Re:Althing discussion Prop 1 - 2011/03/05 00:37Medryn wrote: Your comparison of service to the rose category fails for a host of reasons. Primarily because things like picking up trash, running a tournament, or bringing water to the park, all of which could easily be considered good and valuable service are not things that can currently be entered. I have always thought the Rose category was poorly defined and included for precisely the reason you guys say it was, to make quailing easier. Incidentally thy appears to be the same reason you have included the service component. We discussed the complete removal of the service component when we were writing the proposal, and it was determined that it would be easier to garner popular support for the proposal if it ensured you could do the same things you can currently. Prsonally, I agree, the rose category should be excluded from consideration entirely. I was concerned that failure to include rose in the discussion would result in failure to pass, and therefore, it was included in a method that we felt would minimize the impact and remove it from consideration for Dragonmaster, where it is obviously inappropriate.
Almost nothing I have received a service for could be entered under the current rose category. And the current category at least has some standards, discarding all standards and limitations beside "good" and "valuable" is a step in the wrong direction. I disagree. Under the current rules, a rose entry is "any entry whose principle function is to benefit the club." What standards are you seeing that I'm missing? Picking up trash benefits the club. Why is that not eligible to be included in the category? Sure, most judges would look at it and roll their eyes if someone tried, but that doesn't mean it's ineligible currently. In this instance, the judges are still listed as the final arbiters of what constitutes "good and valuable." The same people who would be judging a rose entry would be determining whether the service is sufficient to constitute a qualification. The only difference is now, instead of rating something on a scale that could potentially unbalance someone's A&S scores, it is rated as a yes/no. You would be able to use your service award work in the current system without restriction; this is no different on that point currently. IF this is a problem, then it is fixable. As for the Dragonmaster issues, dismissing the problems as "judging issues" is fine and dandy, but the proposed system increases subjectivity, which compounds poor judging. The criteria you list as the differences between field and court garb are your opinion, and under the proposed system no guidance is offered to judges as to what criteria an item should be judged on. In fact under your proposed system a judge has to not only apply subjective standards (the usual "judging issue" you refer to) but now the judge has toJ subjectively decide what standards should apply. Should that piece you are judging be judged under court garb standards? Or field garb standards? Huh. I hadn't realized that our corpora explicitly laid out criteria for judges to use on every item currently.
Smart ass remarks aside, the current criteria is extremely limited as it is; only a few categories offer any sort of guidance in the corpora to determine how an item of that type should be judged, and even in those, it gives a one word description of what criteria should be used. Again, I don't really see how this set-up increases subjectivity. Judges either know or don't know how to rate a particular item; whether the item is listed as "armor" or as "constructed piece" is immaterial to a judge's ability to rate it's quality. If we want to correct that issue, we need to work more on judge training, which shouldn't be the job of the corpora. These are issues that compound judging problems, not alleviate them. Further, while Casca's comment that the skills needed for various categories are applicable to other categories is true from an artisans perspective, the same is not said for the standards on how you judge an item. Yes, the execution uses the same skill, but in judging an item execution must be weighed and balanced against form and function. A perfectly dished bowl which might score fantastically as 3d art or passive construction is likely to be scored very differently if it was intended to be a helm and entered in to an armor category. while I understand your point here, I fail to see how this applies in this particular situation. Under our current set-up, the exact same situation applies. Hopefully, the write-up should indicate whether the bowl is intended to be rated as if it was a passive construction piece or as a usable piece of armor for the field. If the write-up does not explicitly state it's intended function, it is then left to the judges to determine what function it is intended to fill. Again, judging education is able to alleviate this issue, which should not be the job of the corpora. I'll say it again, increasing the subjectivity of judging will not result in better judges or more consistent results. You can say it again all you want, but I do not feel you have adequately shown that decreasing the number of categories will automatically increase the subjectivity of the process. I still contend that the subjectivity of the process is primarily from the perspective of the judges themselves. If the reasons you guys forward are true (namely that items should be judged only against themselves as to how they relate to other similar items across Amtgard, and judges are qualified to not only evaluate the item, but to determine by what standard an item should be judged) to what end do we have categories at all? Why not reduce it to 3 categories, Dragon, Owl, and Garber? Why not ditch the categories all together. Quals requires 9 items, period. (which also brings up the question of under your new system who decides if two items are duplicative for quals purposes?) Because Amtgard, as a whole, is not ready for a category-less system. Baby steps. . But seriously, what do you think Best of the Best is?
The tournament autocrat is the final arbiter as per 18.d. If someone is concerned about whether some of their items are too similar, I would consult with the tournament autocrat before entering to ensure you do not get an unwelcome surprise the day of the tournament. I understand what you're trying to do from a quals perspective, and can even sort of agree with it, but from a competition perspective removing subjective standards is a bad idea. Don't get me wrong, our current standards suck, but I'd argue our categories need better standards and better deliniation, not poorer. Better delineation would actually solve the shotgunning problem as well. If you can't enter the same type of item, created with the same techniques and skills as garb accessory and as jewelry, or as 2d art and needlework you actually encourage breadth of talent. How? If you have thousands of entrants, the likelihood that there will be some competition in particular categories increases. When you consider 4 entrants to be a highly attended A&S tournament, the level of competition outside of the normal standard categories is virtually nil. Even Olympiad rarely gets the number of entrants to justify a category like needlework, for instance. We need to have a category set-up that mirrors the reality of our competitive playing field, not something that is intended to handle more entrants that we typically have people show up to special events. If you want to mess with quals that's fine, but if you're looking to improve A&S competitions take a look at how real world competitions work. You'll find more standards and more categories, not fewer. As soon as Amtgard competition has the same interest level as most real world competitions, I'll concede that a more extensive category classification may be appropriate, if for no other reason than that it allows for easier handling of the number of entries to be rated. But seven categories, based on our current paticipation level, is more than sufficient to meet our tournament needs at present. Eta: and Kord, you know better. "we can fix it later" is a horrible way to support a proposal. In fact you've argued against proposals in this current Althing for similar reasons. They sky isn't falling, take the time to get the proposal right. Two things here: first off, I do not see anything with this proposal that is directly broken; perhaps I misspoke earlier. I meant IF these were issues, we could fix them when they come up. I don't necessarily see them as issues, which means I'm not advocating putting this through and fixing things later. As far as the question of re-using service, I would hope most tournament organizers would exercise their authority to throw out cheese dick attempts to game the system like that, or that the judges would vote on it appropriately if it was found that someone was attempting to do this. While I had not expressly considered it during the formulation process, I'd want to see if it is really an issue before adding potentially unnecessary additions to our already overly length corpora. Secondly, my concern about the other proposals is that they aren't even enforceable, and therefore need to be fixed before passing, or else we'd be unable to implement them. You have raised a few minor points (and some ideological differences ) that I don't see as immediately problematic. Your contention that I am advocating the very same thing I have railed against elsewhere fails to take into consideration the proposal degree, and is frankly a bit insulting. While the sky is not falling, there are other interests that would benefit from a speedier implementation of this proposal; as I mentioned, there are a number of people outside of this kingdom highly interested in the outcome of this Althing and the results of testing it in a tournament.Kord
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
So, let's say you are good at weaponmaking and not much else. Whereas now you would make your single sword entry into weapon construction and your wad is blown, with this change, you could do a sword, a polearm, and a flail. This definitely allows an entrant to focus on their strengths.
This is another part that bothers me. I'm getting mixed messages. Kord seems to be saying that inclusion of more categories to make it easier to qual is a bad thing, that this system helps eliminate (it's also one rationale cited by both of you in deriding the food category split) and here your saying (I believe accurately) that this system actually makes it easier to qual with less effort and less skill. One of the justifications for requiring quals at all has traditionally been that they show not only a commitment to the game, but at least passing familiarity with a breadth of skills the potential candidate is likely to need to do their mandated jobs. This proposal dispenses with that. Under this system I can now qual with a sword, a dagger, and a polearm, and a tunic, pants and sluff coat. Having demonstrated only that I can sew straight lines, tape noodle to kitespar and fight passibly well.
So help me out, is making qualifying easier a good thing or bad thing? Doesn't qualling become even more of just jumping through hoops if the effort I've described above is sufficient?
I'm not saying there aren't any good ideas in here, but it seems to me that these changes have a bit of mixed justifications and that the consequences have not been fully thought out. If you want to change quals great, but let's be clear about how and to what end we are doing so. I have larger complaints if this is intended to dictate a change in Dragonmaster, which it does, intended or not.
Post edited by: Medryn, at: 2011/03/05 00:50
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Korderellin
Admin
Posts: 546
Re:Althing discussion Prop 1 - 2011/03/05 02:15Actually, no. I've never made any statements about the flooding of categories for purposes of qualing; hell, that's kind of the primary purpose of quals. Quals is, however, still an A&S tournament; since we do not prohibit individuals from entering unless they are running for office, we need to continue to consider quals in the same vein as any other A&S tournament, e.g. Dragonmaster. The issue is the increase in categories, while it helps those individuals who are attempting to qual, also allows for people to attempt to flood categories in order to artificially inflate their overall scores in an attempt to win the tournament. This system was designed to both relax some of the stress and requirements inherent in the qualling process while also increasing direct competition between items so that people are unable to use enter uncommon categories to artificially boost their numbers for purposes of actually winning the tournament. It also increases the options available by more loosely defining what falls into each category, thereby opening up additional options that our current limited listing doesn't allow (such as dancing, for instance).
As for dispensing with the "breadth" of skill you're referring to, frankly, we've already dispensed with that with the current list of categories. You can write a poem, a how-to, a fiction piece, a "court" tunic, field pants, and monster garb and win three fights. So now you've proven that you can put sentences together, sew a few straight lines, and fight passably well. The only thing this does is spreads out the bias toward garb specifically, which is one of the major complaints I've heard recently about the current system.Kord
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Medryn
User
Posts: 241
Re:Althing discussion Prop 1 - 2011/03/05 03:54I'll respond to the line by line bit later, maybe if I'm feeling less snarky.
Korderellin wrote: Actually, no. I've never made any statements about the flooding of categories for purposes of qualing; hell, that's kind of the primary purpose of quals.
Is it worth crapping on the other aspects of crown quals in order to try and make it easier for someone to qualify for office?
And Casca said There are better ways to make crown quals easier for a selfish few who want the bar lowered, which is what this proposal is really out to do.
While you may have been drawing the distinction between flooding=bad for a&s tournies but is okay for quals, I'm sure you'll forgive that being seen as "making qualifying easier is not a good or necessary thing" Both of you speak with derision towards Hannibal's proposal because it is apparently designed to make qualling easier.
Allowing someone to specialize in order to qualify for Crown is basically invalidating one of the primary reasons for Crown Quals; it's intended to show that the people in charge of giving awards have a broad understanding of what it takes to pursue a variety of mediums in order to more appropriately gauge the level of expertise of the artisan and the appropriate of award for their work. If we allow monarchs to qual based off a more limited number of categories, it decreases the likelihood that our monarchs will understand pieces well enough to accurately gauge the appropriate award level. The bold is mine.
Which strangely sounds an awful lot like:
One of the justifications for requiring quals at all has traditionally been that they show not only a commitment to the game, but at least passing familiarity with a breadth of skills the potential candidate is likely to need to do their mandated jobs. This proposal dispenses with that. Under this system I can now qual with a sword, a dagger, and a polearm, and a tunic, pants and sluff coat. Having demonstrated only that I can sew straight lines, tape noodle to kitespar and fight passibly well.
Which you just disagreed with when you said:
As for dispensing with the "breadth" of skill you're referring to, frankly, we've already dispensed with that with the current list of categories. You can write a poem, a how-to, a fiction piece, a "court" tunic, field pants, and monster garb and win three fights. So now you've proven that you can put sentences together, sew a few straight lines, and fight passably well. The only thing this does is spreads out the bias toward garb specifically, which is one of the major complaints I've heard recently about the current system.
I'm beginning to think you just want to pick on Hannibal. Hey, Hannibal, do me a favor, resubmit that cooking proposal next Althing, and we can let Kord come up with a third, equally contradictory justification for his belief that your proposal sucks.
Smart ass remarks aside, while I know you disagree, the statement about crapping on the competition aspect of quals for ease of qualification is applicable to your proposal as well. I finally again found where you specifically say that this proposal is meant to apply to Dragonmaster. You say want to "increase competition between items". What I am saying is that this is full of shit. If you believe as Casca says, that "Judges shouldn't be judging entries against one another within a tourney to establish their scores anyways. They should be establishing their scores based off how far the given entry deviates from average when average for an entry is defined as what the average Amtgarder, game-wide, can accomplish given an average input of effort." Then "Increasing competition between items" isn't really what you are pushing for, and is in fact contradictory to the reasons you are saying we don't need categories.
You can't have it both ways, either item's scores (and I assume the points you receive for them) should have no relation to the other items in a given tournament in which case categories are unnecessary, and we should just dispense with the fiction, or competition between items is important, in which case categories are useful and in fact facilitate DIRECT competition.
I think I've figured it out. You guys have stated it pretty directly, but never as a primary justification. You hate that someone can win a tourney by getting points for strange categories. I can empathize. The current DM format was modified to address that issue. But I have a couple of questions on that point.
1) ok D, i want to see your "statistical analysis". Lets have it. Show me that this problem exists. Show me these tournaments (hell show me one), using our categories and our scoring system where the "wrong" person won by shotgunning in to lower competition categories.
2) What the hell stops YOU from entering those categories? it's not like the categories are secret. It's not like other competitors can control what categories you enter. Why not enter bad ass cool shit in those easier to win categories. I'm not saying you have to enter 30 pieces of crap just to hit every category. I'm saying enter better quality pieces in those categories than the guy who's "shotgunning". Should the guy who enters 15 3.5's beat the person who enters 4 4.5's? I think probably so. (especially since the guy with the 4.5's is going to get Best in Show). Note that under our system an entrant who enters 5 "high competition" categories and earns 4.5 in each, handily beats a person who enters those same 5 categories and an additional 5 "low competition" categories with no other entrants and earns a 3.25 on each of those items.
3) Kord, it's all very interesting and mysterious that other Amtgarders are "watching with interest" but I'm less than convinced that Non-IMers interest, no matter how perfect it might be, provides any reason for us to change our system.
I believe this shotgunning lower competition categories is an oft repeated, but ill documented claim. I happen to have a couple of DM tourney results here in front of me. I am unable to find a single one where these low competition categories have made a difference in the results.
I'm not saying our categories can't be tightened up. Hell, my point is that by tightening them up, and appropriately defining criteria we will better achieve the result that you say you are interested in. Namely eliminating shotgunning (which I can't even say is a bad thing, assuming the pieces themselves are quality, which our current DM scoring system addresses), and increasing direct competition. Your complaint appears to be based more on how competitions are scored rather than the categories.
This was way longer than I planned, I think it covers my big points, so I'll probably not do the line by line... I can take up those issues at the sit down Althing.
The best part is I've blown off working on entries for DM to write this.
Edited to fix broken quotes.
Post edited by: Medryn, at: 2011/03/05 03:55
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Korderellin
Admin
Posts: 546
Re:Althing discussion Prop 1 - 2011/03/05 05:56Medryn wrote: Wanna rethink that?: http://www.ironmountains.org/component/option,com_joomlaboard/Itemid,61/func,view/id,23847/catid,4/ Is it worth crapping on the other aspects of crown quals in order to try and make it easier for someone to qualify for office? While you may have been drawing the distinction between flooding=bad for a&s tournies but is okay for quals, I'm sure you'll forgive that being seen as "making qualifying easier is not a good or necessary thing" Both of you speak with derision towards Hannibal's proposal because it is apparently designed to make qualling easier. *Sigh* No. You’re misinterpreting my words in order to try and undermine my credibility here. This is not a courtroom, JP; I would hope that we can actually deal with the issues regarding the proposal without resorting to personal attacks.
The issue is not that the proposal makes it easier to qual; the issue is that it makes it easier to qual at the expense of the A&S portion of the tournament and of Dragonmaster. By only focusing on the limited aspect of qualifications, there are significantly more effects to the proposal that were ignored.
And then there's this gem: http://www.ironmountains.org/component/option,com_joomlaboard/Itemid,61/func,view/id,23660/catid,4/ Allowing someone to specialize in order to qualify for Crown is basically invalidating one of the primary reasons for Crown Quals; it's intended to show that the people in charge of giving awards have a broad understanding of what it takes to pursue a variety of mediums in order to more appropriately gauge the level of expertise of the artisan and the appropriate of award for their work. If we allow monarchs to qual based off a more limited number of categories, it decreases the likelihood that our monarchs will understand pieces well enough to accurately gauge the appropriate award level. The bold is mine. Which strangely sounds an awful lot like: One of the justifications for requiring quals at all has traditionally been that they show not only a commitment to the game, but at least passing familiarity with a breadth of skills the potential candidate is likely to need to do their mandated jobs. This proposal dispenses with that. Under this system I can now qual with a sword, a dagger, and a polearm, and a tunic, pants and sluff coat. Having demonstrated only that I can sew straight lines, tape noodle to kitespar and fight passibly well. Which you just disagreed with when you said: As for dispensing with the "breadth" of skill you're referring to, frankly, we've already dispensed with that with the current list of categories. You can write a poem, a how-to, a fiction piece, a "court" tunic, field pants, and monster garb and win three fights. So now you've proven that you can put sentences together, sew a few straight lines, and fight passably well. The only thing this does is spreads out the bias toward garb specifically, which is one of the major complaints I've heard recently about the current system. I'm beginning to think you just want to pick on Hannibal. Hey, Hannibal, do me a favor, resubmit that cooking proposal next Althing, and we can let Kord come up with a third, equally contradictory justification for his belief that your proposal sucks.
What does this have to do with picking on Hannibal? Your contention was that this proposal makes it too easy to qual, and therefore, should be voted down. I countered with an example of how the same thing can be done with the current system. My point in all this is that the weaknesses you’re finding in the new system already exist in the current one.
As for my position on the previous althing, I did indeed hold the position at the time that expanding one category into three was adding a significant bias to quals in favor of food, which seemed to be over-balanced in that direction to me. However, at the althing discussion that you missed, it was brought up and reviewed that there is already a significant bias toward sewing in the A&S categories, thereby giving those with proficiency in that area a significant advantage in finishing quals. Hannibal’s prior proposal was discussed in part as a way to help level the playing field with food and beverage. Between this and some other arguments that were made, I was swayed from the position that the bias toward food and drink was not appropriate, and that some degree of balancing was necessary between categories. The important aspect was to do so without having significant category creep. This is what prompted the work on the current proposal we’re discussing. In no event does the new proposal allow for more than three of any given wide category to be submitted, which is in line with what the current rules allow for multiple general categories (garb and written to name a couple).
Smart ass remarks aside, while I know you disagree, the statement about crapping on the competition aspect of quals for ease of qualification is applicable to your proposal as well. I finally again found where you specifically say that this proposal is meant to apply to Dragonmaster. You say want to "increase competition between items". What I am saying is that this is full of shit. If you believe as Casca says, that "Judges shouldn't be judging entries against one another within a tourney to establish their scores anyways. They should be establishing their scores based off how far the given entry deviates from average when average for an entry is defined as what the average Amtgarder, game-wide, can accomplish given an average input of effort." Then "Increasing competition between items" isn't really what you are pushing for, and is in fact contradictory to the reasons you are saying we don't need categories.
*sigh* Yet again, you’re misinterpreting my statements. This proposal is intended to increase direct competition between items. Items should not, however, have to be compared against one another to produce scores. The scores are intended to be on an objective (or as close to it as we can get) scale, which rates how well a particular item fulfills its intended function/form; if you need to compare two items directly in order to come up with a numerical rating on an objective scale, you’re invalidating the objective system. Once an objective score has been reached, however, it is perfectly acceptable to compare items against one another in order to determine which one fulfills its function more thoroughly. This is the increased competition we’re referring to. There is no contradiction there.
3) Kord, it's all very interesting and mysterious that other Amtgarders are "watching with interest" but I'm less than convinced that Non-IMers interest, no matter how perfect it might be, provides any reason for us to change our system.
One of your earlier points was that you disliked the fact that we were making a change that would take us out of step with the rest of Amtgard. My response was that we’ve had some interest from artisans in other Kingdoms already, namely NW, DS, RW, and CK. If this proposal goes as anticipated, we could very likely see similar proposals in other Kingdoms. Therefore, I don’t think the fact that we are stepping away from the rest of the game should be of major concern.
You dislike the proposal. I get that. Feel free to vote no on it. But can we please get back to discussing the proposal, and not trying to undermine one another’s credibility to try and win the argument?Kord
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Medryn
User
Posts: 241
Re:Althing discussion Prop 1 - 2011/03/05 06:12OK I fibbed..
Korderellin wrote: We discussed the complete removal of the service component when we were writing the proposal, and it was determined that it would be easier to garner popular support for the proposal if it ensured you could do the same things you can currently. Prsonally, I agree, the rose category should be excluded from consideration entirely. I was concerned that failure to include rose in the discussion would result in failure to pass, and therefore, it was included in a method that we felt would minimize the impact and remove it from consideration for Dragonmaster, where it is obviously inappropriate.
So you lacked the will to propose what you thought was right because you feared you couldn't convince the populace that it was the right course of action? Don't get me wrong, I understand politics and compromise, but replacing something broken and subjective, that you think needs to be discarded, with something even more broken and subjective as appeasement is beyond me.
I disagree. Under the current rules, a rose entry is "any entry whose principle function is to benefit the club." What standards are you seeing that I'm missing? Picking up trash benefits the club. Why is that not eligible to be included in the category?
Really? You have got to be being disingenuous. According to our current Corpora entrants must enter "items" in categories. An entry, is clearly an item. Picking up trash is not an item.
Huh. I hadn't realized that our corpora explicitly laid out criteria for judges to use on every item currently.
Smart ass remarks aside, the current criteria is extremely limited as it is; only a few categories offer any sort of guidance in the corpora to determine how an item of that type should be judged, and even in those, it gives a one word description of what criteria should be used.
You are better at smartass than logic. The solution to the above problem is not to eliminate categories. While you are right that the definitions are limited, they are far more descriptive than "Worn items" or "Artwork". Words like "Armor" and "Jewelry" are archetypal. Even without further definition they provide an indication of form, function, and purpose. They provide (mostly) objective criteria for what an item should be. Items that fit poorly in a category can and should be graded down.
Again, I don't really see how this set-up increases subjectivity. Judges either know or don't know how to rate a particular item; whether the item is listed as "armor" or as "constructed piece" is immaterial to a judge's ability to rate it's quality. If we want to correct that issue, we need to work more on judge training, which shouldn't be the job of the corpora.
Okay, let me try little words. On what grounds should a judge rate a particular item? Do you believe that an item's form, function or purpose plays any role whatsoever in judging said item? For example under our current system heraldry is judged on different criteria than 2d art, even though they may both be drawings on a piece of paper. Under your proposed system a judge not only must subjectively evaluate the quality and beauty of a piece, but she must subjectively decide whether a piece of art should be evaluated by criteria appropriate for heraldry or 2d art. The same can be said for court and field garb, passive construction and armor, factual writing and poetry. Some times that decision is easy, at others it's not. Proper training of judges is essential, but removal of the limited objective criteria we do have does not facilitate training of judges, it makes it harder. If we are committed to improving tournament quality and judging, perhaps we should actually do so. And maybe not beg for judges in the hours before a tourney.
while I understand your point here, I fail to see how this applies in this particular situation. Under our current set-up, the exact same situation applies. Hopefully, the write-up should indicate whether the bowl is intended to be rated as if it was a passive construction piece or as a usable piece of armor for the field. If the write-up does not explicitly state it's intended function, it is then left to the judges to determine what function it is intended to fill. Again, judging education is able to alleviate this issue, which should not be the job of the corpora.
I'm hoping the previous paragraph made this clear, but in case it didn't: 1) I agree our current system is lacking, but you can not honestly believe that "constructed items" provides as much guidance to a judge as "armor" does. 2) removing the limited objective criteria we do have is (in my opinion) not worth the intended "improvements" of your suggested system. Nor does your system actually attempt to address the majority of the flaws in our current system, rather it compounds them while addressing only this sense of "shotgunner's shouldn't win" that I'm not certain actually exists. Additionally while it is good tourney craft to have write ups for your entries, it is not required. Categories facilitate judging criteria, and writeups do even more so. I'd suggest that if this passes you might consider requiring a write up on items to help judges understand what the hell they are supposed to be judging besides "something you put on your body"
You can say it again all you want, but I do not feel you have adequately shown that decreasing the number of categories will automatically increase the subjectivity of the process. I still contend that the subjectivity of the process is primarily from the perspective of the judges themselves.
I think I've managed to address this above. Your system has almost no objective standards.
Because Amtgard, as a whole, is not ready for a category-less system. Baby steps.
Despite your smiley I think you're serious. I have seen zero indication (in amtgard or "real world" competitions) that a completely category-less system has any advantages. Remember, it's your burden to explain why this change should pass. I'm still not seeing what this improves besides anti shotgunning.
But seriously, what do you think Best of the Best is?
A very specific type of competition, that is clunky at best in it's actual execution. In most cases I think the competition it creates is contrived. You get the same results by having a judges choice/best in show award. It was designed by an artisan who truly believed that single item best in show awards were the most important type, and resented that other competitions focused on rewarding breadth and depth of talent rather than focus. That's not to say it doesn't serve a purpose, or that it can't be a lot of fun to judge or enter, especially given the face to face feedback and judge/entrant interaction feature (which could realistically be included in any competition, although it is easier with single entry competitions). It has it's place, but I don't think it is something that ALL of our competitions should move towards.
The tournament autocrat is the final arbiter as per 18.d. If someone is concerned about whether some of their items are too similar, I would consult with the tournament autocrat before entering to ensure you do not get an unwelcome surprise the day of the tournament.
Yay for even more subjectivity and opportunities for screw your buddy politics. "Sorry Bob, that dagger and that sword are too similar, so are those two tunics, made for the same company, you know. Hmm guess that means you don't qual. Hey, guys, my squire's gonna be king!"
I know you can't legislate in expectation of your officers doing shitty jobs or things in bad faith, but that doesn't mean we have to create systems so patently open to abuse or whim.
How? If you have thousands of entrants, the likelihood that there will be some competition in particular categories increases. When you consider 4 entrants to be a highly attended A&S tournament, the level of competition outside of the normal standard categories is virtually nil. Even Olympiad rarely gets the number of entrants to justify a category like needlework, for instance. We need to have a category set-up that mirrors the reality of our competitive playing field, not something that is intended to handle more entrants that we typically have people show up to special events.
Still confused, are judging items on their own merits or in direct competition? If there are only 4 competitors can you really say that someone is gaining an advantage by entering in "low competition" categories? They're ALL low competition categories.
How many Olympiads have you judged? Every one I have has involved quite a few needlework entries.
What do you mean that our category set up needs to mirror our competitive playing field? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but what I'm hearing is "that Needlework shouldn't be as valuable score wise as my field garb".
These problems are better addressed by creating an open, fair scoring system. People can game any system you want to create, but the sense I keep getting is that you have a set belief on how people should win tourneys, and it seems to be by winning the commonly entered categories.
As soon as Amtgard competition has the same interest level as most real world competitions, I'll concede that a more extensive category classification may be appropriate, if for no other reason than that it allows for easier handling of the number of entries to be rated. But seven categories, based on our current paticipation level, is more than sufficient to meet our tournament needs at present.
I still don't get where you conclude that the number of entrants needs to be tied to the number of categories. In simple terms explain to me how the existence of additional categories hurts artisans or judges? How does fewer categories fix that?
Two things here: first off, I do not see anything with this proposal that is directly broken; perhaps I misspoke earlier. I meant IF these were issues, we could fix them when they come up. I don't necessarily see them as issues, which means I'm not advocating putting this through and fixing things later. As far as the question of re-using service, I would hope most tournament organizers would exercise their authority to throw out cheese dick attempts to game the system like that, or that the judges would vote on it appropriately if it was found that someone was attempting to do this. While I had not expressly considered it during the formulation process, I'd want to see if it is really an issue before adding potentially unnecessary additions to our already overly length corpora. Secondly, my concern about the other proposals is that they aren't even enforceable, and therefore need to be fixed before passing, or else we'd be unable to implement them. You have raised a few minor points (and some ideological differences ) that I don't see as immediately problematic. Your contention that I am advocating the very same thing I have railed against elsewhere fails to take into consideration the proposal degree, and is frankly a bit insulting. While the sky is not falling, there are other interests that would benefit from a speedier implementation of this proposal; as I mentioned, there are a number of people outside of this kingdom highly interested in the outcome of this Althing and the results of testing it in a tournament.
Part of this is a misinterpretation on my part. It was not (although it should have been) readily apparent to me that this was intentionally designed to affect Dragonmaster. I still think the rose crap is a clusterfuck, but I now understand that the consequences to DM (which we ideologically disagree about) are intentional, where as I thought you were just screwing shit up unintentionally
I think it would be appropriate if you shared what "other interests" would benefit from a speedy implementation of this proposal. It'd be nice to know all of your motivation for mucking about with our governing documents.
I'd also be quite interested to see how a tourney using this proposed system would be scored.
Let me also say that changing the corpora so we can "test" a system is a bad frickin idea. Why not do this: There is enough wiggle room in our corpora currently to allow you to test this system out on the next Dragonmaster as long as you can get the next vice-sucker...uh I mean regent... to buy off on it. Maybe I'm totally wrong, maybe the better solution is somewhere in the middle, but dear god, this happens to be a scenario where it is very easy to test the consequences of a proposed change, can we for once actually test shit out before changing how we do things?
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Medryn
User
Posts: 241
Re:Althing discussion Prop 1 - 2011/03/05 07:28Korderellin wrote: You dislike the proposal. I get that. Feel free to vote no on it. But can we please get back to discussing the proposal, and not trying to undermine one another’s credibility to try and win the argument?
Kent, it is not a personal attack to point out internally inconsistent arguments, or unexplained changes in position. I've got plenty of snark in my responses but if your gonna complain about that at least focus on the high points. Go back and re-read the thread. You started the snark, I was happy to return the favor plus some. It doesn't mean I don't love ya man, doesn't mean I don't respect you, but you put on the music, I'm happy to dance. Trying to claim the moral high ground is just silly.
I'll leave aside my critiques of your responses and inconsistencies to sum up, focus on the actual proposal as requested and ask some questions.
The rationale behind your proposal can be broken down as follows (I'm just paraphrasing the rationale you gave, which you've tried to support, let me know if I missed something:
1) So many categories allows entrants to game the "standard scoring" system and inflate their scores by entering rarely used categories.
2)The proposed system allows for a broader range of entries and more creativity because of its more open categories.
3)Elimination of Rose gets rid of a stupid A&S category but the system still allows service of some type to count as a qualification.
4)The system allows greater flexibility in qualling (does this mean "makes it easier"? I think it does but I'm not certain) but still requires some level of differentiation between entries
So focusing on this rationale:
Contra 1: Is this really an issue? I keep hearing that it is, but when I was developing the current BTA system I worried a lot about competition. I considered changing the scoring system to only allow placement points if an category was contested (having two or more entrants, regardless of number of entries). MHoG convinced me to leave it as it was. After several tournaments of hearing that flooding was still changing the results I went back and looked at the scoring and went to see what happened if I removed those no competition placement points. You know what I found? In almost every case the overall winner of the tourney was unchanged. The vast majority of the time placements only changed among the folks who had entered few items, not those who were "in to win".
Additionally, there is no such thing as the "standard" scoring system. Before I introduced the most recent BTA system (which I am assuming you are calling our "standard") the standard was something completely different. You know how I changed it? I just did. I used it to run tourneys while I was regent and then shared it with other tourney organizers. If you think the current system is too easy to game (which I still don't believe we have evidence of) then change it. Convince the brass hats to try something new. This corpora change is not necessary to address this problem, even if it does actually exist.
This part of the proposal is where we got in to the "This proposal is intended to increase direct competition between items." I'm not certain why this is a good thing. We have competitions like best of the best for direct competition between items. I submit that not only is there no indication that this is necessary, but it is in fact harmful. One of the draws of winning the Title of Dragonmaster (in my experience and for many of the artisans I have talked to) is that it is a title that shows breadth and depth of talent. It's like weaponmaster. Not only am I good, but, I'm good at a variety of things.
I don't disagree that Quals and DM could stand to be differentiated in some way, as they serve different purposes. But I don't think this proposal adequately balances the two purposes.
Contra 2: Is this really a problem? Are we really currently limited by the categories to the point that good Amtgard related entries are unable to find a place in our tournaments? In support of this proposition Casca says that she found the following categories that couldn't fit in to our current system: "dance, musical composition, digital art, photography, and non-Amtgard-legal weapons" I have at various times in our kingdom under our current system seen every one of these items entered in a tournament in appropriate categories. Now to be honest musical composition was kind of a fudge, the piece was composed by the entrant and performed as an entry. You better believe the fact that it was an original piece weighed in to the score though. However, I would note that even under the proposed system musical composition would still be homeless and the same fudge would be required. In summary, I'm not convinced this is a problem, but even if it is I do not see a demonstrable improvement by adopting the proposal.
This is also where we get the subjective standards vs objective standards. All I can say is if you are judging Armor by the exact same criteria by which you are judging passive construction, you're doing it wrong. I believe it is more important for us to improve and clarify standards than it is to consolidate them. Additionally I would note that this combination of categories is only justified by the supporters of this proposal based upon rationale #1 and #2. Neither of which appear to address problems that actually exist.
Contra 3: I'm with you on the first part, Rose is stupid. The second part is, at best, equally stupid. Hardly a ringing endorsement.
Contra 4: This is where Kent and I might have to argue some more about whether he's contradicting himself. My point remains, why do we need greater flexibility in qualifications? I stand by my statement (the one Kent agreed with 6 months ago, but no longer does, even though just yesterday he seemed and Casca clearly was, critical making of quals easier), qualifications don't need to be more flexible or easier to achieve. For fucks sake, if you can't come up with 9 categories of 3.0 items, (with unlimited tries no less, if you fail you get another shot assuming the other guy fails or doesn't exist) I'm fairly comfortable saying you shouldn't get to be in charge. I have seen candidates who would swear they were incapable of qualling do so on their first try without extreme effort, and frankly the "I can qual from my closet" game has been played more than once. This is worse than harmless. Requiring breadth of skill in quals serves a purpose. And while Kent answers "The current system is just as broken" I remind you that 1, the proposed system is more broken and 2, if the systems are essentially the same, then this point doesn't actually serve as a rationale for why the new system should be adopted.
In summary, and without snark: This proposal attempts to fix problems that either don't exist, or are not in fact problems, at the expense of competition standards and clarity. It is unnecessary as a change to corpora, as the issues raised, if truly issues, can be addressed by other means. The system is untested, and untried. I for one am not eager to have our corpora be a guinea pig. If you actually think this is a good idea, why not test it to find out if it is an improvement.
Edited to fix late night typos
Post edited by: Medryn, at: 2011/03/05 07:31
| | The administrator has disabled public write access.
Home 
. But seriously, what do you think Best of the Best is?
