Disqualification

[Trevor Gulliver]

It can be really hard not to comment. It's especially hard when you're sinking. When my villain lair entry was slowly sinking and Sean and Jason were debating at length whether "irises" or "irides" was the best choice for the plural of "iris" I wrote:

Trevor Gulliver wrote:

Thank you Jason, Sean, and all for the extensive feedback on 1 of the 2000 words in my entry. I heartily encourage you to provide equally extensive feedback on the 1999 remaining words. ;-D

That's about as far as I would go as a contestant, and even that flirted with the rules. You can reply in your thread to thank people for their feedback and encourage them to vote. You should avoid adding or expanding on what has been said. Don't get involved in discussions about your entry until the voting closes.

The rules are clear, they are just painfully hard to follow when you're behind in the polls.

[Matthew Morris]

Chris Mortika wrote:

Matthew Morris wrote:

That said, last year I wish I hadn't turned in a round 2 submission.

Why so, Matthew? It may not have advanced, but surely the comments taught you something, and the discipline for the turnaround was good practice. You're one of the veterans this year, guiding us newbies.

Oh it was very helpful, that's why I point people to it often (quick look how Matt's ego had to save vs massive damage!) But I'm the kind of person who looks back and says "Wow, that sucked, wish someone's better idea would have made it in."

That said one of my goals when I made it to round 2 was to sneak psionics past Clark, because of his comments ;-)

[Vic Wertz]

Leptailurus wrote:

...it cannot be the responsibility of the contestant to be aware of every action of the others.

You are correct. But is their responsibility to know and follow the rules. And we e-mailed all of the remaining contestants after we strengthened the wording of the rules regarding discussion, so even if there was a contestant who wasn't keeping up on the messageboards (which, by the way, I'd consider a terrible strategic mistake), this wouldn't have come as a surprise.

[Seth White]

Sorry to hear about this, Lief. It's a real shame. I don't know that I'd have handled such hard news as well as you did, so you deserve major props for your response to such a tough ruling.

The work you did for rounds 1-3 was amazing, and I was hoping to see what you'd come up with in future rounds. I'm looking forward to seeing more design from you in the future. Keep up the awesome work.

[James Jacobs]

Trevor Gulliver wrote:

It can be really hard not to comment. It's especially hard when you're sinking.

This is true... but you can also consider it practice for how to handle reviews of something you do eventually get published. It's VERY difficult to resist the temptation to jump into a review of a book you right to defend it against a bad review, especially in cases where the reviewer clearly just hates the genre you write in or (even worse) actually misunderstands the book and lets his own ignorance get in the way.

In every case, it's bad form to publicly defend yourself against bad reviews. It's ALWAYS better to let them sort themselves out; if there's one or two aberrations in the form of bad reviews amid a lot of good reviews, that speaks for itself. And if ALL of your reviews are bad, part of being a professional writer is accepting the fact that you misjudged what the audience wanted to see, and to use that information and feedback to address the problem.

Not getting involved in your own entries is a similar situation, as far as I see it. It IS unfortunate that this had to end in a disqualification, but to echo other folks' comments:

Leif, you are a CLASS ACT in how you've responded to this turn of events. Very well done. I'm looking forward to seeing you enter in RPG Superstar next time... and not just because it's good to see representation from the redwoods! :-)

[Charles Evans 25]

I seem to be sensing an undercurrent here of 'it's good and fine to DQ contestants for not keeping the rules', but also another in some posts of 'it's a bit blurry what is a serious transgression because of discretion and the judges giving warnings to some posters and not doing anything and so forth'.

[devil's advocate]
So since graduated penalties are not an option, what about going the other way and having no warnings, apart from a line in the contest rules to the effect of 'if you break these rules in any way, you will be out'?
If contestants are unclear whether to comment is to break the rules, they could email someone like Vic to clear whether they can say what they want to say (people who are paid to do this for a living and under non-disclosure agreements have to check things with their employers, I suspect) or simply say nothing. At least one contestant in Round 2 maintained a pretty much absolute silence to avoid possible transgressions.
It might make things less interesting for the voters if we did not see posts such as Chris' essay on punctuation, or some of the humorous 'vote for me' pleas of this year, but to play devil's advocate for a moment longer it could be considered that the voting public are here as guests at what is essentially a job interview to write a specific piece of work for Paizo. [/devil's advocate]

[roguerouge]

James Jacobs wrote:

Trevor Gulliver wrote:

It can be really hard not to comment. It's especially hard when you're sinking.

This is true... but you can also consider it practice for how to handle reviews of something you do eventually get published. It's VERY difficult to resist the temptation to jump into a review of a book you right to defend it against a bad review, especially in cases where the reviewer clearly just hates the genre you write in or (even worse) actually misunderstands the book and lets his own ignorance get in the way.

But James, that's the BEST part of the New York Times Book Review. Angry and snarky letters from the author or his sycophants make my Sunday morning.

[Mairkurion {tm}]

Trevor Gulliver wrote:

~ "irides" ~

This episode improved my life significantly. Vocabulary is power! Thanks, TD.

[Petrus222]

I'm curious. If the concern is that a submitter's comments on their item, monster, lair, idea or whatever might influence the voting... then why allow any commenting on them at all? Let the idea stand on it's own merit without any comments from the authors or the peanut gallery. Conversely if commenting by voters is considered important... then why shouldn't contestants be allowed to defend themselves?

In my experience very few professional activities are ran by democracy but in the cases that multiple people have input into a document, the author is usually given the chance to explain themselves. I can see the arguement that article length is important to editors, but if the idea is sufficently cool, is an editor going to deny the space needed to present it appropriately? Probably not; a less cool idea would just be axed to make space.

From an outside POV, it just seems that the current process will inevtiabley lead to disqualifications for behaviour (as opposed to submission requirements) over time. And while that's probably not that big an issue in the grand scheme of things, if you're truly focused on the quality of the end product it seems foolish to arbitrarily eliminate potential talent for something that would actually be encouraged in a professional situation.

(ETA: What's done is done here, and the rules should not be changed, but it might be something to think about for next year.)

[Mark Moreland]

Maybe it's not the best comparison, but when something is nominated for a Pulitzer, and Oscar, or a Grammy, the author generally doesn't get to explain all their artistic or technical decisions to the voters. The submission should stand on its own, as you say, but the voters should be able to discuss the merits and flaws of the items amongst themselves. The contest is on design, however, and not on who can better justify their designs after the fact.

[Petrus222]

yoda8myhead wrote:

Maybe it's not the best comparison, but when something is nominated for a Pulitzer, and Oscar, or a Grammy, the author generally doesn't get to explain all their artistic or technical decisions to the voters.

True, but how many people are involved in the editing and polishing of the media being evaluated prior to it being viewed by the voters? In a lot of respects this contest and it's prize is less like winning a Grammy than it is selecting which songs to put on a Grammy winning album. (And I mean no offense by this to any of the submitters. All around the work is full of awesome original ideas IMO.)

Quote:

The contest is on design, however, and not on who can better justify their designs after the fact.

But if the contest is about design and demonstrating professionalism, it's counterintuitive to not allow the design to be explained. Maybe it would be valuable to allow the submitters a single post to explain themselves and then forbid them from any further comments at all? I don't know.

Also from the perspective of the contest it would eliminate unintended design that just happens to look cool.

Voters: This has a wicked (Adjective1)feel to it.
Subby: Umm I was actually going for more for a (opposite of adjective 1) look but I'm glad you like it.

[Richard A. Hunt]

yoda8myhead wrote:

Maybe it's not the best comparison, but when something is nominated for a Pulitzer, and Oscar, or a Grammy, the author generally doesn't get to explain all their artistic or technical decisions to the voters. The submission should stand on its own, as you say, but the voters should be able to discuss the merits and flaws of the items amongst themselves. The contest is on design, however, and not on who can better justify their designs after the fact.

I simply could not have said it any better. If an artist ever does get to explain their vision, it's well after attaining notoriety, after they've become famous and accepted when people actually do want to know more.

[Brian E. Harris]

Petrus222 wrote:

I'm curious. If the concern is that a submitter's comments on their item, monster, lair, idea or whatever might influence the voting... then why allow any commenting on them at all?

I'm asking myself the same question - if all you're allowed to post is "Thank you, please vote for me!" then why bother?

Unless an aspect of the contest is to see which entrant can resist temptation to post more than that, it just seems to make sense to say "Don't post ANYTHING AT ALL in your entry thread until voting for that round is over."

[N'wah]

James Jacobs wrote:

Leif, you are a CLASS ACT in how you've responded to this turn of events. Very well done. I'm looking forward to seeing you enter in RPG Superstar next time... and not just because it's good to see representation from the redwoods! :-)

I'd gladly represent the redwoods (5th generation Californian currently residing in Boise; NorCal REPRESENT!), but I can barely string together a coherent sentence, so I'll leave it up to my more eloquent gaming partner in crime, Ben, to bring the awesome.

Also, purple monkey dishwasher.

[Matthew Morris]

Resisting temptation is part of it to be certain.

I've avoided commenting any more on my lahamu entry because someone has used it for round 3. I've also not posted my statblock that I've created, not because I don't believe it's allowed, but because I don't think it would be fair to the round 3 entry. At the same time, I'd be irritated to have Jason post his stats for the caltrop golem.

Is it prideful of me to think that posting the lahamu would hamper someone? Maybe, but I consider it to be fair play to avoid posting it.

I've some other things that I'll elaborate on once we can comment.

[Ernest Mueller]

1. Sad that Lief got DQ'ed.
2. Good on Lief for his handling of it.
3. It's totally fair that he did.
4. No reason to change a thing about the rules.
5. No reason to bother airing the "offending post."
6. Frankly it seems like there's an odd tone of entitlement among some of the commenters... Paizo sets the rules and the judges do what they want, they don't owe any of us anything here.

[Vic Wertz]

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

If contestants are unclear whether to comment is to break the rules, they could email someone like Vic to clear whether they can say what they want to say

If you have to ask, the answer is probably no.

[Vic Wertz]

Brian E. Harris wrote:

Petrus222 wrote:

I'm curious. If the concern is that a submitter's comments on their item, monster, lair, idea or whatever might influence the voting... then why allow any commenting on them at all?

I'm asking myself the same question - if all you're allowed to post is "Thank you, please vote for me!" then why bother?

Unless an aspect of the contest is to see which entrant can resist temptation to post more than that, it just seems to make sense to say "Don't post ANYTHING AT ALL in your entry thread until voting for that round is over."

That option was discussed. I don't like it at all, frankly. For one thing, the rule shouldn't be about *where* you post, it should be about *what* you post. Stuff you shouldn't say, you shouldn't say anywhere, and stuff you can say, you can say anywhere.

The other thing is that we *do* want contestants to show their personality. One of the goals of this contest is to build some celebrity status for the winner, after all, and how likable a person is *does* factor into it.

[Matthew Morris]

Vic Wertz wrote:

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

If contestants are unclear whether to comment is to break the rules, they could email someone like Vic to clear whether they can say what they want to say

If you have to ask, the answer is probably no.

Something else to address, unless Sean wants to share my questions.

[Vic Wertz]

Matthew Morris wrote:

Vic Wertz wrote:

Charles Evans 25 wrote:

If contestants are unclear whether to comment is to break the rules, they could email someone like Vic to clear whether they can say what they want to say

If you have to ask, the answer is probably no.

Something else to address, unless Sean wants to share my questions.

I was being a bit of a smartass... there are, of course, reasonable rules questions. But generally, if we draw a line and say don't cross, not being in the vicinity of the line is your best strategy.

[Moonslayer]

I think the reason for not allowing contestants to explain themselves during voting is pretty obvious. The rules give a word limit for each entry, further commentary in other posts tosses that right out the window. Part of the challenge is to deliver an entry that should need little to no further explanation.

That being said, I also congratulate Lief on his excellent workmanship and for taking the DQ with dignity and grace.

[Petrus222]

Vic Wertz wrote:

The other thing is that we *do* want contestants to show their personality. One of the goals of this contest is to build some celebrity status for the winner, after all, and how likable a person is *does* factor into it.

In that case it seems like allowing the contestants to talk explicitly about their creations would be a good thing wouldn't it?

[Lief Clennon]

Petrus222 wrote:

In that case it seems like allowing the contestants to talk explicitly about their creations would be a good thing wouldn't it?

We are free to do so the moment our wondrous items are posted, and after voting is closed for each round.

If I were to complain about one thing, it would be how many warnings were given. I was basically strike 3... strikes 1 and 2 just happened to be made by other people. I probably wouldn't have DQ'd myself if <redacted> had been booted for his initial comment on the <redacted>, in the early hours of round 2; or if <redacted> had been disqualified for quoting others' comments to emphasize them (which, in the interest of full disclosure, I personally flagged within minutes). Frankly, if I were the one in charge, it would have been zero-tolerance from the start.

But while earlier action would have made me more cautious, that just sucks for me. There was nothing wrong with the policy, in fact it was very generous; and I don't think it's unfair that I was the final straw. Again, the warnings were given. I screwed up, plain and simple. The lesson here, guys, is that you don't need to know exactly where the line is. You need to stay so far away from it that you don't have to care.

[The_Minstrel_Wyrm]

Lief,

My sincere regret for your having been DQ'd. But as everyone has said before, way to be a class act in how you've handled the situation.

I also sincerely hope you enter next year.

See you around the messageboards.

Dean; The_Minstrel_Wyrm

[Eric Morton]

Vic Wertz wrote:

For one thing, the rule shouldn't be about *where* you post, it should be about *what* you post.

I'd argue that "where" and "what" should take second seat to "when." As in, no finalist should be allowed to make any comment about the contest whatsoever when the voting booth is open.

I'd even go so far as to ban every finalist from the Superstar forum for as long as the voting booth is open. I know my experience last year would have been much less stressful if responding to posts about my submissions wasn't even an option.

Let finalists show off their personality between votes. During votes, constant "thanks" and "vote for me" posts add nothing to the voting process and do little to showcase the finalists' personalities.

All IMHO, of course.

[Wolfboy]

Eric Morton wrote:

Let finalists show off their personality between votes. During votes, constant "thanks" and "vote for me" posts add nothing to the voting process and do little to showcase the finalists' personalities.

Personally, I find the "vote for me posts" annoying and more than a little vainglorious.

I can find out more about a contestant's personality from reading their posts in other topics, rather than in the discussion topic for their entry.

However, I do believe that as an editor and publisher seeing how people respond to criticism, as well as how well they follow the rules of the assignment, is as important as anything else in the contest. Remove the ability for the contestant to respond and you lose a bit of insight into who can and can't respond to it in a professional, or even civil, manner.

[Richard A. Hunt]

Wolfboy wrote:

Personally, I find the "vote for me posts" annoying and more than a little vainglorious.

These, and being able to take criticism without elaboration, are lessons in humility, lessons that demonstrate Superstar quality. :)

[Eric Morton]

Richard A. Hunt wrote:

These, and being able to take criticism without elaboration, are lessons in humility, lessons that demonstrate Superstar quality. :)

Having both done professional design work and participated as a Superstar finalist, I disagree with the notion that keeping silent during a Superstar vote is somehow analogous to handling professional criticism.

My reasoning:

When I receive professional criticism, it's usually from an editor who wants something different. Either my stuff gets rejected outright in favor of something else, or I'm given an opportunity to respond to editorial requests by revising my submission. So I either know that I've been passed over, or I'm given a chance to improve upon my original submission immediately upon receiving feedback.

In the part of the contest that requires restraint from the contestants, Superstar doesn't model either of those situations. There is no part in the professional game design process (that I've encountered) where a freelancer doesn't know whether or not his stuff has been accepted, yet simultaneously receives a constant stream of criticism from the people who will decide his fate without being given a chance to respond.

The closest experience in professional game design to a Superstar voting round is receiving criticism for previously published works. But even this isn't modeled by exactly by Superstar. When you're being criticized for something you've had published, you at least have closure. The product is done, you've gotten your paycheck, and you're busy exploring ways to make a new, even better product in the future. In Superstar, you don't even have that to comfort you. You haven't even gotten a chance to pitch the ultimate product you want to see published before getting flak from voters.

All in all, one's response to criticism in one of these situations (professional design versus Superstar) probably has little or no relationship to one's response to criticism in the other, as the two situations involve entirely different dynamics between designer and critic.

EDIT: Added a spoiler to condense my tangential musings.

[Kabump]

Eric Morton wrote:

Having both done professional design work and participated as a Superstar finalist, I disagree with the notion that keeping silent during a Superstar vote is somehow analogous to handling professional criticism.

That being said, following very clearly stated rules IS part of a freelancer's job. THAT, IMO, is the most important idea behind these rules, even if they vary from normal frellancer rules. This is NOT a freelance job right now, it is a contest, and they want to see if you can follow rules. Use this format, this many words, don't talk about this product until we give the go ahead. You don't like the rule? Dont enter the contest, its that simple really. I also feel your example is flawed, and not reflective of the situation. Of course you ARE able to give feedback to your employers/potential employers when they reject your submission. Absolutely. This is specifically a CONTEST, and the non-judges are NOT your employers/potential employees. You have very clearly stated rules saying DO NOT COMMENT. This issue is black and white in my eyes.

[Rhubarb]

the rules are what they are, do you get to just do what you want at work and then tell your boss, well i didn't think it would matter? Lief knows he made a mistake and next year he'll probabaly come back and get just as far. life is a learning process that sometimes involves setbacks, i would also compare it to people who park in fire lanes in front of stores, they know its wrong but will do it until they get a ticket. the rules should remain DQ for those who break them. I hate to see someone get DQ'd but this might make him the most famous contestant yet, imagine an adventure path that says on the back cover " from the man who was too out of control for RPG superstar"

[Brian E. Harris]

Kabump wrote:

That being said, following very clearly stated rules IS part of a freelancer's job. THAT, IMO, is the most important idea behind these rules, even if they vary from normal frellancer rules. This is NOT a freelance job right now, it is a contest, and they want to see if you can follow rules.

.
.
.
You have very clearly stated rules saying DO NOT COMMENT. This issue is black and white in my eyes.

I don't think anyone is arguing that. The point that I was going for (and that I see multiple other people on the same page with me) is that the "Thanks for your comments, please vote for me!" adds absolutely nothing to the overall contest, it does NOT assist in demonstrating the personality of the contestant, and if that's all you're allowed to comment, why even allow commenting?

Things would be a lot easier, and far more black and white if the rule was simply "Don't post anything, anywhere, in reference to your submission, until voting is over. Don't say thank you, don't post a smiley - DON'T. POST. ANYTHING."

[F. Wesley Schneider]

Lief Clennon wrote:

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.

Wow. All class, man. I'm very impressed and am already looking forward to what you'll come up with next year. All our best!

[Eric Morton]

Brian E. Harris wrote:

The point that I was going for (and that I see multiple other people on the same page with me) is that the "Thanks for your comments, please vote for me!" adds absolutely nothing to the overall contest, it does NOT assist in demonstrating the personality of the contestant, and if that's all you're allowed to comment, why even allow commenting?

Things would be a lot easier, and far more black and white if the rule was simply "Don't post anything, anywhere, in reference to your submission, until voting is over. Don't say thank you, don't post a smiley - DON'T. POST. ANYTHING."

This.

Not getting to say anything at all until after a decision is made about your submission is much truer to the freelancer experience. Adding a bunch of stress and temptation that would never come up while working as a freelancer doesn't help to gauge one's abilities as a freelancer, and a bunch of endless "vote for me" bumps don't add anything valuable to the process. If anything, they make it more difficult for those of us participating in the contest as non-finalists to hold discussions prior to casting our votes.

I'm also not sure I like seeing active contestants leaving comments on other finalists' entries. I don't have any reason to believe anyone is being disingenuous, but I do have to wonder if finalists aren't subconsciously framing their commentary in ways that are tactically beneficial to themselves.

I think Superstar would be improved if finalists were just flat out barred from commenting on the contest between submitting entries and the end of voting. There would be less pointless stress, fewer DQ's of good entries, and fewer meaningless posts to interrupt voter discussions.

[Mike Welham]

There is the 24-hour window between the time voting ends and the winners are announced where I think a contestant could post. This won't affect votes for the round that just passed, and it would give the "voting public" an idea of the contestants' personalities. Since the next round's challenge hasn't been announced, there would be no danger of a contestant "spoiling" their entry. Once the winners have been announced, then the winners should have a gag order placed once again, and those that haven't advanced can discuss their design choices with everyone else while we're waiting for the next round.

[Eric Morton]

taig wrote:

There is the 24-hour window between the time voting ends and the winners are announced...

Good point. I was forgetting about that. I've edited my above post to take that into consideration.

[Kabump]

Brian E. Harris wrote:

Things would be a lot easier, and far more black and white if the rule was simply "Don't post anything, anywhere, in reference to your submission, until voting is over. Don't say thank you, don't post a smiley - DON'T. POST. ANYTHING."

As I see it, they just dont want the contestants expanding on their ideas, they want the ideas to stand on their own. Letting them post generic "vote for me" posts let the community at large know they are reading the posts, and not just sitting back doing nothing. Also, I think it might be a "give them enough rope to hang themselves" kind of deal. Let them comment, just not extrapolate on their entries, which tests the contestants ability to interact with the community while NOT giving away any extra knowledge they might have on things. I see it coming down to testing the contestants ability to follow specific instructions, which may or may not be easy to follow.

[Brian E. Harris]

Kabump wrote:

As I see it, they just dont want the contestants expanding on their ideas, they want the ideas to stand on their own. Letting them post generic "vote for me" posts let the community at large know they are reading the posts, and not just sitting back doing nothing.

And, as has been stated, this adds nothing at all to the contest - in fact, it the posts kinda detract from it.

Kabump wrote:

Also, I think it might be a "give them enough rope to hang themselves" kind of deal. Let them comment, just not extrapolate on their entries, which tests the contestants ability to interact with the community while NOT giving away any extra knowledge they might have on things. I see it coming down to testing the contestants ability to follow specific instructions, which may or may not be easy to follow.

Yet, even with a complete limitation on posting about your entry (or in reference to your entry, or in your entry thread), all contestants still have the ability to comment anywhere else, where the ability to interact that you describe could be tested.

If the test is simply to follow directions, then there's nothing lost to the competition or overall test by simply banning any and all commentary about the round until the round is over.

Essentially, what we have now, between the existing rules, and the clarifications on those rules, is basically - "OK, so, you really shouldn't post anything, but we're not going to actually say that in the rules - we're going to skirt about that." It almost seems intentionally obfuscating, and, again, serves no good purpose.

[Brian E. Harris]

Eric Morton wrote:

I'm also not sure I like seeing active contestants leaving comments on other finalists' entries. I don't have any reason to believe anyone is being disingenuous, but I do have to wonder if finalists aren't subconsciously framing their commentary in ways that are tactically beneficial to themselves.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Let me state, for the record, that I don't believe any of the contestants would intentionally go this route - hence the whole "subconsciously" bit above.

With that said, let me ask the assembled masses - how often do you sit in an interview with other candidates for the same position, and let them ask you questions to determine your suitability for the position that they themselves are trying to get?

[Kabump]

I really dont see the big deal about letting them post the "Please vote for me" posts. You really seem offended by it, if it offers nothing, who cares? The issue is dont extrapolate on the entry, dont say anything other than "Please vote for me". Not a big deal, it does nothing to detract from the contest at hand, but apparently it cheapens the whole contest in your eyes. Hey, your opinion I guess.

I will agree that contestants should not be able to comment on other contestants entries, I think that is skirting the line of posting things other than "vote for me".

[Brian E. Harris]

Kabump wrote:

I really dont see the big deal about letting them post the "Please vote for me" posts. You really seem offended by it, if it offers nothing, who cares?

Please don't put words in my mouth. I'm not "really offended" by it.

Simply put, such posts clutters the thread, and they provide no substance, and no contribution to the discussion.

Kabump wrote:

The issue is dont extrapolate on the entry, dont say anything other than "Please vote for me". Not a big deal, it does nothing to detract from the contest at hand, but apparently it cheapens the whole contest in your eyes. Hey, your opinion I guess.

Again, don't put words in my mouth. It does, however, detract from the contest, in the sense that it clutters the thread, and distracts from the discussion of the item. It's spam, and serves no purpose.

If I may borrow your debate style for a moment, you obviously believe that posting "Please Vote For Me" is a crucial component to RPG Superstar, and should never, ever, EVER be removed, lest the orbit of the Moon decay, and tsunamis wipe out mankind's existence. Please explain why you feel so strongly about that.

[Mark Moreland]

Not worth fighting about. At least not in this thread. Let's not have this one devolve into a flame war. Take it somewhere else.

[Brian E. Harris]

yoda8myhead wrote:

Not worth fighting about. At least not in this thread. Let's not have this one devolve into a flame war. Take it somewhere else.

We (several people) are discussing the rules that lead to the disqualification, which is the topic of this thread - not "fighting".

Where else do you suggest we take it?

I'll freely admit, I let my last post get a tad snarky in response to the tripe I was tossed, but, that aside, this seems to be THE thread to discuss the subject in, which I'll recap:

1> Someone was disqualified per the rule.

2> The rule seems purposefully fuzzy when it doesn't need to be.

3> It seems (from posts by the powers that be) that the only permissible posts under said rule, are "Thanks, Please Vote For Me."

4> Such a post was intended to be allowed to show off the personality of the contestant.

5> Multiple people have been warned for violating said fuzzy rule, eventually leading to item #1.

Given the warnings and the clarification queries that have been made, only to be responded with "If you have to ask, you shouldn't do it," does it make sense to maintain such a rule, or just simplify things by barring all contestant discussion until the end of the voting round?

[Chris Mortika]

I see a difference between "please vote for me", which does indeed seem pandering, and rubs against my natural Midwestern reticence about blowing my own horn, and "thank you for your comments" which is in all cases a sincere acknowledgement that we owe a lot to the people who've taken their time to offer both support and critique to our entries.

All systems can be gamed. As I assemble a "thank you" post, I could artfully cut and paste nibblets of people's suggestions, cobbling a narrative through using Commenter A's words as a reply to Critic B's objections, or otherwise add content to my entry:

"Thank you, jarjar4president, for seeing exactly what I was trying to do with the death knell ability!"

And I could do that on any thread on the boards. As much as I don't want to see anybody get smacked by a rules violation, I think that the current guidelines work. Don't try to add content. Don't game the system, don't see if there's a clever workaround, don't push the envelope. Because people who do push the system aren't necessarily the people that the editors and developers ant to work with. It's not Superstar thinking.

[Anthony Adam]

My two penny worth for what its worth :)

The rules were stated at every opportunity and by entering we all agreed to abide by them in the same way that if we were commissioned to do something for a company, chances are there would be a non disclosure agreement of some sort.

Writing professionaly is about following the requirements (aka rules) specified by your employer at all times as much as about hitting target dates. Clark and others have stated this many times, the rules and regulations of the contest are clear.

So it is simple, cut and dried and for me seems to have been handled very professionally and with dignity on both sides.

There was no malice in the actions taken and Lief himself has shown a great understanding of the action taken.

I think the judges should be commended for their courage in taking such actions. I know it could not have been an easy decision in such a public forum as this contest.

It is a shame, yes, and like so many, I feel for Lief, but the judges must maintain the integrity of this competition.

This is what they have done.

[Matthew Morris]

Chris Mortika wrote:

I see a difference between "please vote for me", which does indeed seem pandering, and rubs against my natural Midwestern reticence about blowing my own horn, and "thank you for your comments" which is in all cases a sincere acknowledgement that we owe a lot to the people who've taken their time to offer both support and critique to our entries.

All systems can be gamed. As I assemble a "thank you" post, I could artfully cut and paste nibblets of people's suggestions, cobbling a narrative through using Commenter A's words as a reply to Critic B's objections, or otherwise add content to my entry:

"Thank you, jarjar4president, for seeing exactly what I was trying to do with the death knell ability!"

And I could do that on any thread on the boards. As much as I don't want to see anybody get smacked by a rules violation, I think that the current guidelines work. Don't try to add content. Don't game the system, don't see if there's a clever workaround, don't push the envelope. Because people who do push the system aren't necessarily the people that the editors and developers ant to work with. It's not Superstar thinking.

I agree, I have my 'how we got here' document up and will post it when I can. I think noting specific critiques and comments to be commented on after voting is closed, and noting things that either I missed or others missed for those 'post-voting' notes is ok.

[Kabump]

Brian E. Harris wrote:

I'll freely admit, I let my last post get a tad snarky in response to the tripe I was tossed

Ill admit posting after receiving life-altering news is a bad idea, I was combative to a fault, but I'm not the only one tossing out tripe. My only mistake was using hyperbole and sarcasm.

[Jared Ouimette]

But I agree with you, Kabump. Paizo, please either let the contestants babble over their creations or don't allow them to post. One or the other. You DQ them for clarifying? Wonderful, then don't let them post. You want to give them a chance to show their personality, too? :O? How about a bio. But no talking about their creations. Problem solved.

[Joshua Blazej]

Jared Ouimette wrote:

But I agree with you, Kabump. Paizo, please either let the contestants babble over their creations or don't allow them to post. One or the other. You DQ them for clarifying? Wonderful, then don't let them post. You want to give them a chance to show their personality, too? :O? How about a bio. But no talking about their creations. Problem solved.

I'm pretty sure that is how it works currently.

[Jared Ouimette]

Joshua Blazej wrote:

Jared Ouimette wrote:

But I agree with you, Kabump. Paizo, please either let the contestants babble over their creations or don't allow them to post. One or the other. You DQ them for clarifying? Wonderful, then don't let them post. You want to give them a chance to show their personality, too? :O? How about a bio. But no talking about their creations. Problem solved.

I'm pretty sure that is how it works currently.

No. They are allowed to post in their own creation's thread. Which allows them to make a faux pas that gets them DQ'd.