This is a duplicate of a post placed in Lief Clennon's Lantern Thrall thread.
The following is the unanimous ruling of all judges and Paizo representatives following meeting and discussion:
Unfortunately, we have decided to disqualify competitor Lief Clennon from the 2010 RPG Superstar competition.
The Round 3 rules state that a submission may be disqualified if
"Competitor adds to, expands upon, or clarifies the contents of his or her own submission during the voting period, whether this takes place on paizo.com or elsewhere."
The Official Rules for the entire contest state
"14. During public voting rounds, contestants are prohibited from any public discussion that could be considered as adding to, expanding upon, or clarifying the content of their current submission. This applies to (but is not limited to) personal blogs and messageboard posts on paizo.com or elsewhere, including the paizo.com discussion thread for the entry itself. Any such discussion may result in disqualification, in the sole discretion of the judges and/or Paizo."
The competitors were warned during Round 2 about crossing the line for what is acceptable posting. In Round 3, the clarifying language was moved from the FAQ to the rules to make it more prominent. The Round 3 rules also moved the suggested "thank-you" response text closer to the front of the rule to make that more prominent.
We've reached the point where gentle warnings about "do this one more time and someone is getting disqualified" are not sufficient. While we want this to remain a friendly and pleasant competition, Paizo needs to make sure that competitors can follow the rules of a contest (just as we'd expect them to follow the rules of a work contract or a confidentiality agreement).
In future rounds, contestants will not be allowed to post about about their submissions while voting is open other than to post the suggested "thank you, vote for me" text provided in the rules.
Lief Clennon's entry is disqualified and he will not advance to the next round. No alternates will be brought in to take his place. To prevent a technical issue where deleting his entry may accidentally redistribute votes for him to other competitors, his entry in the voting booth will have a line through it; if you vote for him, that vote will not count. You are still able to reassign your votes until the voting period ends on February 15th.
Sorry to see this happen to a contestant... :(
I agree.
What crossed the line? Is there a link? There's nothing in that thread. Transparency helps in cases like this one, I find.
Charles, I agree. Believe me, we didn't do it lightly. And we certainly did it with no relish or happiness. In three years this is our first significant DQ (other than in year one we had the word count issue). Its no fun for us to do it and we feel bad for Lief. But it is what it is, and we can't keep saying it over and over.
No need to repost what was deleted. No need for discussion on that issue. Its been done. The rules are clear, post the generic "thank you, vote for me" and bite your tongue. Its not fair to the other contestants who follow the rules.
That's an interesting idea. But it has problems. One of the reasons I posted this separate thread (instead of just leaving it in the Lantern Thrall thread) is to permit discussion of this type.
Candidly, I dont see a repeat of this. In three years, this is our first DQ for expanding. In prior years we have warned and it was cleaned up. This year we warned and warned again. Not cleaned up. I dont think in this case there was any alternative (as the warning was "do it and be DQd"). But it is worth discussion for future years if some graduated penalty would work. Personally, I think the rules are easy to follow as evidenced by lack of prior significant problem. DQ sucks, but its the right sanction. Reducing votes just leads to strategic voting and you want as little of that as possible. You want people voting on merit as much as possible. Not to make up for some perceived (or real) vote handicap.
No need to repost what was deleted. No need for discussion on that issue. Its been done. The rules are clear, post the generic "thank you, vote for me" and bite your tongue. Its not fair to the other contestants who follow the rules.
There's no need for discussion on that issue in your opinion, Clark. Respectfully, a decision's been made which affects not only affects you and the contestant, but also voting, which affects everyone voting and the other contestants. Not only that, the evidence of the actual infraction's been suppressed and your response to a polite request for clarification on what's going on comes off as extremely brusque.
No need to repost what was deleted. No need for discussion on that issue. Its been done. The rules are clear, post the generic "thank you, vote for me" and bite your tongue. Its not fair to the other contestants who follow the rules.Sorry, I was clarifying for RogueRouge who hadn't seen the post in question.
Can you give me a hint? A one line summary? Perhaps we can play charades?
I appreciate your position. We posted this right away so that people could alter their votes if they wanted to so that it would have as little impact as possible. There should be little, if any, impact on voting as anyone who voted can "re-cast" that vote for someone else.
What we aren't going to delve into at this point is a discussion of whether or not we were right or wrong to DQ him, which is all a repost of the deleted posts would encourage. There is no point in that at this time since the decision is final and not subject to change. Paizo may choose later to do that and have discussion, but not now. Now we want people focusing on the other awesome monsters and having discussion about that.
If you want to discuss the impact, any alternatives, other ways to do it, what you want to see, etc. Please feel free. But a discussion about whether or not we should have done it at all is just not going to be constructive and I dont want to encourage people by reposting the removed comments. I mean, you can if you want. I am certainly not going to stop you. In fact, I suggested to Vic and Gary not to lock threads and to let people say what they want to say. Its the best way to handle things in my view.
Why? Because we dont want to encourage line drawing and comparison--"that" got DQ'd but "this" did not. Candidly, we considered disallowing any comment by any contestant during open voting, even the "thank you for your comments, vote for me" kind. We want the message to be clear: NO commenting other than what is approved.
You can disagree with me and say we should post the now removed posts. And I will defend to the death your right to post that and complain about it. But its just not happening right now. :)
Can you give me a hint? A one line summary? Perhaps we can play charades?
Sounds like....
I think what killed me was the word "mephit." Possibly the entire sentence in which it was contained. The details don't matter much, though. Categorically, I played it too close. I was cavalier about technical distinctions, and I understand why this had to be done.
Clark is right: multiple clear warnings had been given. I think there were some slightly mixed messages in a few Paizo-sourced comments and the lack of a DQ for similar offenses last round, but I should have defaulted to what was written in official places. Being the object lesson sucks, but it's not personal. I'll certainly be back next year, assuming the DQ isn't permanent.
On the upside, now I can comment openly on my design decisions. :D
This makes sense to me, Clark. Because our opinions have been so valued here, we are used to expressing them: frequently, strongly, even repetitively--on everything. But to pick posts apart during the contest would draw attention away from the reading and voting process, which it should not. If Paizo wants to open itself up to fan discussion of where the lines are, that would seem to better take place between contests.
Edit: Thanks for having a good attitude, Tejón, and congrats again on having made it this far.
I realise you [the judges] may not like being seen as ruthless and/or disciplinarian (as taken too far that could spoil the atmosphere of the contest)
Exactly. This was not an easy decision. And we want to get back focused on the competition as quickly as possible.
but some sort of graduating penalty applied more frequently might I hope result that you never have to DQ again for a much longer time. ... On the side-issue of strategic voting, it will always be going on...
Charles, I think we are all open to other ways to do this. No one liked having to do this. In this case the sanction as advertised (and as repeated in the "this is your only warning" thread) was a DQ. But a discussion of other alternatives would be interesting and valuable. However, in my view, I still feel this has happened so infrequently as to be not that necessary to have alternatives. I am going to guess it doesn't happen again this year.
I think what killed me was the word "mephit." Possibly the entire sentence in which it was contained. The details don't matter much, though. Categorically, I played it too close. I was cavalier about technical distinctions, and I understand why this had to be done.
Clark is right: multiple clear warnings had been given. I think there were some slightly mixed messages in a few Paizo-sourced comments and the lack of a DQ for similar offenses last round, but I should have defaulted to what was written in official places. Being the object lesson sucks, but it's not personal. I'll certainly be back next year, assuming the DQ isn't permanent.
On the upside, now I can comment openly on my design decisions. :D
Lief, you have my utmost respect for your professional acceptance of this.
Please accept my sincere comments that we did not enjoy doing this and wish you the best. We also confirmed there is no bar to you entering next year just because of a DQ this year and we all hope you do (yes, we judges discuss even that; by the way had you made it one round further to the top 8 you would be forever barred as those who make the top 8 can't try again so if it was going to happen its good it happened now).
I appreciate your position.
[snip]
If you want to discuss the impact, any alternatives, other ways to do it, what you want to see, etc. Please feel free. But a discussion about whether or not we should have done it at all is just not going to be constructive and I dont want to encourage people by reposting the removed comments.
Okay. But you do realize that it's awfully hard to debate alternatives and what I want to see in future competitions when I have no idea what actually happened, right? It's hard for me to suggest a gradation system of punishment, like Charles mentioned, when I don't have all the information.
It's like debating rewriting a law when you've never seen how it's enforced, or trying to reform the CIA when they black out everything except "the" on their documents because of national security on their say-so.
Why? Because we dont want to encourage line drawing and comparison--"that" got DQ'd but "this" did not.
Doing this, by the way, is exactly what got me disqualified. Looking at it from your side, I support your decision.
My sincere regrets Lief.
I hope to see you come back strong next year!
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Being the object lesson sucks, but it's not personal. I'll certainly be back next year, assuming the DQ isn't permanent.
On the upside, now I can comment openly on my design decisions. :D
Lief, you're a class act. I hope to get a chance some time to buy you a tasty beverage in person, to thank you for showing people what "a good sport" looks like.
--+--+--
And Clark, I know this was a difficult decision on the part of the judges. And I appreciate the somber, dignified job you've done presenting the decision. I have a lot of respect for that.
Okay. But you do realize that it's awfully hard to debate alternatives and what I want to see in future competitions when I have no idea what actually happened, right? It's hard for me to suggest a gradation system of punishment, like Charles mentioned, when I don't have all the information.
It's like debating rewriting a law when you've never seen how it's enforced, or trying to reform the CIA when they black out everything except "the" on their documents because of national security on their say-so.
Yes :)
I think what killed me was the word "mephit." Possibly the entire sentence in which it was contained.
The details don't matter much, though. Clark is right: multiple clear warnings had been given. I think there were some slightly mixed messages in a few Paizo-sourced comments and the lack of a DQ for similar offenses last round, but I should have defaulted to what was written in official places. I was cavalier about it, and I understand why this had to be done. Being the object lesson sucks, but it's not personal. I'll certainly be back next year, assuming the DQ isn't permanent.
On the upside, now I can comment openly on my design decisions. :D
I salute you, Lief! I'm so sorry this happened. Please enter the contest again next year!
Also, please consider submitting something to the Pathfinder Society Open Call or to Kobold Quarterly. I would love to see more of your work!
On the upside, now I can comment openly on my design decisions. :D
I'd encourage you to comment in the thread on thralls vs. packs and hives in the general forum then. Your entry was the one that sparked me to think about the bias of the single monster stat block.
...I'll certainly be back next year...
*clap* *clap* *clap*
Awesome response, Lief! And I absolutely mean that. It's a disappointing outcome, to be sure. But you're an absolute role model on how to handle it. Best wishes. And I truly hope you do come back next year, make the Top 32, and use your complete experience to go as far as possible.
My two-cents,
--Neil
P.S. Yet another example of how awesome the Paizo community is...
Good luck next year Lief.
Charles, keep them coming. THIS year we cant change it (since the rules are DQ only). But we judges can debate this before next year and we will consider all input from this thread.
Contributor
,
Star Voter Season 6, Marathon Voter Season 7, Star Voter Season 9
|
Lief, I'm sorry that you have been disqualified, but your response had a lot of class. Where others might have railed (publicly) against the decision, you humbly accepted it. I'm impressed by your professionalism, and I look forward to seeing you in next year's contest...hopefully, as a competitor. :)
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
One aspect of being a freelancer is the ability to keep mum on products that haven't been released yet. And by that, I mean silent, not some coy, "You like Lantern Thralls? Then I'll bet you'll love one of the modules coming out next year. But I'm not allowed to say which one!" That's the actions of a loose cannon, disrupting the planned public releases of the company's PR department.
I can see a contestant going over the line and getting called on the carpet. But if that contestant has already been reprimanded, and goes over the line again, Charles, I think that second violation ought to warn prospective editors that this would be a freelancer who can't keep his or her mouth shut.
It's not Superstar behavior, in any case.
Chris, you hit on one of the HUGE issues for us regarding this. You are thinking like a publisher. :) Freelancers are often trusted with confidential or certainly NDA material. Obviously, we have no worry about Lief, per se (and his behaviour since notification proves as much, he is clearly a class act and a person of honor who made a mistake--a mistake unfortunately we had to sanction), but that is the reason for the rule among other things and is also a reason why DQ is the sanction.
By the way, to prevent word count violations we asked Gary/Vic and co. to create a word counter as part of the submission tool so contestants can see that their submission is within word count. We dont have any desire for cheesy or accidental DQs.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, 2011 Top 32
,
Star Voter Season 6, Star Voter Season 7, Star Voter Season 8
|
By the way, to prevent word count violations we asked Gary/Vic and co. to create a word counter as part of the submission tool so contestants can see that their submission is within word count. We dont have any desire for cheesy or accidental DQs.
The word count tool is AWESOME! It definitely set my mind to ease. If I can suggest, for next year, maybe a confirmation page that lists time and date of submission, so you can be absolutely sure you go in under deadline.
If it's not a big problem.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Lief,
One of the great things about this contest has been getting to know some of the competitors. We've exchanged emails and such in the past but this has obviously been a lot more than previous. It really hurts to see this happen to a friend.
*sigh* I have a strong suspicion you will make next years contest though, but it's a long wait.
Kudos, Lief. If only everybody was as good a sport as you. :)
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
aka AWizardInDallas
|
Lief, you've clearly demonstrated good sportsmanship and professionalism and that's important in any competition. It's been said but I too hope to see more of your work beyond today and wish you the best of luck with all of your future creations. I said it elsewhere, but you're still a winner in my book! :)
I don't have much more for now, although I will say that I think the penalty for an infraction ought to be applied to that Round in some way, and not carried over to future Rounds in any way (such as penalties to word counts in the next Round).
Actually, that uses the approach of America's Next Top Model for this! In some challenges, the loser of the challenge gets less shots than the others in the actual round itself. Here, getting less words as a penalty would work much the same way.
Of course, you could take even more from that fine show and give the winner of each round in the voting an extra 50 words in the next round.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
aka Tarren Dei
|
Lief, I'm sorry that you have been disqualified, but your response had a lot of class. Where others might have railed (publicly) against the decision, you humbly accepted it. I'm impressed by your professionalism, and I look forward to seeing you in next year's contest...hopefully, as a competitor. :)
+1
And being in the Top 16 rules. Good luck next year.
|
I think what killed me was the word "mephit." Possibly the entire sentence in which it was contained. The details don't matter much, though. Categorically, I played it too close. I was cavalier about technical distinctions, and I understand why this had to be done.
Clark is right: multiple clear warnings had been given. I think there were some slightly mixed messages in a few Paizo-sourced comments and the lack of a DQ for similar offenses last round, but I should have defaulted to what was written in official places. Being the object lesson sucks, but it's not personal. I'll certainly be back next year, assuming the DQ isn't permanent.
On the upside, now I can comment openly on my design decisions. :D
Lief, you have my utmost respect for your professional acceptance of this.
Please accept my sincere comments that we did not enjoy doing this and wish you the best. We also confirmed there is no bar to you entering next year just because of a DQ this year and we all hope you do (yes, we judges discuss even that; by the way had you made it one round further to the top 8 you would be forever barred as those who make the top 8 can't try again so if it was going to happen its good it happened now).
What Mr. Peterson said. +1 to the way you handled it, Lief.
|
|
Lief, sorry that had to happen, but your humble acceptance is a standard for others to work by. I know we'll see your work again next year, as it caught both of my votes this year from the two voting rounds.
Lessons learned, and others should pay attention.
Did someone say Dairy Queen? Damn I could use a blizzard right now...
(Sorry if this annoyed all you East Coasters sitting under several feet of snow. ;) )