Gauging Interest: The Forum Hall of Greats



  • @ffff0 said in Gauging Interest: The Forum Hall of Greats:

    I think if we gonna do it, there must be strict rules on cross-examination (for example, no more than 2 posts per-person per-game), otherwise this thread will get spammed with arguments and opinions.

    That's fair. To be clear, do you mean that each person gets to ask two questions per game? Because that seems like enough to give adequate cross-examination and keep the conversation going whilst also making sure there aren't arguments.

    @ffff0 said in Gauging Interest: The Forum Hall of Greats:

    I also think there should be word limit for each post and time limit for each video, because it's easy to write a novel about your favorite game, but very few people will have time and desire to read massive text, which will lower the quality of discussion and votes.

    I get what you mean, but I also don't want to scare people away by putting too many limits on what their post can be. If you all think it's fine, so be it, I just worry that a word limit could make the act of making a post more stressful than it needs to be, making less people participate.

    @brannox said in Gauging Interest: The Forum Hall of Greats:

    Would it be two games per nomination or if there's a clear difference (as in one or even three games with significantly more votes than the rest) would it make sense to just have those that far above the other nominees in point total be enshrined?

    I personally like the fact that only two games can get in. If there is a close third place, that just means it has a great chance of getting in next time.

    How often would we do these? Like the Allies and it be once every three months? Or because of the flexibility (and interest level from participants) the forums provides, would we do them at a quicker pace?

    I think like you mentioned, this has a lot to do with how much interest there is in it (as of now, it would seem not much), though I don't see us doing it any more than once a month, and even then that seems like maybe too often to me. I wouldn't want it to become oversaturated.

    Would we uphold the Ban rule? If so, do we do it for a year per the streams, or do we base it off how many nominations a person has before bringing it back, amount of ceremonies that take place, or some other variable?

    I personally like the one-year ban as I think it gives added stakes. If we were to lower the amount of time, I think it would have to be the same amount of time for each game. It might get too complicated if each banned game has a different amount of ban time.

    These are all just my takes and opinions though. As I said earlier, I'd be totally cool getting outvoted on all of this if the forum came to a consensus.



  • @capnbobamous
    I think that restrictions will ultimately make this process better and smaller number of participants isn’t necessary a bad thing. 5-10 focused not-so-long nominations are much easier to digest than 10-20 streams of consciousness. We’ve all looked at wall of text (or long media) and asked ourselves – do I really want to spend time on it. And we usually answer that question by looking at title (in this instance – game’s title). This is not what I want to see here, because without arguments this will become just another GotY voting.

    In short, my stance is that definitive rules and reasonable restrictions are necessary to make this good (we can discuss what is “reasonable”).



  • Also, like regular HoG, we need someone that knows what everyone's picking to prevent duplicate nominations.



  • I’ve decided to propose rules for this process and my reasoning for them. Everything is up for discussion, critique is welcome, additions are welcome.

    The process:

    1. Every participant privately tell The Master (person, who organize this whole thing) what game they will submit. This will allow to avoid duplicates and change your submission based on what games were already submitted. Also, this will let The Master know who will be participating, which will help in organizing this event. I think one week should be enough for this part.
    2. Everyone makes their submissions. Ideally, all posts should go live during short time frame (one day?). If someone can’t publish their submission during that period, The Master can submit their post on their behalf. Short time frame will make this an event and also eliminate situation when you’ve already decided your votes, then someone else made a new submission.
    3. After all submissions were published, we wait 1-2 days to give everyone a chance to read submissions and form initial opinion that is not swayed by opinions of other participants. This will put more weight into original submission and also make “crowd opinion” a bit less influential.
    4. Then cross-examination begins. This process should take at least a week, so that everyone had time to think and to respond. I’m not sure what is the best way to organize this part – if we let everyone ask and answer questions whenever they like, there maybe a flood of posts at the beginning or after some controversial statement. But more restrictive approach will probably be too inconvenient. Maybe we can make a gentleman agreement to not post our piece if a lot of discussion is already going on and we can make our submission later.
    5. After cross-examination we privately submit our votes to The Master. Then The Master count votes and reveal the results.

    Submission rules:

    1. Original material and personal opinion should make the most of your submission, but some quoting of someone else’s work is allowed (for example, “IGN review says that this is a timeless masterpiece” or “here’s a short clip of streamer X playing this game”). Also, it’s fine to submit a game you’ve never played as long as you have something to say about it.
    2. Sound, images and video are allowed, but total amount of time required to consume your submission should be under 5-10 minutes (this is up for discussion). So, if you want us to watch a video, make your text shorter. But if you want us to listen score in the background, text doesn’t need to be shorter. Other types of media and downloadable files are not allowed (to keep it friendly for mobile users).
    3. Comparisons to other games are allowed, but intentional comparison to other submissions aren’t. Honor system here since accidental comparison can happen, but we shouldn’t pit competitors against each other before cross-examination.
    4. Only one game can be submitted, collections aren’t allowed, several games that are essentially one game (like Mass Effect and The Banner Saga) aren’t allowed. Different version aren’t allowed if we would consider them as different games for GotY (like Resident Evil 2 and Resident Evil 2 Remake) – you have to pick which one you are submitting. For ongoing games you should make clear whether you talk about current state, entire history or certain historical period.

    Cross-examination rules:

    1. Comparison to other games and other submissions are allowed. Withing reason, comparing to your own submission is allowed, but cross-examination should not be used as a promotion for your nomination.
    2. Any participant can make up to two posts with questions per submitted game. The post may question no more than 3 aspects of a game or gameplay experience. Sharing your own opinion and experience (good or bad) is allowed, but the focus of the post should be on questioning game’s quality. You are highly encouraged to read previous posts to not ask the same question twice (unless you can add something new to the discussion).
    3. Only game’s submitter can answer questions about his/her game. This will make the process more focused and civilized (no war of opinions).
    4. We can’t prevent random people from jumping in and posting questions/answers, but these posts should not be considered when you cast your votes.


  • If all the submissions are to happen within a day, it needs to be hyped up well in advance and consistently to make sure everyone Knows. It's. Happening.



  • @oscillator Since there will be at least a week to submit our games to The Master, this shouldn't be a big problem, I think.



  • Can we do it more in the Fall / Winter when people have downtime? I find most people are busy like every single weekend in the summer.



  • @ffff0 said in Gauging Interest: The Forum Hall of Greats:

    Everyone makes their submissions. Ideally, all posts should go live during short time frame (one day?). If someone can’t publish their submission during that period, The Master can submit their post on their behalf. Short time frame will make this an event and also eliminate situation when you’ve already decided your votes, then someone else made a new submission.

    I figured I'd give my take on your rules, and add suggestions or rebuttals to that which I disagree with. I think the one day thing is perhaps a bit unrealistic. In an ideal world this forum would be active enough to allow that to happen, but right now it isn't and I think restricting it to a single day could limit the amount of participants. I know you mentioned that they could send their post to the "master," but I know if I was on the fence about participating, I just wouldn't do that because it wouldn't feel right, and I would want to be the one to post it. I think a time period of three days to allow everybody to get their posts in is reasonable, and since you have the cross examination period in a different allotted time than the presentation period, I don't think we need to worry about people already having decided on their votes.

    1. After all submissions were published, we wait 1-2 days to give everyone a chance to read submissions and form initial opinion that is not swayed by opinions of other participants. This will put more weight into original submission and also make “crowd opinion” a bit less influential.

    I'l just add that I think we should start cross examination immediately after the presentation period. A few days where nobody is encouraged to post on the topic could lead to stagnancy I think.

    1. Then cross-examination begins. This process should take at least a week, so that everyone had time to think and to respond. I’m not sure what is the best way to organize this part – if we let everyone ask and answer questions whenever they like, there maybe a flood of posts at the beginning or after some controversial statement. But more restrictive approach will probably be too inconvenient. Maybe we can make a gentleman agreement to not post our piece if a lot of discussion is already going on and we can make our submission later.

    If we have the rule that each person can only ask two questions per game, I think this issue sort of solves itself. Again, I don't think we will get enough participation to make this too big an issue.

    1. Sound, images and video are allowed, but total amount of time required to consume your submission should be under 5-10 minutes (this is up for discussion). So, if you want us to watch a video, make your text shorter. But if you want us to listen score in the background, text doesn’t need to be shorter. Other types of media and downloadable files are not allowed (to keep it friendly for mobile users).

    I don't necessarily disagree with this, but I do think regulations of this size sound a bit intimidating and could scare away potential participants. I completely understand why you feel it should be a rule and perhaps I am in the wrong here, but I don't feel like people will make posts that are too large regardless of what regulations are there, and if they are too long it's doubtful someone would read or watch the whole thing anyway, right? I wholly expect to get outvoted here, just my take.

    1. We can’t prevent random people from jumping in and posting questions/answers, but these posts should not be considered when you cast your votes.

    I would like to make a motion that we allow non-participants to cross-examine. I think it's a great way to get those who did not make a presentation involved, be it because they were intimidated or they did not have enough time. I think having more activity on the topic would be great, and could get those who did not participate interested in maybe doing it next time. These people would not be allowed to vote, but I think allowing them to cross-examine would be beneficial.

    @DIPSET I personally am more busy in the fall than the summer, but supposing that this is popular enough to do quarterly, it'll naturally fall when someone is at their most busy and their least busy. Again this is a huge if, but I would rather strike while the iron is hot so to speak, with the hopes that it is successful enough to do again at a time when those who were too busy are able to participate.



  • @capnbobamous Good points. Guess, I took this too seriously.



  • I'm certainly up for something like this but it makes me wonder what other EZA content this community can ably replicate.



  • @ffff0 Nothing wrong with that! I welcome your ideas and if you have anything else I'd love to hear it, I was just offering my takes. Would love for the rules of this thing to be as democratic as possible.



  • @capnbobamous said in Gauging Interest: The Forum Hall of Greats:

    I would like to make a motion that we allow non-participants to cross-examine. I think it's a great way to get those who did not make a presentation involved, be it because they were intimidated or they did not have enough time. I think having more activity on the topic would be great, and could get those who did not participate interested in maybe doing it next time. These people would not be allowed to vote, but I think allowing them to cross-examine would be beneficial.

    I'm a fan of this.



  • It would be great if we could post videos of us presenting the debates ourselves-just a video of us talking and reading off bullet points we've made that we can elaborate on. Also for those of us who are able to do so we could arrange a Zoom call where we can present our picks. People who aren't able to could still post a script.



  • @jdincinerator said in Gauging Interest: The Forum Hall of Greats:

    It would be great if we could post videos of us presenting the debates ourselves

    I'm against this. Listening to non-native English speakers can be tough. Presenting, if you are shy or don't speak English well, can be extremely tough.



  • @ffff0 I was suggesting this as an option if people wanted to do this alongside a script, not that everyone should do it.



  • @jdincinerator whilst I don't think this is a bad idea, I think this would deter a lot of people from participating. Seems a bit odd to have part of the game be done on Zoom and the rest on the forum.



  • Just wanted to chime in that I concur preparing a recording of/for myself is a bit much for me, and not how I personally would want to participate. I'm a text and links type. While I don't want to discourage anyone who wants to put in the effort to create a presentation, be it recording themselves, making a video, etc., I think the more options given in how people choose to present their picks is better. And speaking for myself, I personally have no interest or desire to take part in a Zoom, so if that was a requirement (and NO, I'm not saying it was or is) it IS a deterrent for me.

    I also concur there needs to be parameters in both submission and cross-examination (especially in my case when I struggle to shut up), but I don't think it needs to be restrictive to the point we're having to juggle multiple things to adhere WHILE we're preparing our pitches, questions, votes, etc.



  • @brannox said in Gauging Interest: The Forum Hall of Greats:

    I also concur there needs to be parameters in both submission and cross-examination (especially in my case when I struggle to shut up), but I don't think it needs to be restrictive to the point we're having to juggle multiple things to adhere WHILE we're preparing our pitches, questions, votes, etc.

    Do you have any specific ideas for this? So far I think only I and one other have chimed in on this so I'd love to hear what parameters you think could work?



  • People should be free to make any kind of pitch they want, be it text only, text + links, text + links + images, text + links + images + third-party videos, text + links + images + their own videos, or only their own videos. There just need to be limits on every parameter - number of words, number/type of links, number/size of images, number of videos, length of videos.

    Spitballing suggestions for limits (content types are AND, not either-or):

    1000 words
    2 non-video links (no links to file download sites such as Dropbox; links to browser-playable audio such as .mp3/.wav ok if under 10 minutes total length)*
    5 images (if forum doesn't auto-resize them, there needs to be a width limit)
    2 videos up to 10 minutes total length*

    *Possible limit to 10 minutes total audio/video content.



  • @capnbobamous Since I would mostly rely on text, I can only give a suggestion regarding word count. Initially, I would say the baseline for the Community Showcase would be a good template (500 words), however, I think that might not be enough to provide thorough enough arguments. I like Oscillator's pick of a 1000, but without going through the process once, it's difficult for me to feel confident in any particular number until we try it out.

    I do like how if we provided video, it should use up some that said word count, kind of like a currency. For example, it would cost us, say, 250 words of our submission for a one or two minute clip. If we provide background music (a.k.a a link to something audio only) I don't think that would count against the word limit. As far as pictures go, I think they should be applicable where appropriate to a person's argument, but I don't think anyone needs to go overboard. In terms of what that threshold would be, I don't know.

    These are just top of mind, but I think a trial by fire period of the first one or two rounds of this would help iron out the details and work out the kinks to see what's comfortable/acceptable and what could use some trimming.