On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Dale Sheldon <dales@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > You would think a month would be enough... but we seem to always have people > wanting an extra week or two. Maybe we _should_ just resign ourselves to > it, and set the judging window to six weeks; something to think about. I > guess lots of groups get together only every other week (or less!), so I can > see how waiting for the release, downloading the rules, printing them out, > reading them and understanding them to explain to your friends, with an > out-of-step schedule could lead to a lot of people just not getting around > to it. Does this sound like an accurate description of anyone's > experiences, or am I just entirely off-base? Yes, I really just didn't get around to playing all the games, and of the games I did play I only played each once, with just 2 players. I almost decided not to vote at all, but I ended up ranking all the games, even the ones I didn't play, because I figured some data was better than none. I do think more time would help, although I also blame myself for just procrastinating too much (I had planned to send mail to the Unity Games list looking for players much earlier in the voting period). I would have liked to play some of the games more than once, with differing numbers of players, to really explore the games, although in the end I doubt it would have changed my rankings much if at all. I'm thinking maybe even 3 months might be a better judging window-- or would people lose interest if there were that big a gap between publishing the games and compiling the votes? --dougorleans@xxxxxxxxx