[PXFIRE] Welcome to your summer event: POKEMON CROSSFIRE!

[Morzone]

ok seriously, HOW does counting the number of entries from a certain team mess with a rubric system? If 7 people enter a piece of art, and 3 are from team A, team A gets 3 participation points. DONE. Has 0 correlation with the scores on the Individual pieces of art.

I mean, if you walk into a room with 6 doors, 4 of which are blue and 2 are red, after judging them individually are you really not going to remember what colors there are? Even if you do somehow forget, it's not exactly hard to take a step back and check again, especially after already finished assigning the 100 competition points.

Totally didn't misread Speed's post. Sorry about this pointless outburst!

[Pokemon Trainer Sarah]

Yeah...I'm not a big fan of that specifically being the point system. It sounds like judges will be worrying more about just doing the correct math and making sure things add up depending on hypothetical values, such as number of participants...and that really takes away from the experience. If a judge has 100 points PER event or even per week just doesnt make any sense for those who find it more logical to use a rubric system

If I'm understanding correctly based on Neo's post, I believe this kind of system in particular will do nothing other than confuse judges.

Yeah...alr8ght. So I re read it. This would greatly interfere with any judges that want to use a rubric system, which especially in regards to art I feel is the most efficient way to do it so that the entrants actually learn what they did right and wrong, yes?

It would make more sense to have a fixed number of points per person per challenge / week. 4 weeks? How about 20 points per person per week?

I don't think 100 points is that hard to distribute. You can still use a rubric. The points you give out don't have to match the rubric points, but you could do it that way with a bit of maths if you wanted.

A gets 15/20 on the rubric
B gets 5/20
C gets 15/20
D gets 16/20
E gets 16/20
F gets 20/20
G gets 12/20

Max total of rubric = 7 x 20 = 140
A got 15/140 = 10.7%. 10.7% of 100 = 10.7 points awarded.
B got 5/140 = 3.5%. 3.5% of 100 = 3.5 points awarded.
Etc.

Each judge can decide how to awards their points. The simplest way is to award 1st, 2nd, 3rd a set amount of points and then divide the rest equally between the rest. Or any variation of that. It only has to be as complicated as the judge wants to make it.

Your idea of each participant getting x/20 points for each event is pretty good too but I can see issues with teams dominating a single event and getting more points than teams participating in every event, as there is then no maximum points per event. The 100 points means teams have to join in most if not all events to win. Still worth discussing though. :)

[Pokemon Trainer Sarah]

ok seriously, HOW does counting the number of entries from a certain team mess with a rubric system? If 7 people enter a piece of art, and 3 are from team A, team A gets 3 participation points. DONE. Has 0 correlation with the scores on the Individual pieces of art.

I mean, if you walk into a room with 6 doors, 4 of which are blue and 2 are red, after judging them individually are you really not going to remember what colors there are? Even if you do somehow forget, it's not exactly hard to take a step back and check again, especially after already finished assigning the 100 competition points.

You're right but teams are already getting participation points with the current proposal. We don't want to push the participation thing too far where members are entering crappy no-effort entries just to get points. As part of the 100 points, if you enter something dumb for points you will only get 1 point haha. If its more like you said, it seems it will encourage no-effort entries without providing any advantage over the 100 point system (that I can tell?)

[Morzone]

Hmm...

At the same time though, if a judge is limited to only 100 points, what happens when you have a lot of participants? Imagine if we had 11 people put in art, and 4 of them were AMAZING, while rest weren't exactly terrible. You wouldn't be able to distribute points fairly because there simply wouldn't be enough of them. Is it possible that some categories might be able to give out more points than others?

You're right but teams are already getting participation points with the current proposal. We don't want to push the participation thing too far where members are entering crappy no-effort entries just to get points. As part of the 100 points, if you enter something dumb for points you will only get 1 point haha. If its more like you said, it seems it will encourage no-effort entries without providing any advantage over the 100 point system (that I can tell?)

I didn't think of that.. hm...

[Neo Emolga]

Yeah...I'm not a big fan of that specifically being the point system. It sounds like judges will be worrying more about just doing the correct math and making sure things add up depending on hypothetical values, such as number of participants...and that really takes away from the experience. If a judge has 100 points PER event or even per week just doesnt make any sense for those who find it more logical to use a rubric system

If I'm understanding correctly based on Neo's post, I believe this kind of system in particular will do nothing other than confuse judges.

Yeah...alr8ght. So I re read it. This would greatly interfere with any judges that want to use a rubric system, which especially in regards to art I feel is the most efficient way to do it so that the entrants actually learn what they did right and wrong, yes?

It would make more sense to have a fixed number of points per person per challenge / week. 4 weeks? How about 20 points per person per week?

I don't think it would be too bad and if people work with it a bit, they'll see it's not a complicated thing. Personally, the way I'd work with it is grade and use my own rubric on all the entries first before I award anything. I'd look at those scores and distribute accordingly. When you do it, if it helps, start by evenly dividing the 100 into all the entries, and then take points from the people that didn't do as well and carry them over to the ones that did excellent. It just becomes a matter of tuning the distribution of points to reflect the scores that you gave using your own rubric. I'm also saying 100 points is good because it's a lot more to work with and we won't have this silliness of fractional points like we have constantly had in WARs. If we don't bump up that number, people might be getting things like ".5" ".25" and ".1" point amounts and that's just pesky to deal with decimals like that.

But really, the whole system is to avoid one-sidedness and encourage people to just TRY rather than submit stuff week after week only to watch it lose and get nothing at all week after week to the heavy-weights when it comes to skills. That just makes people feel like they're wasting their time. Trust me, when I graded fan fiction, there were so many occasions where I read great stories, but they were only runner ups. This finally gives me a chance to give them something too! Even though it may not be the lion's share of points, they'll get a fair amount of at least something and it will encourage them to keep at it. This greatly helps those that know that while they may not be in the top three, they can still shoot to do the best to earn as many points as they can.

But yeah, like Sarah said, if people dump in garbage, they may only get 1 point, which in the overall picture, won't be all that helpful. If you lower that scale to 20, well, that means one garbage entry will still walk away with 5% of the total with their one point. And if dozens of people do that, that's bad. That's why I think 100 points per submission period (whether it's each week or every two weeks depending) works best.

[SassySnivy]

I don't think 100 points is that hard to distribute. You can still use a rubric. The points you give out don't have to match the rubric points, but you could do it that way with a bit of maths if you wanted.

A gets 15/20 on the rubric
B gets 5/20
C gets 15/20
D gets 16/20
E gets 16/20
F gets 20/20
G gets 12/20

Max total of rubric = 7 x 20 = 140
A got 15/140 = 10.7%. 10.7% of 100 = 10.7 points awarded.
B got 5/140 = 3.5%. 3.5% of 100 = 3.5 points awarded.
Etc.

Each judge can decide how to awards their points. The simplest way is to award 1st, 2nd, 3rd a set amount of points and then divide the rest equally between the rest. Or any variation of that. It only has to be as complicated as the judge wants to make it.

Your idea of each participant getting x/20 points for each event is pretty good too but I can see issues with teams dominating a single event and getting more points than teams participating in every event, as there is then no maximum points per event. The 100 points means teams have to join in most if not all events to win. Still worth discussing though. :)

Yes, but in your example that's distributing a rubric of 140. By doing this it isn't exactly a rubric system since you're limited on the amount of points you can give each person...just seems kinds off. Plus my rubric systems tend to go like this:

Person 1
-Score A:
-Score B:
-Score C:
-Total:

This way people can receive specific feedback on specific points of interest. The 100 points outright system seems to limit this by putting a limit on how well you can score someone, basically, no matter if they and another person do equally as well (as a hypothetical example)

I get that we're trying to encourage participation. However, why not just limit each person to say 50 points or something each? As a cap, anyway. That way no one gets cheated out on points. I don't see how doing so encourages people to submit crappy entries...if they do well, they get more points. There could be a minimum for participation or something, but I doubt someone is going to do so badly they get 0 points out of 50.

It just seems odd to have the point distribution depend solely on how many people are participating in a category. And unnecessary complex when it could be a little simpler

Maybe it's just me. :/ I don't know.

Edit: actually I'm thinking about it and I can see this working. It's starting to make a little more sense. I can kinda see how dividing points would make it so that people all have a more even playing field. I think I could work with this.

[AD]

*hums the original pokemon theme song*


As long as i get to kick butt in showdown. Though i do ask, Smogon servers or PXR? Also, format?

I can me being a bit of a stickler

[Pokemon Trainer Sarah]

*hums the original pokemon theme song*


As long as i get to kick butt in showdown. Though i do ask, Smogon servers or PXR? Also, format?

I can me being a bit of a stickler

I'm not actually sure how much interest there will be in showdown... So it will probably be up to the judge to decide that. Usually each week there is a different event. Like maybe one week is challenge cup or whatever. The judge will get to choose though. Maybe you'd like to apply to judge it when we get to that point? Showdown is one of the few(only?) events that the judge can fully participate in since they just need to set the rules and tally scores at the end. :)

[SassySnivy]

I think so long as the Showdown categories / rules, for the most part, are a wide range of things that even more casual Showdown Battlers can get into (CC, Randoms, etc); or even crazy things like Hackmons or that Metronome thing that Fate did that one time; along with maybe an OU battle as the last event, I think it should run smoothly. I think the important part is to be able to cater to both more casual participants AND more involved / serious participants alike. c:

[Soups]

I like your idea @Morzone, but maybe instead of being related to the overall points, there can be participation medals that individuals can earn by joining in events. Each event would have a different one and you could collect them in your postbit. That might encourage people to want to try all the different events at least once! Whoever gets all the medals at the end can get a token as well! What do you think?

I actually love this idea. It would be cool to store your earned medals in your postbit, similar to how we all stored our secret messages during the Valentine's Day event. It's neat. I'm for it.