Looney Labs Icehouse Mailing list Archive

RE: [Icehouse] IGDC Winter 2008 is ready for announcement tomorrow!

  • FromDavid Artman <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • DateThu, 08 Nov 2007 10:18:21 -0700
> From: Brian Campbell <lambda@xxxxxxx>
> Do we have any problems with people spamming the competition? I don't  
> believe so.

Not so far. But with even a (mere) eight games in Summer 2007, more than
half of the ballots were incomplete (didn't rank all games; typically
ranking four or fewer).

Also, for clarity, I used "spam" as a metaphor for submissions not in
the spirit of the competition, not as a measure (or judgment) of the
quantity of submissions. Having run one of these comps, I am now of the
opinion that fewer game submissions that will actually be played is
better than a lot that won't... and "letting people submit what they
want" regardless of the rule restrictions is bound to lead to more games
that *won't* be played (be it because judges waste time reading and
vetting for themselves, or because judges just don't have time to really
try them all out).

> Why not take the approach of letting people submit what  
> they want, and if it becomes a problem (the judges don't take into  
> account the design restriction, or someone spams the competition, or  
> whatever), then we can make a rule that the organizer has to "vet" the  
> submissions.

I am less inclined to try the "wait for it to break" approach than the
"error-trap and clarify all possible considerations" approach and then
vet submissions. The former approach can "waste" an entire half year of
competition; but the latter approach seeks to focus every competition
which has a restriction, for the benefit of either players (better, more
innovative games) or Looney Labs (drive product sales).

> Remember, we're all cool with each other here. It's a community, and  
> people want to support the community. Don't assume that people will  
> try to cheat unless you have a good reason to.

I don't see it as binary as that: most of the conversation here about
the 2HOUSE restriction has been to contain *mistaken* notions of
2HOUSEiness. In other words, it's not cheaters (or moochers) that I am
trying to stop; it's folks who (for whatever innocent reason) do not
recognize that a game that they think is 2HOUSE is trivially converted
to 1HOUSE. (Recall the points earlier about buyers feeling cheated, if
they realize they didn't really need a second set to play Game X; or
judges investing time to read and play a game that they aren't going to
judge because it's not in the spirit of the comp.)

And, again... we have about a year to sort out whatever the next
restriction will be, so hopefully we will be have time enough to do a
better job with our debate, setup, and final rule diction. Meanwhile,
I'd prefer to stay on target with Winter 2008 and enforce the "2HOUSE"
design restriction, for all the reasons above AND because folks have
already invested energy working up 2HOUSE games (not just me alone,


Current Thread