IRON DM General Discussion

[el-remmen]

Sorry for the delay, work suddenly got very hectic and I'm now behind on several deadlines. I'll jump back on it as soon as I can.

That post was not meant as a prod!

 

[el-remmen]

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.

Thanks!

Love,
el-remmen

 

[el-remmen]

IRON DM ARCHIVE CHECKLIST​

1. IRON DM SPRING 2002
2. IRON DM FALL 2002
3. IRON DM HOLIDAY 2002
4. IRON DM WINTER 2003
5. IRON DM SUMMER 2003
6. IRON DM FALL 2003
7. IRON DM WINTER 2004
8. IRON DM SPRING 2004
9. IRON DM 2005
10. IRON DM 2009
11. IRON DM 2010 (in progress - CleverNick)
12. IRON DM 2011
13. IRON DM 2012
14. IRON DM 2013 (in progress - el-remm)
15. IRON DM 2014
16. IRON DM 2015
17. IRON DM 2016
18. IRON DM 2017
19. IRON DM 2018
20. IRON DM 2019

Just quoting the to-do list here. IRON DM 2011 is done and I am gonna pull more data from archived ones for the spread sheet before continuing with IRON DM 2012.

 

[Rune]

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.

Thanks!

Love,
el-remmen

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.

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).

So...sorry?

 

[el-remmen]

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).

So...sorry?

I knew someone (you) would come to make that argument!

But yeah, what you describe is fine and does the trick of what I am asking for. Funnily enough it was the third time I was formatting a judgement by RG that I got frustrated because it didn't list the contestants at all just the titles.

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.

 

[Rune]

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.

 

[el-remmen]

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.

That makes sense.

 

[el-remmen]

IRON DM 2012 is now archived. (I had never read this one - I had not played D&D for three years at this point, but I was about to move back to Brooklyn and join a friend's game in progress - it was fun! And I was as interested in the logistics of scheduling and judging as I was the entries themselves - an alternate judge! and then the judge that was subbed for returns to sub for someone else! There were a lot of delays and while the tourney began May 24, the final judgement was posted July 13)

BUT, there is one thing that still needs to be done for it and all the previous ones I archived that I forgot about. Since I strip all the formatting from entries when I paste them into the google doc because I find it easier to re-format with some consistency than it is to change and edit the wide and wild variations of formatting across entries and time to aim for consistency, that means that the the usual tradition of bolding the ingredients where they appear in the body of the adventure (at least the first time) has been effaced and I have not gone through and added this back in, despite all the other formatting. It just feels fidgety to do while zooming through the entries.

Anyway, if there is anyone who feels up to the (what should be simple) task of going through the archived entries and simply bolding the ingredients the first place they are mentioned in each of them, that'd be awesome. If not (or if it is not finished yet), I will have to go back and do that for all of them once I am done.

At least I am making serious progress. . . .

 

[el-remmen]

Oh and heh. . . looks like for IRON DM 2013 ya'll went back to the single judge in the form of the all mighty RUNE.

 

[Rune]

Oh and heh. . . looks like for IRON DM 2013 ya'll went back to the single judge in the form of the all mighty RUNE.

Not so much “almighty” as “available to judge in a year that couldn’t produce three available judges.” It wouldn’t be the last such year.