> 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, FWIW). David