IRON DM ARCHIVE CHECKLIST
- IRON DM SPRING 2002
- IRON DM FALL 2002
- IRON DM HOLIDAY 2002
- IRON DM WINTER 2003
- IRON DM SUMMER 2003
- IRON DM FALL 2003
- IRON DM WINTER 2004
- IRON DM SPRING 2004
- IRON DM 2005
- IRON DM 2009
- IRON DM 2010 (in progress - CleverNick)
- IRON DM 2011
- IRON DM 2012
- IRON DM 2013 (in progress - el-remm)
- IRON DM 2014
- IRON DM 2015
- IRON DM 2016
- IRON DM 2017
- IRON DM 2018
- IRON DM 2019
Speaking personally, I adopted the practice of referring to an abbreviated entry name (instead of the author) from @Radiating Gnome (who uses acronyms). The intent is to insert a level of removal in the critique to help make clear that the critique is of the work and not of the author. I do make clear at the beginning and end of a judgement whose works belong to whom.Dear all Future Judges,
Please refer to entries by both the contestant's name and the adventure name (when applicable) in your judgements. If you must choose between them, use the contestant name. Scrolling all the way back up to see which of the contestants wrote "The Fiery Ship" or whatever is a pain.
I knew someone (you) would come to make that argument!Speaking personally, I adopted the practice of referring to an abbreviated entry name (instead of the author) from @Radiating Gnome (who uses acronyms). The intent is to insert a level of removal in the critique to help make clear that the critique is of the work and not of the author. I do make clear at the beginning and end of a judgement who’s works belong to whom.
This is not a practice that I intend to modify, as I believe its merits outweigh any confusion that may come up in archiving (although, as I said before, I do bookend the judgements with links between authors and entries to mitigate this).
Well, yeah, but it’s not for my benefit! It’s for the readers’ (and especially for the entries’ authors)!Personally, if I cannot separate the the contestant from their output by the time I am drafting a judgement then I don't think not referring to them by name in it is gonna help much.
Well, yeah, but it’s not for my benefit! It’s for the readers’ (and especially for the entries’ authors)!
It is very easy for a critique to seem like it is referring to an author when the language used suggests it. It’s a subtle thing, but significant.
And I’m pretty sure the data backs that up, by the way. I suspect you’ll find far fewer (and a considerably smaller percentage of) defensive responses from authors whose judgements were written in this way.
So…is this going to be a thing? We’re getting pretty close to the point when we want to start the actual tournament in motion.Taking @el-remmen's suggestion into account, I've moved our more general discussion to a new thread.
My own purpose: building an interesting and exciting IRON DM spinoff for the summer. On the table right now are two main ideas. Perhaps I'll start a poll thread at some point to gauge general interest, but for now it seems like we can one of two directions:
*Game Design - Likely limited to D&D5e. Requires game mastery, balance. Potential to tie-in with ENWorld's Level Up? Creativity tested, but design skill is at the forefront.
*World Building - Ecology and storytelling over mechanics. System and genre neutral. Creativity spotlighted. Seems the more popular idea so far.
I'm of two minds myself; as IRON DM is typically not about game mechanics much at all, a world building competition would remain in line with that spirit, while a game design competition would set it apart from its older cousin.
Beyond that, we need to determine a structure (weekly challenges with a single elimination is the most common I've seen suggested so far), and, perhaps most importantly, a pithy name for our new spinoff