AGDQ 2016 Game Submissions Information (Submissions are now closed)

2015-10-15 12:53:45 am

Quote from Joka:

I'd really like to know why Battle Network was rejected. It's an hour and a half of solid commentary, amazing RNG manipulation and clever routing, that has never been at a GDQ.

Clarification on this would be helpful for me. It was progressed earlier this year for SGDQ, and the estimate has dropped by 10 minutes since then, and has been cut substantially by 1 hour since a year ago. We made a submission video to overview the run, which linked a full run within that description. We understand that it is hard to keep up with all of the long runs that are submitted, and we thought that it would be helpful with our submission. If the reason for rejection was due to that, then I apologize. I saw where full runs were requested, but that it was acceptable to post highlight videos as well. The most realistic and reasonable option for this run was to post the highlight. In the past, we have been told that MMBN1 was too long, that it does not appeal to a wide audience, and that there are better RPG choices for the marathon. We took those criticisms to heart and have honestly felt that we have addressed these issues. A massive amount of time has been cut from our estimate. Our community and viewership for this game--as well as the series itself--has grown exponentially since then. My final point, and admittedly one that is probably all-too-familiar statement concerning these situations is that this game is really something different. The RNG manipulation and routing paired with the style of gameplay makes MMBN1 something unique. The manipulation is not at all subtle, and at times completely absurd--and in the most entertaining way possible. Our commentary is rehearsed and informative. The game plays EXACTLY the same way each time. It fits a marathon setting, at this point in time, more than I can say about a lot of games. Please, if you can, I would like to understand more about what can be done to help us out with progressing BN1. Thanks.

[quote="Joka"]I'd really like to know why Battle Network was rejected. It's an hour and a half of solid commentary, amazing RNG manipulation and clever routing, that has [b]never [/b]been at a GDQ.[/quote]

Clarification on this would be helpful for me. It was progressed earlier this year for SGDQ, and the estimate has dropped by 10 minutes since then, and has been cut substantially by 1 hour since a year ago. We made a submission video to overview the run, which linked a full run within that description. We understand that it is hard to keep up with all of the long runs that are submitted, and we thought that it would be helpful with our submission. If the reason for rejection was due to that, then I apologize. I saw where full runs were requested, but that it was acceptable to post highlight videos as well. The most realistic and reasonable option for this run was to post the highlight. In the past, we have been told that MMBN1 was too long, that it does not appeal to a wide audience, and that there are better RPG choices for the marathon. We took those criticisms to heart and have honestly felt that we have addressed these issues. A massive amount of time has been cut from our estimate. Our community and viewership for this game--as well as the series itself--has grown exponentially since then. My final point, and admittedly one that is probably all-too-familiar statement concerning these situations is that this game is really something different. The RNG manipulation and routing paired with the style of gameplay makes MMBN1 something unique. The manipulation is not at all subtle, and at times completely absurd--and in the most entertaining way possible. Our commentary is rehearsed and informative. The game plays EXACTLY the same way each time. It fits a marathon setting, at this point in time, more than I can say about a lot of games. Please, if you can, I would like to understand more about what can be done to help us out with progressing BN1. Thanks.

Mystery

2015-10-15 06:34:28 am

Quote from Countneko:

Quote from Azurinel:

I have no idea how the selection committee works, and I don't think it has ever been stated how it does, but if the committee is in a group talk while going over submissions, it would make sense to have a "secretary" take minutes, aka write down everything said about each submission. Once cuts are over, the minutes get posted and everyone can see why they were cut, and we can avoid page after page of people asking for reasons. In my opinion, this secretary would remain impartial and have no say in cuts, only listen in on the conversations and write down the important information. If it is feasible, hopefully someone can remember to suggest this in the next feedback thread.

I don't know if exactly this would be implemented in practice but I do agree that SOME form of transparency would be nice in regards to game rejections.

There is transparency - you can ask for clarification of the rejection reason. The reason they don't list rejection reason is because it just too much time. There are too many submissions and writing a rejection reason for each one would take up a significant amount of time.

[quote="Countneko"][quote="Azurinel"]I have no idea how the selection committee works, and I don't think it has ever been stated how it does, but if the committee is in a group talk while going over submissions, it would make sense to have a "secretary" take minutes, aka write down everything said about each submission. Once cuts are over, the minutes get posted and everyone can see why they were cut, and we can avoid page after page of people asking for reasons. In my opinion, this secretary would remain impartial and have no say in cuts, only listen in on the conversations and write down the important information. If it is feasible, hopefully someone can remember to suggest this in the next feedback thread.[/quote]

I don't know if exactly this would be implemented in practice but I do agree that SOME form of transparency would be nice in regards to game rejections. [/quote]
There is transparency - you can ask for clarification of the rejection reason. The reason they don't list rejection reason is because it just too much time. There are too many submissions and writing a rejection reason for each one would take up a significant amount of time.

MegaMasterX

Edit history:

MegaMasterX: 2015-10-15 08:12:56 am

MegaMasterX: 2015-10-15 08:10:09 am

2015-10-15 08:09:54 am

N1GP Tournament Organizer

Quote from Mystery:

There are too many submissions and writing a rejection reason for each one would take up a significant amount of time.

I don't think that one-word rejections (which would be loads better than radio silence currently) would take more than seconds - if even that. A rejection of "Boring," "Unappealing," "Bad Submission," "Too Long," "Only watched 30 seconds out of 7 minutes, lol," or something in that realm isn't too much to ask. Even THAT would be considerably better than asking for a reason and possibly (most likely) getting swept under the rug.

kirbymastah

Edit history:

kirbymastah: 2015-10-15 08:26:17 am

2015-10-15 08:25:45 am

<(^_^)>

Quote from MegaMasterX:

Quote from Mystery:

There are too many submissions and writing a rejection reason for each one would take up a significant amount of time.

I don't think that one-word rejections (which would be loads better than radio silence currently) would take more than seconds - if even that. A rejection of "Boring," "Unappealing," "Bad Submission," "Too Long," "Only watched 30 seconds out of 7 minutes, lol," or something in that realm isn't too much to ask. Even THAT would be considerably better than asking for a reason and possibly (most likely) getting swept under the rug.

You really think runners would be satisfied with one-word generic reject reasons? That's going to accomplish nothing and people are going to demand more reasons, which usually are going to come down to "We can't fit everything", which people are not going to be happy with anyways Tongue

MegaMasterX

2015-10-15 08:31:39 am

N1GP Tournament Organizer

Quote from kirbymastah:

You really think runners would be satisfied with one-word generic reject reasons? That's going to accomplish nothing and people are going to demand more reasons, which usually are going to come down to "We can't fit everything", which people are not going to be happy with anyways Tongue

Obviously not, but something is better than nothing.

WeForgot

2015-10-15 08:32:42 am

Quote from kirbymastah:

Quote from MegaMasterX:

Quote from Mystery:

There are too many submissions and writing a rejection reason for each one would take up a significant amount of time.

I don't think that one-word rejections (which would be loads better than radio silence currently) would take more than seconds - if even that. A rejection of "Boring," "Unappealing," "Bad Submission," "Too Long," "Only watched 30 seconds out of 7 minutes, lol," or something in that realm isn't too much to ask. Even THAT would be considerably better than asking for a reason and possibly (most likely) getting swept under the rug.

You really think runners would be satisfied with one-word generic reject reasons? That's going to accomplish nothing and people are going to demand more reasons, which usually are going to come down to "We can't fit everything", which people are not going to be happy with anyways Tongue

I feel like silence is not the answer. Is it not enough that plenty of people here are rationally asking for answers? Sweeping all of this under the rug because some people would be less than stellar about it (which they already probably are) doesn't mean a lot of people wouldn't appreciate it. I know this sounds lofty but I don't see why people don't deserve an answer. This isn't about being a hippy feel good improvement, this is about being professional about your judging system and showing genuine integrity as a large scale event

[quote="kirbymastah"][quote="MegaMasterX"][quote="Mystery"]There are too many submissions and writing a rejection reason for each one would take up a significant amount of time.[/quote]

I don't think that one-word rejections (which would be loads better than radio silence currently) would take more than seconds - if even that.  A rejection of "Boring," "Unappealing," "Bad Submission," "Too Long," "Only watched 30 seconds out of 7 minutes, lol," or something in that realm isn't too much to ask.  Even [b]THAT[/b] would be considerably better than asking for a reason and possibly (most likely) getting swept under the rug.[/quote]

You really think runners would be satisfied with one-word generic reject reasons? That's going to accomplish nothing and people are going to demand more reasons, which usually are going to come down to "We can't fit everything", which people are not going to be happy with anyways :P[/quote]

I feel like silence is not the answer. Is it not enough that plenty of people here are rationally asking for answers? Sweeping all of this under the rug because some people would be less than stellar about it (which they already probably are) doesn't mean a lot of people wouldn't appreciate it. I know this sounds lofty but I don't see why people don't deserve an answer. This isn't about being a hippy feel good improvement, this is about being professional about your judging system and showing genuine integrity as a large scale event

Mystery

2015-10-15 08:48:17 am

Quote from MegaMasterX:

I don't think that one-word rejections (which would be loads better than radio silence currently) would take more than seconds - if even that. A rejection of "Boring," "Unappealing," "Bad Submission," "Too Long," "Only watched 30 seconds out of 7 minutes, lol," or something in that realm isn't too much to ask. Even THAT would be considerably better than asking for a reason and possibly (most likely) getting swept under the rug.

I agree that if it's integrated into the system where you just have to put a short description, or a few words next to the reject or accept button might work. Ultimately it's up to the organizers to take a stand in the question, though.

WeForgot

2015-10-15 08:53:20 am

Quote from Mystery:

Quote from MegaMasterX:

I don't think that one-word rejections (which would be loads better than radio silence currently) would take more than seconds - if even that. A rejection of "Boring," "Unappealing," "Bad Submission," "Too Long," "Only watched 30 seconds out of 7 minutes, lol," or something in that realm isn't too much to ask. Even THAT would be considerably better than asking for a reason and possibly (most likely) getting swept under the rug.

I agree that if it's integrated into the system where you just have to put a short description, or a few words next to the reject or accept button might work. Ultimately it's up to the organizers to take a stand in the question, though.

That seems pretty reasonable, although contact methods would be odd to integrate since there isn't currently a messaging system part of the GDQ website and not everyone would want their "reason" publicly visible. Definitely possible for next GDQ though. Very worth looking into!

[quote="Mystery"][quote="MegaMasterX"]I don't think that one-word rejections (which would be loads better than radio silence currently) would take more than seconds - if even that.  A rejection of "Boring," "Unappealing," "Bad Submission," "Too Long," "Only watched 30 seconds out of 7 minutes, lol," or something in that realm isn't too much to ask.  Even [b]THAT[/b] would be considerably better than asking for a reason and possibly (most likely) getting swept under the rug.[/quote]
I agree that if it's integrated into the system where you just have to put a short description, or a few words next to the reject or accept button might work. Ultimately it's up to the organizers to take a stand in the question, though.[/quote]
That seems pretty reasonable, although contact methods would be odd to integrate since there isn't currently a messaging system part of the GDQ website and not everyone would want their "reason" publicly visible. Definitely possible for next GDQ though. Very worth looking into!

Azurinel

2015-10-15 08:54:23 am

Well all one of you needs to do is convince them that it's a good idea to have someone listen in solely to create a list of rejection reasons and then actually volunteer to fill that role. And if you aren't capable of remaining unbiased in that role then stay clear because it will likely come back to bite you.

Cool Matty

2015-10-15 09:38:27 am

Crawlathon WR, get down on my level.

Here's the problem folks. A lot of rejections aren't because the game, the runner, or the run is bad. It's simply that other games fit better for that particular event. Breaking every game down with a reason is going to result in "it's just not a good fit" for a large chunk of them. And from what I've heard already from people, no one wants that as an explanation, they want details. But when you're given 1000 hours of rejects, sometimes its just a matter of being lucky.

Gildersneeze

Edit history:

Gildersneeze: 2015-10-15 09:40:15 am

2015-10-15 09:39:14 am

It's a 160 hour marathon with well over 1,000 hours of games submitted. Your game is statistically unlikely to make it no matter how you sell it, how much you love it or how long, short, beloved, hated, great, terrible, "a perfect fit for [block]," flashy glitch-filled, classic, new, popular, obscure, indie, AAA or any number of other adjectives it is.

I'd imagine the only games which are as close to a lock as it gets year after year are games which have a proven track record of raising a boatload of money through incentives (super metroid's save/kill the animals, for example).

Edit: yeah, what Matty said

MegaMasterX

Edit history:

MegaMasterX: 2015-10-15 09:49:09 am

2015-10-15 09:46:08 am

N1GP Tournament Organizer

Quote from Gildersneeze:

It's a 160 hour marathon with well over 1,000 hours of games submitted.

That's all well, good, and understood. It feels like a matter of favoritism to a specific genre, popular streamer, tried-and-true run to the public and attendees. Some instances of runs that are rejected are totally justified, but for things like MegaMan Battle Network 1, where Team BN's put dozens of hours into routing, RNG manip, and shaving time off the WR (An issue in the past) only to get considered for SGDQ 2015 and outright rejected for AGDQ2016 - there just FEELS like a disconnect.

Luck's all well and good, but I'm pretty sure there are games that have been submitted that have seen YEARS of rejections and it just seems like GDQ's taking a "What makes the most monayyyy" stance instead of a "What's actually interesting and fun" stance like it was in the beginning. I get that nobody wants to accept their entry was rejected, but when people know their submission wasn't even looked at by the GDQ staff or something that's been trying for a long time to get in - there's bound to be some ill will. As I'm sure GDQ staff and admin teams know.

Quote from Cool Matty:

Breaking every game down with a reason is going to result in "it's just not a good fit" for a large chunk of them.

I think this can be remedied with things like example templates of good submissions, GDQ themes (outrageous idea, possible logistical nightmare), and expectations of what GDQ's looking for.

My point is - the community feels like there isn't any sort of rhythm to acceptances or rejections. With no appeal process and a difficult justification request system, submitters are backed into a corner and discouraged from trying in the future.

Sorry for the rant.

[quote="Gildersneeze"]It's a 160 hour marathon with well over 1,000 hours of games submitted.[/quote]

That's all well, good, and understood. It feels like a matter of favoritism to a specific genre, popular streamer, tried-and-true run to the public and attendees.  Some instances of runs that are rejected are totally justified, but for things like MegaMan Battle Network 1, where Team BN's put dozens of hours into routing, RNG manip, and shaving time off the WR (An issue in the past) only to get considered for SGDQ 2015 and outright rejected for AGDQ2016 - there just FEELS like a disconnect.

Luck's all well and good, but I'm pretty sure there are games that have been submitted that have seen [b]YEARS[/b] of rejections and it just seems like GDQ's taking a "What makes the most monayyyy" stance instead of a "What's actually interesting and fun" stance like it was in the beginning. I get that nobody wants to accept their entry was rejected, but when people know their submission [u]wasn't even looked at by the GDQ staff[/u] or something that's been trying for a long time to get in - there's bound to be some ill will. As I'm sure GDQ staff and admin teams know.

[quote="Cool Matty"] Breaking every game down with a reason is going to result in "it's just not a good fit" for a large chunk of them.[/quote]

I think this can be remedied with things like example templates of good submissions, GDQ themes (outrageous idea, possible logistical nightmare), and expectations of what GDQ's looking for.

My point is - the community feels like there isn't any sort of rhythm to acceptances or rejections. With no appeal process and a difficult justification request system, submitters are backed into a corner and discouraged from trying in the future.

Sorry for the rant.

WeForgot

2015-10-15 09:46:24 am

Quote from Cool Matty:

Here's the problem folks. A lot of rejections aren't because the game, the runner, or the run is bad. It's simply that other games fit better for that particular event. Breaking every game down with a reason is going to result in "it's just not a good fit" for a large chunk of them. And from what I've heard already from people, no one wants that as an explanation, they want details. But when you're given 1000 hours of rejects, sometimes its just a matter of being lucky.

Are people that are requesting reasons getting responses in that case? I haven't talked to anyone about that, that seems fair enough though.
I also think people are deterred or even scared to ask on these forums since it seems like there are mostly negative reactions to trying to get answers (which maybe I am wrong about, just the general vibe I am getting. I am not trying to make a blanket statement, just trying to think through things)

WeForgot

2015-10-15 09:49:33 am

Quote from MegaMasterX:

Luck's all well and good, but I'm pretty sure there are games that have been submitted that have seen YEARS of rejections and it just seems like GDQ's taking a "What makes the most monayyyy" stance instead of a "What's actually interesting and fun" stance like it was in the beginning. I get that nobody wants to accept their entry was rejected, but when people know their submission wasn't even looked at by the GDQ staff or something that's been trying for a long time to get in - there's bound to be some ill will. As I'm sure GDQ staff and admin teams know.

My point is - the community feels like there isn't any sort of rhythm to acceptances or rejections. With no appeal process and a difficult justification request system, submitters are backed into a corner and discouraged from trying in the future.

Sorry for the rant.

I personally don't think that is fair to say. It IS a charity marathon and they are in the business of raising money for charities. Since they have the final say (and do have a lot of experience in this) I feel like they have reasons for what they do. The only thing I think that should be addressed is actually being vocal with people that have concerns about games being accepted/rejected, financials and overall management (although financials and management are better addressed after the marathon). Like I said, blanket statements are rough and should be avoided :/

[quote="MegaMasterX"]
Luck's all well and good, but I'm pretty sure there are games that have been submitted that have seen [b]YEARS[/b] of rejections and it just seems like GDQ's taking a "What makes the most monayyyy" stance instead of a "What's actually interesting and fun" stance like it was in the beginning. I get that nobody wants to accept their entry was rejected, but when people know their submission [u]wasn't even looked at by the GDQ staff[/u] or something that's been trying for a long time to get in - there's bound to be some ill will. As I'm sure GDQ staff and admin teams know.

My point is - the community feels like there isn't any sort of rhythm to acceptances or rejections. With no appeal process and a difficult justification request system, submitters are backed into a corner and discouraged from trying in the future.

Sorry for the rant.[/quote]
I personally don't think that is fair to say. It IS a charity marathon and they are in the business of raising money for charities. Since they have the final say (and do have a lot of experience in this) I feel like they have reasons for what they do. The only thing I think that should be addressed is actually being vocal with people that have concerns about games being accepted/rejected, financials and overall management (although financials and management are better addressed after the marathon). Like I said, blanket statements are rough and should be avoided :/

Antilles58

2015-10-15 09:50:14 am

#FailFish

Perhaps something that might help is a description of what you are looking for in submissions. More detailed criteria, for example - or better yet, an explanation of the process that you go through to make the decisions. This would just be one post or something that would cover all the games. Then everyone could just assume if they don't get in, it was for one of those reasons and at least know what the process was that led to rejection.

Beyond that though- GDQ is not a democracy, folks. It's a private organization that makes decisions in their best interests through a process they deem necessary. It's not about being fair, or representing a full picture of speedrunning at large. It's about putting on a show, and it's up to them to craft the specific show they want to see.

While I'm certain that they're grateful for all the interest and support they get every year, they really aren't under any obligation to share more details with us.

MegaMasterX

Edit history:

MegaMasterX: 2015-10-15 09:51:50 am

2015-10-15 09:51:41 am

N1GP Tournament Organizer

Quote from WeForgot:

blanket statements are rough and should be avoided

There's really no appropriate way to convey my opinion than laying out what I've noticed in public discussions both in and out of the SDA forums. If there were a more appropriate way to put my thoughts out there, I'd be more than willing to edit. I know that GDQ's not 'just in it for the money,' but some of the saltier of saltines may be thinking that. Sorry if it was conveyed as a bit heavy-handed, it wasn't intended that way.

Antilles58

2015-10-15 09:52:14 am

#FailFish

Quote from MegaMasterX:

Team BN's put dozens of hours into routing, RNG manip, and shaving time off the WR (An issue in the past)

Them and everyone else. Trolls aside, there isn't a single submission that doesn't feature hard work. Of course, all that work makes rejection harder, but work alone doesn't earn one a seat at the table.

MegaMasterX

Edit history:

MegaMasterX: 2015-10-15 09:55:53 am

MegaMasterX: 2015-10-15 09:55:15 am

2015-10-15 09:53:10 am

N1GP Tournament Organizer

Quote from Antilles58:

Quote from MegaMasterX:

Team BN's put dozens of hours into routing, RNG manip, and shaving time off the WR (An issue in the past)

Them and everyone else. Trolls aside, there isn't a single submission that doesn't feature hard work. Of course, all that work makes rejection harder, but work alone doesn't earn one a seat at the table.

That was an example case, one of many.

Quote from Antilles58:

While I'm certain that they're grateful for all the interest and support they get every year, they really aren't under any obligation to share more details with us.

They aren't, but it's awfully discouraging to those pouring their time and efforts into speed running and routing and could cause GDQ to lose really good potential runs. Especially if they're chain-rejected.

WeForgot

2015-10-15 09:54:18 am

Quote from Antilles58:

Perhaps something that might help is a description of what you are looking for in submissions. More detailed criteria, for example - or better yet, an explanation of the process that you go through to make the decisions. This would just be one post or something that would cover all the games. Then everyone could just assume if they don't get in, it was for one of those reasons and at least know what the process was that led to rejection.

Beyond that though- GDQ is not a democracy, folks. It's a private organization that makes decisions in their best interests through a process they deem necessary. It's not about being fair, or representing a full picture of speedrunning at large. It's about putting on a show, and it's up to them to craft the specific show they want to see.

While I'm certain that they're grateful for all the interest and support they get every year, they really aren't under any obligation to share more details with us.

That is very true, but it is more a matter of transparency. People want it and it is something that should be addressed. They are not obligated to do anything, but why have a forum for discussion if you are not open to improvements. This is more than appropriate, would be appreciated, and is not something that is unreasonable. They are a business in the market of raising money but that doesn't mean they should do everything without some sort of communication to the same people that make this event possible in the first place, the runners.

[quote="Antilles58"]Perhaps something that might help is a description of what you are looking for in submissions.  More detailed criteria, for example - or better yet, an explanation of the process that you go through to make the decisions.  This would just be one post or something that would cover all the games.  Then everyone could just assume if they don't get in, it was for one of those reasons and at least know what the process was that led to rejection.

Beyond that though- GDQ is not a democracy, folks.  It's a private organization that makes decisions in their best interests through a process they deem necessary.  It's not about being fair, or representing a full picture of speedrunning at large.  It's about putting on a show, and it's up to them to craft the specific show they want to see.

While I'm certain that they're grateful for all the interest and support they get every year, they really aren't under any obligation to share more details with us.[/quote]
That is very true, but it is more a matter of transparency. People want it and it is something that should be addressed. They are not obligated to do anything, but why have a forum for discussion if you are not open to improvements. This is more than appropriate, would be appreciated, and is not something that is unreasonable. They are a business in the market of raising money but that doesn't mean they [i]should[/i] do everything without some sort of communication to the same people that make this event possible in the first place, the runners.

Countneko

2015-10-15 09:54:41 am

Quote from Cool Matty:

Here's the problem folks. A lot of rejections aren't because the game, the runner, or the run is bad. It's simply that other games fit better for that particular event. Breaking every game down with a reason is going to result in "it's just not a good fit" for a large chunk of them. And from what I've heard already from people, no one wants that as an explanation, they want details. But when you're given 1000 hours of rejects, sometimes its just a matter of being lucky.

I think people want to know specifically want makes it a bad fit sometimes is all. It seems like there's particular factors involved that make a game good or bad for a 'GDQ, but it's not necessarily clear what they are sometimes. Is it mass appeal? Donations? Is the run a 'good watch'? Or some combination of those?

I can see how it might be frustrating to have a game rejected for years in a row because it doesn't meet a certain bar. It would be good for them to know if it's a 'not this year' type of rejection or a 'no, this game as it is now is a bad fit for the event period' rejection.

[quote="Cool Matty"]Here's the problem folks. A lot of rejections aren't because the game, the runner, or the run is bad. It's simply that other games fit better for that particular event. Breaking every game down with a reason is going to result in "it's just not a good fit" for a large chunk of them. And from what I've heard already from people, no one wants that as an explanation, they want details. But when you're given 1000 hours of rejects, sometimes its just a matter of being lucky.[/quote]

I think people want to know specifically want makes it a bad fit sometimes is all.  It seems like there's particular factors involved that make a game good or bad for a 'GDQ, but it's not necessarily clear what they are sometimes. Is it mass appeal? Donations? Is the run a 'good watch'? Or some combination of those?

I can see how it might be frustrating to have a game rejected for years in a row because it doesn't meet a certain bar. It would be good for them to know if it's a 'not this year' type of rejection or a 'no, this game as it is now is a bad fit for the event period' rejection.

Antilles58

2015-10-15 09:57:31 am

#FailFish

Quote from WeForgot:

That is very true, but it is more a matter of transparency. People want it and it is something that should be addressed. They are not obligated to do anything, but why have a forum for discussion if you are not open to improvements. This is more than appropriate, would be appreciated, and is not something that is unreasonable. They are a business in the market of raising money but that doesn't mean they should do everything without some sort of communication to the same people that make this event possible in the first place, the runners.

You're right, certainly. More transparency would be great. That's why I think my original suggestion might help. More understanding of the process may fill in some of the gaps - I think individual responses to all submissions is extremely unlikely.

And I'm not necessarily speaking against you specifically - you've been very civil and polite in everything i've read. Wink

WeForgot

2015-10-15 10:01:20 am

Quote from Antilles58:

Quote from WeForgot:

That is very true, but it is more a matter of transparency. People want it and it is something that should be addressed. They are not obligated to do anything, but why have a forum for discussion if you are not open to improvements. This is more than appropriate, would be appreciated, and is not something that is unreasonable. They are a business in the market of raising money but that doesn't mean they should do everything without some sort of communication to the same people that make this event possible in the first place, the runners.

You're right, certainly. More transparency would be great. That's why I think my original suggestion might help. More understanding of the process may fill in some of the gaps - I think individual responses to all submissions is extremely unlikely.

And I'm not necessarily speaking against you specifically - you've been very civil and polite in everything i've read. Wink

Thanks

Sorry if I came off like that, it was never my intention. I think this kind of discussion is pretty healthy (if done tactfully) and is something that was bound to come up eventually. Not a rant, more like growth of the marathon (no matter how it ends up) :3

[quote="Antilles58"][quote="WeForgot"]
That is very true, but it is more a matter of transparency. People want it and it is something that should be addressed. They are not obligated to do anything, but why have a forum for discussion if you are not open to improvements. This is more than appropriate, would be appreciated, and is not something that is unreasonable. They are a business in the market of raising money but that doesn't mean they [i]should[/i] do everything without some sort of communication to the same people that make this event possible in the first place, the runners.[/quote]

You're right, certainly.  More transparency would be great.  That's why I think my original suggestion might help.  More understanding of the process may fill in some of the gaps - I think individual responses to all submissions is extremely unlikely.

And I'm not necessarily speaking against you specifically - you've been very civil and polite in everything i've read. ;)[/quote]
Thanks :) Sorry if I came off like that, it was never my intention. I think this kind of discussion is pretty healthy (if done tactfully) and is something that was bound to come up eventually. Not a rant, more like growth of the marathon (no matter how it ends up) :3

Cool Matty

Edit history:

Cool Matty: 2015-10-15 10:18:51 am

2015-10-15 10:15:24 am

Crawlathon WR, get down on my level.

I think people didn't really understand what I was saying. I think we've been fairly clear about the selection process and what we expect from runners. Providing some canned response to every run isn't going to help those runners feel better about their rejection. Everyone wants their own explanation and critique of their submission, and there's just not enough time in the world for the committee to offer that to all the runners. Particularly when most of them aren't really needing a critique, it just wasn't a good fit. There's only so many ways you can say "we don't have a place for this run at this event", or "this game wouldn't go over well at the event". There may be absolutely nothing you can do to fix that submission. It may have been entirely out of your control.

Right now, we're sitting at over 400 hours of non-rejected runs. That's going to be pruned to something like 150. If you're not rejected right now, it's because the committee would really want to see that run. So then what reasoning do you use to pick the last 150 hours? How do you tell those people, "sorry, there just wasn't enough time"? So many cuts are going to boil down to just that.

If your run's been rejected year after year, I think Mike, with the committee, have been trying to give reasons for those. At least for people who don't already have reasons from previous events. But unless you've been cut a handful of times already, it's not necessarily you or your run/game.

If anyone has general questions on how to make a better submission, you can ask. Just know that even the perfect submission isn't necessarily going to get in.

I think people didn't really understand what I was saying. I think we've been fairly clear about the selection process and what we expect from runners. Providing some canned response to every run isn't going to help those runners feel better about their rejection. Everyone wants their own explanation and critique of their submission, and there's just not enough time in the world for the committee to offer that to all the runners. Particularly when most of them aren't really needing a critique, it just wasn't a good fit. There's only so many ways you can say "we don't have a place for this run at this event", or "this game wouldn't go over well at the event". There may be absolutely nothing you can do to fix that submission. It may have been entirely out of your control.

Right now, we're sitting at over 400 hours of non-rejected runs. That's going to be pruned to something like 150. If you're not rejected right now, it's because the committee would really want to see that run. So then what reasoning do you use to pick the last 150 hours? How do you tell those people, "sorry, there just wasn't enough time"? So many cuts are going to boil down to just that.

If your run's been rejected year after year, I think Mike, with the committee, have been trying to give reasons for those. At least for people who don't already have reasons from previous events. But unless you've been cut a handful of times already, it's not necessarily you or your run/game.

If anyone has general questions on how to make a better submission, you can ask. Just know that even the perfect submission isn't necessarily going to get in.

Antilles58

2015-10-15 10:22:44 am

#FailFish

Quote from Cool Matty:

I think we've been fairly clear about the selection process and what we expect from

You're right, I think the expectations are pretty clear. But is there a description of the process? Like what factors y'all consider when making the decision? Is there like a checklist you run down or something while considering runs? I haven't seen that anywhere. Or is it just more of a "gut feel" kind of thing?

WeForgot

2015-10-15 10:23:19 am

Quote from Cool Matty:

I think people didn't really understand what I was saying. I think we've been fairly clear about the selection process and what we expect from runners. Providing some canned response to every run isn't going to help those runners feel better about their rejection. Everyone wants their own explanation and critique of their submission, and there's just not enough time in the world for the committee to offer that to all the runners. Particularly when most of them aren't really needing a critique, it just wasn't a good fit. There's only so many ways you can say "we don't have a place for this run at this event", or "this game wouldn't go over well at the event". There may be absolutely nothing you can do to fix that submission. It may have been entirely out of your control.

Right now, we're sitting at over 400 hours of non-rejected runs. That's going to be pruned to something like 150. If you're not rejected right now, it's because the committee would really want to see that run. So then what reasoning do you use to pick the last 150 hours? How do you tell those people, "sorry, there just wasn't enough time"? So many cuts are going to boil down to just that.

If your run's been rejected year after year, I think Mike's been trying to give reasons for those. At least for people who don't already have reasons from previous events. But unless you've been cut a handful of times already, it's not necessarily you or your run/game.

If anyone has general questions on how to make a better submission, you can ask. Just know that even the perfect submission isn't necessarily going to get in.

It is pretty lofty, there are a lot of submissions (at the time of posting it is 1016 Shocked

). I guess what I am asking is can you provide any transparency. You can tell, from just this thread, that people are willing to civilly ask for reasons and while it is good to hear that some people are being addressed, is there any criteria for being told this? There are a lot of people wanting anything and knowing that some people are contacted while others are not is probably going to cause more trouble than providing answers as a whole. Is there a middle ground we can reach here? I don't believe that complete silence under the pretext of "this is the only way" is a good way to approach this. Thoughts? Undecided

[quote="Cool Matty"]I think people didn't really understand what I was saying. I think we've been fairly clear about the selection process and what we expect from runners. Providing some canned response to every run isn't going to help those runners feel better about their rejection. Everyone wants their own explanation and critique of their submission, and there's just not enough time in the world for the committee to offer that to all the runners. Particularly when most of them aren't really needing a critique, it just wasn't a good fit. There's only so many ways you can say "we don't have a place for this run at this event", or "this game wouldn't go over well at the event". There may be absolutely nothing you can do to fix that submission. It may have been entirely out of your control.

Right now, we're sitting at over 400 hours of non-rejected runs. That's going to be pruned to something like 150. If you're not rejected right now, it's because the committee would really want to see that run. So then what reasoning do you use to pick the last 150 hours? How do you tell those people, "sorry, there just wasn't enough time"? So many cuts are going to boil down to just that.

If your run's been rejected year after year, I think Mike's been trying to give reasons for those. At least for people who don't already have reasons from previous events. But unless you've been cut a handful of times already, it's not necessarily you or your run/game.

If anyone has general questions on how to make a better submission, you can ask. Just know that even the perfect submission isn't necessarily going to get in.
[/quote]
It is pretty lofty, there are a lot of submissions (at the time of posting it is 1016 :o ). I guess what I am asking is can you provide [i]any[/i] transparency. You can tell, from just this thread, that people are willing to civilly ask for reasons and while it is good to hear that some people are being addressed, is there any criteria for being told this? There are a lot of people wanting anything and knowing that some people are contacted while others are not is probably going to cause more trouble than providing answers as a whole. Is there a middle ground we can reach here? I don't believe that complete silence under the pretext of "this is the only way" is a good way to approach this. Thoughts? :-\