AGDQ 2016 Game Submissions Information (Submissions are now closed)

2015-10-19 12:10:45 pm

MoMo

Not my run, but wondering why Stacking didnt make it in. Dev commentary by DoubleFine is a big deal and I don't see why a decently short run + great commentary + great dev would get rejected.

danray2352

2015-10-19 12:25:36 pm

Hi,
For my runny egg submission it was supposed to link to this playlist of individual level speedruns https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLWTHeQGiIhOuoe_WzGc12m9XgVz_lwiiF rather than just the first level . I currently do not have a full single segment recording of a run of the game, partly due to the discomfort/difficulty in recording gameplay on my 2ds. I understand if not having a single segment results in the rejection of my submission. If this is the case i will instead focus on finding a better solution for recording and work on my submissions for next sgdq. Thanks.

Cool Matty

Edit history:

Cool Matty: 2015-10-19 01:03:35 pm

2015-10-19 01:02:19 pm

Crawlathon WR, get down on my level.

Quote from VB_srl:

I'd like to ask that you please reconsider Iji any%. Dismissing my run is worse because the time in the video is worse is indy accurate and wrong. My computer lags significantly when I record the game, which made me lose over 5 minutes into he recording. The video I provided is also of a no reset run with commentary, while Studio's is of his pb which makes the comparison even less fair.

My Pb in any% is only slightly off of his pacifist run, and the two categories are around the same length, so I don't think my vod being worse is grounds for a rejection.

My vod also had live commentary, which provides a better example of what the run would be like if I were to do it at a marathon.

Thanks,

-VB

If you haven't been able to upload a PB of your run anywhere, then it's fairly difficult to verify that you can actually get that time. Keep in mind there are alternative ways to capture games on PC (HDMI output to an Elgato, or something). Also, his pacifist PB IS better than your any% video-less PB you have listed on speedrun.com, so it's harder to accept yours knowing that.

[quote="VB_srl"]I'd like to ask that you please reconsider Iji any%. Dismissing  my run is worse because the time in the video is worse is indy accurate and wrong. My computer lags significantly when I record the game,  which made me lose over 5 minutes into he recording. The video I provided is also of a no reset run with commentary,  while Studio's is of his pb which makes the comparison even less fair.

My Pb in any% is only slightly off of his pacifist run,  and the two categories are around the same length,  so I don't think my vod being worse is grounds for a rejection.

My vod also had live commentary,  which provides a better example of what the run would be like if I were to do it at a marathon.

Thanks,

-VB [/quote]

If you haven't been able to upload a PB of your run anywhere, then it's fairly difficult to verify that you can actually get that time. Keep in mind there are alternative ways to capture games on PC (HDMI output to an Elgato, or something). Also, his pacifist PB IS better than your any% video-less PB you have listed on speedrun.com, so it's harder to accept yours knowing that.

VB_srl

2015-10-19 01:32:26 pm

Quote from Cool Matty:

Quote from VB_srl:

I'd like to ask that you please reconsider Iji any%. Dismissing my run is worse because the time in the video is worse is indy accurate and wrong. My computer lags significantly when I record the game, which made me lose over 5 minutes into he recording. The video I provided is also of a no reset run with commentary, while Studio's is of his pb which makes the comparison even less fair.

My Pb in any% is only slightly off of his pacifist run, and the two categories are around the same length, so I don't think my vod being worse is grounds for a rejection.

My vod also had live commentary, which provides a better example of what the run would be like if I were to do it at a marathon.

Thanks,

-VB

If you haven't been able to upload a PB of your run anywhere, then it's fairly difficult to verify that you can actually get that time. Keep in mind there are alternative ways to capture games on PC (HDMI output to an Elgato, or something). Also, his pacifist PB IS better than your any% video-less PB you have listed on speedrun.com, so it's harder to accept yours knowing that.

If I were to upload a better pb video today using a phone camera would it be possible any% could be considered? I really think any% should be in over pacifist and I'm going to do everything I can to try and make that happen.

[quote="Cool Matty"][quote="VB_srl"]I'd like to ask that you please reconsider Iji any%. Dismissing  my run is worse because the time in the video is worse is indy accurate and wrong. My computer lags significantly when I record the game,  which made me lose over 5 minutes into he recording. The video I provided is also of a no reset run with commentary,  while Studio's is of his pb which makes the comparison even less fair.

My Pb in any% is only slightly off of his pacifist run,  and the two categories are around the same length,  so I don't think my vod being worse is grounds for a rejection.

My vod also had live commentary,  which provides a better example of what the run would be like if I were to do it at a marathon.

Thanks,

-VB [/quote]

If you haven't been able to upload a PB of your run anywhere, then it's fairly difficult to verify that you can actually get that time. Keep in mind there are alternative ways to capture games on PC (HDMI output to an Elgato, or something). Also, his pacifist PB IS better than your any% video-less PB you have listed on speedrun.com, so it's harder to accept yours knowing that.[/quote]

If I were to upload a better pb video today using a phone camera would it be possible any% could be considered? I really think any% should be in over pacifist and I'm going to do everything I can to try and make that happen.

Cool Matty

2015-10-19 01:40:32 pm

Crawlathon WR, get down on my level.

Quote from VB_srl:

If I were to upload a better pb video today using a phone camera would it be possible any% could be considered? I really think any% should be in over pacifist and I'm going to do everything I can to try and make that happen.

Given that his slower category time is better than your unverified any% PB, no, there would be no point.

VB_srl

2015-10-19 02:32:38 pm

Quote from Cool Matty:

Quote from VB_srl:

If I were to upload a better pb video today using a phone camera would it be possible any% could be considered? I really think any% should be in over pacifist and I'm going to do everything I can to try and make that happen.

Given that his slower category time is better than your unverified any% PB, no, there would be no point.

Alright fair enough. If you want to show off pacifist, your loss.

New question, why was Knytt Stories rejected?

moofinmoofin

Edit history:

moofinmoofin: 2015-10-19 03:32:40 pm

moofinmoofin: 2015-10-19 03:31:21 pm

2015-10-19 03:29:32 pm

Snow Problem

All of these individual questions on the status of the individual submissions in this context would be much smoother if the review committee themselves gave brief reasoning on their own. Or if the criteria for what gets in was a consistent, publicized, guideline. That would remove questions of "flip-flopping" (Kirby 64). Situations like this, I feel, are important for everyone to know the reasoning behind, as this would inform future submissions. And sure, we don't live in an ideal world, but ANY clarification would be nice to prevent headaches from everyone later on (read: now). The problem of "flip-flopping" not only comes from lack of explanations that are public, punctual, and consistent, but also because we have no clue who made these decisions and thus have zero insight.

A perfectly reasonable idea for showing who is on the committee but to "protect" them, would be to tell their names, maybe even after the submissions are judged, so that a sense of credibility can be established, but keeping the individual opinions of each member and their comments anonymous. Its similar to the idea of multiple people throwing a switch to an electric chair, although only one of them is the real switch. (Bad metaphor I know.)

Also, on the subject of threats: plenty of people have received heinous threats for everything and anything. People have to judge things all the time too. By making the opinions ambiguous from each individual judge, it would indemnify the committee in a way.

Note that these particular problems have nothing to do with the status of the event itself. Plenty of people dig the event, and a lot of people want to see it succeed. The event is meant to be a force for good overall. This is just on the subject of the work people put in and what I believe they are owed.

Also, I know Cool Matty and Sumi are probably sick of all this, which is all the more reason to enlist the committee to assist in explanations as well as potentially have a larger volunteer staff to help mediate this.

I hope some efforts will be made to improve lines of communications and have less confusion and overall headaches. That's all dude.

All of these individual questions on the status of the individual submissions in this context would be much smoother if the review committee themselves  gave brief reasoning on their own. Or if the criteria for what gets in was a consistent, publicized, guideline. That would remove questions of "flip-flopping" (Kirby 64). Situations like this, I feel, are important for everyone to know the reasoning behind, as this would inform future submissions. And sure, we don't live in an ideal world, but ANY clarification would be nice to prevent headaches from everyone later on (read: now). The problem of "flip-flopping" not only comes from lack of explanations that are public, punctual, and consistent, but also because we have no clue who made these decisions and thus have zero insight.

A perfectly reasonable idea for showing who is on the committee but to "protect" them, would be to tell their names, maybe even after the submissions are judged, so that a sense of credibility can be established, but keeping the individual opinions of each member and their comments anonymous. Its similar to the idea of multiple people throwing a switch to an electric chair, although only one of them is the real switch. (Bad metaphor I know.)

Also, on the subject of threats: plenty of people have received heinous threats for everything and anything. People have to judge things all the time too. By making the opinions ambiguous from each individual judge, it would [i]indemnify[/i] the committee in a way.

Note that these particular problems have nothing to do with the status of the event itself. Plenty of people dig the event, and a lot of people want to see it succeed. The event is meant to be a force for good overall. This is just on the subject of the work people put in and what I believe they are owed.

Also, I know Cool Matty and Sumi are probably sick of all this, which is all the more reason to enlist the committee to assist in explanations as well as potentially have a larger volunteer staff to help mediate this.

I hope some efforts will be made to improve lines of communications and have less confusion and overall headaches. That's all dude.

Worn_Traveler

2015-10-19 04:00:13 pm

Formerly known as Skullboy

When did there start being a committee that chose the games? Last I knew, either Mike or Romscout had the final say on the games and that they went to certain people for advice when there was a run or game they weren't too familiar with. I'm sure that those people are probably the same since there has always been consistency (usually for the best with all respect) with the leadership and running of the GDQ's. Maybe I'm just a bit naive of things or no longer salty since I realized I could be more useful at the marathons in other ways than running a game but I don't think knowing who the committee/advisers are would solve anything in the long run. They are human just like us, they have lives that don't necessarily revolve around the marathon, and at this time they may be busy with just getting through the submissions list. I think there is a better way to handle some of this but I'll save that idea for the post-marathon thread.

I think it would help to remember that we have people submitting games from different "generations" of speedrunning and that can sometimes bring about a different mentality on what should be accepted and not. In the long run, I believe that the majority of us want a good strong marathon to raise money for charity. There's more than one way to do that and there's more than one ideal game list for it as well.

When did there start being a committee that chose the games? Last I knew, either Mike or Romscout had the final say on the games and that they went to certain people for advice when there was a run or game they weren't too familiar with. I'm sure that those people are probably the same since there has always been consistency (usually for the best with all respect) with the leadership and running of the GDQ's. Maybe I'm just a bit naive of things or no longer salty since I realized I could be more useful at the marathons in other ways than running a game but I don't think knowing who the committee/advisers are would solve anything in the long run. They are human just like us, they have lives that don't necessarily revolve around the marathon,  and at this time they may be busy with just getting through the submissions list. I think there is a better way to handle some of this but I'll save that idea for the post-marathon thread.

I think it would help to remember that we have people submitting games from different "generations" of speedrunning and that can sometimes bring about a different mentality on what should be accepted and not. In the long run, I believe that the majority of us want a good strong marathon to raise money for charity. There's more than one way to do that and there's more than one ideal game list for it as well.

ZanasoBayncuh

2015-10-19 04:23:33 pm

So... about my God Hand Easy NG run progressing, dunno who's idea it was to progress ONLY the most boring run of the three instead of making it a bidding war between categories so that NG+ KMS could rake in some money. If this remains as is go ahead and cancel my submission, everything as it's gone so far is a joke anyway.

BroBuzz

2015-10-19 04:27:16 pm

Apparently Gunman Clive got put on the waitlist after being rejected initially. You guys reconsider your decision? I don't mind at all, but it seems out of the blue since it was rejected last week.

Metowa

2015-10-19 04:32:16 pm

Quote from moofinmoofin:

A perfectly reasonable idea for showing who is on the committee but to "protect" them, would be to tell their names

Even if you don't like it and would rather put a face to your frustrations, I imagine people on the commity want to attend the event without experiencing antipathy from rejected runners.

Quote from moofinmoofin:

plenty of people have received heinous threats for everything and anything. People have to judge things all the time too.

[Death threats are not a big deal, come on guys, that's totally ok on the internet, grow a pair]
Some people can not deal with this type of behaviour, even if it is "just" on the internet. Also, you can never know how far this will go, some runners take rejections way too personal.

CriticalCyd

2015-10-19 04:35:45 pm

Quote from ZanasoBayncuh:

So... about my God Hand Easy NG run progressing, dunno who's idea it was to progress ONLY the most boring run of the three instead of making it a bidding war between categories so that NG+ KMS could rake in some money. If this remains as is go ahead and cancel my submission, everything as it's gone so far is a joke anyway.

As someone who only knows all 3 God Hand categories from a viewer perspective, never having even played the game, I definitely agree it should either be a bid war or either of the other 2 categories. NG+ offers a lot of variety in combat thanks to the moves available as well as some funny bonus outfits that would make good donation incentives and KMS adds a lot of extra challenge by removing the free damage and invulnerability from God Hand and Roulette usage. NG on the other hand almost entirely consists of kicking enemies against walls making it the least entertaining watch.

moofinmoofin

Edit history:

moofinmoofin: 2015-10-19 04:55:56 pm

moofinmoofin: 2015-10-19 04:55:44 pm

2015-10-19 04:55:01 pm

Snow Problem

Quote from Metowa:

Even if you don't like it and would rather put a face to your frustrations, I imagine people on the commity want to attend the event without experiencing antipathy from rejected runners.

[Death threats are not a big deal, come on guys, that's totally ok on the internet, grow a pair]
Some people can not deal with this type of behaviour, even if it is "just" on the internet. Also, you can never know how far this will go, some runners take rejections way too personal.

People getting upset and putting a face to frustrations is not the point. Sure some people will take it as that but I have given a solution that would not be specific in terms of who said what. It would be childish and unlikely to be upset with a large array of people, none of which you specifically know turned down your game. This is, of course, only looking at a negative and not the benefit of knowing who we are even trying to appeal to and impress in the first place. I mean, this is all a matter of opinion. Who's opinion?

I am glad you said what I did not in those brackets. I didn't imply that. I guess those are "not-quotes". A judge should understand a balance of influence. They have a say in who's work gets to be shown off on a large scale and who gets to assist in raising money for a great cause. It's a question of who gets that influence. This is not to have a Frankenstein's monster to point a pitchfork at, but to verify who is in the black box an who is saying yes or no. It's about honesty. I'm not advocating threats and my proposal would mean that you'd know who was behind the curtain, but not who made the call.

[quote="Metowa"]
Even if you don't like it and would rather put a face to your frustrations, I imagine people on the commity want to attend the event without experiencing antipathy from rejected runners.

[Death threats are not a big deal, come on guys, that's totally ok on the internet, grow a pair] 
Some people can not deal with this type of behaviour, even if it is "just" on the internet. Also, you can never know how far this will go, some runners take rejections way too personal.[/quote]

People getting upset and putting a face to frustrations is not the point. Sure some people will take it as that but I have given a solution that would not be specific in terms of who said what. It would be childish and unlikely to be upset with a large array of people, none of which you specifically know turned down your game. This is, of course, only looking at a negative and not the benefit of knowing who we are even trying to appeal to and impress in the first place. I mean, this [i]is[/i] all a matter of opinion. Who's opinion?

I am glad you said what I did not in those brackets. I didn't imply that. I guess those are "not-quotes". A judge should understand a balance of influence. They have a say in who's work gets to be shown off on a large scale and who gets  to assist in raising money for a great cause. It's a question of who gets that influence. This is not to have a Frankenstein's monster to point a pitchfork at, but to verify who is in the black box an who is saying yes or no. It's about honesty. I'm not advocating threats and my proposal would mean that you'd know who was behind the curtain, but not who made the call.

authorblues

2015-10-19 04:58:36 pm

I've submitted Wand of Gamelon twice, and I am just wondering if I could get some feedback on how to make the run more appealing for a marathon? I'm worried that it might be being seen as a joke submission, when in fact it is the submission I take the most seriously. The game is pretty complex, I feel like it appeals to people as sort of a "oh my god, I can't believe someone is playing that" entry, and a pretty easy donation incentive for the handful of cutscenes. I gave quite a generous estimate. Would lowering the estimates to 40 min and 45 min for any% and any% w/ cutscenes make it more well-received? Or is this just a goal I should abandon entirely?

Cool Matty

2015-10-19 08:51:24 pm

Crawlathon WR, get down on my level.

Quote from Worn_Traveler:

When did there start being a committee that chose the games? Last I knew, either Mike or Romscout had the final say on the games and that they went to certain people for advice when there was a run or game they weren't too familiar with. I'm sure that those people are probably the same since there has always been consistency (usually for the best with all respect) with the leadership and running of the GDQ's. Maybe I'm just a bit naive of things or no longer salty since I realized I could be more useful at the marathons in other ways than running a game but I don't think knowing who the committee/advisers are would solve anything in the long run. They are human just like us, they have lives that don't necessarily revolve around the marathon, and at this time they may be busy with just getting through the submissions list. I think there is a better way to handle some of this but I'll save that idea for the post-marathon thread.

I think it would help to remember that we have people submitting games from different "generations" of speedrunning and that can sometimes bring about a different mentality on what should be accepted and not. In the long run, I believe that the majority of us want a good strong marathon to raise money for charity. There's more than one way to do that and there's more than one ideal game list for it as well.

Mike does make the final call. The committee has assisted him and romscout for ... a long time. Multiple years at least.

[quote="Worn_Traveler"]When did there start being a committee that chose the games? Last I knew, either Mike or Romscout had the final say on the games and that they went to certain people for advice when there was a run or game they weren't too familiar with. I'm sure that those people are probably the same since there has always been consistency (usually for the best with all respect) with the leadership and running of the GDQ's. Maybe I'm just a bit naive of things or no longer salty since I realized I could be more useful at the marathons in other ways than running a game but I don't think knowing who the committee/advisers are would solve anything in the long run. They are human just like us, they have lives that don't necessarily revolve around the marathon,  and at this time they may be busy with just getting through the submissions list. I think there is a better way to handle some of this but I'll save that idea for the post-marathon thread.

I think it would help to remember that we have people submitting games from different "generations" of speedrunning and that can sometimes bring about a different mentality on what should be accepted and not. In the long run, I believe that the majority of us want a good strong marathon to raise money for charity. There's more than one way to do that and there's more than one ideal game list for it as well. [/quote]

Mike does make the final call. The committee has assisted him and romscout for ... a long time. Multiple years at least.

Mr. Kelly R. Flewin

2015-10-19 09:22:28 pm

Learning to Stream

This is just my personal thoughts on things and not any "official" statement, or to be construed or taken as such.

To anyone who goes on and Pshaws the whole "threats" issue against a committee if their names are acknowledged... and for those who say it wouldn't happen at an event with lots of people? Um yeah... I can attest to that not being true. During my tenure with another organization to whom I will not acknowledge [Lots of reasons]... at events I and then colleagues attended... that shit happened... A LOT! "How dare you reject my submission!", "I Hope you rot in hell!" "I know you DQ'd me because you're friends with the person who beat my score so they would have 0 issues!"

And so forth. There were even instances where a few people were outright removed from the event or specifically requested to NOT attend [and most ignored that and were removed and they got even more upset because they spent the money to get there... even though they were told if they showed up and spouted off or acted their threats and thoughts out, they would be removed.]

It isn't exactly as public knowledge of the whom and what... in a sense kind of fortunately.. in another, unfortunately...

Believe me. I won't even get into the PRIVATE stuff that occurred. And I mean sure, some of it got hashed out in the end and stuff chilled... but even then some just will not accept "No" for an answer.

You could write out the most eloquent passage of words in recorded history with the most positive and understanding meaning, and it still will NOT be enough for some people, because you told them No. [Or some iteration]

You're in the public on something like this and you will inevitably become a target by someone. You will never be knowledgeable enough, you will never have a good enough eye, not good enough judgement, be accused of bias, be accused of taking a payoff, have your own personal agenda.... even when NONE of this is true. You can unwittingly become the target of salt so thick, it could cover the universe and still have something left in the shaker.

Now, the flipside, you can get a lot of thanks and positivity and understanding and cool people who will understand...

Hell, it doesn't matter who you'd have on the committee, and this shit would happen.

And I totally understand the desire to keep things anonymous. This isn't a court of law where you see the jury, but don't know how they voted... it's a bit safer. But this is the internet, where it doesn't matter what you do, someone will hate you for no logical reason whatsoever. [Or for logical reasons... but you get the point]

Oh sure, the salt could be thick all along the internet and when someone comes offline, you find out it was just more words than anything, and they are totally chill. But for those select few who take it offline as they did online... it does become a concern.

These fine folk are only trying to do the job provided to the best of their availabilities to help support an event that does a lot of good. Not looking for potential issues to come forth if they attend. [And yes, likelihood is slim... but still... it only takes one incident to change a life [or lives]]

In regards to the lack of reasons and explanations to all rejections... cookie cutter answers will only do so much... and if you're not even on a certain platform to which someone is only available on, that takes even more time to setup and register... or find someone who is who can do so for you... and if they have time with their own tasks and lives. And if you need to elaborate even further than a cookie cutter answer, then it takes even more time... and even more time beyond that if someone continues to want more answers. Sure in the end it may end up working out and new found clarity may emerge... but at that point, how much time has trangressed and how much has been missed during this chain of events.

It sure as hell is NOT easy, and believe me, I've had to write a LOT of these kind of notes during my time. Granted I was a rare one who at certain points dealt with insomnia, so the middle of the night worked best for me and I was able to pour out more... but not everyone is like that.

Does it suck? Oh HELL Yeah! Can it change? Sure... add even MORE people to the committee... but then it begins to be a grouping of subcommittees with tasks like writing these letters and even more heads to count... and with even more people comes further unintentional miscommunications and other unintended bouts of chaos, and can spiral an innocent misunderstanding or mis sent note/email/comment way out of control.

The system isn't perfect, but then it never will be. As things get even more popular, it's going to be even MORE insane to keep up with the demand. And then people will demand it be extended to 2 weeks for submissions so there's proper time for rejection notices and better understanding, which will lead to even MORE people trying to submit and ballooning the hours of submissions even more and bringing us right back full circle to where we started.

Even trying to make it 2 weeks with 1 week being a cool down period and a chance to craft proper notices and figure things more accurately, shit's still going to hit the fan hard. People will then start complaining "So and so used the extra time so they could grease someone elses palm" or "So and so tried to suck up during the down week so they'd get preferential treatment."

It isn't perfect... there will be changes and tweaks as everyone learns from event to event and tries to improve... but realize... it ain't perfect right now and no one's ever said it. It's just a bunch of humans doing their best.

TLDR; I guess it can be ultimately summed up as "You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time."

This is just my personal thoughts on things and not any "official" statement, or to be construed or taken as such.

To anyone who goes on and Pshaws the whole "threats" issue against a committee if their names are acknowledged... and for those who say it wouldn't happen at an event with lots of people? Um yeah... I can attest to that not being true. During my tenure with another organization to whom I will not acknowledge [Lots of reasons]... at events I and then colleagues attended... that shit happened... A LOT! "How dare you reject my submission!", "I Hope you rot in hell!" "I know you DQ'd me because you're friends with the person who beat my score so they would have 0 issues!"

And so forth. There were even instances where a few people were outright removed from the event or specifically requested to NOT attend [and most ignored that and were removed and they got even more upset because they spent the money to get there... even though they were told if they showed up and spouted off or acted their threats and thoughts out, they would be removed.]

It isn't exactly as public knowledge of the whom and what... in a sense kind of fortunately.. in another, unfortunately...

Believe me. I won't even get into the PRIVATE stuff that occurred. And I mean sure, some of it got hashed out in the end and stuff chilled... but even then some just will not accept "No" for an answer.

You could write out the most eloquent passage of words in recorded history with the most positive and understanding meaning, and it still will NOT be enough for some people, because you told them No. [Or some iteration]

You're in the public on something like this and you will inevitably become a target by someone. You will never be knowledgeable enough, you will never have a good enough eye, not good enough judgement, be accused of bias, be accused of taking a payoff, have your own personal agenda.... even when NONE of this is true. You can unwittingly become the target of salt so thick, it could cover the universe and still have something left in the shaker.

Now, the flipside, you can get a lot of thanks and positivity and understanding and cool people who will understand...

Hell, it doesn't matter who you'd have on the committee, and this shit would happen.

And I totally understand the desire to keep things anonymous. This isn't a court of law where you see the jury, but don't know how they voted... it's a bit safer. But this is the internet, where it doesn't matter what you do, someone will hate you for no logical reason whatsoever. [Or for logical reasons... but you get the point]

Oh sure, the salt could be thick all along the internet and when someone comes offline, you find out it was just more words than anything, and they are totally chill. But for those select few who take it offline as they did online... it does become a concern.

These fine folk are only trying to do the job provided to the best of their availabilities to help support an event that does a lot of good. Not looking for potential issues to come forth if they attend. [And yes, likelihood is slim... but still... it only takes one incident to change a life [or lives]]

In regards to the lack of reasons and explanations to all rejections... cookie cutter answers will only do so much... and if you're not even on a certain platform to which someone is only available on, that takes even more time to setup and register... or find someone who is who can do so for you... and if they have time with their own tasks and lives. And if you need to elaborate even further than a cookie cutter answer, then it takes even more time... and even more time beyond that if someone continues to want more answers. Sure in the end it may end up working out and new found clarity may emerge... but at that point, how much time has trangressed and how much has been missed during this chain of events.

It sure as hell is NOT easy, and believe me, I've had to write a LOT of these kind of notes during my time. Granted I was a rare one who at certain points dealt with insomnia, so the middle of the night worked best for me and I was able to pour out more... but not everyone is like that.

Does it suck? Oh HELL Yeah! Can it change? Sure... add even MORE people to the committee... but then it begins to be a grouping of subcommittees with tasks like writing these letters and even more heads to count... and with even more people comes further unintentional miscommunications and other unintended bouts of chaos, and can spiral an innocent misunderstanding or mis sent note/email/comment way out of control.

The system isn't perfect, but then it never will be. As things get even more popular, it's going to be even MORE insane to keep up with the demand. And then people will demand it be extended to 2 weeks for submissions so there's proper time for rejection notices and better understanding, which will lead to even MORE people trying to submit and ballooning the hours of submissions even more and bringing us right back full circle to where we started.

Even trying to make it 2 weeks with 1 week being a cool down period and a chance to craft proper notices and figure things more accurately, shit's still going to hit the fan hard. People will then start complaining "So and so used the extra time so they could grease someone elses palm" or "So and so tried to suck up during the down week so they'd get preferential treatment."

It isn't perfect... there will be changes and tweaks as everyone learns from event to event and tries to improve... but realize... it ain't perfect right now and no one's ever said it. It's just a bunch of humans doing their best.

TLDR; I guess it can be ultimately summed up as "You can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time."

BroBuzz

2015-10-19 09:30:54 pm

Quote from Mr. Kelly R. Flewin:

snip

You wrote a whole bunch without really saying anything.

Nosraef

2015-10-19 09:37:19 pm

>It isn't exactly as public knowledge of the whom and what... in a sense kind of fortunately.. in another, unfortunately...

Mr_Shasta

2015-10-19 09:44:21 pm

I feel like people can study this giant wall of text like hieroglyphics for years and still not understand what's trying to be said here. I'm sorry lol

moofinmoofin

2015-10-19 09:50:04 pm

Snow Problem

Quote from Mr. Kelly R. Flewin:

[A great american novel] "..."

Wow that was annoying to read. You've said basically nothing that actually talks about the subject at hand. The threats thing is something I just talked about and why it's effects would be minimal to none at all, and no one is "Pshaw"-ing a threat. And the petty examples would not make any sense if we received notes from the committee. And if they were being obnoxious, it would fall under the current gray area where conduct can get you denied entry, save for the fact that it would actually make sense if a threat or if bitching happens. Who cares if they don't get the word "no"? It's a privately run marathon.

Even cookie cutter answers are better than nothing. Just being more clear is nice in general. At any one of the steps in the clarification and communication, but this is at the start of it all. Step one. The submissions.

The last part spirals and rambles into the fact that there is going to be flaws. Sure, but we should try to fix this relatively simple to fix issue. Most people wouldn't mind another week or so just to get some clarification. This would better marathons going forward.

Man that was a headache.

[quote="Mr. Kelly R. Flewin"][A great american novel] "..."[/quote]

Wow that was annoying to read. You've said basically nothing that actually talks about the subject at hand. The threats thing is something I just talked about and why it's effects would be minimal to none at all, and no one is "Pshaw"-ing a threat. And the petty examples would not make any sense if we received notes from the committee. And if they were being obnoxious, it would fall under the current gray area where conduct can get you denied entry, save for the fact that it would actually make sense if a threat or if bitching happens. Who cares if they don't get the word "no"? It's a privately run marathon.

Even cookie cutter answers are better than nothing. Just being more clear is nice in general. At any one of the steps in the clarification and communication, but this is at the start of it all. Step one. The submissions.

The last part spirals and rambles into the fact that there is going to be flaws. Sure, but we should try to fix this relatively simple to fix issue. Most people wouldn't mind another week or so just to get some clarification. This would better marathons going forward.

Man that was a headache.

PvtCb

2015-10-19 09:50:45 pm

This is not the giant

Kelly, by chance are you anywhere on the autism spectrum? I'm autistic and sometimes have issues communicating myself clearly

MarkSoupial

2015-10-19 10:00:24 pm

~_~

I've come before you to resolve this attack on our sovereignty now! I was not elected to watch my people suffer and die while you discuss this invasion in a committee! If this body is not capable of action, I suggest new leadership is needed. I move for a vote of no confidence in Chancellor Valorum's leadership.

BubblesDelFuego

2015-10-19 10:02:38 pm

That's "Mr." Speedrunner, to you

This is just my personal thoughts on things and not any "official" statement, or to be construed or taken as such.

With that said, I think we should all proceed and do what is best for those who do things when they want to do things that are best for those who do things.

Thank you.

PJ

2015-10-19 10:13:51 pm

Is PJ

I agree with Kelly.

If you don't understand his post, you're missing the point.

MURPHAGATOR!

2015-10-19 10:16:46 pm

Terraffirmative!

So I'm gonna put the line in the sand here, if you resort to personal insults here you are not going to be welcome in the discussion.