pouët.net

Eh, I'm somehow too lazy to read seven pages of discussion (I glanced over page #7). Can someone, who followed the discussion, give a quick summary/compile a list of questions?

I think Gargaj's original post still sums it up pretty well.

I'll address the topic on the orga mailing list, maybe we reevaluate the anonymity of compos.

*anonymization

Just two cents from an old, lazy bloke:

Back in the imtes I still was an organizer at TUM, I've always been a passionate proponent of anonymous music compos.

The reason for this wasn't the fact that the audience of the actual compo could choose what entry they liked best biased on the names, rather than preventing ppl who hadn't experienced the compos and didn't even bother to actually listen to the entries "just hacking in their votes based on the names 3 minutes before the voting deadline".

I've never had the feeling it's such a big problem of graphics compos, since the voting system can provide thumbnails or ever allow a quick review of the entries.

Maybe the best compromise is to show the artists' names on the composlides, but only keep the titles of the entries in the voting system and don't show the artists' names there.

Just one more thing: I'd rather have ppl who didn't listen to the music entries not to vote than just throw their votes at "the guy who always makes the best tunes anyway".

Has people "just hacking in their votes based on the names 3 minutes before the voting deadline" ever been a tangible problem the past 10 years?

My experience as an organizer is rather that the problem nowadays is to get enough people to bother to vote at all.

Revision 2011 and 2012 didn't have anonymized compos. Nobody complained about the results IIRC. And h0ffman still wins even when the compos are anonymized.

I'd say screwing with people's enjoyment of compos as social highlights of parties requires some pretty good arguments, probably better than "it irks me that someone may be voting irresponsibly!". One of the top moments at Revision 2012 for me was the oldschool music compo, sitting around with my friends listening to all the tunes, discussing how certain artists had developed over the years, punching each other on the proverbial shoulder when one of our own names popped up on the big screen, etc. Good times!

maybe some "vote and get a free bagel"-campaign would make voting great again?!?

Just to make it clear: I'm not in favour of anonymous compos anymore.

We shouldn't consider this as a statement from an official Revision-organizer, right? 'Cos it's pretty dismissive.

Let's make a poll about it:

"Do you prefer anonymous music/graphics compos?

Answer #1
Answer #2"

Nope, it was just for me, so I can push this topic to the mailing list with a little info to then be discussed by the compo organizers. I linked this thread, so the compo orgas can follow this discussion.
I'm not in charge of any compos at Revision and I simply didn't follow this topic. My post wasn't any kind on statement or judgement on the importance of this topic nor was it an official statement.

Don't be so cantankerous, Gargaj. <3

The thread has been around for almost a year, and the only person from the Revision compo crew to post in it was Las; I think it's far from cantankerous to be a bit disappointed about that.

FWIW (which equates to "about 30% of the influence over the Oldschool Graphics compo"), as a member of the compo team I agree that de-anonymising is worth a try. to Radiant for bumping the thread.

While I get what you're saying, I think it's wrong to assume that all Revision organizers are reading pouet and - if they do - see every discussion on competition rules as a topic that needs to be addressed by them.

If you have the request that Revision changes the rules on anonymous compos, the easiest way to get a statement and a response is to use the hotline. Quite some people use it also for exactly this kind of request and throughs about competition rules.

I like the thoughts in the thread and the question has been raised in the Revision organizing team now and is being discussed.

That's the thing, I didn't have a "request" as such, I just remembered having an interesting discussion at the party and wondered how much traction it would get when having it in the open (I genuinely thought I was alone with my opinion), and Revision being the de-facto flagship event of the scene I thought it was logical to expect the event organizers to join a conversation that, while more of a high-level discussion, essentially only affects their party.

Everyone is aware that the hotline exists, and most of us have used it to get some hands-on stuff done or information delivered, but it's ostensibly private messaging, and here we're just trying to have an open discussion I suppose as the scene as a whole (or at the very least the ones who use Pouet - i.e. most of us), so it would be nice if the involved parties all could chime in, both to have a balanced conversation, but also to have arguments from both sides on public record in case there are future debates for other parties.

I would argue that the majority of the Revision organizers don't read pouet regularly, but that's just my opinion and observation. If it is an important matter to discuss with "the scene as a whole", the approach should probably be a bit different. Maybe invite specific people to partake in the discussion or something like that... just thinking out loud on how one could approach a topic like this.

In general I agree with having a public discussion about something like that.

"Revision organizers don't read pouet regularly"

What? It is not entertaining enough? Why? :'(

because pouet isn't the whole demoscene

And because we have lives beside the party organising stuff.

For example, pouet.net not allowing us to properly contact each other. I can't say I have any _proper_ demo scene contacts at ALL.

What if pouet is really wrong?

well that is what .nfos, irc and other sites/networks are for if you really want to contact someone. so ...

By far the biggest problem with compos and voting is, people are drunk. Only completely sober people must be allowed to vote.