[Icehouse] Ice Game Design Competition 2007

[Brian Campbell]

Oh, sorry! When I was describing my thoughts for the competition, I  
meant what I was describing to be just the differences from the old  
competition, with everything else being the same. I forgot that there  
might be people who weren't around for the old competition, or people  
might just not remember all the details. I would like to preserve the  
ranked voting system (if I can get the scripts that Zarf used, that  
would be great), preserve the open entry to everyone, the rules about  
no commercially published games or previous entrants (unless they're  
a substantially different game, like Gnostica vs. Zarcana or  
Homeworlds vs. Ice Traders), and so on.

For people who need a refresher on what the old competition format  
was, you can see it described here:
http://icehousegames.com/contest/

On Apr 16, 2007, at 10:24 AM, Carlton Noles wrote:

> Duh....going back through my email I found a link that covers  
> almost everything I was talking about. I was basically fro the 5th  
> competition but gives more detqailed info.
>
> Ice Games Design Competition
>
> On 4/16/07, Carlton Noles <carlton.noles at gmail.com> wrote:  
> hmmm....I had thought about taking over in the past but held back  
> largely due to the fact that I had intended to enter. I too am in  
> agreement with much of what I read here. The prizes I could take or  
> leave. I would love to win a crystal case set, but I would be very  
> happy to be able to attach the tag "award winning" to my game and  
> "award winning game designer" to my name.
>
> I would like to point out a few things about the past competition  
> to consider. Entry in it was restricted to only unpublished games.  
> Publication on Slick, or the Wiki would not disqualify a game but  
> commercial publication would (as in a commercial release of the  
> game or perhaps publishing in a magazine like 'Games'. Previously  
> entered games would not qualify unless significantly changed. So  
> you can't just keep entering the same game hoping  for weaker  
> competition. The ballot was open to all who entered which I still  
> think is a good idea. If there are so many entries we need to pare  
> it down then some form of primary system is called for. If a  
> committee is choosing who or what gets on the ballot then we are  
> right back to the issues recently discussed about the wiki. I think  
> somewhere in the neighborhood of ten or so should be fine for the  
> ballot (perhaps more considering the lower frequency of the  
> competitions). The last major point I recall was for voting the  
> previous competition used a ranking system for voting. and the  
> ultimate decision wasn't on just wh got the most first place votes.  
> I will see if I can dig up some emails on the previous voting  
> system as I recall there was some discussion about it. No t that it  
> must still be used but I think it is worth considering.
>
>
> -- 
> Carlton "Kermit" Noles
> ==================
> "Joy Multiplies when it is shared among friends but grief  
> diminishes at every division. That is life"
> -Drizzt Do'Urden
> ==================
> Want your own GMail Account?
> Ask Me for an invite.
>
> On 4/16/07, James Hazelton < jameshazelton at gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm glad that someone is able to take up this responsibility. I  
> think it is important to have an individual by name who can head up  
> a project and be accountable. That said, I also think it would be a  
> good idea to have a small cabal of associates who also have access  
> to voting records, to head off termination and even delay. Were  
> such a cabal to be formed, I hope my name is considered.
>
> Brian, you make a lot of good points; while I disagree on some  
> points, it looks like we are on the same page for most things.
>
> 1. Things from the old competition should be cleared up, but if we  
> are going to have two formats this time around (see below), it  
> would be overkill to redo the last competition as well. Certainly  
> it is only fair to allow the games to compete. You might go so far  
> as to guaranteeing a spot on the ballot for those games (this is  
> assuming that there would be a primary to see which games get to  
> compete--after this long, there may be too many games for everyone  
> to get on the ballot).
>
> 2. While I agree that the Wiki is an invaluable tool for the  
> community and it would convenient to use it for the competition, I  
> think it is important to make sure that game submission and voting  
> can both be done without membership to the Wiki. I am assuming that  
> we will get mentions on Looneylabs.com and Wunderland.com, so no  
> doubt there will be a good number of potential voters who want to  
> participate, but not enough to sign up for something. There should  
> be an email option as well for anything that requires membership to  
> the Wiki.
>
> 3. Once or twice a year is, in my opinion, more preferable than  
> quarterly. I don't think every game made in the time frame should  
> even be allowed on the ballot, necessarily. The Icehouse Null Game  
> was in the first competition--how? Fewer competitions a year will  
> increase the average quality of the games.
>
> 4. I strongly disagree with adding prize support to the  
> competition. The traditional "prize" of having your game recognized  
> on likely printed is good enough. A Crystal Caste set would be  
> enough motivation to get someone to cheat, and even a set of ZPIPs  
> or a fancy piecenik set add something to the game that I'm not sure  
> is proper. If it were a Looney-supported prize--say, off-coloured  
> pyramids or some cash--I may feel different, because then it could  
> be more in the line of reimbursement for printing rights.
>
> 5. I very much like the idea of a dual-format. This is in line with  
> what I was suggesting earlier about having a Treehouse-centric  
> ballot and a separate open ballot. This time the themed format  
> would be Treehouse, and next time it could be Volcano caps, or  
> tarot cards, or whatever. For all the reasons you mentioned,  
> especially fostering creativity in games, I think it is a fantastic  
> idea.
>
>
> James
>
> _______________________________________________
> Icehouse mailing list
> Icehouse at lists.looneylabs.com
> http://lists.looneylabs.com/mailman/listinfo/icehouse
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Carlton "Kermit" Noles
> ==================
> "Joy Multiplies when it is shared among friends but grief  
> diminishes at every division. That is life"
> -Drizzt Do'Urden
> ==================
> Want your own GMail Account?
> Ask Me for an invite.
> _______________________________________________
> Icehouse mailing list
> Icehouse at lists.looneylabs.com
> http://lists.looneylabs.com/mailman/listinfo/icehouse