Overall submission quality: Is it just me...?

[Kerney]

Simply put, this format could be revised for next year. Perhaps seeing one item, voting up or down would be good.

On the other hand this format either scares me or makes me feel confident.

[James Raine]

Steven T. Helt wrote:

I dunno how many votes I've cast, ut just now I got the first item I thought deserved to be called Superstar. Lemme tell you, I am soooo glad to cast that.

I'm keeping a .txt file of items I feel are top 32 worthy. I have 15. Maybe I'm just lucky?

[Jacob Trier]

James Raine wrote:

Steven T. Helt wrote:

I dunno how many votes I've cast, ut just now I got the first item I thought deserved to be called Superstar. Lemme tell you, I am soooo glad to cast that.

I'm keeping a .txt file of items I feel are top 32 worthy. I have 15. Maybe I'm just lucky?

I keep mine in evernote, for access while voting via phone, iPad or office computer.

I have 8 so far, and I'm looking forward to seeing how many make the actual Top 32

[Lakesidefantasy]

Steven T. Helt wrote:

I dunno how many votes I've cast, ut just now I got the first item I thought deserved to be called Superstar. Lemme tell you, I am soooo glad to cast that.

Awesome comments like this are nice to see. I think everyone gets butterflies in their stomachs when they see a comment like this.

It seems we are turning a corner in the voting process, I see more and more discussion of pleasing items rather than dissappointing ones.

But I fear it is too late...

because:

IT"S THE END OF THE WORLD TODAY!!!!!

[Khaladon]

Well, I'll say this, getting to vote on the items I've seen thus far certainly makes me feel a fair bit better about my own item : P

Two questions:

-Does anyone have any idea how many items were submitted?

-And, has anyone as yet come across their own item in the voting? Or is there something in the software to prevent this?

[Lakesidefantasy]

Edward just saw his item.

N. Edward Lange wrote:

i just saw my own item! that was a huge relief, but i immediately realized that one of the sentences really should have been two... it was a run-on and i could have stated its point much better in two sentences (and had plenty of word count). so, now i'm worried for a whole new reason :(

i love this contest but it a little bit emotionally exhausting, lol.

[Eric Morton]

James Raine wrote:

Steven T. Helt wrote:

I dunno how many votes I've cast, ut just now I got the first item I thought deserved to be called Superstar. Lemme tell you, I am soooo glad to cast that.

I'm keeping a .txt file of items I feel are top 32 worthy. I have 15. Maybe I'm just lucky?

I'm keeping a file with nothing but the names of all the items I've seen so far.

I'm going to go back in a few days and see which items I can remember when I read just their names. Assuming I remember them for good reasons, those will be my top picks.

[Steven Helt]

Well then, make sure you remember my Mrph of Mrphing!

[Eric Morton]

Steven T. Helt wrote:

Well then, make sure you remember my Mrph of Mrphing!

Eric Morton wrote:

Assuming I remember them for good reasons...

[shujan]

I'd like to give a round of applause to the judges who do this each year - particularly those mad enough to volunteer. It's a wonder you guys can read through all those items and still manage to retain professional sanity.

Sifting through these entries is a marathon, but it's worth it. I've seen some great items so far.

[James Raine]

Steven T. Helt wrote:

Well then, make sure you remember my Mrph of Mrphing!

I didn't know Pyro was into Pathfinder. </tf2-nerd>

["Devil's Advocate"]

Khaladon wrote:

Two questions:

-Does anyone have any idea how many items were submitted?

-And, has anyone as yet come across their own item in the voting? Or is there something in the software to prevent this?

I've seen mine, and was very please that it turned out as well as I'd hoped formating-wise ( I didn't hit preview before submitting).

It seems extremely random. I've seen items I've voted to advance a few times later (during the same cycle), and I have once even seen the same entry at the same time. That being said, I have attempte to vote a few times (one after another not at the same time), and have spent a few hours straight voting (damnyou countdown). After the first few (10's) I stopped voting "Neither" unless both entries where that bad, but eventually I got to the point I was just seeing the same items over and over and rarely a new item would pop up (like every 4 or 5 new votes).

[Drejk]

Hmmm. Joke item. Managed to slip past reporting.

["Devil's Advocate"]

I'm not sure how hard this would be to change, but a suggestion I have for next year is to present maybe 3 or 4 items at a time, and ethr be able to rank them for advancement or not (wither 1-3 or even ok/maybe/no/HELLNO) and definetly remove that countdown.

I understand it's probably there to help prevent people from just spamming "Neither" until they get their submission, but it really, really slows the process down to the point that I really wanted to just sitting there 45-30 seconds each time typically.

Might also be a good idea to break the voting into 2 segments, one for very rules specific criteria (formating, pricing, and appropriate spells and rules) and flavor and creativity (looking at both grammer and novelity of he submission, interest level, fun, and fluff). A superstar submission should be BOTH, so getting knocked out of either first shouldn't matter.

[Starglim]

Black Powder Chocobo wrote:

I've had a grab bag of good and bad items (including 1 item I'm surprised was not outright rejected for what it does), and I've ran across 3 repeats so far.

Or doesn't do (item contains no game mechanics).

[Gary Teter]

We considered presenting more than two items at a time but decided that would put too many words on the screen at once. The vote ranking method we're going to use could make use of that kind of ranking though, so if we do it this way again next year we might present them like that.

[James Raine]

Starglim wrote:

Black Powder Chocobo wrote:

I've had a grab bag of good and bad items (including 1 item I'm surprised was not outright rejected for what it does), and I've ran across 3 repeats so far.

Or doesn't do (item contains no game mechanics).

I have run across probably two or three items so far that don't actually appear to do anything.

[Jeff Lee]

James Raine wrote:

I have run across probably two or three items so far that don't actually appear to do anything.

I've had that myself. Rereading the entry showed a lot of fluff with no actual mechanics for how the item worked. It read more like an idea that hadn't actually been worked out yet.

[Drejk]

Haven't got such item yet.

[Drejk]

The first creature in a can I have got to read. The idea alone would appeal to me normally but the author lost me because of not knowing creature rules.

[Feros]

I got one item like that. I immediately started to look for what I thought was an obvious mechanical ability and found nothing. I was quite startled.

["Devil's Advocate"]

I've seen two, and I believe I know the one your talking about. Its odd not being able to actually specify things yet. :)

[atomicb]

Drejk wrote:

Hmmm. Joke item. Managed to slip past reporting.

Reporting how? I believe joke items are perfectly within the rules - they're just most likely bad. I've cheerfully voted for a (mechanically sound) joke item already, because the alternative was sufficiently dull.

[Gary Teter]

Removed a post that was too specific about an item. Let's not name spells here.

[+2 DRaino]

Praise for this voting system:

Condorcet voting is a wonderful system for developing a chain of good to bad. With Condorcet voting, you are basically able to chain vote for an item, such that if item fail already lost to item mediocre, then voting for item nice over item mediocre functionally votes item nice as better than item fail automatically. The more votes that go into it, the stronger the beatpath is confirmed.

When two terrible items get paired up, voting for either one establishes that any future losses for the 'winner' also count as losses for the loser.

At the other end of the spectrum, when two awesome items get paired, it establishes that the any time the "loser" wins from there on out, it counts as a win for the winner too.

Basically, we have a chain of strength in these items, and Condorcet voting is a method of pulling the chain from both ends, to determine the flow of awesome to awful.

Followed by thoughts for the future:

After completing a certain number of matches per item, we should have some obvious chaff at the bottom. There are formulas that tournament organizers use for this stuff, and I don't know the specifics on the numbers, but at a certain point, you can safely cut off the bottom half of the emerging chain, and while yes, you can accidentally snip something in the top 25%, you can be certain that the padding has kept the top 10% safe (mathematically speaking).

I am in no way shape or form recommending a change in the current course of this round, but i do believe that in future years, we can utilize some sort of "trim as we go" system that will not only improve the quality of our votes (top 128 items matched up is significant for ranking, but once we hit the low end, does it matter which is worst?), but it will also increase the excitement and entertainment value for the voters as we see more and more of the good stuff while we continue voting.

I know the importance of giving all the items a fair chance, but at a certain point, we are just hitting ourselves in the face with the bad stuff to prove its still bad. That disheartens us, gets a little boring, and honestly, promises that there will be more negative threads like this one.

Next year, lets get some sort of "trim as we go" system in place. I am proud to help bear the burden once placed on the shoulders of the judges alone, but lets do it efficiently according to the strengths of our mass capacity.

And finally...:

I blame the bulk of bad items that I was seeing on the way people were abusing the "neither" button. Since the change in labeling, and the discussion about how that just recycles, I have seen less of those items which just made me groan, and a LOT more interesting stuff.

[Gary Teter]

Interesting commentary, thanks for that. It's far too late to change the rules for this year but if we do it this way again next year we'll consider this.

I especially like the idea of ratcheting the voting pool by say 10% or something every 24 hours during the voting period. I've been poking around at the bottom of the rankings and I'm pretty sure those items are never going to advance, they've got too many votes against them at this point.

["Devil's Advocate"]

Gary Teter wrote:

Removed a post that was too specific about an item. Let's not name spells here.

I'm really not sure what this issue is. I was making a joke that I've seen approx 5 or more items that basically mimic a 0 level spell, and not one of them actually mention the spell.

[Gary Teter]

It turns out, your joke pointed directly at an item or items that you may not have even seen. We're erring on the side of caution.

["Devil's Advocate"]

Ah, then I apologize. Wasn't my intent to ruin anyones submision.

[Shawn Kowalke]

I agree with a few of the people above, that while I make formatting my last consideration, I DO make it a consideration.

I would never choose a lame but perfectly formatted item over a great item that used random capitals and omitted the prices, but I'm annoyed by how much work I put into previewing and re-previewing my own item to make sure it was exactly what was asked for, but a lot of people don't seem to have bothered. I agree that this is more minor than item quality considerations, but we were handed the formatting guidelines on a silver platter. People who strayed from them in big ways weren't invested enough in their item or this competition to do some very basic proofreading. I AM that invested and so were many others, and I plan on rewarding that dedication.

[Tyrannosapien]

N. Edward Lange wrote:

i just saw my own item! that was a huge relief, but i immediately realized that one of the sentences really should have been two... it was a run-on and i could have stated its point much better in two sentences (and had plenty of word count). so, now i'm worried for a whole new reason :(

So which did you vote for :)

[Pen2paper]

I really want to say that I appreciate you giving us the chance to review these items. Not only is it enjoyable to be able to see how everyone else created their items but to see the thought process that went into some of these items. Gives you a new way of seeing the contest.

I understand why folks can judge harshly but I also consider that people have spent a lot of their personal time trying to craft what they felt was their best and in a moment of excitement... a fudge is possible to make. For the Fudge- I don't mind, your human.

I have seen a lot of Sic items, items with someones name in the title and a fair amount of some other spell references. Those I honestly skip.

Good luck to those crafty crafters left standing at the end of this!

P
E
N2Paper

[Graskaan]

It seems I value format more than most.

Thinking ahead, I want to see coherent ideas in the rest of the rounds. As the complexity increases later, I worry someone who can't use the dropped-in-your-lap format in round one is going to butcher the later submissions even more. I'd rather see game-ready stuff.

[james knowles]

I came across my item twice...and actually voted against it the second time because the other item was far superior. How *bleeped* up is that.

[Thomas LeBlanc]

james knowles wrote:

...and actually voted against it the second time because the other item was far superior.

Same here. I was simply blown away! The superior items really stand out.

[zylphryx]

Still haven't seen my item ... hope it didn't get voted down into the depths ...

[Graskaan]

james knowles wrote:

I came across my item twice...and actually voted against it the second time because the other item was far superior. How *bleeped* up is that.

I know what you mean. I've seen several I'd vote for over mine. I'd rather know I actually accomplished something than load the dice for myself (however insignificant my one little vote might be).

[shujan]

james knowles wrote:

I came across my item twice...and actually voted against it the second time because the other item was far superior. How *bleeped* up is that.

I tip my hat to you sir. And anyone else who votes for the better item when it's up against their own.

[TarkXT]

I'm seeing a handful of straight up impractical items here.

Let me give you an idea of what I mean.

Let's say I want to go to the store. I can take my bike, I can take my car or I can take my space shuttle.

The bike represents the mundane item.

The car represents a magical item that just gets me to the store.

The space shuttle represents an item that takes several minutes to get going and costs several bajillion dollars and may explode in my face once I get to the store.

I'm seeing a lot of space shuttles.

[R D Ramsey]

Number one auto-negative for me: Something that reduces choices players have to make.

Number one auto-positive for me: Something that increases interesting choices for players.

A game session is a series of (hopefully) interesting choices. If you add to that, we all win! If you take away from that, we all fall asleep.

[goldomark]

Arkos wrote:

Aha! I just found my first item that made me go "Oooooh" out loud. So, congratulations to that anonymous potential Superstar. You've got my vote!

You're welcome, man. ;-)

[backinblacK]

Ye gods... So. Much. Bookkeeping... So many items with a huge price tag that do either nothing special, or nothing useful at all...

[Joel Flank]

Ouch, I just read a few in a row that made my eyes hurt! Sadly, in one case I strongly considered voting for one of them, since the alternative was pretty poor, but in the end, not being painful to read won out.

[Jeff Lee]

I've gotten to a point where the items I'm looking at are fairly solid, and some of them are outstanding. Still haven't seen mine yet.

[Manimal]

AAAAAAAAARGH! Why would you ever submit an item that is a thinly veiled reskin of an item from an extemely popular show or series of novels? I've seen at least three, so far! The judges, I guarantee, will see through such a blatant ruse.

[DeciusBrutus]

Pen2paper wrote:

I have seen a lot of Sic items, items with someones name in the title and a fair amount of some other spell references. Those I honestly skip.

The [sic] items I see are the ones where spellcheck would have made all the difference.

Sorry for the pun, but I'm up til sunrise for the Solstice.

[DM_aka_Dudemeister]

Unsurprisingly while I don't make formatting my primary consideration there is a definite connection between a well formatted item, and an original, cool item.

Almost like people with well formatted items may have done additional homework beyond the basics.

[Clark Peterson]

Thomas LeBlanc wrote:

The superior items really stand out.

That has always been true. Each year about 60 or so really stand out. Those ones make the keep folder and it is those that we choose between for the top 32. I'm glad to see you all noticing the same thing.

[michael patrick]

Just came across an item with a character's name in the title. It also had some lackluster writing, but the idea and mechanics were kind of interesting. Luckily for the author it was up against a poor idea with mediocre presentation.

That probably won't happen to that same item every time, though.