COMPETITORS VIOLATING THE RULE -- READ!!!!

[Clark Peterson]

I see that many competitors are doing way too much posting in their own thread.

The rules clearly state:

"If the contestant posts in his or her entry thread during the voting period for any reason other to acknowledge feedback or to encourage people to vote for his or her submission, the contestant will be disqualified."

Every contestant who has done this, go edit now and maybe Vic wont DQ you. It's up to him, not me. But this has got to stop.

[Erik Mona]

As judge emeritus and Paizo overlord, I will reiterate Clark's position on this.

Edit those posts swiftly or you will very likely be disqualified.

[Eric Morton]

I would edit my one post in my own thread until next-to-nothing was left just to cover my own behind. But I've since logged out and logged back in. Once I do that, the site won't let me edit old posts anymore.

[Kruelaid]

You have an hour to edit it from the time of your last edit. Logging out and back in has never made a difference for me. As far as I can tell you can keep editing forever as long as you do it every 59 minutes.

[Eric Morton]

Well, either way, I'm screwed if I'm coloring too far outside the lines.

Strictly speaking, I'm not allowed to mention that the judges aren't pulling punches, that the race appears very tight, or that I would appreciate more feedback. Hopefully, I'm upholding the spirit of the law, if not the exact letter. Otherwise, I just made an alternate very happy.

[Neil Spicer]

I commented in my thread, but am unable to edit it at this point. I was under the impression that it was okay to respond to the encouragement received. I believe that's the basic content of my post. If, however, it's deemed a rule-breaker, I'd like to ask Vic to remove it or edit it, if possible. And, if it's not possible, I apologize.

Thanks,
--Neil

[Trevor Gulliver]

NSpicer wrote:

I believe that's the basic content of my post. --Neil

That's how I read your post as well. I doubt this is directed at you.

[Joao Beraldo]

Well, I believe Im not among the violating ones... since I only incited people to vote for my villain.

If I indeed violated the rules, please do tell. I'll immediatelly erase it. Id rather have the judges spelling it out here for everyone to see then risk DQ

[Matthew Morris]

I hope my request for feedback on formatting wasn't one of those. If so I'm screwed, since I can't delete.

[Erik Mona]

Neil, I see nothing in your entry that you should worry about.

[Erik Mona]

Joao, you are in the clear.

Matthew, you're fine too.

Eric, you have nothing to worry about.

[Neil Spicer]

Erik Mona wrote:

Neil, I see nothing in your entry that you should worry about.

Bless you, sir. And...if I may ask...what on earth are you doing up at 3AM Pacific!?! ;-D

--Neil

[Matt Banach]

I think that I'm okay - everything along the lines of 'acknowledge' or 'Vote!'...

Clarification question: can we ask for feedback on specific topics within our entry from the public? Example: "Can anyone give me feedback on what they thought of Murgoth the Murderous' long-term playability?"

[Lucas Jung]

Clark Peterson wrote:

I see that many competitors are doing way too much posting in their own thread.

The rules clearly state:

"If the contestant posts in his or her entry thread during the voting period for any reason other to acknowledge feedback or to encourage people to vote for his or her submission, the contestant will be disqualified."

Every contestant who has done this, go edit now and maybe Vic wont DQ you. It's up to him, not me. But this has got to stop.

I'd like to apologize to everyone here, because I'm pretty sure that by "many competitors," Clark actually meant "Lucas Jung," and was just too nice of a guy to single me out. Even if I wasn't the only violator, I was probably the biggest. I honestly thought that my comments fell under the heading of "acknowledging feedback," but I was clearly wrong, and I am sorry.

I am also concerned that this could result in further drama, which I'd like to avoid: if I somehow make the top sixteen (highly unlikely, given the response so far to my villain submission), it would be perfectly understandable for those in the bottom half to feel that my excessive posting gave me an unfair advantage. As crazy as this sounds, I have to say it in the interest of fairness:

Vic, please give another thought to disqualifying me. I'm not going to come right out and ask you to do it; I'm not even sure it's the right thing to do, but it deserves your strong consideration. I broke the rules, and it's not fair to the other competitors if I gain any advantage from having done so.

[Carl Flaherty]

I should be okay.

(I hope.)

[Kevin Carter]

I can't edit anymore, but please delete my last post.

[Vladislav Rashkovski]

Lucas Jung wrote:

I'd like to apologize to everyone here, because I'm pretty sure that by "many competitors," Clark actually meant "Lucas Jung," and was just too nice of a guy to single me out. Even if I wasn't the only violator, I was probably the biggest.

You weren't the only one. I wrote a pretty elaborate comment on my villain right after the posts of the judges, but Clark warned me and I managed to remove the DQ-worthy parts.

It's a pain to see misunderstandings about your own villain, but unfortunatelly one must swallow the facts and understand that the faults are probably in his own prose...

[Stefan Schulz]

Believe me, I wish i could make a few statements about Gale as well - but rules are rules, and frankly if you didn't put it in the text, it's not there. Sad, but no different from a printed book.

[Casey Smith]

Clandestine wrote:

It's a pain to see misunderstandings about your own villain, but unfortunately one must swallow the facts and understand that the faults are probably in his own prose...

I went through the same realization. I'd be neat if we had 50 words or so we could spend answering questions during the week of voting but can also see some problems arising from that.

[Vic Wertz]

Folks,

The rules are clear on this point:

Round 2 Rules wrote:

"If the contestant posts in his or her entry thread during the voting period for any reason other to acknowledge feedback or to encourage people to vote for his or her submission, the contestant will be disqualified."

It's expanded upon in the FAQ:

Round 2 Rules FAQ wrote:

Q20: Can I answer questions people are asking about my submission in the discussion thread?

No. Your submission needs to speak for itself. You may post in your thread to acknowledge feedback and encourage people to vote for your submission, but that's it. Violating this rule may result in disqualification, in the sole discretion of the judges and/or Paizo. Contestants can post in the threads of other contestant's villains, but are cautioned that the public is watching what they do and say.

I have opened a discussion in the Judges' Chambers to decide what to do about some of these comments.

[Casey Smith]

We still can't make comments relating to our entries in other threads too, right? For example there are two threads concerning villains that we almost ran, and this looks like it might be prohibited under the spirit of the rule but not limited explicitly. Any help?

[James F.D. Graham]

I have a 2nd post in my own thread that I didn't think was a problem but it might very well be. If that's the case, please delete it.

[Glass Castle]

One question that I think might be more useful to be answered-

Will you allow competitors in later rounds to revise their Villain submissions from earlier rounds.

That is; assuming that a statblock is completely unworkable, can the competitors ignore the stated levels in the villain entry?

Also, what if they have an additional great idea for their villain (while they are making the encounter) and want to elaborate on the villain (within the 500 word limit.) And clean things up to work more with the statblock's flavor.

Frankly, I think it's fairest to let the prose speak for itself. Certain people have had different advice and it would be unfair to change. But still, these are interesting questions to raise.

Good Luck!
~LD.

[Mark Moreland]

Tetujin wrote:

We still can't make comments relating to our entries in other threads too, right? For example there are two threads concerning villains that we almost ran, and this looks like it might be prohibited under the spirit of the rule but not limited explicitly. Any help?

If I were one of the 32, I'd make two kinds of comments only.

"Thanks for all the feedback and comments."

and

"Please vote for me to continue on to the next round."

I don't see a lot of gray area in the rule.

[Matt Banach]

Light Dragon wrote:

Will you allow competitors in later rounds to revise their Villain submissions from earlier rounds.

I would really like to know the answer to this, and would phrase it my own way:

This round of comments is demonstrating that there are certain concepts within the Villain entries that are, shall we say nicely, "disfavored" as evidenced by the comments. Are we allowed to take all these well-considered critiques into account and make adjustments to certain concepts within our Villain?

Or, presuming we advance to the Top 16 (perhaps by the skin of our teeth), are we forced to submit a stat block for Round 3 that may be doomed to disfavor because the villain upon which it is based is disfavored because certain things people didn't like in Round 2 will be assumed to still taint the Villain in Round 3?

[Lucas Jung]

Ezekiel Shanoax, the Stormchild wrote:

Light Dragon wrote:

Will you allow competitors in later rounds to revise their Villain submissions from earlier rounds.

I would really like to know the answer to this, and would phrase it my own way:

This round of comments is demonstrating that there are certain concepts within the Villain entries that are, shall we say nicely, "disfavored" as evidenced by the comments. Are we allowed to take all these well-considered critiques into account and make adjustments to certain concepts within our Villain?

Or, presuming we advance to the Top 16 (perhaps by the skin of our teeth), are we forced to submit a stat block for Round 3 that may be doomed to disfavor because the villain upon which it is based is disfavored because certain things people didn't like in Round 2 will be assumed to still taint the Villain in Round 3?

Funny coincidence: I just voiced more or less the same concern over in the "VERY IMPORTANT for Round 3--READ ME NOW" thread.

[Kruelaid]

Regarding the questions coming up in the last few posts. It might help if you look over commentaries from preceding years.

It's a wealth of advice for would-be superstars this year.

[Charles Evans 25]

Kruelaid wrote:

Regarding the questions coming up in the last few posts. It might help if you look over commentaries from preceding years.

It's a wealth of advice for would-be superstars this year.

Last year, however, the rounds were independent of one another, and there was neither reason nor need for the correction of 'mistakes' from earlier rounds in later rounds. (Although some competitors did go back and produce revised versions of earlier round entries in response to public comments/suggestions, after the voting results for those rounds ad been officially published.)

[Vic Wertz]

Tetujin wrote:

We still can't make comments relating to our entries in other threads too, right? For example there are two threads concerning villains that we almost ran, and this looks like it might be prohibited under the spirit of the rule but not limited explicitly. Any help?

The spirit of the rule is that we don't want you effectively adding to, revising, or explaining your entry until voting closes. If you want to talk about something you didn't enter, it's fine—so long as you make sure you don't talk about your actual entry.

[Vic Wertz]

Lucas Jung wrote:

Ezekiel Shanoax, the Stormchild wrote:

Light Dragon wrote:

Will you allow competitors in later rounds to revise their Villain submissions from earlier rounds.

I would really like to know the answer to this, and would phrase it my own way:

This round of comments is demonstrating that there are certain concepts within the Villain entries that are, shall we say nicely, "disfavored" as evidenced by the comments. Are we allowed to take all these well-considered critiques into account and make adjustments to certain concepts within our Villain?

Or, presuming we advance to the Top 16 (perhaps by the skin of our teeth), are we forced to submit a stat block for Round 3 that may be doomed to disfavor because the villain upon which it is based is disfavored because certain things people didn't like in Round 2 will be assumed to still taint the Villain in Round 3?

Funny coincidence: I just voiced more or less the same concern over in the "VERY IMPORTANT for Round 3--READ ME NOW" thread.

We're discussing this, and are currently leaning positively in that direction.

[Eric Morton]

Light Dragon wrote:

Will you allow competitors in later rounds to revise their Villain submissions from earlier rounds.

Also, will you allow competitors to expand upon (i.e. add more words to) their villain concepts in later rounds? If I'm lucky enough to move on, I could benefit more from expanding upon my villain concept than I could from rebuilding it.

[blope]

Just out of curiosity, has anyone been asking the contestants too many questions, thus generating these responses? I think it would be responsible on the part of the voters here to not ask the contestants for specific answers which could lead to the DQ.

[Joel Flank]

blope wrote:

Just out of curiosity, has anyone been asking the contestants too many questions, thus generating these responses? I think it would be responsible on the part of the voters here to not ask the contestants for specific answers which could lead to the DQ.

I don't think there's a problem with this. The contestants just have to wait for the voting to be over before answering the questions. They can say "I'd love to answer your question, but that will have to wait until the evening of 2/2, until then, thanks for your interest and I'd love your vote!"

[Adam Daigle]

blope wrote:

Just out of curiosity, has anyone been asking the contestants too many questions, thus generating these responses? I think it would be responsible on the part of the voters here to not ask the contestants for specific answers which could lead to the DQ.

That's a reasonable question, but as a freelancer, I've found it really easy to say, "I'm sorry, I can't discuss that at the moment."

[Carl Flaherty]

Erik Mona wrote:

As judge emeritus and Paizo overlord, I will reiterate Clark's position on this.

Mr. Mona, I thought Lisa Stevens was the Paizo Overlord.

[Cpt_kirstov]

blope wrote:

Just out of curiosity, has anyone been asking the contestants too many questions, thus generating these responses? I think it would be responsible on the part of the voters here to not ask the contestants for specific answers which could lead to the DQ.

no because as voters we can try to answer what we think the write was trying to say, just like we do in the real products, it gives people an example of what you intend to say vs what you actually say to others in your writing.

[Kruelaid]

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

Kruelaid wrote:

...

Last year, however, the rounds were independent of one another, and there was neither reason nor need for the correction of 'mistakes' from earlier rounds in later rounds....

Color me stupid. Absolutely right Charles. I never read the rules.

[magdalena thiriet]

Daigle wrote:

blope wrote:

Just out of curiosity, has anyone been asking the contestants too many questions, thus generating these responses? I think it would be responsible on the part of the voters here to not ask the contestants for specific answers which could lead to the DQ.

That's a reasonable question, but as a freelancer, I've found it really easy to say, "I'm sorry, I can't discuss that at the moment."

Yeah, I have been throwing here and there some comments and questions but I don't expect answers and explanations for them...yet. I might have been a bit harsh on some of the comments too, and maybe occasionally a bit flippant, apologies for those...

So just nod and smile and thank us for our comments and ask us to vote and quietly die inside when we misunderstand what you have been doing. :)

If there is a generic misunderstanding about something it is something which should have been in the original submission. Some unclear parts have been discussed by the commentators though, so with some-people-get-it-some-people-don't issues you just have to hope people read the comments too.

[Matthew Morris]

Daigle wrote:

blope wrote:

Just out of curiosity, has anyone been asking the contestants too many questions, thus generating these responses? I think it would be responsible on the part of the voters here to not ask the contestants for specific answers which could lead to the DQ.

That's a reasonable question, but as a freelancer, I've found it really easy to say, "I'm sorry, I can't discuss that at the moment."

Or just not say anything and take copious notes.

[Matthew Morris]

magdalena thiriet wrote:

Yeah, I have been throwing here and there some comments and questions but I don't expect answers and explanations for them...yet. I might have been a bit harsh on some of the comments too, and maybe occasionally a bit flippant, apologies for those...

So just nod and smile and thank us for our comments and ask us to vote and quietly die inside when we misunderstand what you have been doing. :)

Magalena,

After the free colorectal exam from Wolfgang, Sean, and Ed, I'm afraid that there's little you could do to my ego. It's like that guy in Conan the Destroyer who would jump out and stab the bad guy after he was down,then look around to see who bought the idea of him making a kill. ;-)

I think I can safely say this though. I'm the guy who named a Templar Simon, and completely missed it. And the Saint was one of my favourite shows as a kid!

[magdalena thiriet]

There has been a good share of tough love going this round, but "it's a learning experience", "that which does not kill us makes us stronger" and all the similar catch phrases :)

[Matthew Morris]

magdalena thiriet wrote:

There has been a good share of tough love going this round, but "it's a learning experience", "that which does not kill us makes us stronger" and all the similar catch phrases :)

a guy on Usenet once wrote "That which does not kill me, had better run away pretty damn fast." I like that one. :-)

[Adam Daigle]

Matthew Morris wrote:

magdalena thiriet wrote:

There has been a good share of tough love going this round, but "it's a learning experience", "that which does not kill us makes us stronger" and all the similar catch phrases :)

a guy on Usenet once wrote "That which does not kill me, had better run away pretty damn fast." I like that one. :-)

I read somewhere once, "That which does not kill me has made a tactical error."

[Curaigh]

Daigle wrote:

Matthew Morris wrote:

magdalena thiriet wrote:

There has been a good share of tough love going this round, but "it's a learning experience", "that which does not kill us makes us stronger" and all the similar catch phrases :)

a guy on Usenet once wrote "That which does not kill me, had better run away pretty damn fast." I like that one. :-)

I read somewhere once, "That which does not kill me has made a tactical error."

how about

If at first that which does not kill me, try and try agai...*ack*

[Trevor Gulliver]

Curaigh wrote:

Daigle wrote:

Matthew Morris wrote:

magdalena thiriet wrote:

There has been a good share of tough love going this round, but "it's a learning experience", "that which does not kill us makes us stronger" and all the similar catch phrases :)

a guy on Usenet once wrote "That which does not kill me, had better run away pretty damn fast." I like that one. :-)

I read somewhere once, "That which does not kill me has made a tactical error."

how about

If at first that which does not kill me, try and try agai...*ack*

How about, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. Then quit. No use being a damn fool about it." -- WC Fields

[noxumbra]

Not to be a jerk, but it seems to me that if you broke the rules you should be out. The influence those posts had on voters can't be taken back. It's not fair to the people who did the right thing and kept quiet. The rules don't say "will be strongly warned" they say "will be disqualified".

[Montalve]

nah...
but remember the wise word of Homer J. Simpson: Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try.

:P

[Montalve]

noxumbra wrote:

Not to be a jerk, but it seems to me that if you broke the rules you should be out. The influence those posts had on voters can't be taken back. It's not fair to the people who did the right thing and kept quiet. The rules don't say "will be strongly warned" they say "will be disqualified".

actually it says "may be disquilified" basically it rest in the judges decision

[Joao Beraldo]

Id definitly like the opportunity to add to my villain, as its obvious that what I though self-explanatory wasn't. ;)

Im also concerned with having to submit stats to a villain people did not understand, as it would be like the voters choosing 8 out of 32 contestants.

[Vic Wertz]

Vic Wertz wrote:

Folks,

The rules are clear on this point:

Round 2 Rules wrote:

"If the contestant posts in his or her entry thread during the voting period for any reason other to acknowledge feedback or to encourage people to vote for his or her submission, the contestant will be disqualified."

It's expanded upon in the FAQ:

Round 2 Rules FAQ wrote:

Q20: Can I answer questions people are asking about my submission in the discussion thread?

No. Your submission needs to speak for itself. You may post in your thread to acknowledge feedback and encourage people to vote for your submission, but that's it. Violating this rule may result in disqualification, in the sole discretion of the judges and/or Paizo. Contestants can post in the threads of other contestant's villains, but are cautioned that the public is watching what they do and say.

I have opened a discussion in the Judges' Chambers to decide what to do about some of these comments.

The ruling is that warning has been given, and the problem posts that we're aware of have been edited or suppressed. From here on out, though, we will no longer hesitate to issue disqualifications for violating this rule.