I think that it is officially the case that there will be one more talk before Tuyet’s contest
1 Like
That would be hilarious, though a little time constraining to get out renders.
Ok that’s great news, since I’m almost done the new renders of my Tuyet, who needed some slight adjustments:
(Double waist removal function)
4 Likes
As Jerminator pointed out, the main way would be for auditors not to function as independant groups, but as one larger group working together/communicating on their observations and decisions. If people from other sites had their own auditors, then that’s awesome, more perspectives equals a more fair audit, but auditors from different sites shouldn’t be operating in their own “silos”. As I have mentioned/others have mentioned, we’d need to find a central way to communicate pretty quickly.
Also…a lot of people exist on multiple sites anyway. Looking at it as a “ttv team” or a “bs01 team” or a “MoD team” leaves out the fact that, in the end, we’re all just a larger bionicle community. If other sites join in the auditing process then, IMO, that should be the way it’s treated.
Regarding your rule 11 concern, I’m going to have to put a huge disclaimer in front of my thoughts:
the following is my opinion, and my opinion alone. I’m confident none of this was ever overtly stated as a rule, and is merely representative of how I saw my role/approached my role/believe the auditing role should be run
You’re essentially asking more broadly whether submitting an entry on one site as opposed to another could lead to it getting DQ’d, while elsewhere it would escape. How would that be prevented?
I strongly believe that each DQ needs to be taken extremely seriously, and therefore each DQ decision should likely rest in the hands of ALL the people running the contest (currently, that means Eljay and Meso, but that looks like it will expand). The auditing team may be able to suggest the changes necessary to prevent a DQ, and may make a case for an entry to be DQ’d, but in the end, the people running the contest need to make that decision.
Which means, IMO, that (much as multi-site auditors would need to find a central way to regularly communicate during the entry period), any site participating in this would likely need the people running said site to be in communication about DQs. We shouldn’t run into a situation where a representative from (site was chosen by random number generator) bzpower decides that Entry A needs to be DQ’d, and does it, before (site chosen by random number generator) TTV even knows there was a problem.
I do agree that offloading much of the entry moderation/auditing onto a team of volunteers (us) is a net good, and there’s a lot we can do/have done that takes some responsibility off of the people running the sites, but actively removing an entry from consideration should only be done by people who have years of gaining the communities respect (AKA, the people who run these sites), and have also accepted the responsibility of running these contests (AKA, the people who run these sites). It should also only be done with ALL of their approval, or at least a consensus.
So…to better answer your question in specific…Keeping Rule 11 consistant should be done by putting the decision in the hands of the contest runners, in communication with each other, and should not be a decision isolated to one site or another. But that is my opinion.
I hope any of the above made sense lol. I thought too much/cared to much about the auditing role, and accurately expressing my thoughts sadly leads to rambling/textwalls.
9 Likes
One tiny nitpick I have with this is that DQs and Rule 11 are not necessarily synonymous.
Entries can be disqualified for any rule violation, provided that the entrant refuses to change their entry to comply with the requested changes.
You are absolutely correct that all DQs should be handled by the same team, but that really means “the entire auditing process”, not just Rule 11.
1 Like
Same, I’ve got my idea of how it’s used but pretty sure no one will like it
1 Like
could this lead to peer pressure negatively affecting decisions tho?
1 Like
MoD implied that we would do a follow-up talk, and I guess it’s possible if circumstances permit, but I personally don’t feel the need at this juncture. We have a solid foundation laid for what needs to happen thanks to the discussions, and the minutiae of coordinating with all the various different sites and potential representatives (ambassadors) is a lengthy process that can’t really be done in a public atmosphere. The weeks worth of scheduling discussions it took to arrange the last talk also make the prospect a little daunting, and I feel like a lot of the groundwork that necessitated the public talks in the first place has more or less been covered in the 6+ hours of discussions we’ve had. Big picture stuff had to be discussed, mindsets had to change, and communication had to be opened up. Now that we know which direction we’re moving in… we just have to get there, and we’re all able to contact each other and discuss the finer points without the need for public spectacle.
As an update, in an effort to prevent past issues with lack of communication, we just wanted to give a heads-up that we’re going to be pretty busy these next few weeks with some things in our personal lives and so won’t be around to fully give our attention to this topic or reply to contest-related messages. This will begin on February 21st and we’ll be fully present again on March 6th.
Just to catch those who may be unaware up on where we’re at with things (even though most people here are likely aware considering the last few days of discussions), we recently had a call with the folks over at Mask of Destiny where we spoke about the future of the contests and collaborations between us and the wider BIONICLE community to ensure they run more smoothly and encompass more websites than just ours.
The talk revolved around a lot of different topics, with some of the most significant for the future being:
- Allowing people to enter on various different websites instead of just TTV
- Working with these different websites to collaborate on rules and regulations for the contests
- Potential ban amnesty, allowing banned users to still be able to vote on the contest polls even if they can’t post messages publicly (AKA “Silencing”)
- A potential alternative voting program proposed by Mask of Destiny that could allow people to vote on other sites instead of just TTV (jury’s still out on this one pending further development by them, as we’re concerned about security)
…and a whole lot more. As of this moment, the Tuyet contest beginning is largely contingent on how quickly we can begin active dialogue with any and all interested sites who want to participate (it’s my understanding that some from MoD have already begun to outreach with some of the international BIONICLE community to gauge interest) and iron out any potential entry/voting procedure changes, as we want to make any requested alterations BEFORE Tuyet starts. Considering the amount of feedback we’ve received thus far, we feel like to move forward with the contest at this point, before we get everything ironed out, would just incite more ire from people who aren’t happy with how they’ve gone so far.
As such, though I know you’re all eager to get started (so are we), we can’t make any promises yet as a lot of it is out of our hands. Hopefully we can get things sorted soon enough and make some substantial positive changes with the help of MoD and others!
Thanks for your patience and hopefully we have more updates to share soon!
35 Likes
sorry for my late response to these:
Oh, yes, agreed. Let me create a semi-rediculus extreme example to better explain my point though.
Let’s say, hypothetically, we were doing a contest for a character named Aku;hasiuasgd. Aku;hasiuasgd is canonically described clearly, without room for interpretation, as having 3 legs. One entry, however, has two.
In my opinion, the auditor’s role would be to recognize that fact, document that fact, and inform the entrant that they need to, in this case, add the third leg. If that entrant refuses, or just adds a tail instead, then even though that would be a very obvious required DQ, the auditors, in my opinion, shouldn’t do that independantly. Something of that degree of seriousness should not happen without the involvement of the contest runners (which, as of todays date is Meso and Eljay, but, again, seems like will expand shortly), and our role in that case, in my opinion would be to inform the runners of the situation, and suggest a course (or multiple potential courses in the case of more grey areas) of action, and a justification as to why. But, once again, that is my opinion.
In other words, rule 11 or otherwise, no DQing should happen without involvement of the “higher-ups”, for lack of a better term, and my opinion was that said “higher-ups” should all keep in discussion with each other about decisions with the magnitude of a DQ. But, and I will say this whenever discussing auditing because this needs to be clear, that is my opinion
Any of the auditors, please please please please PLEASE say if my impression is wrong, but I don’t think peer pressure was a big factor for the current team during Hagah.
I see what you’re saying, but I don’t know a way to facilitiate fair auditing without all auditors discussing more complex issues, together, as the issues come up. The alternative would seem to be the “siloing” of different teams in different sites, which could lead to different teams coming to different conclusions. Smarter people than me may come up with a different solution though.
3 Likes
This model seems like it would work well. Of course, that’s pending any major, fundamental changes to the contest format.
1 Like
Thank you for the update! Excited to see what the future brings.
You don’t even need a hypothetical; this exact scenario happened already:
And I agree, this is how it should be:
no DQing should happen without involvement of the “higher-ups”,
(I think I’ve said as much before but I could be wrong sometimes I forget things I’ve said and things I was gonna say but someone else said it for me)
4 Likes
I agree too. But like you said, this is how it always was. Auditor’s never had the authority to do anything but point out discrepancies in the rules and methods to prevent a DQ.
This is something I don’t believe was ever explicitly said publicly (until now), but I think it’s important to mention. Initially it seemed many people misunderstood the role of the auditing process.
Auditors really don’t have much power at all. We’re just nerds who over-analyze each entry for rule adherence.
5 Likes
sounds like a fun character
3 Likes
mfw I already did that
Auditors should have some binding power. Otherwise they’re just the same as everyone else who points out irregularities.
3 Likes
This is inaccurate.
Auditors have the power to request changes to entries, and it holds the same weight as if one of the mods asked for the change.
2 Likes
I personally viewed it in-the-moment as a combination of these. We can’t make people make the changes, but if they refuse to make/can’t make the changes we request (so long as those changes are based in legit things that need to be fixed), then their work will likely legitimately be in violation of the rules, and a DQ is probably incoming.
I think there’s a bit of authority there. To use a more a hypothetical example, RandomUser975 might disagree with something nitpicky in a MOC, and vocalize that fact. The MoCist may decide to change it based on RandomUser975’s feedback, but it’s not until an auditor comes through that the MoCist would understand that the change is absolutely necessary. We also, at least in the case of the hagah, had the power to give them the time to do so, and give a clear deadline.
EDIT: I also think that the officialness of the role motivated us to, yes, be “nerds who over analyze each entry”, but also more than that. Sure, a lot of people were doing that, but we had to be absolutely certain in the analysis that we did, be able to concretely back it up, and be able to recognize/enforce it across multiple entries. Anyone can be an armchair laywer, but we had to be right, and unlike the case for non-auditors giving feedback, there would be tangible consequences if we did it wrong. In other words, it was essentially our job.
Again, though…maybe some codifying of our role would be helpful, both for us and for people being audited by us. I keep saying “my opinion” a lot, because I don’t want to accidently give people the impression that we have powers that we actually don’t/don’t have powers that we actually do.
Oh, that was totally a well-thought-up name, and not me slamming my hand on my keyboard at 2:00am.
2 Likes
Hehe lol
1 Like
But that’s not unique to the auditing team. That’s how it worked for Helryx and Artakha as well. Whether it’s a mod or an auditor providing the feedback, the entrant has to change their entry to follow the rules, or else be disqualified.
1 Like
I guess the thing would be that auditors have the “power”/authority to make a claim that this needs to be adressed or changed, unlike a normal site member
1 Like
If you want the real power the auditors have, look no further than the Bomonga moc to see the power they didn’t have back then.
Their power is that the guys in charge actually have to listen to them.
3 Likes