Gauging Interest: The Forum Hall of Greats

  • 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.

  • I also like the idea of currency cost for each type of material and a total limit. And I think it's a good idea to start with relatively generous total limit and adjust it for later events.
    I can also suggest for several of us to privately prepare our submissions and share our stats. I can do this, but I don't want to be the only source of data. Anyone else?

  • I'm not interested in presenting a game, but I would be interested in voting.

    Maybe let people who don't present a game have a 1 point vote. You could limit voting to people who declare their intention to vote before the presentations start. That way the presenters know who is voting and how many votes are available. Just a thought I had, I look forward to reading your presentations even if I don't have a vote.

  • Having each type of content come out of a budget sounds interesting on paper, but the more rules/complexity you add to something, the more it can discourage possible casual participants. I'd suggest just putting lower limits across the board if there's fear of bloated entries/entries that overwhelm lower effort entries.

  • I would like to see the ball get rolling on this soon. I know this is just a new idea but I am eager to get started writing a presentation and submitting it. Will these be quarterly like the EZA Hall of Greats or more regularly scheduled?

  • @shoulderguy I'm cool with this if everybody else is.

    Also, now addressing everybody, I would have to agree with Oscillator that having a currency system could deter casual participants. How would we feel about maybe 1000 words for text, 5 minutes for video (The only way I see people making a video and a text post is if the video is meant to be played in the background, in which case I don't think it matters how long it is). As Brannox said the first time is gonna be a bit trial by fire, but I would rather the rules be less strict than too strict. Easier to start at a simple base and work up from there if need be.

    @JDINCINERATOR I just want to make sure we've agreed upon a rule set before we start. I could draw up rules in a little bit that consider what has been said, and see what you all think. Also, how often we do it depends completely on how much participation we have for the first one. We can talk about it after we're done.

  • For the record, I only presented the currency concept because I only have the Community Showcase rules to pull as a reference, but I don't necessarily consider them strict, but as a rough template to make sure submissions don't get out of hand, to adjust along the way. Regardless, I'm fine either way and honestly I'm only ever going to focus on word count, and maybe whatever we decide on music constrictions as a means of supplemental material.

    Per allowing those who don't present to vote: How would it be balanced? Again, I truly DON'T think it would be much an issue, but it's still necessary to at least give all considerations now and allow for wiggle room to adjust every process accordingly. And to that end: To me, it feels like there needs to be a comparable (but not necessarily exact) amount of non presenters to participants. Meaning: Too few non presenters vote, it doesn't feel like their vote(s) would carry enough weight. If too much, it may outweigh the presenters. And what do we mean with a one point vote? As in non presenters can only vote for a single game? They can vote for three games, but only one point each? Are their votes the ones to settle any potential tiebreakers? Again, I'm fine to try because I feel doing this needs a feeling out period, but this proposal (for me and me alone from what I've read so far) introduces the very complexity we're trying to avoid.

  • @brannox That's a good point. Using the same voting method that EZA uses for HOG is probably for the best. It's straight forward and everyone already knows how it works.

    @Capnbobamous I rescind my audience voting idea.

  • Coming out of the gate, it's best to be true to the HoG voting system - only votes from presenters. But it may be necessary to allow outside votes if there aren't enough presenters and/or some presenters don't submit votes. I have a good feeling about this being successful, so I highly doubt that will occur. But keep it on the back-back burner.

  • Alright folks, here are some rules I've drafted. Please give feedback on what you think is good and what should be changed before we start.

    Big Rules

    1. Participants will have 1 Week to tell me what game they are planning to bring. After the week, I will open the topic up for people to submit their posts. This period will last for three days, but if all the presentations are submitted before the end of the three days I will open it up for cross-examination sooner. The cross-examination period will take another week. At the end of cross examination I will have everybody tell me their votes through DM and I will reveal the winners.
    2. Presentations can be either a 5 minute video or a text post of up to 1000 words. Text posts are allowed to have three pictures if desired, and a video reference is fine so long as it is simply there to reinforce the text and is not content in and of itself.
    3. In Cross-Examination, each person is allowed to ask up to two questions per game, and only the person who brought the game in question is allowed to respond to the questions. Anybody can cross-examine a game, even if they did not bring a game themselves. This is done to boost activity on the thread and get those who did not participate potentially interested in doing so next time.
    4. For Voting, much like the EZA HoG participants will be able to vote for their first, second and third favorite games presented, with the first place vote getting three points, second place getting two points, and third place getting one. Only those who brought a game will be able to vote.

    Other Rules

    1. This very clearly is based on the Easy Allies Hall of Greats and thus many of the rules are the same. This goes for what kind of things can be submitted. Don't want to see another D&D fiasco.
    2. If a game gets no votes it is banned for a year. I will keep a list of every banned game and when it is next eligible.
    3. Realistically it is difficult to enforce the presentation rules, so I ask that you please just keep them in mind and try not to intentionally break them.

    Can't think of if I missed anything, but if I did let me know This is just a draft of rules, so please tell me what you think works and what doesn't.