Global rule debates, what engines to allow

[namida]

So, the latest contest (contest #9) attracted a very large number of entries. Given that; I'm wondering if I should use this choose-one-of-three-rules format more often - and if so, should I make it the standard format, or just a once-in-a-while thing? As expected, I put a poll up.

In chat, a point came up about how this could result in too many level entries. One suggested precaution against this is giving three options, but only allowing each user to enter up to two of them. The possibility was also discussed of simply doing it as two-options rather than three-options; but I prefer the three-option-max-two structure for one simple reason - some ideas might only be possible in certain engines (such as in contest #9, the first idea was only possible for NeoLemmix or Lix), so rather than having to avoid those kind of rules to avoid reducing entries, I can simply ensure that every engine has at least two rules that are applicable to it.

[namida]

It seems there's a lot of approval for the idea of making the three-rule structure a permanent thing.

As mentioned in edits to the previous post, the most likely setup will be that three rules are given; of these, each user may enter up to two of them. In any given contest, every allowed engine should have at least two rules that can be made on it (this is to ensure everyone can enter two levels if they want regardless of engine preference; while not precluding the use of rules that are dependant on (most likely) NeoLemmix or Lix to work).

It was discussed in chat how feasible it may be to keep making new rules for this, especially given that the rules in a three-rule setup will generally need to be more general than those which could apply to a single-rule contest. Most people felt that it was okay to recycle old rules to some extent, as long as there were new ones being used too; one user proposed specifically using a guideline of "two new rules + one old rule each contest".

Note that this doesn't mean every contest will be a three-rule one; just that most will be. From time to time, there may be exceptions, the most obvious example being future Level Of The Year contests, as well as tag team contests, or just a one-ruler once in a while to mix things up a bit.

[namida]

In the #neolemmix IRC channel, there's been some people who question the point of the deadline extension rule.

The initial intent behind this rule is so that entries / updates don't close until no more entries / updates are coming in. In this latest contest, we've seen the deadline extend multiple times, almost at the last minute, for the entry period. This could indeed be quite annoying to those who just want to get to the stage of playing the levels.

I'd like to give everyone a chance to offer their input - should this be changed? Any changes won't affect the current contest (as usual), but will apply from the next contest.

The main ideas I can see being worthwhile are (but, feel free to suggest others!):

1. Keeping it as it is now
2. Putting a limit on the extensions. This could be in the form of "it can't extend by more than X days from the original deadline", or in the form of "it can only extend X times, regardless of how long those extensions are".
3. Removing it altogether.

It is also very possible that one of these could be used for the initial submissions, and another for the update period. For example, we may want to suggest that in the initial submissions period, the deadline is set in stone; while in respect to the update period, the extension rule stays the same as it currently is.

Any input on this?

(On a similar note, currently, the playing phase continues for about 4 days beyond the end of the update phase. How do people feel about this - is it too short? Too long? Just right?)

[Simon]

No extensions, simpler rules. I can then plan ahead what weekend to meet with Icho.

-- Simon

[Colorful Arty]

I think we can remove the extensions

[Flopsy]

I think for the submissions stage only, we should definitely change the rule from what it currently is. Either have a deadline set in stone and it won't change (option 1) which would be preferable for me but I'm willing to accept option 2 as well because at least it appeases both sides of the argument to some extent.

For the updating/playing phase, the rule should stay the way it is. I think level editing/updates are very important in contests and we should not put a time constraint on that at all.

[Wafflem]

Just remove the extension from the initial submission stage.

Also, the forums have been having a lack of activity these past few days (in fact, these happen frequently). Having a playing phase is a great way to put some activity in the forums again.

For the extension to the update phase, since we already have so many weeks of the playing phase in the last contest, the extension feels pointless to me. But it's up to you.

[Proxima]

I feel rather mixed about this, since I am usually very busy and find it hard to find time to make contest entries -- it's always nice when there's a deadline extension so I have a bit more freedom to plan which day I will work on my levels. The flipside is that contest entries have to be a fairly low priority, so I will usually submit close to the deadline, which results in a further extension and annoyance for others -- though at least in this case, one person was able to submit in the extended deadline when he might have missed out. But let's be honest, if there were no deadline extensions and it meant I didn't get to submit, that's fair enough, it just means that other things were more important at the time, and I'll get the chance to submit to other contests. Now that we have the "3 rules, 1 old rule" system I don't have to worry about permanently missing out on an interesting rule, either.

I think the fairest system would be to go back to the rules of the contest geoo ran before namida's official contests -- no deadline extension, but you can still submit a level during the playing-and-updates phase, there is just some penalty for doing so. Not sure what would be an appropriate penalty under namida's voting system. Maybe deduct 1 from the level's vote total in the first round?

[namida]

I think the fairest system would be to go back to the rules of the contest geoo ran before namida's official contests -- no deadline extension, but you can still submit a level during the playing-and-updates phase, there is just some penalty for doing so. Not sure what would be an appropriate penalty under namida's voting system. Maybe deduct 1 from the level's vote total in the first round?

This is also a tough one. I don't feel penalizing a level itself just becuase it was submitted during the playing phase is fair, if such submissions are allowed in general. However, I'd want to encourage as many people as possible to submit during the initial creation phase. I'm open to the idea in general, though. Maybe one possible answer, at least in the case of three-rule contests, would be to not allow users to submit a second level during the playing phase - so the level itself is not at any disadvantage, but the creator is only able to enter one level unless they enter both levels during the initial creation phase?

Alternatively, perhaps the phases could simply be merged altogether; so as soon as a level is submitted, it's available to play.

[Dullstar]

I'd suggest only extending the deadlines if there's a shortage of levels and there's reason to believe an extension would result in more entries.  Otherwise, it's probably best to stick with the original deadline.

If finding time to create levels is an issue, it may be worth considering increasing the length of the submission phase but keeping the deadline consistent rather than a shorter period that can be extended indefinitely.

[namida]

For the new contest, I've made the following changes (I also mentioned these in the contest's topic itself):

- The initial submission phase only extends if there aren't many entries yet. Specifically, it no longer extends for entries after the 6th one.
- New submissions are allowed during the update phase. At this point in time, there's no penalty for doing so.

[namida]

A proposal came up in chat the other day of whether the less-popular engines should be removed from the accepted engines list. This would essentially mean that future contests are restricted to only NeoLemmix or Lix. (Although Lix is noticably less popular than NeoLemmix for contest entries, it is definitely popular enough to keep it allowed.)

How do people feel about this? On one hand, it means that while playing the levels, we won't have cases where people get frustrated at the relative lack of fine control features in other engines. However, a lot of new users have only switched to these engines after initially submitting levels in other engines (most commonly SuperLemmini) and then properly discovering NeoLemmix or Lix through the contests, so in this way, it might be harmful overall to make this change.

On a semi-related note, we also had a situation in this latest contest where a user provided both NeoLemmix and SuperLemmini versions of their level. In this case, the user later decided to withdraw the SuperLemmini version and simply keep the NeoLemmix version in the contest, although there was no rule specifically obliging them to do so (indeed, there's no rule that would cover this situation at all, unless we were to interpret it as being two seperate entries that just so happen to be identical except for what engine they run on). I most certianly do not want to require that all levels be cross-engine, especially with the difficulties in converting a NeoLemmix or Lix level to any other engine (converting a Lemmix, Lemmini or SuperLemmini level is usually not so difficult). Do we want to allow this (and if so, do we want to require the entrant to nominate a "primary" version), or should we add a rule against this? If nothing else, I'm leaning towards disallowing it for the sake of keeping things simple - especially if we do also restrict future contests to NeoLemmix and Lix only.

[Colorful Arty]

I know I am in the minority here, but I personally still like SuperLemmini, but I am willing to switch to NeoLemmix only. I would prefer to allow other entries as well, but unless said levels require specific tricks not present in NeoLemmix, then it does make more sense to convert them to the preferred format.

[namida]

I put up a poll, so those who want to state their opinion without writing up an explanation as to why (or revealing who feels that way) can give their view.

I added an intermediate option of only allowing the modern engines - effectively, just removing Lemmix and Lemmini - which it should be noted that these haven't been used for the contests in a long time anyway.

[namida]

It seems opinions are fairly evenly spread, with a slight bias towards reducing the options a bit.

Unless further voting / discussion suggests otherwise, from contest #12 I'll probably remove Lemmix and Lemmini from the allowed engines list (it's been ages since we've had an entry on either of them anyway), but leave SuperLemmini for now (although small in number and often not very successful, we do still get SuperLemmini entries from time to time).