What can we do better next year?

[frank gori]

Swag, if you give it they will come.

PDFs cost practically nothing, trow some prizes to marathon voters and higher.

Want to breathe new life into the playtesting round, fill out a playtest survey and receive a PDF copy of "XX"

Facebook superstar, as you announce each round there's a pdf giveaway for the first 25 people to "like" the announcement.

Throw the poor alternates a bone and let them compete for round 3, if none get thrown in because no one in the top 32 drops out run a mini poll for the alternates.

More judges couldn't hurt, why not 5. I love reading Clark, Wolfgang, Neil (when I'm into a long read), James Jacobs, and Sean. That said, we kind of know their voices at this point give em someone new to agree/disagree with, even American Idol had to change it up after awhile.

[ciretose]

Adding to what Jiggy said (although this may be a bit much to ask...) if there were a brief comment option under the submissions that could only be read by the submitter after voting closed, that would be great.

Also, it would be nice to be able to see your item and how it did in the voting at the end some how. Sure, it would hurt, but it would be a good learning tool.

[Steven Helt]

We were really close to having rankings spoilered this year anyway. We know all the top 89. We basically know the top four rankings, although we don't know which guy was which. Why not just attach ranking or voting record to each round one entry? We don't need results after round one, but entrants want to know about their item. Don't release those rankings to the public, but the W/L or ranking for the actual entrant only might be cool.

I know that will be painful to some, but is finishing dead last any more painful than finishing 40th?

[Thomas LeBlanc]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

I'd like to hear your thoughts on how we can improve the competition and the process for the next RPG Superstar competition. Ideas that are already floating about are:

* Shorten the voting period for R1. We went with the 3 weeks because we weren't sure how much voting input we were going to get and wanted to leave enough time to sort all the items, but clearly that wasn't a problem. Anywhere we can reduced the "lag time" in the competition is good (as it is, the competition is almost four months long, and it's easy for the public to lose interest over that timespan).

* Implement the R1 culling earlier to avoid so much exposure to the really poor items. And perhaps add a second culling.

* Add a way to flag R1 items that break the rules (word count, copyright violations, and so on) so you don't have to send a private message about it.

* Add a way for voters to add a short comment to an R1 item that remains hidden until the end of R1, at which time the author can see all the comments.

* Drop the playtest step from R4. (Adding a week to the process late in the competition contributes to people losing interest in/track of the competition, and we don't get many people who post their playtest experiences, so it's not a big benefit that offsets the loss-cost.)

Talking to locals gamers and in the DMTools chat, the interest in voting seemed to die after the first 2 weeks. So a shorter period would work (but harder to hit Marathon Voter).

Many were put off by the initial items before the cull and were hard to convince to begin voting again. I know the first cull saved my sanity. In the future, have the first cut after the first couple days of voting and a second cull 1/2 way through the remaining time. A third cull a few days before voting ends to sort through the top 25% of the remaining items?

Adding a flag for ground breaking would have been great, I wouldn't have had to email SKR for items I knew were rulebreaking that survived the cull. The initial idea of having a "This item breaks the rules" button was nice, but I could see easy abuse and a backlog of items to read over.

A better/clearer selection of votes. The "Neither" button drew alot of criticism for clarity.

It would also be nice to eliminate the chance of seeing the same pairs presented. I saw the same pairs a few times and it was annoying, but I could see database issues arising over having to track such things.

As far as the voting timer, I didn't mind the 1 minute wait at the beginning of voting so I could fully read over both items. As mentioned by other posters, if a voter has a certain tag, the voting timeout could be decreased. By the end, I could read certain item names and know how I was going to vote. The really good and really horrendous stuck out.

Some of the items used pretty obscure rules and I had to hunt them down in the PRD. The ability for a submitter to link rules would be nice. I really liked cheapy's item, but it used some obscure rules. Maybe add spaces where an entrant could add links to the PRD where the relevant rules were found would help voters realize the design space the entrant was using. This would have helped with quite a few of the items.

[frank gori]

perhaps this is a little crazy but refine the items each year (and maybe get a little bigger then 32) and do a card deck with the items... Also a R1 twist would be interesting like a max caster level...

[Power Word Unzip]

I agree with shortening the Round 1 voting period, as well as dropping the 60-second cooldown on each voting instance to about 30 seconds. I'm not opposed to culling bad items earlier in the competition, and a second cull could be useful to prevent repetition. Being able to flag or comment on Round 1 submissions is an interesting idea, too, and I agree that flagging will be easier than sending a PM to an admin if something merits consideration for disqualification.

I'm personally sick of wondrous items. I know this battle is retreaded every year and there are lots of good reasons why this is the de facto first-round submission category, but surely there is another game mechanic with adequate design space to be explored as an entry-level mechanic. This also allows people who just want to enter and show their chops a fairer chance of success against the die-hards who follow these threads year-round and optimize an entry for 12 months straight in order to break through in Round 1. I think you'll get new, and better, blood by switching up the initial challenge now and then.

Heck, even a Round 1 twist would be a good touch - that way no one knows whether their carefully-sculpted submission actually qualifies until the contest truly begins. That's a closer gauge of good freelancing skills than giving folks 12 whole months to get the formula just right.

Lifting the ban on contestant and spectator interaction is probably a good idea, to at least some degree. I agree with the observation that this will help to filter out contestants with... er, let's say "sub-optimal interpersonal relationship skills". And I think that's a good thing - I don't like seeing jerks win. (Not to say that any RPG Superstar winners to date have been jerks, mind you, just making a point.)

[Steven Helt]

I dunno. I can tell you that in no year of Superstar have I entered an item I crafted and revisef off-season. I write down ideas all year, but I have never spent months polishing an entry. In fact, I think that not only does the contest protect against a falsely polished first round, but I submit you can learn a lot if your 8-month wondrous item doesn't make the top 32 and a guy who didn't play Pathfinder til 2012 and for whom English is a second language can light up every round.

Part of people's annoyance at using wondrous items every year is that those can be very subjective. But imagine if the first round were a new feat or spell. Now THAT's subjective.

[Thomas LeBlanc]

Power Word Unzip wrote:

Heck, even a Round 1 twist would be a good touch - that way no one knows whether their carefully-sculpted submission actually qualifies until the contest truly begins. That's a closer gauge of good freelancing skills than giving folks 12 whole months to get the formula just right.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. People have already started on next year's submission the day the Top 32 were announced. By adding a simple twist to Round 1 items, you would prevent items that have been finely honed over months. A 30 day notice should be plenty of time to create a magic item. Especially for someone serious about doing RPG design professionally. How many prior contestants made it into the Top 32 (or higher) and have not had a single thing published since? I wonder how many had items they polished for months prior to submission?

[Scott Fernandez]

You can hone an item for months and still not have any mojo in it. What could be a great idea today could be stale by the time Superstar comes around again. Both times I made the Top 32 my items were conceived mechanically about 2 weeks before the deadline, polished up and submitted with only a day or two to spare. In reality making an item now for next year does a great disservice to the contestant as you won't really be ready for the grueling pace of the contest. As a freelancer getting an assignment you won't have 9 months to do your assignment you'll have a deadline to meet.

I think the Wondrous Item is a perfect initial test. Its far easier to design than a new spell or feat and they tend to be something usable by almost any character. Every class has a feet or hand slot to fill, not every class can use Combat Patrol or Starlight Summons.

--Vrock, Paper, Scissors

[Anthony Adam]

Dont forget, even with public voting, a small item that has clearly defined elements, easy to analyse game blancing, familiarity results in fairer voting for that initial selection. Something other than wondrous items would likely introduce greater diversity and spread of voting - cant guarantee it, but that is my suspicion.

[Kiel Howell]

This is just an addendum to the new judges idea:

Add Anthony Adam as a judge...or should I say Template Fu.

[Jacob W. Michaels]

I agree with Scott.

Do we have any evidence that we have people honing magic items to get into the contest? I think you could argue that the people perhaps most likely to do so are the participants in 9 Blazing Months -- clearly we're invested in the contest -- and there's generally one who gets in a year.

It's not like we're not seeing new blood, either. Usually there's about 10 percent to 20 percent who are repeat contestants (and they often tend to do very well, which indicates that there's a reason they're getting into the contest and not just because they're honing a wondrous item all year), while everyone else is new.

I think especially with public voting, doing something like wondrous items where people have a lot of experience and ability to judge (and even then, some still set an arbitrary word count or price count or other measure) is really a smart idea. Changing it up could skew some of those judging results.

[frank gori]

@Power Word Unzip I'm all for change but wonderous item and monster rounds are not on my chopping block. What is with the objection to "die-hards" willing to put in the work to make themselves better designers? I'm all for the die-hards refusing to give up until they get it right, heck I think the blazing 9 htis year should have T-shirts made. Practicing your skills in the off season is what champions are made of, I for one am encouraged by the success of those who refused to give up and worked for their opportunity, those people inspire me.

Queue game designing montage, is Chicago or Survivor available for the soundtrack?

[Vic Wertz]

Curaigh wrote:

-Yes to shortening the voting period*

-Yes to culling earlier OR culling twice*

*all of these are mathmagically derived right? The data you must have been able to collect is incredible.

Because we'd never done that before, no math was possible. We honestly weren't sure whether the amount of time we picked was too long or too short, or, frankly, that we'd even get enough votes to provide any kind of statistical significance in ranking them. We erred on the long side, just to be sure.

Given what we saw this year, though, I'm confident that we can cut the voting period down significantly—maybe in half, or less—and still gather enough data.

Culling is really more about participant interest than about math. That said, we do have to have enough data before the cull to make sure that the data the cull is based on is useful, and my gut tells me that we couldn't cut the voting window in half *and* add another cull, but we'll look at the numbers to be sure.

[Eric Morton]

Vic Wertz wrote:

...my gut tells me that we couldn't cut the voting window in half *and* add another cull, but we'll look at the numbers to be sure.

Why not cull every time you have sufficient data instead of scheduling a certain number of culls at fixed intervals? You could even add a countdown clock displaying the number of additional votes needed before the next cull.

[Clark Peterson]

Joana wrote:

On Charles' note, I would love it if Lisa (or some other woman in gaming) could be persuaded to be on the R1 judging panel next year. It would be fantastic if the gatekeepers weren't all guys for once.

I'd love to see Lisa on the panel, too! She is awesome!

However, particularly this year, the gender of the judges isn't really relevant to the initial selection. The public basically picks our "keep pile" and then we sort them anonymously--we have no way to know if the entrant is a male or female. So the suggestion that the gatekeepers being all males has some impact I don't think really holds much water. I don't think the lack of women in the top 32 is solved by simply adding female judges. The implication there is that these female judges would somehow secretly find all the female entrants we biased males excluded as gatekeepers. That isn't the problem. The problem is that there just aren't that many female entrants in the contest, not that the "gatekeepers" are male.

There was another thread, started by Sean I think, to discuss ways to get more female entrants. I for one would love to see it.

Getting back to your original point, more involvement by women at all levels would be great and specifically it would be great to have Lisa on the panel.

[Anthony Adam]

theheadkase wrote:

This is just an addendum to the new judges idea:

Add Anthony Adam as a judge...or should I say Template Fu.

Many thanks for the suggestion, but personally, I don't think I believe that I can officially recognize what Superstar is until I have achieved top 32 myself.

I have already offered to participants of this years blazing 9 a template fu review of their entry via private message before they submit, but until I have a superstar tag of my own, I wouldn't want to do any formal judging in any official capacity.

I want to prove myself first if you like.

[Steven Helt]

Hopefully the word 'gatekeeper' was a little abused there, and only a reference to having a female judge. I don't think there's any evidence that the contest intentionally or systemically discriminates against anyone, nor that the inclusion of a female judge would increase the success of female contestants.

We should be excited when women enter and/or succeed in the contest. We should in no way be forcing the issue artificially.Christine Schneider won because she was a badass contestant, not because gaming needs more women.

I'm not saying anyone is proposing anyone advance in Superstar without merit. Only that we should not tinker with demographics in mind. Let the anonymous submissions break through on their own and let the designers earn victory from there.

As for Lisa Stevens being a main judge or a guest judge in more rounds, heck, yeah!

[Joana]

Clark Peterson wrote:

However, particularly this year, the gender of the judges isn't really relevant to the initial selection. The public basically picks our "keep pile" and then we sort them anonymously--we have no way to know if the entrant is a male or female. So the suggestion that the gatekeepers being all males has some impact I don't think really holds much water. I don't think the lack of women in the top 32 is solved by simply adding female judges. The implication there is that these female judges would somehow secretly find all the female entrants we biased males excluded as gatekeepers. That isn't the problem. The problem is that there just aren't that many female entrants in the contest, not that the "gatekeepers" are male.

There was another thread, started by Sean I think, to discuss ways to get more female entrants. I for one would love to see it.

I actually don't think the two issues are unrelated. Obviously, all judging is subjective, but it's a matter of public perception more than anything else.

You'd never see a jury seated with no women on it. "American Idol" and similar shows all have at least one woman on the judging panel. Justice is supposed to be blind and impartial, but it's generally accepted that it's a good thing to have women and minorities on the Supreme Court. No establishment who expected to be seen as having a firm commitment to diversity would have its hiring or admissions offices made up of nothing but white males, even if they're the most fair and impartial guys in the world. It just looks bad.

I would predict that if Paizo put a female judge on the R1 panel next year and promoted it, they would see an uptick in submissions from females who felt more welcome because there was someone "like them" on the panel. It would demonstrate Paizo's commitment to increasing female presence in the hobby more than any podcast or marketing campaign or similar gimmick. I know I would be really interested in keeping up with the contest and reading judges' comments from a different perspective than we usually get.

[Kiel Howell]

That means we all have to start sending our bribes to Lisa...remember these judges do this on a volunteer basis which takes up an extraordinary amount of time.

[Joana]

Absolutely. I know I couldn't do it (even assuming I were remotely qualified). I'd hope that the public vote helped cut down on the sheer number of entries the judges had to consider and comment on, but it's still a lot of work during one's leisure hours for no pay.

I would hope, however, that if a woman in game design was approached with the explanation that her hard work would both demonstrate commitment to breaking down gender barriers and encourage more women to enter the field, she'd do all she could to fit it into her schedule.

[Thomas LeBlanc]

Next year RPGSS will have a round zero to vote on judges based on their wondrous item submissions...

[gbonehead]

Better ... hmmm ... hard to say.

Frankly, I think the contest does pretty much exactly what it needs to. I think the open voting may have revealed a bit more than Paizo wanted about the actual size of the playing field, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

In reality, I don't think I'd change much besides speeding it up a bit. Sure, that would make it frustrating for those of us trying to make sure our items made the cut, but hell, that's hardly the point of the contest - a good enough item will make the cut, and one that's not good enough won't, and whether or not someone sees their own item isn't really relevant.

So I'd say don't really change much except timelines. After all, if you really want to see the effects of changes, you only change one thing at a time, otherwise you can't be sure of cause and effect.

[Lucus Palosaari]

I see a lot of good ideas. Any chance Paizo could set up a poll of the ideas they deem feesable (after a few more days of ideas perhaps) and try getting our opinion of what we'd like to see. Even if they don't do what everyone votes for, at least they'd know if we as a community care more about one change over another.

[Curaigh]

I can see the problems now:
shorter crowd sourcing time is better.
earlier cull (with gold filigree) is better.
Neither item is better.
:)

[Landon Cole]

Clark,

I don't think people are saying that the male judges are biased; I think that they are saying that advertising an all-male judging panel may be off-putting or at least not as welcoming as it could be. In that respect, it actually is relevant to the initial selection; if there are less women competing, there's a lower chance that women will progress through the rounds. Paizo's very good at promoting diversity - this is a similar argument to having diverse iconics.

Given that there are really talented women in the industry, it can't be that hard to find one, can it?

[Vic Wertz]

Landon Cole wrote:

Given that there are really talented women in the industry, it can't be that hard to find one, can it?

Honestly, I'm amazed we can find judges *at all*. It's a really big ask, and I'm always amazed when people agree to do it... and even more amazed when people agree to do it repeatedly. Even if I were qualified—which I'm not—*I* couldn't do it.

[Sean K Reynolds]

If you know a potential judge who

1) knows the PFRPG rules really well,
2) has credentials in the industry,
3) is female,
4) is willing to give up every other weekend for 4 months to review RPG Superstar submissions for no pay,

please have that person contact me. I'd love to have a female judge on the panel. It's hard enough to find qualified judges at all (it's not like we intended it to be a males-only panel...), let alone females.

[ciretose]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

If you know a potential judge who

1) knows the PFRPG rules really well,
2) has credentials in the industry,
3) is female,
4) is willing to give up every other weekend for 4 months to review RPG Superstar submissions for no pay,

please have that person contact me. :)

I am none of those things! :)

[Steven Helt]

Again, I don't know why a female contestant would want judges other than Clark, Sean or Wolfgang. There's nothing intentional about the judge selection, except they are both willing and able. I'd think any judge would prioritize honest, fair capable judges over everything else.

Maybe the real lesson is this: if you're a capable female designer, let nothing stand in your way. The audience is rooting for you, and will support you if you're the best. The judges are great and gamers want to see you succeed. Bring your best stuff and enter this contest!

[Vic Wertz]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

If you know a potential judge who

1) knows the PFRPG rules really well,
2) has credentials in the industry,
3) is female,
4) is willing to give up every other weekend for 4 months to review RPG Superstar submissions for no pay,

please have that person contact me. I'd love to have a female judge on the panel. It's hard enough to find qualified judges at all (it's not like we intended it to be a males-only panel...), let alone females.

Actually, if you know anybody who meets just 1, 2, and 4, please let Sean know. Though all of our previous judges are welcome to return next year, it's nice to have some names in the bag in case they can't do it.

But to be clear, on point 1, when we say "really well," we mean "*REALLY* well," and on point 2, when we say "has credentials," we mean "is known and respected by a lot of people in our community."

[Oceanshieldwolf]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

If you know a potential judge who

1) knows the PFRPG rules really well,
2) has credentials in the industry,
3) is female,
4) is willing to give up every other weekend for 4 months to review RPG Superstar submissions for no pay,

please have that person contact me. I'd love to have a female judge on the panel. It's hard enough to find qualified judges at all (it's not like we intended it to be a males-only panel...), let alone females.

Well...Christina Stiles springs to mind. She checks boxes 1-3.

Just not so sure about #4. I think IIRC Wolfgang Baur once called Christina the "hardest-working woman in the industry"* which is good for us but bad for being able to Judge...

* Just to be clear, I'm sure there are many women working hard to create/edit/promote/illustrate RPG products, particularly at Paizo...

(Plz don't kill me Christina.)

[Anthony Adam]

Curaigh wrote:

I can see the problems now:

shorter crowd sourcing time is better.
earlier cull (with gold filigree) is better.
Neither item is better.
:)

Curaigh! - You stirrer you!

It should be... evil grin...

shorter crowd sourcing time is better than earlier cull
earlier cull (with gold filigree) is better than shorter crowd sourcing time
Meh. Someone else can vote

:P

[Clark Peterson]

I hear what is being said and I am sensitive to the idea that the composition of the panel could have some small impact on people wanting to submit. But in the end, it is the public that sorts 99% of the items. All we do is rank the final group the public picks. So who we are (male or female) seems a stretch to think its off-putting to any potential contestants. Plus, I just think it is short sighted to focus on the judging panel and say they, being all male, discourage people. Let's pull back a little--this contest is run by Paizo which is owned in part and very actively managed by Lisa who is one of the most impressive business people I know on all levels (and as an attorney and now a judge let's just say I come into contact with lots and lots of people in leadership positions), regardless of gender. Lisa is amazing and I am honored to call her a friend. She is, simply put, awesome. I've got to think if there is any place a female gamer is going to feel good about participating and being involved it is at Paizo, regardless of the composition of the judging panel. So I guess I understand the core comment, and goodness sakes I wouldn't want to think anyone felt any disincentive to participate and if we can do something to help that I think it is a good idea. I just happen to think the gender of the judges is pretty speculative as to whether it is a disincentive. That said, I think this dialogue is important and if there is anything we can do to help encourage those who feel a disincentive to participate or remove barriers that may be creating disincentives I think we should discuss them. The fact that I disagree with the posited statement doesn't mean I am against changing to improve.

[Clark Peterson]

As I often do with things, even if I disagree with a position I like to let it marinade in my brain and percolate for a while. So I've been really thinking about your comment Joana. It is thought provoking and I am glad you raised it. Thank you for doing that. It is only by voicing those kinds of comments that we can think about these issues and find improvements. Remember, it is the unpopular opinions that often change history. :) So please keep it up. Free thinking and free exchange of opinions has to be encouraged. I don't want you to feel "shouted down" by any disagreements. I respect your opinion in large part because I am frequently the guy that says something that no one else initially agrees with :)

[Clark Peterson]

Landon Cole wrote:

Given that there are really talented women in the industry, it can't be that hard to find one, can it?

There are plenty. I think the main problem is that they are smarter than us guys and wouldn't be crazy enough to dedicate the time required without compensation. :)

[Christina Stiles]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

If you know a potential judge who

1) knows the PFRPG rules really well,
2) has credentials in the industry,
3) is female,
4) is willing to give up every other weekend for 4 months to review RPG Superstar submissions for no pay,

please have that person contact me. I'd love to have a female judge on the panel. It's hard enough to find qualified judges at all (it's not like we intended it to be a males-only panel...), let alone females.

I'd be interested, Sean.

1) Yes
2) I've been in the gaming industry for 13 years or so. I was an Industry Insider Guest of Honor at GenCon last year, where a Kobold Press Pathfinder product I worked on (Streets of Zobeck) won an Ennie for Best Adventure. I've worked on 4 Paizo products so far, and I've done numerous Pathfinder products for Kobold Press--several of which I was a lead designer on.
3) Yep
4) I'd be willing to do so to represent the women in the industry!

[Kiel Howell]

Everyone favorite Christina's post. We are gonna hold you to it next contest!

[Charles Evans 25]

Christina Stiles wrote:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

If you know a potential judge who

1) knows the PFRPG rules really well,
2) has credentials in the industry,
3) is female,
4) is willing to give up every other weekend for 4 months to review RPG Superstar submissions for no pay,

please have that person contact me. I'd love to have a female judge on the panel. It's hard enough to find qualified judges at all (it's not like we intended it to be a males-only panel...), let alone females.

I'd be interested, Sean.

1) Yes
2) I've been in the gaming industry for 13 years or so. I was an Industry Insider Guest of Honor at GenCon last year, where a Kobold Press Pathfinder product I worked on (Streets of Zobeck) won an Ennie for Best Adventure. I've worked on 4 Paizo products so far, and I've done numerous Pathfinder products for Kobold Press--several of which I was a lead designer on.
3) Yep
4) I'd be willing to do so to represent the women in the industry!

Hurrah!

[Clark Peterson]

Maybe if anyone is interested they should contact Sean privately.

[Landon Cole]

Clark Peterson wrote:

Landon Cole wrote:

Given that there are really talented women in the industry, it can't be that hard to find one, can it?

There are plenty. I think the main problem is that they are smarter than us guys and wouldn't be crazy enough to dedicate the time required without compensation. :)

Touché :)

[Christina Stiles]

Clark Peterson wrote:

Maybe if anyone is interested they should contact Sean privately.

Sorry. I did both.

[frank gori]

Clark Peterson wrote:

Maybe if anyone is interested they should contact Sean privately.

Well she did it publicly which means she can't back out!

[Lisa Stevens]

theheadkase wrote:

That means we all have to start sending our bribes to Lisa...remember these judges do this on a volunteer basis which takes up an extraordinary amount of time.

I hear that I am on the lookout for a life-sized Millenium Falcon...

-Lisa

[Lisa Stevens]

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

If you know a potential judge who

1) knows the PFRPG rules really well,
2) has credentials in the industry,
3) is female,
4) is willing to give up every other weekend for 4 months to review RPG Superstar submissions for no pay,

please have that person contact me. I'd love to have a female judge on the panel. It's hard enough to find qualified judges at all (it's not like we intended it to be a males-only panel...), let alone females.

And this hit the nail on the head for me. While I love to GM, I am not very conversant with the rules. I mean REALLY not very conversant. I have never been a rules person. I go by the seat of my pants and make off the cuff rulings in my home game. I go by the gist of the rules in my home game. I don't think that I am qualified to judge this contest.

Now, if this was a contest where folks were submitting business proposals for the adventure game industry ala Shark Tank, then I am supremely qualified to judge those and be on that judging panel. That is my forte—business. I know just enough about game rules to get into trouble.

Lisa

[Christina Stiles]

GM_Solspiral wrote:

Clark Peterson wrote:

Maybe if anyone is interested they should contact Sean privately.

Well she did it publicly which means she can't back out!

Lol! If they will have me, I will gladly do so. :)

[Anthony Adam]

LOL - Lisa, I wouldn't worry about that.

You would be able to bring an alternate perspective to the judging - for example, you could be the representative of the ordinary people like us voters and entrants. If we can excite you as a GM, and you understand our items, that has to be a big plus for sure.

You could of course guest GM just the first round too.

p.s. The new PC has arrived! I'm back and installing, and installing and zzzzzz....

[Garrick Williams]

I thought the point of having multiple judges was to provide multiple perspectives? In that case, Lisa would be a great judge.

[Ryan. Costello]

Lisa Stevens wrote:

Now, if this was a contest where folks were submitting business proposals for the adventure game industry ala Shark Tank, then I am supremely qualified to judge those and be on that judging panel.

This has to happen!

[George Cunningham]

* Shorten the voting period for R1. -YES!-

* Implement the R1 culling earlier to avoid so much exposure to the really poor items. And perhaps add a second culling. -YES!-

* Add a way to flag R1 items that break the rules -YES!-

* Add a way for voters to add a short comment to an R1 item that remains hidden until the end of R1. -YES!-

* Drop the playtest step from R4. -Not too fussed-

and other suggestions...

* Round 4.5 the wild card round. -I WISH!-

* No more archetype rounds, because I suck at them ;-) -Not as much as me!-

For myself, I'd kind of like a round which was a bit more rules-lite. A concept round. It'd be nice if this didn't necessarily need to be Golarion-specific. I love the setting but it'd be nice to see something from outside that particular box - maybe even a world concept round?