Did someone say Dairy Queen? Damn I could use a blizzard right now...Just don't say that too loudly to anybody living on the East coast!
-Lisa
*calls up friend from New York* I COULD USE A BLIZZARD RIGHT NOW!!!!
|
Plus twelve or so to the respect being sent Lief's way for handling this as classily as he has.
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. ;) )
Nah, we eat ice cream all winter long anyway. It's all good.
|
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.Okay, alternatives: What about 10% of your vote multiplied by the Round number and number of previous infractions? So if it's your first offence in the contest in Round 2, 20% of all votes cast for your entry in that Round go bye-bye. If it's your second offence in the contest commited in Round 5 (showing hopeless unprofessonalism) 100% of your votes are gone. (Third offence, and you're out, to save the maths headaches, and since that's what they do in baseball... )
Edit:
The 10% is an arbitary figure, as a starting point for any discussion for this idea.
I think Clark is right...
the rules are simple and clear, the warnings were sent... it was unfortunate that this happened and one must applaud Lief for his professional response to all this situation. Man good luck next year, we loved your work and hope to see more.Showing what happened or giving small infractions instead of stopping this from happening only would begin expeculation as how much I can say during around before actually being punished or how much punishment i can take. This contest is for the opportunity for a contract that might open other doord as Neil and others have shown us.
And one of the requisities for such job is to know to follow rules. So a DQ while sad was fair, and as Clark I believe this won't be repeating in a long time. Which is good for all.
Doggone, Lief, that's rough. You're handling it exceptionally well, though. Hang in there. I'm sure we'll be seeing more good stuff from you before the next RPGSS even rolls around.
As an aside- I wonder how close my "whirling zombie blender of doom" crack from last round came to the DQ line. I hadn't thought about it in those terms, and I certainly wasn't trying to expand on the entry. I could see where that might have been considered an expansion, though. Hrm.
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
Its sad what happened to you but I admire how you took it so maturely. I hope to see you again next year on the top poeplez.
Chief Technical Officer
|
I have to say, I have no interest whatsoever in any kind of graduated penalty. This contest has rules, and all of the contestants must abide by them. I don't want the next RPG Superstar to be "a person who followed most of the rules." Because if we give them an assignment, and they think they can get away with following "most of the rules," there will be a problem.
While I'm not happy that we had to disqualify anyone, I do feel the system we have, which involves public warnings and restatements of the rules before a disqualification, is fair to everyone involved.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
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
A very classy response. Very much appreciated Lief, and better luck next year!
|
I have to say, I have no interest whatsoever in any kind of graduated penalty. This contest has rules, and all of the contestants must abide by them. I don't want the next RPG Superstar to be "a person who followed most of the rules." Because if we give them an assignment, and they think they can get away with following "most of the rules," there will be a problem.
While I'm not happy that we had to disqualify anyone, I do feel the system we have, which involves public warnings and restatements of the rules before a disqualification, is fair to everyone involved.
+1 While it is unfortunate to see anyone disqualified, the judges have been MORE than clear about what is and is not acceptable to post while the voting is going on. Putting in graduating penalties would/could just lead to situations such as mr. Wertz has mentioned.
+5 to Lief for staying classy about all of this. It has to suck, and he can't be happy about it, but he took it all with class and dignity. Hope you decide to re-enter next year, Lief!
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
aka Benchak the Nightstalker
|
Lief is going to re-enter next year, he's gonna blow the judges away with another amazing item like his Seven Thousand Blossoms, and I fully expect him to make it to the Top Four with ease. I know when he does, he'll be getting my vote :D
Because Lief is a damn talented individual, and it's been an honor competing with him this year.
I remember reading the post and thinking, "Wow, did he really just say that? I hope he doesn't get DQ'd."
I think the point that not talking about entries is a lot like an NDA is a very good one. Neil is once again a great example of superstar behavior. Look at his posts in the Realm of the Fellnight Queen thread. For months all he's been saying is basically "I hope people enjoy the module when it comes out." Contents have to be like that while the voting is going on.
Kudos to Lief for taking it so well. I hope to see you back next year! Now that you aren't under superstar pressure, write up a PFS proposal and submit it to Vic!
Lief, I'm sorry to see you booted -- I absolutely loved the Blossoms and enjoyed your Rotling as well, and was genuinely impressed by your take on the Lantern Thrall.
At the same time, I'm sincerely impressed by your forthright acknowledgment of your error and dignified acceptance of the unfortunate consequences. You're a class act, sir.
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.
I'd love to see a system where the server emails you with time and date of the submission, word count of the submission and a copy of the submission so you can be sure everything went through.
But then again, I think I submitted my monster four or five times before it went through, so I might just be paranoid. :)
I don't want to come off as snarky here, Charles, but I want to vote for a Super Star, not a relatively bright star. We amateurs won't rise to professional standards unless Paizo holds us up to them.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Hmm. Should amateurs be expected to perform as and held to the same standards as industry professionals if industry professional standards of punitive actions are the only ones to be countenanced?
Because so long as Paizo continue to open RPGSuperstar to non-professionals, but to hold them to professional standards, I think that there will be occasional resort forced to professional penalties.
That's the point of RPG Superstar—to find professionals who haven't yet had a spot in the limelight. Wayfinder is a great opportunity to amateurs to do great work but remain amateurs. The point of this contest is to take an amateur with professional potential and refine them and winnow out the chaff until only a pure diamond remains. I don't think the judges have ever given any other impression in terms of how they look at the contest.
I do not think that if amateurs remain free to enter, and the contest endures, that this will be the last time that the judges will be in a situation where the only real option open is enforcing a professional penalty. The nature of the amateur, and indeed of human beings, I think makes it inevitable. :(
Maybe it won't be the last time. People are disqualified from competitions all the time for various reasons. That's why rules exist. But why bother to set guidelines and rules if they're not going to be used to effectively determine who is and isn't superstar material? No one's saying Leif isn't as good a designer as the rest of the contestants, or even that he's not professional. They're just saying that he violated a rule and these are the consequences.
This seems to be somehow related to the issue you've brought up time and again in all sorts of competitions or contests, which is that if professionals are competing, how can anyone else stand a chance? But the point of these things is to find more professionals. Two years ago you never would have said "With Neil Spicer entering the contest, can amateurs win?" but after Neil, at the time an amateur, won the contest he's now gets added to your list.
|
Director of Game Development
,
Dedicated Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8, Star Voter Season 9
|
I know you provided an edit to cover your statement, but you left it up, so I feel you intended it to remain and be remarked upon.
This contest is where amateur becomes professional. I’d like to think that everyone who’s made it to this point is a professional if not in experience, then in character and talent. And from what I’ve seen, that is surely the case. We’ve just seen the first disqualification, and that person accepted his situation in a more professional manner than I’ve seen some professionals (still using your freelancer distinction) handle bumps in the process like this. (Lief, sorry to see this happen, but, damn, you aced your response. True grit, brother.)
This grueling experience is a great chance to see who rises to the top not only in design chops, but also in being able to take the schedule and present themselves in a way that draws attention to their design with professional tact. People who don’t “want” it, are not going to make it. That said, this isn’t the only track into freelancing, it’s just a really bad ass one.
Lief, I hope you don't take it personally that I was one of the ones calling attention to the post in question.
Don't worry about it. We had already flagged it and were already talking about it before your follow up post. We already had a discussion thread on it in the judges chambers.
Lief,
I'm sorry to hear you were disqualified. I hope you will enter again next year; your ideas have definitely enriched the contest. Still, I think the DQ was justified.
As for CharlesEvans25's idea:
I don't want to come off as snarky here, Charles, but I want to vote for a Super Star, not a relatively bright star. We amateurs won't rise to professional standards unless Paizo holds us up to them.
This. Not holding contestants to professional standards would be the equivalent to saying: 'Hey, I want to play with the big boys - but Mom, could you please watch so they don't treat me too mean?'. It's just not what this contest is about.
Add my voice to that of those who feel a graduated penalty is a bad idea. First, it devalues the idea of having rules in the first place (and the rules WERE clear). Second, any given submission could still win in spite of a penalty because the additional clarifications 'make it cool' and provide an unfair advantage, thus garnering more votes.
Kudos to Lief for taking it so well. I hope to see you back next year! Now that you aren't under superstar pressure, write up a PFS proposal and submit it to Vic!Better yet, submit it to Josh, who actually deals with those things.
When I worked in customer service for a cell phone company I used to keep a little notebook with all the names people mistakenly thought I said when I answered the phone. They were ridiculous.
Since I've been called Jason, James, and now Vic in the last week, it's time to revive that list ... in my profile!
|
|
Kudos to Lief for taking it so well. I hope to see you back next year! Now that you aren't under superstar pressure, write up a PFS proposal and submit it to Vic!Better yet, submit it to Josh, who actually deals with those things.When I worked in customer service for a cell phone company I used to keep a little notebook with all the names people mistakenly thought I said when I answered the phone. They were ridiculous.
Since I've been called Jason, James, and now Vic in the last week, it's time to revive that list ... in my profile!
At Least they have not called you Mark yet... ;-)
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
,
Star Voter Season 6
|
At Least they have not called you Mark yet... ;-)Kudos to Lief for taking it so well. I hope to see you back next year! Now that you aren't under superstar pressure, write up a PFS proposal and submit it to Vic!Better yet, submit it to Josh, who actually deals with those things.When I worked in customer service for a cell phone company I used to keep a little notebook with all the names people mistakenly thought I said when I answered the phone. They were ridiculous.
Since I've been called Jason, James, and now Vic in the last week, it's time to revive that list ... in my profile!
I've been calls Melissa twice.
How you get 'Melissa' from the deep voiced guy on the phone I've no idea, unless the caller was thinking of the German Olympic swim team
|
|
When I worked in customer service for a cell phone company I used to keep a little notebook with all the names people mistakenly thought I said when I answered the phone. They were ridiculous.
Well over a decade ago, as part of my tenure at Royal Mail of the British Post I had to head up a customer service phone bank in London for a few months. My first name 'Noel' must be considered quite feminine because I got calls that addressed me as 'Miss or Madam' even after being on the phone for a few minutes. And even more telling was I got memos from other Post executives addressed to 'Miss Noel'.
At least you don't have gender issues.
|
|
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.
Very true. One of the hardest things is knowing you have something you are really excited about coming out in the near future but has not been officially announced. Part of you wants to drop hints but the other part knows you shouldn't. The key, I guess, is to make sure the smart part of you remains in charge, which is not always easy! :)
Sorry to see you go Leif. Better luck next year!
Okay.. are contestants literally forbidden from posting in their own threads and directly acknowledging responses from now on?
If not, then why on earth would you delete his offending post, thus leaving other contestants (in this and future years) in the dark concerning what does and doesn't cross the line? Isn't that the point of putting your foot down- to show that the line exists and will be enforced?
It's pretty hard to be an object lesson if not everyone can actually see what you did wrong.
I'm not trying to stir up trouble here. I don't think anyone on Earth has any right to doubt the good will of the people who make this contest work. But I've been away for a few days, and I can't see the sense in saying that the judges 'had to take action' and then trying to hide why.
Did someone say Dairy Queen? Damn I could use a blizzard right now...
Just don't say that too loudly to anybody living on the East coast!
Actually, it's quite the opposite for me. I'm unhappy that I'm not sitting under two feet of snow.
That's twice now that major storms have veered south of me and I've gotten a token snowfall. I don't want 2-3 inches of snow, I want 2-3 feet of snow :)
|
I'm happy enough down here in Texas with a few inches of really pretty snow that is actually sticky enough to make snowmen and snowballs.
Didn't have a single problem getting out of the parking spot this morning (most businesses are open). Roads are wet, but its just over freezing, so no ice. I barely had to scrape the snow off my car, it just mostly fell off.
I love the snow!!!
(of course, I wasn't saying this when I was stuck in the blizzard on Christmas Eve and narrowly avoided (through use of dangerous backroads) spending the night in a shelter, courtesy of the National Guard.) Almost went down a ditch into a river that night.)
Okay.. are contestants literally forbidden from posting in their own threads and directly acknowledging responses from now on?
If not, then why on earth would you delete his offending post, thus leaving other contestants (in this and future years) in the dark concerning what does and doesn't cross the line? Isn't that the point of putting your foot down- to show that the line exists and will be enforced?
Hydro, my take on it, was that upthread Clark was basically saying that ANY thing other than some version of "thank you, please vote for me, I'll answer questions about it after voting" is not allowed.
They said they removed it basically to keep folks from going back and trying to 'gauge' where that line might exist, and argue about it if it later became an issue again. It seemed like they want reinforce to the competitors that the line is the simple thank you and nothing more.
Of course, this is just my interpretation of what has been said in the thread.
Yep, Deidre, it's loverly. :) Hopefully you got a snow day, like the stepson and I did.
BTW, has anybody seen Fred? I had a question about PFS...
Okay.. are contestants literally forbidden from posting in their own threads and directly acknowledging responses from now on?
If not, then why on earth would you delete his offending post, thus leaving other contestants (in this and future years) in the dark concerning what does and doesn't cross the line? Isn't that the point of putting your foot down- to show that the line exists and will be enforced?
Hydro, my take on it, was that upthread Clark was basically saying that ANY thing other than some version of "thank you, please vote for me, I'll answer questions about it after voting" is not allowed.
They said they removed it basically to keep folks from going back and trying to 'gauge' where that line might exist, and argue about it if it later became an issue again. It seemed like they want reinforce to the competitors that the line is the simple thank you and nothing more.
Of course, this is just my interpretation of what has been said in the thread.
Honestly, I think even the "thanks, vote for me" posts aren't fair in a competition where they're all forum posts. It bumps the thread to the top, which draws more attention to it. It's a trick used commonly in contests similar to this one and it does have an effect. I tend to think that the contestants shouldn't be allowed to comment on their posts at all until after voting is closed.
I do have to say that I feel the rules are very unclear. Or if they were clear, they were crossed too many times without action. It has been said that many warnings were given, but offended posts were removed, which makes it really hard for other contestants to see where the line is drawn without being on a certain thread at the right time. If multiple warnings are going to be given it needs to be individual-- it cannot be the responsibility of the contestant to be aware of every action of the others.
If they're looking for "professionals" (which I think people are using the term wrong as professional implies making money) they need to treat them as such. One warning tops, then disqualification. But these offending posts need to be PUBLIC so contestants can see clearly what isn't acceptable.
My two cents.
After this round is over, then I think it might be useful to show the post that got Lief DQ'ed. But, for the moment the focus should be on the remaining contestants and their submissions which are still up for consideration right now to move them into the next round. Even then, I think a case could be made for not showing the original post.
Why? Because there really isn't anything ambiguous about the rules. Sure, someone might say of course there is...otherwise, we wouldn't keep seeing violations or "near" violations.
But, when the judges and the FAQ very clearly point out what you're allowed to say (i.e., "thank you and please vote for me"), and then they even give you copy/paste text you can use...I think they've properly informed everyone. If people are still confused by it or don't understand that including anything else flirts with going beyond the "thank you and please vote for me"...then they pretty much deserve to have the rule enforced with a DQ.
This is RPG Superstar, people! Take it seriously. And take the rules seriously! It's that simple. And I feel comfortable saying that even after flirting with that line myself last year.
But that's just my two-cents,
--Neil
The rules do not say "anything else (besides the canned text) flirts with a DQ". That's what the judges have said (they've been telling people to "stay on the safe side"), but the actual rules are not nearly that strict.
Hence the "mixed signals" complaint.
I do have to say that I feel the rules are very unclear. Or if they were clear, they were crossed too many times without action. It has been said that many warnings were given, but offended posts were removed, which makes it really hard for other contestants to see where the line is drawn without being on a certain thread at the right time. If multiple warnings are going to be given it needs to be individual-- it cannot be the responsibility of the contestant to be aware of every action of the others.
To be fair, if they aren't disqualifying someone, then they really have to delete offending posts. Someone who clarifies their entry shouldn't get to have their clarifying post stand all round- that's not fair to the contestants who followed the rules and didn't clarify their entries.
This time was different, yea, but Neil is probably right in that we should just focus on the 15 contestants for now. They deserve our full attention.
I understand,and strongly support the DQ and the reasoning behind it. I also appreciate the professionalism shown by all parties involved. What i don't understand is the decision to NOT have an alternate take Lief's place in the competition. Isn't the reason you have alternates is so one of them can step in just in case this or a similar unfortunate situation does occur?. and now that the unfortunate situation has happened, the alternates are getting brushed aside like they don't even exist. If you have no intention of using an alternate when the situation calls for it, why bother having alternates at all?
To be fair, if they aren't disqualifying someone, then they really have to delete offending posts. Someone who clarifies their entry shouldn't get to have their clarifying post stand all round- that's not fair to the contestants who followed the rules and didn't clarify their entries.
Agreed. That's why questionable posts are removed, so it isn't an unfair advantage in any way.
What i don't understand is the decision to NOT have an alternate take Lief's place in the competition. Isn't the reason you have alternates is so one of them can step in just in case this or a similar unfortunate situation does occur?. and now that the unfortunate situation has happened, the alternates are getting brushed aside like they don't even exist. If you have no intention of using an alternate when the situation calls for it, why bother having alternates at all?
Because no alternate was advanced to the Top 16. This is consistent with prior years. In prior years if someone drops out of subsequent rounds, there is no replacement. The alts didnt compete in the 32 to 16 selection (they submitted entries but werent considered because no one dropped out). So there is no real way after the 32 to rank the alts anymore and they havent competed at this point the same way the other competitors have. So there is no fair way to include them. At this point, if someone drops or is DQd there is no replacement.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
I understand,and strongly support the DQ and the reasoning behind it. I also appreciate the professionalism shown by all parties involved. What i don't understand is the decision to NOT have an alternate take Lief's place in the competition. Isn't the reason you have alternates is so one of them can step in just in case this or a similar unfortunate situation does occur?. and now that the unfortunate situation has happened, the alternates are getting brushed aside like they don't even exist. If you have no intention of using an alternate when the situation calls for it, why bother having alternates at all?
Why should an alternate get a free pass to the third round when there are 16 people whose magic items got them into the top 32 above the alts? If anyone would be propelled forward to fill the spot, it should be the 17th-highest-voted contestant in round 2. But that competitor would have to now write a statblock and readers/voters would only have a few days to digest it compared to the week we've had to the other entries.
In the current case, we'll still have 8 contestants next round, it's just that 7 will be eliminated by vote instead of 8. Last year when there was a tie, there were 17 contestants in round 3 and they eliminated 9 of them to get the top 8. This is just the pendulum swinging the other way.
[edit: Damned Orcus ninja!]
So they're not alternates in the true sense, but more like one round placeholders in case of a situation early in the contest and then removed from the running afterwards. Or am i not getting your meaning?
So they're not alternates in the true sense, but more like one round placeholders in case of a situation early in the contest and then removed from the running afterwards.
Kind of but not quite.
Historically, the biggest flaking out happens at the end of round 1. Someone makes top 32, didnt think they would, then doesnt turn in a round 2 submission. Or there is some technical DQ like in year 1. The alts get moved into that spot. But after round 2, there is no real fair way to use an alt, as has been pointed out. In fact, while the alts are given the chance to work up a round 2 submission just in case (and they usually do one, this year they all did), they arent offered that for round 3.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
,
Star Voter Season 6
|
So they're not alternates in the true sense, but more like one round placeholders in case of a situation early in the contest and then removed from the running afterwards.Kind of but not quite.
Historically, the biggest flaking out happens at the end of round 1. Someone makes top 32, didnt think they would, then doesnt turn in a round 2 submission.
That said, last year I wish I hadn't turned in a round 2 submission :P
