equating the stage as more significant than the performer.

Of course there is branding to consider...and it must be.

I guess I'd just like to see a better mix of qualifiers in terms of capable verses innovative: and would prefer both. The second round usually tells the story.

Do you know what might be interesting? Hold 4 slots for a few items that are very well written and well presented...but not superstar. Kind of like a congeniality spot. It has been my experience that direct competition increases creativity. And having 4 people who you know are competent over creative might add more to the mix...and surprise you.

I'm not suggesting this as an advertised practice...lord that would be a mess. Just a means of weeding out the subjectivity of the exigence of the contest over the meddle of the contestant.

Creativity comes in many forms. One of them is the ability to exploit that which hasn't been done... regardless of how mundane.

I'm confident this contestant is 'capable'.

And this is where the item kind of falls down in terms of being worthy of RPG Superstar. The cloak of resistance is certainly a staple item that the game very much needs. It's the type of item we'd always expect to see in a book of magic items. But it isn't sexy.

The first thing I thought of when I read this item was 'I can't believe this isn't in the core book.'

I think there are some serious exceptions to that line of thought that reward the augury of innovation over the competence of creativity.

I personally thought there were a few 'makes adventuring easier' items in the final...that really hit me the wrong way...but in my top 32 this item slides in. Not that I would ever recommend this template as a key to success. I just see this example as a pristine example of filling a niche, solid presentation, and disciplined writing.

Alright! Well, because Terraleon is being so good about this I thought I'd take another stab--this time with clear eyes!

Now this item, as I've come to realize, is different than Terraleon's item. I must confess I didn't quite understand the original entry.

I can't see a way to avoid the 'GM adjudication' because we are playing with a descriptor and thrusting it into a mechanic realm...so I'm just outright saying it. I'm not sure how Terraleon thought he avoided this, or perhaps he didn't...but I don't see a way short of some sort of concealment mechanic applied--that seems wonky. So...just ask your GM 'how close is his shadow to me?'...you don't need a protractor he'll answer depending on the situation. Seems like an acceptable ad hoc.

I avoided the word 'pinned' like the plague. I guess that is what confused me the most about the original entry. How can the creature move if it's pinned. I mean, it is a specific combat condition. If it couldn't move, why list distances...and what initiates the pulling? So, mechanically I really liked the idea of a creature tethered to a radius...rather than bound.

In my item the creature isn't pinned...he is simply confined to a space. so this is really more of a combat modifier rather than a capture item like the iron bands of binding.

The falling mechanic I thought a long time over. I figured that the flying creature (in my item) is only moved to the end of the chain giving it the chance to hover (DC 15 Fly check) and if they are maneuverable enough, and small enough, could circle at the length of the chain--albeit a poor strategy. So, at most they could suffer 2d6 damage and at least 1d6. My item doesn't pin...it pushes and tethers.

I thought about damage for breaking the bond...even associating it with an extradimensional conduit at one point...but the flavor felt wrong for 'shadow' a predominantly illusionary composition.

I really like the flavor of a chain you can't touch or strike that still binds you in place while not putting any other pressure on the surface or detainee...shadowy...

I didn't like the 'skill style' attack roll, but love the light conditions altering the difficulty and size of the chain...and the ability to change the conditions--like through a light spell to rein them in further...heheheheh

So, here it is, the final version, I think, of the item I will be putting into my next session! I can honestly say I would only consider adding one...possibly two of the current top 32.

Thanks so much Terraleon...there is a lot of great flavor here!

Umbral Spike
Aura moderate illusion and faint evocation; CL 7th
Slot none; Price 26,000 gp; Weight 3 lbs

Description

Jagged, matte grey and cool to the touch, the umbral spike is a 13” metal shard tapered to a point on either end. The wielder of the spike may use it to strike any unattended adjacent surface that an opponent’s shadow is crossing (adjudicated by the GM). The spike glides effortlessly into any non-magical surface without causing damage. Striking a shadow anchors the spike and shadow onto the surface turning the opponent’s shadow into an insubstantial murky chain: tethering him to a confined radius that can’t be forcibly broken until the spike is removed or the shadow disappears.

Light strength modifies the difficulty to hit the shadow and the length of the chain. To strike the shadow the wielder of the umbral spike must make a touch attack against the opponent (treating the spike as an improvised weapon, -4 to attack) and modified by the chart below.

Light____________Attack__________Chain
Strength________Modifier__________Size*

Bright Light________ -4______________5’
Normal Light_______ --______________15’
Dim Light__________+4_____________30’

An affected opponent beyond the length of chain is forcibly dragged toward the umbral spike until he is at the end of the chain (provoking attacks of opportunity). Flying opponents must make a DC 15 Fly check or become grounded taking 2d6 falling damage.

Anyone adjacent to the umbral spike may take a full round action to remove it from its affixed surface (provoking attacks of opportunity) releasing any tethered creature. Casting darkness, freedom, freedom of movement or otherwise removing the shadow releases a tethered opponent.

* If the light strength changes, the chain size is readjusted (possibly forcing another drag).

Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, chains of perdition, shadow step; Cost 13,000 gp

First off, very cool and I'm flattered...

Wow. I can't believe I posted this. I'm so sorry, it really was kind of rude. I'm classifying this as a 'late night' post. Thank-you for being very good about this.

Looking at this with fresh eyes I see some clarity issues…again.

Either way I’m going to use this in my campaign. So, kudos on great flavor!

You know, there's been so much talk about this item...I just had to give it a shot. I think there is some mojo in there. This is my interpretation of the Umbral Spike that I think would have been more successful. I'm not trying to translate here...I just like the idea...and had some ideas of my own that I thought would fit nicely.

What-do-you-think?

Umbral Spike
Aura moderate illusion and faint evocation; CL 7th
Slot none; Price 26,000 gp; Weight 3 lbs

Description

Jagged and matte grey, the umbral spike is a 13” metal shard tapered to a point on either end that is cool to the touch. The wielder of the spike may use it to strike any unattended adjacent surface that an opponent’s shadow is crossing (adjudicated by the GM). The spike glides effortlessly into any non-magical surface without causing damage. Striking a shadow anchors the spike and shadow onto the surface and effectively seizes the opponent, by his shadow, causing him to become tethered.

Light source modifies the difficulty to hit the shadow and the distance tethered. To strike the shadow the wielder of the umbral spike must make a touch attack against the opponent treating the spike as an improvised weapon (-4 to attack) and modified by the chart below.

.........................Attack...........Radius*
........................Modifier
Bright Light........-4...................5’
Normal Light.......--..................15’
Dim Light...........+4..................30’

An effected opponent outside of the radius is drawn toward the umbral spike to the outer limit of the radius provoking any attacks of opportunity. An effected opponent within the radius is tethered and unable to move beyond the radius until the spike is removed or the shadow disappears. Flying opponents must make a DC 15 Fly check or become grounded taking 2d6 falling damage.

Anyone adjacent to the umbral spike may take a full round action to remove it from its affixed surface (provoking attacks of opportunity) releasing any tethered creature. Casting darkness, freedom, freedom of movement or otherwise removing the shadow releases a tethered opponent.

* Secondary changes in light source change the radius accordingly.

Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, chains of perdition, shadow step; Cost 13,000 gp

Sorry, I have no idea how to put a table in here. :)

This post marks the end of every item feedback request on pages 19-20. We're caught up once again.

Um, I was on page twenty.

I promise not to respond to the comments--regardless of how brusque. :)

Wondrous items can get inspiration for use by any/all classes as well, while spells would be limited to only certain classes instead. Not sure if that came across clearly, but i hope it's generally understood what i was trying to say.

That's actually the best argument I've seen for not using spells.

No Superstar spell would be a flat damage spell just like no Superstar item would be a flat +2 to AC.

Managing power levels shows understanding of design.

The real benefit to spells would be the more focused paragraph structure to better judge writing ability and the integration of new design into an already highly structured design format. Wondrous items are actually quite open ended.

But, yeah, spells are quite pigeon holed in terms of the pervasiveness in game-play and design.

Okay. I guess curiosity is getting the better of me. I think I know the problems and I think I can see eye to eye on most of them. I really enjoy the mechanic of making difficult choices and I've never played in games were you 'buy' magical items...so that makes it look like I'm trying to nerf an item for a cost--something I definitely wasn't conscious of during the creative process. I just really enjoy the tension and excitment to an encounter this item can bring...be it pc or npc or monster.

As well, I thought the mechanic for for wayfinders was really neat and had been basically unexplored...something I discovered was quite untrue after I had entered my item.

Thank-you in advance for any commentary from the judges.

Wayfinder of the Unredeemed
Aura faint abjuration and evocation; CL 5th
Slot none; Price 6000 gp; Weight 1 lb.
Description

This small compass looks and feels exactly like the symbolic wayfinder prized by the renowned agents of the Pathfinder Society. The wayfinder of the unredeemed, similarly, acts as a nonmagical compass (magnetic) granting a +2 circumstance bonus on Survival checks to avoid becoming lost--all other likenesses end there. Created by a splintered sect of the Pathfinder Society called the Unredeemers, the compass is a tool of deception and harm rather than one of discovery and light.

The wayfinder of the unredeemed darkens its path (as the darkness spell) with a command word and, if an ioun stone is placed in a small recessed compartment of the compass, can trigger a powerful explosion. A standard action may insert (or remove) the ioun stone causing (or preventing) a delayed 10 ft radius explosion of 6d6 points of force damage 1d4 rounds later. Anyone within 5 ft of the compass will take full damage with no save; while, all other creatures within the 10 ft radius are entitled to a Reflex save (DC 14) for half damage. There is a 25% chance that the ioun stone is destroyed and a 15% chance that the compass is destroyed each time an explosion is triggered. Ioun stones that survive the explosion are temporarily inert and will not reactivate the compass, or bestow benefits, for the next 24 hours.

Construction
Requirements Craft Wondrous Item, explosive runes, darkness; Cost 3000 gp

You are my hero.

There is so much more I want to say; but, I will wait for the contest to be over first.

Congrats to all who made it...good work!

May I take your trident, sir?

Clark's emphasis on swinging big for a homerun can't be understated. I've seen so many items now where I'm like, "Okay...that's it? What's the Superstar element in this idea? Why would anyone read this item and view it as awesome...as a must-have for their PC? Why would multiple PCs fight over who got to claim this item from the treasure pile?"

I feel some of the best items, currently, are ones that make the game better: not just items PCs want.

The item can create moments of tension and excitement like a ticking bomb or utter utility like an immovable rod. I feel the best items are ones that a GM knows will create interesting situations and that players would be happy to have in (or near) their arsenal. I don't mean to quibble but that would mean, to me, items that don't seem significant at first but when applied right can create some of the most interesting game situations: not simply catering to the uber-cool.

Thanks guys! Just for future reference...if you don't put a title in the title line (because I was just testing) the word count won't show up.

Thanks!

Yep. Still don't see it. I'll just use word...and hope that if it's close it will be in my favor. ;)

I tried that...I just didn't see the count. I'll try again.

Thanks though.

I thought there was a way to check word count on this site...was I mistaken?

Otherwise what method or program is the golden mean?

Thanks.