Deacon
Member
In opening with this, I plan to discuss both the good, and the bad, from what I witnessed. I’ll try and make it coherent and non-rambling but… ya know! I’m doing this, not to tear down what was accomplished but to offer suggestions for improvement. I would like to see this continue – maybe not in a year, but perhaps a couple of years.
The numbers
Was it just me, or were we all stoked to have (somewhere near) 100+ writers in this competition? This added an excitement that was palpable in this community, and seemingly spread to other communities. With that being said, it also lent itself to the tournament’s first weakness – inactivity. Out of all those writers, how many didn’t show? Some, I am certain, had good reasons. Others, we should’ve found a way to weed out early.
My suggestion to dealing w/ early inactivity?
Instead of giving everyone a spot, we should’ve had a pool of people and done something akin to a battle royal. This would’ve increased that early energy as everyone riffed off of everyone else in RP battles, and if someone didn’t show up, they would’ve never made it into the legit 64 man tournament. Better to have 64 energized people than 2/3 of a 100. It would work best to have no limit on the # of RPs so people can really just have fun. It may be hard to judge but that’s a problem worth having if people are having fun w/ it. And if we only have 40 who show up? We adjust the tournament early so it’s filled w/ people who want to be there. And the winner of this battle royal? I would give them the ability to switch out w/ anyone once the brackets are established.
Stalled between rounds (Administrative failures).
This was more a result of real life than anything else. Certainly, real life happens and takes precedence over any game. However, I believe that if we would’ve gone into this with a plan, allowing for most contingencies, it would’ve ran smoother. The reality is that anything like this needs a captain. I can remember fWo while Travis went MIA. We kept putting shows out, but they were, by and large, rudderless. UT had the same feel. What could help? Chad needs to have a spelled out plan for the tournament – how many RPs, segments, timelines, how it is judged, who is judging, etc. If Chad disappears, he has someone who immediately steps in at the deadline and takes over all his duties. With the plan already written out, as long as that person doesn’t try to go maverick on it, everyone will know the expectations. This didn’t happen. Pete jumped in, and it’s a good thing because we’d still be waiting on Round 3 (or so) if he hadn’t. However, rules (or setup for the round) were adjusted for expediency, leaving some of us scratching our head wondering what we were supposed to do. I can only speak for myself, but I wrote toward my main moment, climax of the RP’s build-up, and that was erased from the show. Was I frustrated? Sure. Do I think it was unfair? Sure. I wouldn’t have liked the way my RP ended w/o the segment to give some sort of payoff. We need a written plan along with a line of succession of people otherwise uninvolved in the tournament (see judging notes below).
Judging
Oh, what a challenge. First, this was, bar none, a constant challenge. First, the work that goes into this is a lot more than I anticipated. Add to it my own self-inflicted job of giving feedback when I did any judging, and that increases the workload. But, it’s what I feel made the game better. Now, judging is actually a multifaceted problem and I will try to touch on several areas.
Inconsistency. Man, did we hear it when Zero went over Hollywood. And many of the comments were legit, as what SOME judges said (myself included) was not what was decided (because, ultimately, the decision was based on each judges opinion). And the poor writers? They didn’t have a clue who they were writing for. To me, I think our failing was in even having a podcast to set out what the judges wanted because … it made it muddled. I was very vocal about the need to garner a reaction from me, and that the easiest way to do so was to make me laugh. Others, obviously, went for well written emotional prose. With that said, I do think the podcast idea is a solid one, but I think we need to do some tweaking first.
Fixing inconsistency - The judges need assigned a bracket. We could then have a podcast for Bracket 1 where those judges give what they look for, allowing the writer to know how their “game” is going to look (or if they win the battle royal, opt out to a judge more stylistically in their favor).
Appearance problems
Judges shouldn’t be competing in the tournament. At all (ok, maybe if we did use the Battle Royal idea since it wouldn’t have that much impact on the actual tournament). Yeah, that would mean we limit the number of competitors, but hear me out. First, I’m sure everyone knows that the judges were ½ of the competitors in the finals (Ford & Pete). Take it anyway you want, but it does look bad. Do I trust Pete and Ford? Absolutely! They, as much as anyone, see this as a game to blow off some steam. It’s creative writing and a way to practice doing what they love. However, if we are to be honest, we know that judging a competition that you are competing in is questionable, to no fault of either of them (because honestly, both did a bang up job getting there). Yes, Chad addressed this by pulling all judges out in… round 3, I think, but that can lead to problems w/ inconsistency as your way has been working and then suddenly doesn’t, leaving you confused.
Judging responses and reasoning behind choices must be required. To my knowledge, I was the first to post my judging notes. It was a reaction to requests over the whole Zero/Blaine issue, and I read some great points of why this was necessary. I won’t rehash but to say – if someone took the time to write something for my entertainment, then I should be willing to give back some. It didn’t take me that long, and if I hadn’t had other responsibilities in the tournament, I could’ve knocked all of that out in half the time it would’ve taken Pete to write the opening sequence to the Finals match. This opened the door for someone to question my judgment, which is fine. Note that I voted for Melton to win the finals and Melton ended up in last place. My judgment is far from foolproof (though I think Steve would argue in my favor). But I should put it out there. If our goal is to grow the community and improve it, then we should be transparent and willing to give and receive tactful feedback.
Match results
I will take some blame for this. My early matches weren’t what Chad wanted – too spelled out. However, after having some decent opening matches, we closed later rounds with…
Joe beat Bob in 15 minutes
Just so we could keep the thing moving. I get it, I really do, but it didn’t help build the story of the tournament. By the time it got to the end, we should’ve been at a fever pitch, but it was an afterthought – too much time had passed, we hadn’t done anything to build the internal stories and the buildup suffered. I agree, that RPs are where the fun is, but the matches are the payoff for putting in the effort. Getting a “Joe beat Bob” shows the competitor that though they put out 2,000 words of effort, we’re going to give you 5 in response. And that’s the final for you. It just feels…bleh.
Now, IMO, if we fix the administrative glitches, this shouldn’t be an issue. The only problem should be finding someone to kick out the matches when the time comes.
Summary –
Inactivity – have a battle royal that will weed out those not serious.
Administratively – Have a clear chain of command of those not competing in the tournament. Have written expectations for each round. The administrator will then simply have to follow those instructions.
Judging – Judges are assigned a bracket, are not competing in the tournament, and provide written feedback on why they went the direction they went.
Match results – Come on, man! Seriously, just give people the payoff.
The numbers
Was it just me, or were we all stoked to have (somewhere near) 100+ writers in this competition? This added an excitement that was palpable in this community, and seemingly spread to other communities. With that being said, it also lent itself to the tournament’s first weakness – inactivity. Out of all those writers, how many didn’t show? Some, I am certain, had good reasons. Others, we should’ve found a way to weed out early.
My suggestion to dealing w/ early inactivity?
Instead of giving everyone a spot, we should’ve had a pool of people and done something akin to a battle royal. This would’ve increased that early energy as everyone riffed off of everyone else in RP battles, and if someone didn’t show up, they would’ve never made it into the legit 64 man tournament. Better to have 64 energized people than 2/3 of a 100. It would work best to have no limit on the # of RPs so people can really just have fun. It may be hard to judge but that’s a problem worth having if people are having fun w/ it. And if we only have 40 who show up? We adjust the tournament early so it’s filled w/ people who want to be there. And the winner of this battle royal? I would give them the ability to switch out w/ anyone once the brackets are established.
Stalled between rounds (Administrative failures).
This was more a result of real life than anything else. Certainly, real life happens and takes precedence over any game. However, I believe that if we would’ve gone into this with a plan, allowing for most contingencies, it would’ve ran smoother. The reality is that anything like this needs a captain. I can remember fWo while Travis went MIA. We kept putting shows out, but they were, by and large, rudderless. UT had the same feel. What could help? Chad needs to have a spelled out plan for the tournament – how many RPs, segments, timelines, how it is judged, who is judging, etc. If Chad disappears, he has someone who immediately steps in at the deadline and takes over all his duties. With the plan already written out, as long as that person doesn’t try to go maverick on it, everyone will know the expectations. This didn’t happen. Pete jumped in, and it’s a good thing because we’d still be waiting on Round 3 (or so) if he hadn’t. However, rules (or setup for the round) were adjusted for expediency, leaving some of us scratching our head wondering what we were supposed to do. I can only speak for myself, but I wrote toward my main moment, climax of the RP’s build-up, and that was erased from the show. Was I frustrated? Sure. Do I think it was unfair? Sure. I wouldn’t have liked the way my RP ended w/o the segment to give some sort of payoff. We need a written plan along with a line of succession of people otherwise uninvolved in the tournament (see judging notes below).
Judging
Oh, what a challenge. First, this was, bar none, a constant challenge. First, the work that goes into this is a lot more than I anticipated. Add to it my own self-inflicted job of giving feedback when I did any judging, and that increases the workload. But, it’s what I feel made the game better. Now, judging is actually a multifaceted problem and I will try to touch on several areas.
Inconsistency. Man, did we hear it when Zero went over Hollywood. And many of the comments were legit, as what SOME judges said (myself included) was not what was decided (because, ultimately, the decision was based on each judges opinion). And the poor writers? They didn’t have a clue who they were writing for. To me, I think our failing was in even having a podcast to set out what the judges wanted because … it made it muddled. I was very vocal about the need to garner a reaction from me, and that the easiest way to do so was to make me laugh. Others, obviously, went for well written emotional prose. With that said, I do think the podcast idea is a solid one, but I think we need to do some tweaking first.
Fixing inconsistency - The judges need assigned a bracket. We could then have a podcast for Bracket 1 where those judges give what they look for, allowing the writer to know how their “game” is going to look (or if they win the battle royal, opt out to a judge more stylistically in their favor).
Appearance problems
Judges shouldn’t be competing in the tournament. At all (ok, maybe if we did use the Battle Royal idea since it wouldn’t have that much impact on the actual tournament). Yeah, that would mean we limit the number of competitors, but hear me out. First, I’m sure everyone knows that the judges were ½ of the competitors in the finals (Ford & Pete). Take it anyway you want, but it does look bad. Do I trust Pete and Ford? Absolutely! They, as much as anyone, see this as a game to blow off some steam. It’s creative writing and a way to practice doing what they love. However, if we are to be honest, we know that judging a competition that you are competing in is questionable, to no fault of either of them (because honestly, both did a bang up job getting there). Yes, Chad addressed this by pulling all judges out in… round 3, I think, but that can lead to problems w/ inconsistency as your way has been working and then suddenly doesn’t, leaving you confused.
Judging responses and reasoning behind choices must be required. To my knowledge, I was the first to post my judging notes. It was a reaction to requests over the whole Zero/Blaine issue, and I read some great points of why this was necessary. I won’t rehash but to say – if someone took the time to write something for my entertainment, then I should be willing to give back some. It didn’t take me that long, and if I hadn’t had other responsibilities in the tournament, I could’ve knocked all of that out in half the time it would’ve taken Pete to write the opening sequence to the Finals match. This opened the door for someone to question my judgment, which is fine. Note that I voted for Melton to win the finals and Melton ended up in last place. My judgment is far from foolproof (though I think Steve would argue in my favor). But I should put it out there. If our goal is to grow the community and improve it, then we should be transparent and willing to give and receive tactful feedback.
Match results
I will take some blame for this. My early matches weren’t what Chad wanted – too spelled out. However, after having some decent opening matches, we closed later rounds with…
Joe beat Bob in 15 minutes
Just so we could keep the thing moving. I get it, I really do, but it didn’t help build the story of the tournament. By the time it got to the end, we should’ve been at a fever pitch, but it was an afterthought – too much time had passed, we hadn’t done anything to build the internal stories and the buildup suffered. I agree, that RPs are where the fun is, but the matches are the payoff for putting in the effort. Getting a “Joe beat Bob” shows the competitor that though they put out 2,000 words of effort, we’re going to give you 5 in response. And that’s the final for you. It just feels…bleh.
Now, IMO, if we fix the administrative glitches, this shouldn’t be an issue. The only problem should be finding someone to kick out the matches when the time comes.
Summary –
Inactivity – have a battle royal that will weed out those not serious.
Administratively – Have a clear chain of command of those not competing in the tournament. Have written expectations for each round. The administrator will then simply have to follow those instructions.
Judging – Judges are assigned a bracket, are not competing in the tournament, and provide written feedback on why they went the direction they went.
Match results – Come on, man! Seriously, just give people the payoff.