Regarding Contests and the New Teamwork Ruling

[Arowanna]

I would like to open a discussion regarding this:

• Teamwork is not allowed. Such can be detailed and technical cooperation, like reviewing, which is prohibited. Smaller, subjective feedback is not considered as teamwork and is allowed.

I have already stated my feelings regarding this in the latest Texturing Contest:

Why is reviewing/critique considered teamwork, when was this rule added and why was it added?

I might have a completely different outlook on how to approach online contests, but isn't the main goal to improve? Compare this to Polycounts 'Noob Challenge' - nowadays just know as the Monthly X Challenge - where they actively push participants towards giving each other feedback, tips, critique and teaching each other techniques and tricks.

Whilst Polycount approach the idea of a challenge/contest as cooperative boot camp training, this approach seems to stem more from the idea that it is a chance for people to show off their talent and grow their E-penis. And I ultimately fall on the question, what is the point of that?

I might concede a single point of concern, that there could be an unfair distribution of "reviews" during the contest, but this can be countered by actively encouraging contestants to actually help each other along the way instead of seeing each other as unnecessary rivals. We are not fighting for the 200 or so Concept Artists positions in the game industry here.

Has this been discussed somewhere else? What triggered this, in my opinion, negative response to the idea of helping each other out? Any links that can help me understand the situation?

Postscriptum
I have come to the understanding that there has been an internal discussion regarding the topic, but nothing public, so some of my questions are probably null.

 

[IcemanBo]

Here is my understanding.

There always existed a "no teamwork" rule as far as I can remember. But the exact dimension and interpretation was not defined.

So a possible way to determine what is allowed and what not, I do see as something like: feedback is allowed as long as it doesn't get into detailed reviews with exact instructions what to improve or for fixes during the contest.
If I "physically" touch your work, or detaily cooperate with you via voice or what ever, both does seem that it can be seen as teamwork for me, depending on heaviness and result.

In contests I have the feeling of some competive spirit, and so I would like to allow only rough and smaller feedback during the contest duration, and let the judge then make a fair scoring over all entries in the end.

Though, that's lastly not too exact. As far as I see it, if not done blatantly rule-breaking, and you, other contestants and applied moderator find that given critique does't go too far, then it should be allowed without problems. But for fairness reasons I think it's also good that there is a stated opportunity for us to step in, if we realize some contestants might get big advantages in comparison to others.

 

[Arowanna]

There always existed a "no teamwork" rule as far as I can remember. But the exact dimension and interpretation was not defined.

As someone who only visits the various Art Sections here on the Hive; yes, there has always been a "No teamwork" rule for solo contests, at least for the Texturing Contests. For example, the 10th contest - reads 11th but it's the 10th, mishap in the early days - features nothing but the simple line "• Teamwork is not allowed.".

So a possible way to determine what is allowed and what not, I do see as something like: feedback is allowed as long as it doesn't get into detailed reviews with exact instructions what to improve or for fixes during the contest.
If I "physically" touch your work, or detaily cooperate with you via voice or what ever, both does seem that it can be seen as teamwork for me, depending on heaviness and result.

In contests I have the feeling of some competive spirit, and so I would like to allow only rough and smaller feedback during the contest duration, and let the judge then make a fair scoring over all entries in the end.

Though, that's lastly not too exact. As far as I see it, if not done blatantly rule-breaking, and you, other contestants and applied moderator find that given critique does't go too far, then it should be allowed without problems. But for fairness reasons I think it's also good that there is a stated opportunity for us to step in, if we realize some contestants might get big advantages in comparison to others.

So how would this, for example, be judged under this criteria? I've not made any actual changes here, it's just a simple paintover with tips and ideas for improvement.

 

[IcemanBo]

I'm really the wrong person to make such decission on art criteria. If it's on me, I could not do nothing with given suggestions.

But what do you say yourself? Does it equal details of a review you would give as judge in end, when it's about rank and prize, and do you think feedback alike to only 1-2 contestants gives someone an unfair advantage? I believe most of us should have such feel intuitivly adapted and that one could answer it for himself most of times.

 

[Naze]

I think we need a poll on this. Seriously. Unless the majority of the users enjoy this new rule, I fail to feel comfortable about enforcing it.

---

My opinion: This new update on the rule makes total sense, because if someone gives too much feedback on my entry, it can be considered a product of teamwork, not me alone.

However I'm against this new wording of the rule. Reasons:

1. I think this is detrimental to the community side of the Hive, since I (and other users) join contests for fun and this is a major bummer to the interaction part of them. In a contest we're all making the same things at the same time, everyone is uploading WIPs in the same thread while giving opinions and feedback - this is awesome! Our community isn't big and ever-growing. I don't feel like we can afford to cut down interaction;
   
2. I've learned many things from participating in contests and by reading feedback directed to other people's entries. Arowanna's post in the Texture Contest thread gives example of how contests are handled on another site that goes in line with my argument here:
   

   Compare this to Polycounts 'Noob Challenge' - nowadays just know as the Monthly X Challenge - where they actively push participants towards giving each other feedback, tips, critique and teaching each other techniques and tricks.

3. I don't think I've heard a single complaint about how it was before. Since the change we've heard opposition from several users and even from staff (me & Ralle). Why changing then?
   
4. With this new enforcement of the rule, I, as a mod, would have to delete/edit posts like this and tell the user to stop doing that, which will create attrition and more censorship from our staff to our users (which I already hear a lot of complaints about how our staff is oppressive and shit). Why should I want to contribute to that bad feeling? To make the contests more fair, but such cost? This wasn't even an issue before.

 

[IcemanBo]

I'm not sure I understand that you mean it to make sense, but at same time being against rule wording. Should a contest primary include:

• ranks, awards, +rep
• learning and teaching during the process
• help from and to everyone in a everything-allowed way
• fair judgement

to your point 1.
When you say limitation of help destroys interaction I say it firstly creates a proper environment for a competition in a way.

to 2.
It's nice when one learn things, but it can happen next to, or after a contest with judgement. And by the way, also directly after a contest everyone could simply post his reviews. It feels a bit like having a contest (with prizes etc) is a excuse for being the only platform for learning, and now it's being censored. There are, or should be permy chances to learn, else something seems to go wrong, and main goal is misunderstood.

to 3.
A non-teamwork rule exists for a long time, so also othrs must have thought about something in past. How we define it, is something else, but we can of course discuss it, what we exactly think is allowed and what not. Also, for example the not-reviewing in resource section was a as far as I remember always a point we had during a contest (locking thread came later). Lastly, as we had last hero contest, I brought it up to, as I thought of it it needs some clearer line. But to "why changing" or clearer defining - because I thought it makes sense as it seemed too vague.

to last,
if you believe it's unfair in regards to other contestats, then I would think to not-allow it, yes. And you would contribute to that feeling, because the user should try to create a submission alone, and not with help of maybe some pro who pushes him to top rank.

Is there some better wording then maybe?

 

[Kyrbi0]

Subscribing for later. Very glad this conversation is being had. Definitely agree with the Poll idea (though there's a preliminary question to be determined, IMO).

 

[Arowanna]

Somewhat Off-Topic
Can someone please direct me towards why this was implemented? I keep hearing that there has been a non-formal discussion in a former contest, but when was this? I'd really love to hear some of the initial ideas to why this ruling was needed.

---

@IcemanBo please don't take my targeting of your comments as a personal attack. Just trying to convey my viewpoints and right now you're the only one challenging my point of view.

Back to Topic

But what do you say yourself? Does it equal details of a review you would give as judge in end, when it's about rank and prize, and do you think feedback alike to only 1-2 contestants gives someone an unfair advantage? I believe most of us should have such feel intuitivly adapted and that one could answer it for himself most of times.

I would not equal my example to a final review, no*. And I'm going to say this a lot in this thread, but I do not care for the competitiveness of an online contest; i.e. I do not care about Internet points or prizes. What I care about is improvement. Again, this is my opinion and I do not considered it the "be all, end all" answer to this question.

*This is going to bring me slightly Off-Topic, but nor do I really value "final reviews" for these competitions either. I honor the judges for pouring their free time into the judging process, but once the judging is done and the results are published, I will most likely have moved on and dropped interest in whatever I created. The first month or so of creativity is one of the other reasons why I love contests. The restriction to a certain theme or topic gets the creative juices flowing and the time frame sets a clear goal for when the product must be delivered.

This makes me value tips, trick and ideas during the contest a whole lot more than a review coming in once the project has been completed. However, if one takes the reviews to heart, they should have an impact on future contests or at least present you with certain flaws in your craft that you should work on.

I'm not sure I understand that you mean it to make sense, but at same time being against rule wording. Should a contest primary include:

• ranks, awards, +rep
• learning and teaching during the process
• help from and to everyone in a everything-allowed way
• fair judgement

As mentioned, I have personally never cared for the competition, I get enough of that by browsing peoples portfolios. Online contests, for me personally, has always been about improvement. So for me, it would be the continual development of myself and the oddly cozy feeling of a rather small online community doing things together. And here on the Hive, I'd argue that the general improvement of all active members is to its benefit as well.

to your point 1.
When you say limitation of help destroys interaction I say it firstly creates a proper environment for a competition in a way.

to 2.
It's nice when one learn things, but it can happen next to, or after a contest with judgement. And by the way, also directly after a contest everyone could simply post his reviews. It feels a bit like having a contest (with prizes etc) is a excuse for being the only platform for learning, and now it's being censored. There are, or should be permy chances to learn, else something seems to go wrong, and main goal is misunderstood.

to 3.
A non-teamwork rule exists for a long time, so also othrs must have thought about something in past. How we define it, is something else, but we can of course discuss it, what we exactly think is allowed and what not. Also, for example the not-reviewing in resource section was a as far as I remember always a point we had during a contest (locking thread came later). Lastly, as we had last hero contest, I brought it up to, as I thought of it it needs some clearer line. But to "why changing" or clearer defining - because I thought it makes sense as it seemed too vague.

to last,
if you believe it's unfair in regards to other contestats, then I would think to not-allow it, yes. And you would contribute to that feeling, because the user should try to create a submission alone, and not with help of maybe some pro who pushes him to top rank.

1. If the goal is competition, then yes, restricting help from other members makes sense.

However, I see two problems with this way of thinking. First, there are many ways to get help outside of the Hive if you're active on any other type of community. As mentioned, Polycount is a great place for artists to get help in general. Be that via active communication or tutorials. Heck, if one invests in their hobby, various artists will give you personal mentorship via services such as Patreon. I am not saying that this is something I know to be prevalent, but if one is invested in improving, there are cheap and easy ways to get better faster.

Second, creating a competitive environment online almost de facto translates to a hostile or elitist environment, just look to competitive multiplayer games for examples. Whilst I loved some of the elitism present here and on WC3C back in the days, I do not value it any more. It taught me not to be an ignorant idiot online, but that's about it. This again, is conjecture on my part and I can not prove this opinion in any way, shape or form, I will concede that fact.

In the end, I fall back on the argument that if we encourage improvement over competition, the Hive will benefit more by the general improvement of the active userbase than the endorsement of a few, already established contributors.

2. My opinions for this can be seen above.

3. The old, simple line of "No teamwork is allowed" should really be obvious to most people in my mind. Of course, the vagueness of it could be put to extremes, where someone basically makes the whole product first and another person copies it to their level of proficiency, making a carbon copy that most likely won't outshine the original work. Or someone guiding every minute step of the entire process, however, this would require some hardcore dedication by the mentor. I have never seen this and I do not believe it's a problem.

4. Just wondering, why is it wrong to apply for guidance in contest? As I've mentioned many times now, I might just have a completely different viewpoint on what the purpose of a contest is. But where does the idea stem from that you should do everything within your own bubble before consulting the world whether you're moving in the right direction or if your doing everything wrong?

And even if someone employed the guidance of an expert, the expert alone will not be able to train a mediocre apprentice to a master craftsmans within the limited time of a contests. Can clear improvement be seen? Of course, the initial improvement can be drastic, but why is this a bad thing? The conflict seems stems from the perceived fear that some people improve whilst others don't. But should someone who invests in their craft really be considered "a cheater" or something similar just because of the mere fact that they actually want to improve?

What about people attending higher education in, for example, game design, 3D art, music and etc. Are they allowed to participate in these contests despite the fact that they've the "unfair" advantage of having an entire class and body of teachers to ask for guidance in various aspects?

Is there some better wording then maybe?

I still don't understand what was wrong with the simple "No teamwork allowed".

I think we need a poll on this. Seriously. Unless the majority of the users enjoy this new rule, I fail to feel comfortable about enforcing it.

I agree with @Kyrbi0, let us have some debate first, to capture what viewpoints there are on the topic. No need to poll before we've options.

 

[Naze]

Spoiler: To IcemanBo

When you say limitation of help destroys interaction I say it firstly creates a proper environment for a competition in a way.

Agreed. This recent change also favours a good competitive environment.

But to "why changing" or clearer defining - because I thought it makes sense as it seemed too vague.

This answers my question. Just for clarification: this isn't a personal attack to you, KILLCIDE or Keiji: your job was to refine the rules of the Arena and this change makes sense, so you guys did the correct thing.

I'm not sure I understand that you mean it to make sense, but at same time being against rule wording.

If you don't understand how I say "I think the new rule wording makes sense" while being against it, it means I failed to express myself sucessfully =P

Should a contest primary include:

• 1. ranks, awards, +rep
• 2. learning and teaching during the process
• 3. help from and to everyone in a everything-allowed way
• 4. fair judgement

I don't think we should make a contest with "help from everyone, in a everything-allowed way" (sentence number 3 above). If I didn't make it clear, I meant to make teamwork prohibited just like it was before: physically working on someone's entry is prohibited. This is flawed? Yes. The reasons of my above post shows why I prefer it like it was before, even if it's not perfect.

But enough about me! I'm just a single user. This is why my reply to IcemanBo is hidden. What's important here is to see what the users think about the arena and the new rule. Obviously there are the "I-like-contests-because-it's-fun" users (like me) and the users who prefer a more competitive environment. But I don't know what the majority thinks.

Alright, before making a public poll I'll have to organize arguments in a way that properly shows the reasoning behind each side.

Kyrbi0 also wants to add something to the discussion, which I guess is this question: "What is the point of any given contest? Is it to have fun, to increase the number of resources, to engender community, or as 'tests of skill' to determine who is best at something? Or some combination?". He contributed with this question in an Arena discussion last year, and it helped defining what the user expects from contests and how we should adapt them to make it an enjoyable experience.

 

[Chaosy]

I understand why the rule exists, but I cannot say that I fully agree with it.

Of course, you could have a person who passes his product along to ten people to look for mistakes and whatnot and he would inevitably have a much better product in the end because of it.

But at the same time, it feels stupid that I cannot ask a friend "What do you think about this?"
For me personally, it can be a huge motivating factor to get positive comments on whatever you are working on.
But people wont comment because it is against the rules.

 

[IcemanBo]

@Arowanna ( I try to keep my answer a bit shorter, if I miss something important please re-ask)
The discussion popped up somewhere here, which brought up we are not align with definition of the rule what exactly allowed teamwork is. This is basically what was "wrong" for me, that it was seemingly interpreted variously.

If it's not on review level, it would be probably no problem. And also something like pointing someone into right direction, or so is nothing really that should be disallowed. I think it's still something good. But reviewing and giving huge platform for improvement from external sources/users before judgement comes is where we probably think to decide differentely. I don't very agree it has something to do with elitism and such, and I probably would personaly prefer such a competive environment as it seems more normal and also actually fun for me. But I respect that you, Naze and others maybe don't share it the same way.

Also higher educated people are allowed to join if it's about me, I don't see a problem.

But yes "the mare fact they want to improve" I would not allow in general, even it maybe sounds a bit rude. Hints yes, to give small help/right direction, but detailed reviews not.

I meant to make teamwork prohibited just like it was before: physically working on someone's entry is prohibited. This is flawed? Yes. The reasons of my above post shows why I prefer it like it was before, even if it's not perfect.

I also please want to point out something:

if not done blatantly rule-breaking, and you, other contestants and applied moderator find that given critique does't go too far, then it should be allowed without problems. But for fairness reasons I think it's also good that there is a stated opportunity for us to step in, if we realize some contestants might get big advantages in comparison to others.

^... that me personally would never go for example in a Texturing Contest and start now to block posts if mod and contestants all think it's fine. But for example, I personally maybe want have the chance to step in, in contests I maybe watch, to hide review if I think it goes too exact with instructions and help.

But at the same time, it feels stupid that I cannot ask a friend "What do you think about this?"

I don't see a problem here with asking your friend for his opinion, as some feedback should never be problematic, also with the rule.

Besides this discussion, we might shortly think about, too, if it then makes even sense to ban reviews in resource section during contest, or to tell contestants not to vote for them selves in the poll even, or to include ranks with prizes at first. (if question competition vs pure learning fun, and people don't care for such things)
It's pretty ideal if all would join only for fun, but I also bet that winning a prize brings motivation to get some contestants.
My thought is, if we want not really a competive contest, but want weight learning and teaching each other much more, then we maybe could ask ourself, if we maybe should create a new platform, or if we want to stay at a contest (with probably change/remove/having not-competetive teamwork thinking).

 

[Kyrbi0]

I began writing my response, but I realized I was basically re-routing the discussion (i.e. going off-topic) & so instead, since I have finally been tricked into writing written enough on the subject to warrant posting... I have.

I don't mean to be rude when I say that I won't really be able to respond On-Topic to this question right now; as important as it is, I think it is subordinate to & dependent on the Answer to that Question (however, this will definitely be the topic we should all come back to, IMO).

 

[deepstrasz]

Simple. Have contests with team work and those without it. Don't make a fuss about it.
It's always harder to run the first as a lot of users tend to either not finish their work or drop out.

 

[Kyrbi0]

Simple. Have contests with team work and those without it. Don't make a fuss about it.
It's always harder to run the first as a lot of users tend to either not finish their work or drop out.

... You've successfully glided right over the entire point of this topic. You can't have a Contest "without Teamwork" without a pretty clear definition of what Teamwork is. That's what we're talking about here.

 

[deepstrasz]

... You've successfully glided right over the entire point of this topic. You can't have a Contest "without Teamwork" without a pretty clear definition of what Teamwork is. That's what we're talking about here.

Regarding technicalities, suggestions from other users on one member per entry should not be considered teamwork. Surely, this is a modding site, not a real-life championship. As a judge, you should not downrate an entry because some member wrote something specific on said entry's enhancement process. That would be absurd, else you'd want to just have a closed convo with each contestant and judges and contest moderator instead.
Now, there might be people who are followers of a user in the contest. If too much feedback is given to that person and not to other contestants, then you might consider it a problem.

About actual teamwork, well, I guess the hero contest proved what every user should do for one entry. In what advice from other members/contestants is concerned, the same as above.

It'd be more of a fuss complicating things with strict rules. Of course, if you guys can handle it, it's your time and I'm not sure how better things will end up that way.
See, in the huge melee-mapping contest we just had a while back, mostly one contestant, gave technical feedback to all entries. A noble act whose result was definitely for the better, for everyone, even the judges.

Contests would have no real use considering the deadline basis if they'd be made not to also help contenders further improve.

 

[Kyrbi0]

That would be absurd, else you'd want to just have a closed convo with each contestant and judges and contest moderator instead.

That is, in fact, what some site's Contests do, believe it or not. To achieve perfect uniformity & fairness, all Contestants work privately on their entry. When it's done, they also privately turn them in to the Mod/Host. Furthermore, all the entries are obfuscated during the public Voting/Judging (i.e. no one knows which entry belongs to which Contestant), which solves all issues of "popularity Votes" and Judgments biased for the user.

(That last one is actually the way the Hive did Voice Acting Contests a while back, if you can believe that.)

~

I'm not saying that's the way things should go. But it is a thing, and if enough people wanted it we could do it.

... Surely, this is a modding site, not a real-life championship.
...
It'd be more of a fuss complicating things with strict rules. Of course, if you guys can handle it, it's your time and I'm not sure how better things will end up that way.
...
Contests would have no real use considering the deadline basis if they'd be made not to also help contenders further improve.

Great examples of why we must answer another Question first.

 

[IcemanBo]

Maybe if only wording is less strict it would help already:

Teamwork is not allowed.
- Giving feedback and suggestions is not considered as teamwork and is allowed. However, extreme boosting for one specific entry should be avoided to ensure some fairness.

@Naze @Arowanna

 

[Naze]

Teamwork is not allowed.
- Giving feedback and suggestions is not considered as teamwork and is allowed. However, extreme boosting for one specific entry should be avoided to ensure some fairness.

Okay, this wording of the rule feels much more like a good middle ground between the two sides of our discussion than it felt before. Perhaps we can work with that

 

[Devine]

Yeah guys, prohibiting feedback takes out the social aspect of entering. What's the fun in that?
If you really want the feedback, there's a million ways to get it, so the people that would abuse this idea are not going to stop because it's banned from the contest thread.
You're not solving anything, just limiting others in their experience. To be honest, I think it's a very narrow minded measure and I oppose it very strongly.

I'll be able to tolerate the proposition by icemanbo, even though I still despise that there has to be a rule about this horseshit.

 

[IcemanBo]

Following this logics we can screw the no-teamwork rule completly, because we can not ensure people don't PM each other, asking for 'physical help', and just allow everything.

'social communication' is one aspect, but not the only one. If that's the only goal, no contest was needed at all. Some compromise is wanted. Think about it maybe before calling it yourself very narrow minded.

 

[Devine]

'social communication' is one aspect, but not the only one. If that's the only goal, no contest was needed at all. Some compromise is wanted. Think about it maybe before calling it yourself very narrow minded.

I call the measure exactly what it is. I can get that some people see a problem here. A compromise I'm fine with, but the rule as it is now is not a compromise. It's a big fuck you to people who actually want to have fun in contests in a light-hearted group spirit.

Ofcourse teamwork should be forbidden. That's just common sense. But the way you guys are going about it is way too extreme. People can still help each other through other forms of communication and nobody would even have a clue. So why spoil it for the rest of us who just want to post "hey dude, cool entry, I like what you did with the thing but I'd change this and that to make it more awesome"? Do you understand that for some people the process of creating and socializing is much more important than total domination and control + an award icon?

For me a contest is not just about winning. I won't enter contests if I can't talk about any of the entries with people, compliment good work or give feedback. This is a community. Treat it as such.
And again: this measure is narrow-minded and it's also horseshit. Lol.

How do you guys keep coming up with little Zero-Tolerance knock-offs? It only alienates people.

 

[IcemanBo]

It makes no sense trying to discuss with you at the moment, you seem nicely to ignore the points. Have you read this and other thread even? - I would recommend to.

 

[Kyrbi0]

I think it bears mentioning, before I jump into actually responding, that you guys are bearing out the point I made in this thread; that is, 'depending on where in the spectrum you fall (more about fun vs. more about skill vs. more about enrichment) you will value different Rules & levels of enforcement & fairness differently'. Case in point:

In contests I have the feeling of some competive spirit, and so I would like to allow only rough and smaller feedback during the contest duration, and let the judge then make a fair scoring over all entries in the end.

Do you understand that for some people the process of creating and socializing is much more important than total domination and control + an award icon?

For me a contest is not just about winning. I won't enter contests if I can't talk about any of the entries with people, compliment good work or give feedback. This is a community. Treat it as such.

This is why I feel so strongly that "What is the Point of a Contest" is indeed the 'Prime Question', to be figured out as a Site before stuff like this. Because you'll have people like IcemanBo calling for more strictly-defined & enforced Rules (in order to attain optimal Fairness which provides the ideal ground for Competition & Testing of Skill), and people like Devine calling for less of that (in order to leave plenty of leeway for people to have Fun & Enrich others with advice & guidance), and there's really not much of a compromise, IMO.

Better to decide, ideally as a Site, where we stand on that issue. And/or, determine it on a discipline-by-discipline (or even Contest-by-Contest) basis, and make that decision clear (at whatever level necessary).

=============================================

There always existed a "no teamwork" rule as far as I can remember. But the exact dimension and interpretation was not defined.

Actually... I went back & checked several old Contests, going back to 2012 or so:

And I found, interestingly enough, that while there were several Contests with a variant of the "No Teamwork" Rule, there were several that didn't. I know basically none of mine did.

And even for the ones that did, often they included an additional, explanatory phrase such as

...the entire hero must be made by a single user.

or

Finding testers to help you with your submission is not considered teamwork.

The first seems to describe the situation/compromise I fought for: that 'teamwork' means actual 'work', actual 'stuff being made/done'. Any level of advice or guidance or suggestions or reviews, as long as it does not turn into actual work done by anyone but the entrant/team, was (I presume) considered acceptable.

The second comes at it from a different angle; one might reasonably ask, if "finding testers to help you != Teamwork", what exactly those testers were going to be doing? Surely along with 'testing' your entry they would, almost certainly, offer their thoughts/advice/guidance/review; thoughts/etc that would necessarily be pointed & specific, having come from testing your map directly.

Either way, I would argue the "No Teamwork" Rule is simultaneously not as widespread as you thought, nor as restrictive as you were making it recently.

It makes no sense trying to discuss with you at the moment, you seem nicely to ignore the points. Have you read this and other thread even? - I would recommend to.

Thanks for linking my thread.

He was, I believe, addressing your point; but he was saying that your version of a compromise is too compromising (lol); rather, that it does not go far enough.

Maybe if only wording is less strict it would help already:

Teamwork is not allowed.
- Giving feedback and suggestions is not considered as teamwork and is allowed. However, extreme boosting for one specific entry should be avoided to ensure some fairness.

I think this is a step in the right direction. I'm a little confused by the strange wording of "extreme boosting", and would perhaps offer as an alternative:

- Teamwork is not allowed: This includes any actual modding 'work' done by anyone but the entrant/team, but does not include giving feedback or suggestions. However, in order to ensure fairness, if the Host/Moderator feels that feedback is not being equitably distributed they are empowered to step in.

(If this is considered too long, it could simply be "Teamwork is not allowed" with a link to the Contest Template/Site Rules section or something)

Honestly, though, I'd just go with a variant of Pharaoh's version of that Rule:

- No entry shall contain work made by anyone other than its' respective entrant/team.

In fact, with a little addition, you can knock out two Rules with one stone:

No entry shall contain work made
- by anyone other than its' respective entrant/team
- from before the official start of the Contest

Following this logics we can screw the no-teamwork rule completly, because we can not ensure people don't PM each other, asking for 'physical help', and just allow everything.

@Devine He has a point here; that is, just because people can break the Rules if they try hard enough, doesn't mean we should necessarily get rid of that Rule. I mean, why do we have the WIP Rule (i.e. "Each entrant must provide a WIP (image or something) of their entry before submitting the Final version); if someone wants they can just mock up a WIP & post it, and get away with working before the Contest/working with others/not making WIPs/etc.

Yeah it can be easily circumvented but it's still a valuable Rule for those that do follow Rules.

'social communication' is one aspect, but not the only one. If that's the only goal, no contest was needed at all.

I disagree. Contests often provide the needed impetus to actually do something in modding for a lot of people (& the ensuing impetus to provide feedback). Speaking personally, sometimes it feels like Contests are the only things that do get me modding; I can't seem to keep up the motivation otherwise. :<

 

[IcemanBo]

"Must be made by a user"
"Testing is not considered as teamwork"

Right, something like this was already in past. Though, I believe the result of help metters, too, not necessarily, or only the method. Example:

• I can give you high detailed reviews, and it will have huge effect on your final result, but without physical touch.
• I can make a minimal physical touch myself, and in the end it's maybe only some grammer fix.

So when or what exactly can I call work myself when I get keeping help of others? What I wanted to achieve is actually we want a rule that allows feedback and suggestions, but that people get a feeling it's still a contest after all. I feel a bit bad that it seems a bit strict currently, and it scares people. Changing the wording seems at least necessary.

"it feels like Contests are the only things that do get me modding; I can't seem to keep up the motivation otherwise"

I think you're right, it can awake some motivation again for many of us here on hive. What I exactly meant is such environment of a collective modding does not have to be necessarily related to a ranked contest with prizes and nothing would stop the "fun only" people to create seperate events which do only this. (a bit provocatively said maybe, but just to point out that competetive and prized contest brings some motiviation and exclusive feeling, too)

Thanks for rule suggestion; I'm not very sure about it, but I agree the "boosting" part might be improved. Anyways @Naze has for sure also some opinion to share on it when it comes to final change.

 

[Shar Dundred]

I pity @Arowanna, really.

He wanted a healthy discussion about his topic, I don't see anyone here doing ANY kind of discussion about his concerns.

So disappointed.

 

[IcemanBo]

Can you specify what we exactly miss to discuss and what concern we should focus on?

 

[Devine]

It makes no sense trying to discuss with you at the moment, you seem nicely to ignore the points. Have you read this and other thread even? - I would recommend to.

I did not see that other thread, no. Result is the same.
I voice my opinion, which is apparently not very popular among the hard core of this site.
The new rule impacts me in a negative way and I'll say something about it. What is so wrong with that in a site discussion about this very subject?
Don't try to shame/mock me for not reading every thread on this site, especially with a title like "the prime question". My opinion still stands.

You can be as competitive in the arena as you want, however you don't let me be as social and open as I want to be in there. Free speech is an important concept for me.

Sure, I'm all for the no teamwork concept, but how often does it actually occur that someone writes posts upon posts with feedback during the creation process of a contest entry, every step of the way, that would actually give someone an unfair advantage? How is the rule actually going to positively impact this (apparent???) problem? Because there's literally nothing we can do about it once it's done over skype or similar platforms.

---

To make my concern more concrete:
"Smaller, subjective feedback is not considered as teamwork and is allowed."
The word "subjective" in this line is too narrow and/or vague in my opinion. Subjective feedback doesn't actually contain any valuable information whatsoever, besides where would you draw the line between subjective and objective?


"The contrast regarding the shading is a bit too extreme in my opinion, some softer lighting would be great"

"There are some ugly faces sticking out the back of your model, it should be a quick fix"

"You should tune the guitar in your entry, it would take the track to the next level"

Is this shit objective or subjective? The way I interpret the rule, this is all against the rules from now on, which is absolutely crazy. Note that a fact can be easily disguised as an opinion.


---
Edit: In reply to @Kyrbi0

@Devine He has a point here; that is, just because people can break the Rules if they try hard enough, doesn't mean we should necessarily get rid of that Rule. I mean, why do we have the WIP Rule (i.e. "Each entrant must provide a WIP (image or something) of their entry before submitting the Final version); if someone wants they can just mock up a WIP & post it, and get away with working before the Contest/working with others/not making WIPs/etc.

Sure. The screenshots/wips can be forged, but if you want to do that properly, you might as well make an authentic entry. The screenshot thing is a reasonable threshold for brutal cheaters. Regardless, of whether or not it is effective enough to be justified, it doesn't fundamentally impact the experience negatively for the duration of the contest. This new rule, however, does do that in my opinion, which is why I'm saying we should not go there.

I'll be frank here; I don't want to carefully consider my words when giving feedback on something as trivial as a game modding community amateur contest. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one, and that most people would be offended if their post full of good intentions got deleted by a wc3 modding gestapo over this rule.

 

[Naze]

Ok I read @Kyrbi0 and @IcemanBo trying out new wordings of the rule, and it sounds like we're getting to something. How about this:

"Teamwork is not allowed. Giving/receiving feedback isn't considered teamwork. If users feel that an entry is unfairly receiving too much help, the moderator can act on it."

Hopefully it doesn't scare anyone away from the "contests are fun" folk and also addresses to the concerns of the "competitive environment" guys. We can work with something like this while we don't have the results of the major poll - the poll that will be made to get a statistic feel of how the majority of our Arena users feel like regarding the interaction-competition factor onf contests*. We're of two different, heterogenous kinds here, and I doubt we'll both be 100% satisfied in a single solution.

*I can already see the results being inconclusive (like being 50%-50%), and then we'll be on this struggle from each side again =P

Also, IcemanBo's suggestion of potentially separating the environment (like hosting interaction-based events and competition-based contests that co-exist differently) may be good or bad, we need more thinking on it. Perhaps it may prove to be a successful idea and even bring more activity to the site, or perhaps we'll end up spreading our activity in too many different things, ultimately diminishing it. Who knows.

 

[IcemanBo]

Thanks, Naze. re-suggestion:

"Teamwork is not allowed. Giving feedback is not considered as teamwork, though one should try to avoid unfair advantages."

Devine, I wish you good luck fighting for your rights, free spech, and against the gestapo. Don't let them put you down.

 

[Arowanna]

The main problem we are having right now is the fact that we are already running circles. Nothing of value is being produced, people are regurgitating ideas and views already presented; the only difference being are other people stating the same ideas, restarting the argument from point zero accomplishing very little to nothing. I respect that people want to be heard, but regurgitating with passive aggressiveness and snark leads nowhere and will only infuriate people. I am absolutely not a saint in this regard, but I would suggest keeping the snark away if we want to accomplish anything of value here.

My main question was answered a while back and I've been silent since then because my question was answered; I am in a sense, "done here, ready to move on".

Why is reviewing/critique considered teamwork, when was this rule added and why was it added?

But since then the topic has evolved into two separate topics, closely related depending on how one views the 'prime question':
• What is the point of a contest?
• What is teamwork?

@Kyrbi0 has already pointed us in the right direction for one of the topics and moved the discussion.

And I would argue that we can't answer the second question before we determine the 'prime question'. We can continue to argue over the limits of teamwork, what constitutes it and how to handle it. But in my eyes, it's fruitless until we have solved how to handle contests and what the point of them are. No matter what path "wins" in the end will directly dictate the answer for how we should handle teamwork.

For example, if we choose to wander down the extreme competitive route, Kyrbi0 has already described what I would consider to be the most fair, competitive environment we could create:

That is, in fact, what some site Contests do, believe it or not. To achieve perfect uniformity & fairness, all Contestants work privately on their entry. When it's done, they also privately turn them in to the Mod/Host. Furthermore, all the entries are obfuscated during the public Voting/Judging (i.e. no one knows which entry belongs to which Contestant), which solves all issues of "popularity Votes" and Judgments biased for the user.

(That last one is actually the way the Hive did Voice Acting Contests a while back, if you can believe that.)

If this example "won", most of our discussions regarding teamwork would be rendered null and we would have to enforce a strict no teamwork rule. This will be true no matter what route "wins" in the end, so discussing teamwork right now will not yield anything of value. Of course, we can go on being angry with each other, but what good does that accomplish?

Teamwork is not allowed.
- Giving feedback and suggestions is not considered as teamwork and is allowed. However, extreme boosting for one specific entry should be avoided to ensure some fairness.

- Teamwork is not allowed: This includes any actual modding 'work' done by anyone but the entrant/team, but does not include giving feedback or suggestions. However, in order to ensure fairness, if the Host/Moderator feels that feedback is not being equitably distributed they are empowered to step in.

Whilst clear rules are desirable, complicating the rules by defining them too well can back fire. A good example would be to compare the rules for paying taxes in Switzerland compared to the USA. In Switzerland, a small handbook containing some 80 pages is all you need, in the USA you've over 1000 pages with minute details for everything. There's a reason why it's easy to get your taxes done in Switzerland and why it can be a pain in the USA.

For example, the first example I gave in this thread was a paintover followed by some ideas and tips. People could interpret it as actual physical work as I have touched the posted work, not in the supposed way, but I've still touched it. Is this teamwork if the ideas are embraced and applied to the product? Where do I cross the line? I could suggest things with words, but art is damn hard to translate. Showing processes, giving examples and exposing flaws with examples is a lot easier.

If the example was pure code, could someone suggest improvements to code by posting edits to optimize the process, or would that break the rule? Could I purpose a whole different approach that would make the operation run smoother? Again, where do I cross the line of actual work?

I am most likely applying a logical fallacy here; Moving the Goalpost or something. But I would again ask, would this work be considered too much? It is "work", but is it substantial enough to be consider teamwork?

And again, I am back where I more or less started; what's wrong with helping people improve? And that in turn, I guess, would move us to "What's the point of a contest"? Again, running in circles.

 

[Devine]

Devine, I wish you good luck fighting for your rights, free spech, and against the gestapo. Don't let them put you down.

Thanks man!

 

[IcemanBo]

The question for what makes a contest was seemingly answered:

• People can modd on something 'together' in some interesting workframe. (social fun)
• People can submit something and receive critiques in regards of goal. (learning fun)
• People can compete against others and win prizes. (competetive fun)

then, we can think about if we can define some rule that would match for the goals, not limitting one aspect too much to destroy the fun. I would dislike if there can be only 1 winner. I have listed some concerns that I would like to focus to aim if the goal is completly to remove the "no teamwork" rule. Else I would like to understand if the current attempt to re-word the rule, to make it less strict would match with yours/others imaginations, or why it does not, in regards of what would be an other attempt.

 

[GhostWolf]

I think that contestants in a contest on a modding site should be able to get feedback. Anything else is absurd. This is a MODDING community.
Now it seems like everyone here agrees with this, so the question is really what feedback is considered allowed.
Are you going to monitor every word or action any person says or does in regards to a contest, and tell the simpletons if its allowed or not?
What do you base this judgement on?

And I have to ask, since you want to enforce some totalitarian regime over contests in which you judge what speech is allowed or not, since when is this even a problem in the first place? I never saw anyone discussing what feedback is now allowed or not in the past 11 years.

 

[Kyrbi0]

In IcemanBo's defense:

I think that contestants in a contest on a modding site should be able to get feedback. Anything else is absurd. This is a MODDING community.
Now it seems like everyone here agrees with this, so the question is really what feedback is considered allowed.
Are you going to monitor every word or action any person says or does in regards to a contest, and tell the simpletons if its allowed or not?
What do you base this judgement on?

Simple: standardization. I've seen, in a community similar to this one, a Contest which was completely silent; no one put up WIPs, no one gave feedback. In fact they were required to privately submit their stuff to the Host/Mod, and the Voting thread had their entries obfuscated. Only at the very end did people learn who had won.

We may argue whether or not that's pragmatic, or useful, or effective for what we want to do on the Hive. But for someone more interested in 'competition' than in 'fun' or 'enrichment', someone who wishes a greater level of standardization & fairness between Contestants, well, it's not a long leap.

And I have to ask, since you want to enforce some totalitarian regime over contests in which you judge what speech is allowed or not, since when is this even a problem in the first place? I never saw anyone discussing what feedback is now allowed or not in the past 11 years.

Just because something has "been done this way forever" doesn't mean we can't investigate it & possibly even rework it. "A life unexamined is not worth living", and all that.

~~~

That being said, I agree with you on both points.

 

[IcemanBo]

The goal is for sure not to monitor every single word, and noone from staff would want this. The goal was to achieve a fair rule, and also once again, I can explain my view.

Physical, voice, written, - what ever feedback are methods of giving feedback. It can have low, and also huge effect on result. My goal was not to limit the rule on physical feedback, but more trying to get something more universal to give to understand feedback is allowed until someone gets feel it's getting too unbalanced and leads to unfairness between contestants. Yes, this feel might be subjective and not perfect, but only focusing on a physical touch seems a bit lacky for me, too.

It may be misunderstood or people don't agree, and also then I must say, if it is so, then it is so, and we can go with keeping/having the physical restriction only.

 

[GhostWolf]

The point of feedback is to improve. You quite literally want to stop people from improving in a modding community over feelings. And since you admit it's subjective, which is clear from these 3 mirror threads, again, how are you going to judge this? based on what? Do you monitor what both the target and source of feedback think about said feedback? it's about feelings after all, the same feedback can mean very different things to different people. Can you monitor all feedback?

My point is that you are discussing irrelevant (not an issue) subjective (feelings) moderation over things you both cannot moderate, practically speaking, and indeed shouldn't moderate, as it's anything but moral.

Making rules you cannot enforce and cannot define - not due to lack of thought, as seen in these 3 threads, but because there is no objective definition for them - isn't a very good direction if you ask me.

 

[IcemanBo]

The point of feedback is to improve.

Yes, but that does not necessarily equal with the one and only goal of a contest.

You quite literally want to stop people from improving in a modding community over feelings.

Nonsense, as also in a contest under this rule people would not be forbidden to improve.

And since you admit it's subjective, which is clear from these 3 mirror threads, again, how are you going to judge this? based on what? Do you monitor what both the target and source of feedback think about said feedback? it's about feelings after all, the same feedback can mean very different things to different people. Can you monitor all feedback?

As said, subjectivity will also play a role, but that doesn't mean it will be totally arbitary. Ratings are also always done subjectively, and also some other rules. Why even forbidd any teamwork, one can argue the same, because I would need to monitor each interaction, and it's not possible. So let's throw this away, and also don't enforce start time, and WIPs, and physical work-sharing restriction.

Your argument makes not much sense to throw away fairness, only because it's nothing pure objectve. Think about it, and look outside your bubble.

edit:

Could you argue against why it makes more sense restricting one method of helping (physical help), which you can not enforce, too.. over restrictng result of help, judging its severeness? If noone would feel unfairness this question would never occur, but then it needs to be considered.

 

[GhostWolf]

The goal of a contest is to win by having the best submission. That's the definition of what a contest is. I don't know why you bring feedback into this at all, that's a thing with modding communities and people trying to better themselves in general.

It's true you cannot monitor if one user does the work of another, or cheats in any way.
Indeed, there are no "restrictions" of any kind here, it's more about human decency and community trust.
At the very least these rules can be easily defined (e.g. changing the submission in any way), and have a moral backing to them.

Define what "valid" and "invalid" feedback are first, then talk about a rule. There are no just rules that depend on the subjective feelings of people. No matter the subject.

 

[Kyrbi0]

The goal of a contest is to win by having the best submission. That's the definition of what a contest is.

That is a matter of opinion.

There are no just rules that depend on the subjective feelings of people. No matter the subject.

I feel like this is incorrect, but it will take me a bit to put my thoughts together.

 

[IcemanBo]

GhostWolf, winning a contest goal is not the same goal as self-improving goal, but I guess you understand this yourself.

Define what "valid" and "invalid" feedback are first, then talk about a rule. There are no just rules that depend on the subjective feelings of people. No matter the subject.

You don't answer, and you seemingly have troubles for understanding of what is debated. You are the one who should argue first what and why your thought is better before judging others.

 

[GhostWolf]

The opening post of this thread states it is about this rule:

Teamwork is not allowed. Such can be detailed and technical cooperation, like reviewing, which is prohibited. Smaller, subjective feedback is not considered as teamwork and is allowed.

Can you please define this rule? this is the third time I ask this, because this is exactly the core problem of this rule, you have no definition yourself, or otherwise I don't see any reason you wouldn't have said it already.
This side stepping is a waste of time.

That is a matter of opinion.

It's a matter of that being the definition of the word and activity. You can tell yourself that not winning an activity that at its core is about winning is fine because it's all for fun, but please don't enforce such things on other people by suggesting they are too weak to compete. Like I already stated, it's very condescending.

 

[Ralle]

Oh man those two threads are awefully similar. I might have just posted off topic in the other one when I posted this:

So far it’s pretty clear that fun is important. Shocker. I think I like the rule to strike somewhere around actually improving someone else’s entry. As in actually doing their job. But feedback? Man, feedback is the best. We have contests to get better. If you can get better during the contest because you’re in the spotlight that’s an added bonus. All I ask for is that you made the entry yourself.

I think that should be the rule. That you must have done the work yourself. In full. That also seems very tangible.