Competitors: Remember the rules about commenting on your archetype

[Sean K Reynolds]

This is just a last-minute reminder.

Remember that the Official Rules say:
5. 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) interviews, 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.

In other words, if you're tempted to clarify something about your archetype, explain a design choice, point out a rule a critic is missing, offer a fix or a variant, or just about anything else that could be considered adding to, expanding upon, or clarifying your archetype submission, don't do so until voting is closed for this round. Otherwise, you may be disqualified.

In the past, we have had to disqualify competitors for breaking this rule. Don't ruin your chances with a disqualification.

Or, to borrow language from the Round 2 FAQ, which says:
Your submission has to get by on its own, even if everyone has the same question and you could answer it with a single word. That's because if you write an archetype and it gets published, the book doesn't include a little copy of you to answer questions or offer suggestions, so you need to make sure your submission is clear on its own. Just grin and bear it--you'll be able to say as much as you want about it once voting is closed. In fact, you may just want to copy this safe-to-post statement: Thank you for your support and please vote for my item! If you have questions, I'll be happy to answer them once voting for this round is closed.

You can comment on the other archetypes, of course, just not your own.

Once voting closes on Jan 31st at 2pm PT, you can comment on your own item in any way you see fit.
Good luck!

[Mark Moreland]

Bump.

We've already had to remove one post from a contestant whose comments in his own thread were suspect.

DON'T PUT YOURSELVES IN DQ TERRITORY AT ALL.

[Danny Lundy]

Mark Moreland wrote:

Bump.

We've already had to remove one post from a contestant whose comments in his own thread were suspect.

DON'T PUT YOURSELVES IN DQ TERRITORY AT ALL.

Already???

[Eric Hindley]

Mark Moreland wrote:

Bump.

We've already had to remove one post from a contestant whose comments in his own thread were suspect.

DON'T PUT YOURSELVES IN DQ TERRITORY AT ALL.

Wow, I didn't even realize the threads were open for new posts yet...

[Levi Harbeson]

It was me.

My post thanking the judges was removed.

All I said was a "thank you" and commented that I understood their criticism, and had already worked out a way to change my mistakes, that I would share AFTER voting was closed.

I do not feel I said anything inappropriate, but apparently, I did.

Sorry to make a problem, and best of luck to everyone!

[Mark Moreland]

Saying anything beyond "Thank you for your support and please vote for my item! If you have questions, I'll be happy to answer them once voting for this round is closed." or similarly brief statement to the same effect is toeing the line. We provide this cookie-cutter statement for a reason; use it as a guide or simple copy it into your items. Anything you do beyond that you do at your own risk.

[Levi Harbeson]

Mark Moreland wrote:

Saying anything beyond "Thank you for your support and please vote for my item! If you have questions, I'll be happy to answer them once voting for this round is closed." or similarly brief statement to the same effect is toeing the line. We provide this cookie-cutter statement for a reason; use it as a guide or simple copy it into your items. Anything you do beyond that you do at your own risk.

Thanks Mr. Moreland, please accept my apologies.

[Sean K Reynolds]

FYI, Levi, we draw that line pretty clearly in the sand now and provide an example of what is completely acceptable to say. Otherwise, we'd end up with people toeing the line, debate on whether or not a particular post was acceptable, and so on. It is best to err on the side of caution and stick to the safe zone for this, which is why I posted the rules reminder just as R2 submissions went public.

(This isn't a knock on you in any way, just clarifying why we're so strict about this.)

[Levi Harbeson]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

FYI, Levi, we draw that line pretty clearly ...

(This isn't a knock on you in any way, just clarifying why we're so strict about this.)

I completely understand. :)

[Sean K Reynolds]

Competitors!

Seriously, now is not the time to be saying anything about your archetype, or how hard it was to write it, or how hard this round's challenge is.

Now, while the voters are discussing and voting, is the time for you to keep quiet, or (as the rules specifically suggest), limit your comments to "Thank you for your support and please vote for my item! If you have questions, I'll be happy to answer them once voting for this round is closed."

Designing is hard. So is keeping your mouth shut until it's an appropriate time to talk. There is a time gap between when something is written and when it's on sale to the public. For example, the deadline for Ultimate Combat was the start of January. The book doesn't come out until August. That's more than seven months that the designers have to keep quiet about what they put in the book and what they were thinking when they wrote it. The chattier authors may stop by the boards or chatroom and say, "hey, the book will be really cool, I look forward to talking about it when it's published!" The less chatty ones just stay quiet about it.

All you need to do right now is smile, say thank you, enjoy the attention, and keep mum about details until voting closes on Monday. That's just one week from yesterday to Monday.

Every year we have to remind people of this again and again. It's pretty simple: the rules say "contestants are prohibited from any public discussion that could be considered as adding to, expanding upon, or clarifying the content of their current submission." Do you really want to toe that line? Do you want to be anywhere near that line? Do you want to be within a stone's throw of a judge considering that you're near the line?

It's so, so tempting to talk... yet it's so, so easy to not talk... just don't type into the window and don't hit "Submit Post." You can say whatever you want after voting closes on Monday.

Until then, err on the side of caution. Say nothing but thank you, please vote for me, I'll be happy to say more when voting is closed.

Don't spoil your friend's surprise birthday party.
Don't spoil the ending of a movie.
Don't spoil your chances at RPG Superstar.

This is the second and last warning.

[Sean K Reynolds]

The above may sound harsh. I know you're excited. I'm excited, too! (That's why I do this every year). I just don't want your excitement to make you trip. It really sucks to DQ someone for breaking this rule, and I don't want to be forced to do it.

Thanks!

[Danny Lundy]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Competitors!

Seriously, now is not the time to be saying anything about your archetype, or how hard it was to write it, or how hard this round's challenge is.

Oh yeah!! Well I . . .

Spoiler:

EXPLOSIVE RUNES!

(hope I got you Neil)

Seriously though, we promise to play nice.

[Mikko Kallio]

The inability to follow rules and instructions is not very Superstar. First there was the fake names thing and now this.

Frankly, rules violations of this kind should result in DQs just like exceeding the word count does. There have been precedents in previous years, so it's not like it's a new thing the contestants didn't know about.

It irks me how some people are not taking this contest seriously enough. If you can't take the criticism with grace, however harsh it may sometimes be, you're in the wrong place.

[Pedro Coelho]

Serpent wrote:

First there was the fake names thing and now this.

What fake names thing?

[Mikko Kallio]

Pedro Coelho wrote:

Serpent wrote:

First there was the fake names thing and now this.

What fake names thing?

Before round 1 winners were announced, all entrants were asked to check the names they had provided on their account. At least two top 36 contestants had used obviously fake names.

The contest rules state that "Contestants must provide their real names on their paizo.com account."

EDIT: Disclaimer: Naturally, my opinions on the subject are biased as I'm 1d4 DQs away from being in the top 32. That said, I'm more than willing to play by the rules in the unlikely event that I'm promoted to the top 32.

[Sean K Reynolds]

Serpent wrote:

Before round 1 winners were announced, all entrants were asked to check the names they had provided on their account. At least two top 36 contestants had used obviously fake names.

I am sure that was just an issue of people creating an account months or years ago, not wanting to reveal their personal info and not planning to order anything from the site, they just wanted to participate on the message boards, and then (without thinking that their account info didn't have a real name because they created the account a year ago) they entered the competition this year. I don't think any of those 4 competitors were trying to hide their identity as preparation for RPG Superstar.

[Neil F.]

Mark Moreland wrote:

Bump.

We've already had to remove one post from a contestant whose comments in his own thread were suspect.

DON'T PUT YOURSELVES IN DQ TERRITORY AT ALL.

+1