An Open Letter to the GDQ community

2015-12-01 10:22:46 am

Is that really that much of a problem? If you don't misbehave, which 99% of people don't, then you won't get banned from anywhere.
If it happens due to mistakes, I can understand, though.

puwexil

2015-12-01 10:36:20 am

Professional Second Banana

I can only think of 1 instance in the past 2 years where someone was banned from SDA Forums for something unrelated to the GDQ threads.

Reed

2015-12-01 10:51:31 pm

@tiburonCS

Quote from NiL8r:

I also think the GDQ sub-forum just needs to be it's own entire forum (possibly tied to the GDQ website?). I love SDA, and I enjoy browsing the forum even if I don't do it much, but GDQ has become so much of it's own entity it needs to have a forum with it's own site, moderators, etc., simply for the sake of streamlining.

super obvious move tbh, gamesdonequick.com should host all GDQ content and SDA should be SDA. separate the two functions

Sephazon

Edit history:

Sephazon: 2015-12-02 02:39:20 am

Sephazon: 2015-12-02 02:29:35 am

2015-12-02 02:27:42 am

Quote from NiL8r:

I also think the GDQ sub-forum just needs to be it's own entire forum (possibly tied to the GDQ website?). I love SDA, and I enjoy browsing the forum even if I don't do it much, but GDQ has become so much of it's own entity it needs to have a forum with it's own site, moderators, etc., simply for the sake of streamlining.

I completely agree. I was actually surprised when I discovered that this was not the case.
The benefits of having one general GDQ "hub" website:
1. Giving and receiving feedback would become easier.
2. The whole organization would become easier to manage (one area instead of multiple locations).
3. Working with a GDQ-centric community would assist in making community management and communication more streamlined.

Cons:
1. Hosting costs.
2. New development and management.
3. Potentially lose traffic and brand knowledge by leaving SDA.

Quote from VeritasDL:

If we (GDQ) continue to have issues with things like PR etc why don't we (GDQ) hire qualified people or give more qualified people the proverbial reins so to speak?

Somebody who works in gaming content marketing and communication here. First off, I want to start by saying I respect the staff of GDQ and Cool Matty for even taking the time to admit mistakes and create a thread such as this to understand issues. However, there is still much more that needs to be done.

This is what I believe needs to be done:

1. Fix internal communication issues.
• If something does not meet a deadline, find out why immediately, fix it (and understand how to avoid it in the future) and, if necessary, share it with the community.

2. Fix the feedback process.
• If something is broke, GDQ needs to know how to fix it immediately. People cannot hold onto their ideas for two weeks. By this time, they may have forgotten or lost interest. This hurts everybody involved.

3. Fix public communication issues.
• It may not be “the job of GDQ” to contact people to register if their games are confirmed or if something breaks, but you must understand potential backlash that comes with not doing so (spoiler: it is never worth it).

4. Create a new foundation for public relations and communication.
• There needs to be a permanent and simple channel for people to state their complaints, ideas and recommendations which can then be spread efficiently to relevant GDQ staff. Staff can continue do their jobs effectively and receive only information relevant to their field.

These are just a few immediate staff solutions available and the pros/cons that come with them:

1. Create a new volunteer team headed by a current staff member.
Pros:
• A new staff member would not need to be hired and trained.
• This would not complicate the current staff organization structure.
Cons:
• With current communication and organization issues, this could get disorganized quickly.
• May cause even more issues due to volunteers unfamiliar with PR in the first place.
• Does not make a clear representative for public relations and feedback.

2. Make a current staff member in charge of future PR and communications.
Pros:
• A new staff member would not need to be hired and trained.
• Somebody already familiar with the GDQ organization structure could manage communication a bit easier in a familiar environment.
Cons:
• Everybody on the GDQ staff already has a lot to work on and giving them more responsibilities would thin them out even more.
• Staff may not necessarily be knowledgeable and/or coherent to handle PR and communication.

3. The final solution is to simply hire somebody knowledgeable in public relations and communication.
Pros:
• GDQ would have a skilled person to handle public organization and communication channels.
• A staff member would be available to work on feedback from the community and discuss issue/solutions without having to publically involve the rest of the staff in the process.
Cons:
• A new staff member would need to be hired and trained.
• This would complicate the current staff organization structure.

[quote="NiL8r"]I also think the GDQ sub-forum just needs to be it's own entire forum (possibly tied to the GDQ website?).  I love SDA, and I enjoy browsing the forum even if I don't do it much, but GDQ has become so much of it's own entity it needs to have a forum with it's own site, moderators, etc., simply for the sake of streamlining.[/quote]

I completely agree. I was actually surprised when I discovered that this was not the case.
The benefits of having one general GDQ "hub" website:
1. Giving and receiving feedback would become easier.
2. The whole organization would become easier to manage (one area instead of multiple locations).
3. Working with a GDQ-centric community would assist in making community management and communication more streamlined.

Cons:
1. Hosting costs.
2. New development and management.
3. [u]Potentially[/u] lose traffic and brand knowledge by leaving SDA.

[quote="VeritasDL"]If we (GDQ) continue to have issues with things like PR etc why don't we (GDQ) hire qualified people or give more qualified people the proverbial reins so to speak?[/quote]

Somebody who works in gaming content marketing and communication here. First off, I want to start by saying I respect the staff of GDQ and Cool Matty for even taking the time to admit mistakes and create a thread such as this to understand issues. However, there is still much more that needs to be done.

This is what I believe needs to be done:

1. Fix internal communication issues.
• If something does not meet a deadline, find out why immediately, fix it (and understand how to avoid it in the future) and, if necessary, share it with the community.

2. Fix the feedback process.
• If something is broke, GDQ needs to know how to fix it immediately. People cannot hold onto their ideas for two weeks. By this time, they may have forgotten or lost interest. This hurts everybody involved.

3. Fix public communication issues.
• It may not be “the job of GDQ” to contact people to register if their games are confirmed or if something breaks, but you must understand potential backlash that comes with not doing so (spoiler: it is never worth it).

4. Create a new foundation for public relations and communication.
• There needs to be a permanent and simple channel for people to state their complaints, ideas and recommendations which can then be spread efficiently to relevant GDQ staff. Staff can continue do their jobs effectively and receive only information relevant to their field.

These are just a few immediate staff solutions available and the pros/cons that come with them:

1. Create a new volunteer team headed by a current staff member.
Pros:
• A new staff member would not need to be hired and trained.
• This would not complicate the current staff organization structure.
Cons:
• With current communication and organization issues, this could get disorganized quickly.
• May cause even more issues due to volunteers unfamiliar with PR in the first place.
• Does not make a clear representative for public relations and feedback.

2. Make a current staff member in charge of future PR and communications.
Pros:
• A new staff member would not need to be hired and trained.
• Somebody already familiar with the GDQ organization structure could manage communication a bit easier in a familiar environment.
Cons:
• Everybody on the GDQ staff already has a lot to work on and giving them more responsibilities would thin them out even more.
• Staff may not necessarily be knowledgeable and/or coherent to handle PR and communication.

3. The final solution is to simply hire somebody knowledgeable in public relations and communication.
Pros:
• GDQ would have a skilled person to handle public organization and communication channels.
• A staff member would be available to work on feedback from the community and discuss issue/solutions without having to publically involve the rest of the staff in the process.
Cons:
• A new staff member would need to be hired and trained.
• This would complicate the current staff organization structure.

dwangoAC

2015-12-02 09:37:19 am

Keeper of TASBot

I'm honestly also in favor of creating a forum system directly at the official website for GDQ-related discussions just to make everything clean, but I think this discussion should probably be taken up in a dedicated thread posted after AGDQ 2016 concludes but before SGDQ 2016 is looming.

Worn_Traveler

Edit history:

Worn_Traveler: 2015-12-02 09:56:15 am

Worn_Traveler: 2015-12-02 09:55:58 am

2015-12-02 09:55:18 am

Formerly known as Skullboy

I'd prefer to see the GDQ forum stay here, but then, I'm usually logged in and checking the SDA forum everyday so I'm a bit biased.

For those wanting to see the two week wait period gone: It's there for a reason. Staff and attendees are physically and mentally spent after the marathons. Those two weeks give them time to address issues amongst themselves, some of which are the same thing brought up in an immediate feedback thread. Also, two weeks gives those giving feedback time to give out substantial feedback and not just "I liked this" or "I didn't like this". Finally, the staff are human like the rest of us and they have families, non GDQ jobs, etc that they need to get back to. Two weeks is not a long time.

JaggerG

2015-12-04 06:57:50 pm

Jumping Turtle

I totally agree on the delayed feedback threads. Additionally, people are so emotionally drained after marathons that feedback is greatly exaggerated. People get furious over little things, and thrilled/blinded in the moment. I'm certainly no exception, especially since I check out multiple long marathons every summer.

Re: forum move, As much as I like to cling to the olden days of this being an SDA event, itis so much bigger that it deserves an entire forum dedicated to all aspects of it. The subforum clutter is a common complaint each event. I imagine nate and arkarian probably don't mind donating a Taiga to the cause, possibly even assist in the move.

Re: staffing, I doubt firing everyone and hiring completely different folk is any better. I've had a job that had a constant makeover to its temp agency, so every year the hiring and raises got handled by trainees trying to make good on the ex-agency's promises. Decent employees, completely haphazard communication. It's better to train someone over time than to just drop them into it (in a sense, that kind of happened in this case).

I totally agree on the delayed feedback threads. Additionally, people are so emotionally drained after marathons that feedback is greatly exaggerated. People get furious over little things, and thrilled/blinded in the moment. I'm certainly no exception, especially since I check out multiple long marathons every summer.

Re: forum move, As much as I like to cling to the olden days of this being an SDA event, itis so much bigger that it deserves an entire forum dedicated to all aspects of it. The subforum clutter is a common complaint each event. I imagine nate and arkarian probably don't mind donating a Taiga to the cause, possibly even assist in the move.

Re: staffing, I doubt firing everyone and hiring completely different folk is any better. I've had a job that had a constant makeover to its temp agency, so every year the hiring and raises got handled by trainees trying to make good on the ex-agency's promises. Decent employees, completely haphazard communication. It's better to train someone over time than to just drop them into it (in a sense, that kind of happened in this case).

JaggerG

2015-12-04 07:06:48 pm

Jumping Turtle

In a record attempt, you hope for the best luck, and the run hinges on it. In a marathon, you have to have backup plans to make it reliably safe. It's really hard if your backup plan just isn't ready in a time you really need it.

Casusby

Edit history:

Casusby: 2015-12-08 10:11:02 am

Casusby: 2015-12-08 09:56:48 am

2015-12-08 09:46:35 am

Hello, as of the time of this post, the schedule has not been updated to reflect the drops that were reported around 2 weeks ago now. While I had no expectations for any changes to occur over the US thanksgiving holiday, that has long since past. With the condensed timeline this marathon has had to deal with, I think it would have been imperative to let anyone know if they were being put in the marathon asap so they could have as much time to prepare as possible. Given how busy people can potentially be during December with the holidays, letting them know they need to schedule at least some of their free time to practice is a courtesy I think people deserve. To expect everyone who is on the huge wait list to have assumed they'd be making it in and acting like so is unreasonable.

It's another example of the underlying issues with GDQ as they are now. I do not believe this is a problem with communicating the changes to the public but the committee itself. I assume the committee hasn't made their decisions and thus staff have nothing to report to us. While I realize how poorly it looks on GDQ as a whole and the committee in particular if a spokesperson has to report that the committee still has not made any decisions regarding drops/replacements, that information should still be reported in fairness to everyone involved. If this assumption is wrong then there are more serious issues still plaguing communication of information, but I suspect I am right.

The clandestine nature of how the committee operates simply can not continue. More than ever they feel separated from the community, and while I understand the committee might not want to reveal who they are, being completely silent is unsustainable. Are people going to disagree with decisions? Sure. Nobody is expecting everyone to be 100% pleased with what is chosen, however explaining their position on certain things in an open way to the community, even if it's just using a "GDQ Games Committee" forum account to lay out all their reasoning, would do wonders. This is has many benefits from answering lingering questions to allowing for real feedback on decisions made and maybe even improving them! Will this increase their workload? Yes. It will. But is it worth it? I believe so. Any future construction of the games committee needs to be expansive enough not only to give real consideration of submissions but also to communicate decisions.

To be quite honest, it's unfair for matty or sumi or anyone else to be their mouthpiece while taking in all the garbage that gets thrown at them. As more and more people submit games to GDQ, more rejections need to happen, with demands for reasons. Yes, you can continue to throw PR people into the fire and act as messengers, hoping they can pull answers from the committee on every single request they get, but burn out is a very real danger and frankly is a disgraceful way to treat fellow members of staff.

There needs to be real changes in how the higher leadership of this organization operates, in particular the committee. I feel like unless serious restructuring and even replacement of people who simply do not have the time to put in more and more work as is needed now and in the future, things will simply continue as they have been. If that happens, of course this GDQ and several more will operate just fine, things will get done eventually and the marathon will happen to great financial success for the charities, but dissent will continue to grow. Knowing that the process is flawed despite great results is one thing, being willing to change that process is another. I hope that change happens.

Hello, as of the time of this post, the schedule has not been updated to reflect the drops that were reported around 2 weeks ago now. While I had no expectations for any changes to occur over the US thanksgiving holiday, that has long since past. With the condensed timeline this marathon has had to deal with, I think it would have been imperative to let anyone know if they were being put in the marathon asap so they could have as much time to prepare as possible. Given how busy people can potentially be during December with the holidays, letting them know they need to schedule at least some of their free time to practice is a courtesy I think people deserve. To expect everyone who is on the huge wait list to have assumed they'd be making it in and acting like so is unreasonable.

It's another example of the underlying issues with GDQ as they are now. I do not believe this is a problem with communicating the changes to the public but the committee itself. I assume the committee hasn't made their decisions and thus staff have nothing to report to us. While I realize how poorly it looks on GDQ as a whole and the committee in particular if a spokesperson has to report that the committee still has not made any decisions regarding drops/replacements, that information should still be reported in fairness to everyone involved. If this assumption is wrong then there are more serious issues still plaguing communication of information, but I suspect I am right.

The clandestine nature of how the committee operates simply can not continue. More than ever they feel separated from the community, and while I understand the committee might not want to reveal who they are, being completely silent is unsustainable. Are people going to disagree with decisions? Sure. Nobody is expecting everyone to be 100% pleased with what is chosen, however explaining their position on certain things in an open way to the community, even if it's just using a "GDQ Games Committee" forum account to lay out all their reasoning, would do wonders. This is has many benefits from answering lingering questions to allowing for real feedback on decisions made and maybe even improving them! Will this increase their workload? Yes. It will. But is it worth it? I believe so. Any future construction of the games committee needs to be expansive enough not only to give real consideration of submissions but also to communicate decisions.

To be quite honest, it's unfair for matty or sumi or anyone else to be their mouthpiece while taking in all the garbage that gets thrown at them. As more and more people submit games to GDQ, more rejections need to happen, with demands for reasons. Yes, you can continue to throw PR people into the fire and act as messengers, hoping they can pull answers from the committee on every single request they get, but burn out is a very real danger and frankly is a disgraceful way to treat fellow members of staff.

There needs to be real changes in how the higher leadership of this organization operates, in particular the committee. I feel like unless serious restructuring and even replacement of people who simply do not have the time to put in more and more work as is needed now and in the future, things will simply continue as they have been. If that happens, of course this GDQ and several more will operate just fine, things will get done eventually and the marathon will happen to great financial success for the charities, but dissent will continue to grow. Knowing that the process is flawed despite great results is one thing, being willing to change that process is another. I hope that change happens.

Cool Matty

2015-12-08 11:59:52 am

Crawlathon WR, get down on my level.

Actually, I touched base with the committee again to confirm, the reason there haven't been new additions to the schedule is because they are not planning on adding more games right now (other than potentially re-adding Dark Forces, but that's still in the works).

Most of the time gained from the current drops has been invested in donation incentives, which do not appear on the schedule. If there are further drops, games may be added, but for the moment, the committee does not plan on adding anything further.

Casusby

2015-12-08 12:56:51 pm

Quote from Cool Matty:

Actually, I touched base with the committee again to confirm, the reason there haven't been new additions to the schedule is because they are not planning on adding more games right now (other than potentially re-adding Dark Forces, but that's still in the works).

Most of the time gained from the current drops has been invested in donation incentives, which do not appear on the schedule. If there are further drops, games may be added, but for the moment, the committee does not plan on adding anything further.

Thank you for confirming and relaying this information. I understand why they are choosing to allocate it to incentives and doubt anyone would have a problem with that especially if there is additional set up required. I don't understand why this information could not have been released when the committee made their decision that, for the most part, they would not be adding games. The fact that it's only coming when a concern is raised, mimics last SGDQ where information about schedule changes was only given when a topic was made. I would have hoped such things wouldn't be repeated.

[quote="Cool Matty"]Actually, I touched base with the committee again to confirm, the reason there haven't been new additions to the schedule is because they are not planning on adding more games right now (other than potentially re-adding Dark Forces, but that's still in the works).

Most of the time gained from the current drops has been invested in donation incentives, which do not appear on the schedule. If there are further drops, games may be added, but for the moment, the committee does not plan on adding anything further.[/quote]

Thank you for confirming and relaying this information. I understand why they are choosing to allocate it to incentives and doubt anyone would have a problem with that especially if there is additional set up required. I don't understand why this information could not have been released when the committee made their decision that, for the most part, they would not be adding games. The fact that it's only coming when a concern is raised, mimics last SGDQ where information about schedule changes was only given when a topic was made. I would have hoped such things wouldn't be repeated.

zewing

Edit history:

zewing: 2015-12-12 08:16:44 pm

2015-12-09 11:08:46 am

just( •_•)>⌐■-■ ..... (⌐■_■)wing it

edit: found contact method

lurk

2016-01-13 08:44:46 am

giving this thread a bump. i might not want to take part in this discussion but i hope others will continue it's discourse

Cool Matty

2016-01-15 01:18:48 am

Crawlathon WR, get down on my level.

Quote from lurk:

giving this thread a bump. i might not want to take part in this discussion but i hope others will continue it's discourse

Don't bump threads unless you have something to add.

Mewyabe

(user is banned)

2016-01-15 08:09:00 pm

Why don't volunteers or runners sign waivers if you do not allow them to monetize their gameplay?

Is there a distinction between staff that work all year and those who work during the event?

Cool Matty

Edit history:

Cool Matty: 2016-01-15 09:07:55 pm

2016-01-15 09:07:13 pm

Crawlathon WR, get down on my level.

Quote from Mewyabe:

Why don't volunteers or runners sign waivers if you do not allow them to monetize their gameplay?

Is there a distinction between staff that work all year and those who work during the event?

I'm not sure I understand the question. The stream is the property of GDQ, not of the runners or volunteers, they would have no rights to their gameplay to waive. Furthermore, we do have waivers from all attendees on using the likeness and performance of attendees themselves during our event.

Edit: Runners are allowed to monetize their own runs when they upload their own run, by the way. We only disallow non-runners from uploading our content.