|
Post by Fritz on Dec 24, 2004 23:54:47 GMT -5
Thought I'd continue the Judging discussion over here. If I read Andy's message right at CBDO, we'll judge either by accuracy or upgrade with a chance to average in some innovations. This might be awkward if a Gamebox attempts say, mostly accuracy with just a few minor upgrades. Having to declare beforehand would be confusing and could cost points. We'll have to accept that the designers are doing what they feel is how the game SHOULD look and also that alot of the judges won't have a copy of the original on hand for comparison. The burden of developing a "syllabus" is on us, not the judges or contestants. Sorry, I don't have a quick solution. We might well have to write a heuristic punch-list for each possible point.... I do agree that "extra credit" should not be allowed but averaged in with the "Optionals" so we don't penalise those who go for faithful replication. I'll try to think about it, but that's getting harder these days
|
|
|
Post by Andy Loakes on Dec 25, 2004 5:38:10 GMT -5
Fritz,
I'd have thought we would need to have this pretty well settled before launch or people don't know where to focus 'for a win'.
This is also possibly the most important aspect of the competition (along with prizes I guess depending on people's motivation) when it comes to attracting (or repelling) contestants. It is definitely the area that will have most influence on the type of game we attract (though Darksan's recent posts on map/counter restrictions would impact this too if implemented).
You'll get people's ideas (and I'm sure they'll pleased for this to be followed by a discuaaion) but ultimately this is your competition and you decide (unless you wish it to be committee based of course).
Andy
|
|
|
Post by Fritz on Dec 26, 2004 1:03:53 GMT -5
I certainly don't want my personality impressed upon the judging criteria! The CBDesigners should do what they believe is the best work they can do:
Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity. - General George Patton Jr
...and so on. In the end the judges' opinions will matter most; why not? They'll be the designers (I hope) that gave us the games. If the contestants know the'yre being judged by the most knowledgeable they'll do their best and accept that the scorecard we eventually develop will be equally fair. I suppose for now we could come up with the major point breakdown (ie map=35%, functionality =25%, etc.) and post that, but that's a job for, well, not a ditz like me. F2
|
|
|
Post by Andy Loakes on Dec 26, 2004 4:54:43 GMT -5
Fritz, I thinks there's a difference between imposing your personality and setting the basis but its your call. But we need something for the JC page or we need to delete it. It certainly shouldn't stay as it is for the launch if it's wide of the mark. Has Skip agreed to be Chair of Judges (Skip?). If so, leave it with him. If not then you need one or you'll need to caretake the role IMHO. Tough at the top
|
|
|
Post by Fritz on Dec 26, 2004 8:12:21 GMT -5
OUCH! I hadn't planned on being the Boss. Well, someone pick up the baton or I'll do something rash like "1/3 each to map, counters, and intangibles (functionality, upgrade/innovation and judges discretion)" - finalised scorecard to follow". Keep it simple and we'll add the detail later. They'll understand it's the first time we've done this. de Coubertin had his share of unpleasant surprises, too. F2
|
|
|
Post by Darksan on Dec 30, 2004 21:10:11 GMT -5
Judge of the Chairs.
What do you perceive the Chairman's duties would be?
|
|
|
Post by Fritz on Dec 31, 2004 0:58:39 GMT -5
Chairman of the judging panel? Lessee, Point breakdown of a punch-list style scorecard, User's guide to said scorecard, settle disputes the rest of us can't, and review judging decisions (scores, disqualifications mostly) without bias. I wouldn't hire ME to do it. F2
|
|
Chris Fawcett
New Member
There are 10 types of people in this world: those who understand binary, and those who do not.
Posts: 15
|
Post by Chris Fawcett on Jan 18, 2005 9:49:33 GMT -5
Well, since I'm the most objective person I know , I'll offer to chair the judging panel. I'm an auditor and business process/security consultant, and I'm used to developing criteria and then holding people to it. My Meyers-Briggs type is INTJ (with a weak I score, so I flip over to ENTJ a lot), which is the personality type most associated with developing systems.
|
|
|
Post by Fritz on Jan 18, 2005 12:31:05 GMT -5
I'll have Andy update your title, Chris; it dawns on me that CBDO is possibly the first institution to set ANY kind of standard in the CB community. Any idea what you'd like your title to be, milord? ;D F2
|
|
Chris Fawcett
New Member
There are 10 types of people in this world: those who understand binary, and those who do not.
Posts: 15
|
Post by Chris Fawcett on Jan 18, 2005 12:36:37 GMT -5
"Head Curmudgeon" might be too revealing...
|
|
|
Post by Andy Loakes on Jan 18, 2005 13:50:13 GMT -5
Tell you what, I call you 'Chair of Judges' unless you really want Churmeewotsit.
PS Used to think you were an OK guy Chris....
....Auditor. Dear oh dear
|
|
Chris Fawcett
New Member
There are 10 types of people in this world: those who understand binary, and those who do not.
Posts: 15
|
Post by Chris Fawcett on Jan 18, 2005 14:12:46 GMT -5
It's worse than that, I'm afraid. I do Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404 compliance audits....
|
|
|
Post by Andy Loakes on Jan 18, 2005 14:16:40 GMT -5
Arh! Now I'm interested. Want a job in the UK? ;D
|
|
Chris Fawcett
New Member
There are 10 types of people in this world: those who understand binary, and those who do not.
Posts: 15
|
Post by Chris Fawcett on Jan 18, 2005 14:27:27 GMT -5
I wouldn't mind a short-term project, so long as I can charge exorbitant rates. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Andy Loakes on Jan 18, 2005 14:31:28 GMT -5
You must be a contractor! Better get back on topic or the moderator will be after us.
|
|