IRON DM General Discussion

[el-remmen]

I assume that gripes like that are why the panel was adopted in the first place; it’s a lot harder to make that argument when it’s not just the one judgement you’re railing against.

I assume the same. Who kept it going in our absence?

But I also think it is still possible that someone could object to the result and feel two or more judges treated them unfairly and in the process undermine their opponent's efforts, which is not cool.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I went and read some of your 2004 judgements, and while you're not soft on them, you're fair enough. I can see feelings getting hurt if the contestant didn't expect to be judged in your style, but they generally seemed to know it was coming.

Still, it's a shame to lose contestants.

 

[Rune]

I assume the same. Who kept it going in our absence?

There was a gap where the answer is “nobody.”

I left around 2004 or 2005. Came back shortly after the 2010 tourney had completed. From the records, EN World appears not to have had tournaments from 2006-2008.

But I also think it is still possible that someone could object to the result and feel two or more judges treated them unfairly and in the process undermine their opponent's efforts, which is not cool.

The rules do remind readers that opinions will vary snd that it’s just a game among fans. So far, no major issues. Usually, when someone is stung by a loss and vocalizes it, the peanut gallery comes to the defense of the winning entry (sometimes both).

Its hard to see things from perspective for a while when you’ve been stung.

 

[el-remmen]

One thing that seems to have not be as popular in the contemporary tourneys is the ingredient recap/overview as part of the entry. If I were to judge again, I would advocate for asking all opponent to include this at the end of their entry and it will not count towards word count (but limiting to one sentence recap per ingredient - in other words, it won't count towards word count, but if you cram too much info into it, it can count against you). I find it useful both as a judge and a player (and I think those who follow along probably find it clarifying too)

 

[Rune]

One thing that seems to have not be as popular in the contemporary tourneys is the ingredient recap/overview as part of the entry. If I were to judge again, I would advocate for asking all opponent to include this at the end of their entry and it will not count towards word count (but limiting to one sentence recap per ingredient - in other words, it won't count towards word count, but if you cram too much info into it, it can count against you). I find it useful both as a judge and a player (and I think those who follow along probably find it clarifying too)

I think that if the piece actually needs such an indicator, the ingredients aren’t well-used in the first place.

 

[el-remmen]

I think that if the piece actually needs such an indicator, the ingredients aren’t well-used in the first place.

I don't agree. I don't see it as an indicator, but as an overview that helps the judge be fair that they caught everything. If it is listed in the overview, but even a review of the body of the entry doesn't make it clear then I'd say it wasn't well used.

For me it is not just about the player's clarity, but helping the judge's attention to detail.

 

[Rune]

I don't agree. I don't see it as an indicator, but as an overview that helps the judge be fair that they caught everything. If it is listed in the overview, but even a review of the body of the entry doesn't make it clear then I'd say it wasn't well used.

For me it is not just about the player's clarity, but helping the judge's attention to detail.

Fair enough. But in the hypothetical case where such descriptions don’t count against word-limit, I’d still personally want to limit it to 5 words per ingredient. That should be plenty for a signpost.

 

[el-remmen]

Fair enough. But in the hypothetical case where such descriptions don’t count against word-limit, I’d still personally want to limit it to 5 words per ingredient. That should be plenty for a signpost.

As you might already know, I tend towards more informal rules than what I consider the unnecessary granularity of something like "5 words per ingredient." Saying one sentence seems fine when if someone writes six 40 word sentences they are 1. gonna get dinged, and B) undermine their own attempt at clarity through verbosity.

 

[Rune]

As you might already know, I tend towards more informal rules than what I consider the unnecessary granularity of something like "5 words per ingredient." Saying one sentence seems fine when if someone writes six 40 word sentences they are 1. gonna get dinged, and B) undermine their own attempt at clarity through verbosity.

I get it.

But allowing something as nebulous as “a sentence” leaves the door open to details that bypass the word-limit (and that can be done in far fewer than 40 words – or 10, even). That’s what I don’t want to see.

Plus, parameters are as good for the tournament as they are for creativity; when the judge is given leeway to assess those types of things subjectively, that comes at a cost. That cost being: room for contestants’ indignation. As you’ve seen for yourself going through the old tourneys, those kinds of attitudes can snowball quickly.

Of course, I’m not suggesting that there is no room for judges’ subjectivity: it’s an inevitable and essential element. But the tournament really does need some rules to be explicitly defined in order to run smoothy. And, in my view, that involves all rules related to the word-limit and time-limit (whatever they happen to be or not be).

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I like the idea of a few words per ingredient. I don't mind limiting the word count (five might be a bit short, but I'd be happy with a limit under ten).

I've been meaning to talk to @Rune on the subject of ingredient-use. I didn't want to mention it before because I didn't want to seem like I was arguing with the judgements. (I'm not arguing at all, in fact, just pointing out how it feels from the other side).

Specifically, I want to speak on the subject of using ingredients more than once. You've said that you feel that it shows that the writer lacks confidence in their ingredient use. I disagree. I mean, it could be that, but there's many other reasons that a writer could want to use an ingredient twice. I did it once, by accident (and only called attention to it as a joke!) I also stopped myself from doing it in the final match, because I thought you might penalise me for it, when it came to me because both uses worked. Now, I know that if someone used an ingredient two or more times, and they were really good, then you probably wouldn't give them flack for it, but I think you should reconsider your general aversion to it. (Just a friendly suggestion - do whatever you like.)

One more thing on that - as far as actual confidence in our use of an ingredient goes: Only a fool would ever be fully confident in any of their ingredient use! Nearly every single one of us in the latest competition had an ingredient use that was our personal favourite that was thrashed by a judge. We can't ever be confident. It's folly. How we see it, and how it's judged, just won't always line-up. I mean, most of the time we'll get a judgement and think, "yeah, I could have done better there" (or we knew before judgement that it wasn't our best take) but we've all had it happen that a judge just doesn't see what we see. Luckily, that happens the other way sometimes too - where the judge likes a usage that we were not as fond of.

At any rate, it seems reasonable to me to want to hedge your bets. Also, it could just be artistically interesting to use an ingredient more than once, just because you have two ideas that both work. (Again, I think that if both uses were good, you probably wouldn't dock someone for doing two, but you really seem to dislike the idea). Thoughts?