CMAK Imminent - can we fix the Scenario Depot Rating System Beforehand?

[Pzman]

Originally posted by Admiral Keth:

I am also considering allowing authors to upload there own files. I have always held the opinion that by my receipt of the files, I can absolutely guarantee that the file being download by a player is safe. If we open it up to authorial upload, this introduces the capability for malicious intent; all it takes is for one virus to be uploaded.

AK, this has not proven to be a problem with the CM Mod Database; which uses an author upload system. The idea of reviews and/or users logging shouldn't be problem either IMO, as they do that at the cmmods as well. It would make it far simpler so that we didn't have email them in and hope that the battles aren't corrupted by the email system, which I might add has happened to some people I know.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by xerxes:

So if we pay more, we get the changes we want!

I think the cabal idea really has some serious merit. I'd think there would need to be more like 10 members in it to make sure we get to three members playing though a particular scenario in a reasonable length of time. Given a cabal made up of a diverse set of the CM population and obviously very interested in scenarios I think the bias issue would be moot. We could even exclude scenario designers from membership in the cabal (or limit the designer to half the positions or something). A member who is a friend of the scenario designer should obviously exclude themselves from rating that particular scenario.

On first read, I think the 'cabal' idea is atrociously bad; excluding designers is even worse. Perhaps I'm just not getting it. Cabal is a little too close to Clique in the dictionary for my tastes. Membership in itself is exclusionary - but necessary IMO. Limiting further those who are considered smart enough to rate a scenario through membership in a clique, or disallowing participation in rating other scenarios because you happen to design them yourself, is even more exclusionary.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Spookster:

[QB] Concerns:

1) After CMBO, CMBB,the recently released CMAK, the time it will take AK et. al. (us) to design a new system, and all the time AK will take to implement the new system, will the CM craze be past its zenith. Will it be worth it for AK to put this together for FREE?

I sincerely hope you are joking - this is suggesting that designing a new SD will take a year (CMBB is still going strong after 1 year) or that people will be bored with CMAK in just a few weeks. Don't forget we are expecting a new engine in a couple of years too....

2) Should we (designers/players) pitch in $20 to a pool to aid in AK's efforts? I understand there is a "free rider" problem to this solution, but I'm willing, and I've only designed and posted five scenarios. (I've already gotten much > $20 out of the current system.)

How many have you reviewed?

I'd suggest a Paypal button on the main page and those that wish to donate, can. I certainly would. I already have at the Mod Depot.

Let me suggest a more modest fix to the system that a) grants the designer better feedback involves less bias c) keeps this particular message board in business d) uses the system that AK has in place.

SUGGESTION

Keep the SD as is, but allow scenarios to be tagged as follows: recommended (bronze star), highly recommended (silver star), elite (gold star).

Terribly cheesy. I already thought the medals given out were silly (I've received a couple of them myself - funny, no one told me about it; I was checking the CMBO scenarios to download some of my moldy oldies with a view to updating them for CMAK and happened to notice the awards). What next - assigning fake ranks to all the scenario designers? With rank insignia and grandiose titles? Ugh.

Three will be elected (using this message board) to a board of review (a Cabal) and one BACKUP. If two of three recommend a scenario, then it gets a bronze star. If two of three highly recommend a scenario it gets a silver star. If all members believe it is an elite scenario, then it gets a gold star.

(Note: The Cabal could include five, seven, or more members...but this system needs DEDICATED CMers to work...can we find THREE?)

Yuck. Far too much potential for personality conflicts and perceived hurt feelings. This will only insure that some people feel excluded from the whole process and they will stop submitting their scenarios. I have no desire to have my own work put before a review board, frankly, and have enjoyed the feedback of "regular gamers" as well as fellow designers.

For a scenario to be considered, it must be nominated by someone on the Cabal.

So if I want to put a scenario up at the depot, I have to have it voted on first by people I don't even know? No thanks.

If a scenario is considered, someone on the board (or a trusted proxy) should submit a quick review outlining weaknesses/strengths (though if the Cabal discussions are posted here, that may not be necessary.) Scenarios may be reconsidered.

The elections for the board will be yearly. Memebers of the board may resign at any time between elections...the retiring (or vacationing)member and remaining members of the board will elect a replacement. A member of the Cabal may not nominate or recommend his own scenarios -- the BACKUP will vote instead.

So the board is going to decide who is good enough (or not) to have their scenario even considered for simple submission? My opinion is the more scenarios presented, the better for the community. The cream will (and should) rise to the top on their own merits - not on what some elected board of governors has to say. Wait, though - if I donate 50 dollars or more via Paypal, do I get to be one of the Cabal? Slippery slope ahead...

Pros:

a) Good feedback for the designers.

Except the ones that were never "permitted" on the depot in the first place - the ones who probably need the feedback the most.

As the Cabal discusses a particular scenario on this messageboard, non-Cabal members

can inject their own two cents.

Scenario reviews have been far more useful to me than forum discussions. They don't happen here often enough to be useful.

Keeps this message board hopping. (It seems a bit slow lately.)

People seem not to prefer discussing scenarios here. See above - why presume they would just because "the Cabal" is going to discuss something?

c) Cheaper than a re-programing the SD.

Cheaper??

d) More useful to gamers in choosing scenarios.

Arguable; without detailed reviews, who is going to believe a simple bronze star/silver star/gold star system? This would make choosing even more difficult, as you now have a system in which, by definition, every one is a winner, but no one knows why.

Cons:

a) Can we find three honorable and dedicated CMers for the Cabal?

Personality conflicts will emerge no matter who is elected.

This system is useful for CMAK, but can we go back and use it for BB and BO?

Irrelevant; let's move forward and not worry about BB and BO, as Berli and other point out.

My opinion anyway. I'm not championing my system from post one, that was presented to generate discussion. I'm glad it has, but we've taken a right hand turn firmly in the wrong direction. I think all designers and all players should have a voice in the process; nothing is broken at the depot, we just need a way of allowing those voices to be expressed more clearly. Cutting off entirely the ability of mere mortals to review, and restricting the ability of designers to upload their creations, is not going to do anything but kill off the depot entirely.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Admiral Keth:

Others have also mentioned a star-based rating system. However, unless the methodology by which reviewers post values is uncorruptable, then it will eventually face the same issues in a year's time.

Exactly. Some sort of definition of what makes a bronze star/silver star/gold star rating is needed. So far, all the suggestions have been..err...suggestive...

Prior to me putting one byte of code into place, I want as many authors to contribute to this thread as possible.

Where is Andreas? I would have thought at the very least he would show a passing interest...someone email him!

I have also had the idea put forth to me regarding moderators.

Excellent idea.

I am also considering allowing authors to upload there own files.

Excellent idea.

I could post a link to my PayPal account, if the community is willing to support this. Opinions, please.

Excellent idea.

[Berlichtingen]

Can't say I'm real anamored with the idea of a Cabal. Dorosh has hit all the objections better than I could have.

Here's an idea for the reviews...

Start with a simple rating as set forward by jwxspoon

1. Highly Recommended

2. Somewhat Recommended

3. Reviewer is Neutral

4. Somewhat Negative

5. Extremely Negative

Follow that with a played as as put forward by WWB

I Played This Scenario:

[]Allied vs the AI

[]Axis vs the AI

[]Multiplayer

Although I'd recommend changing Multiplayer to Multplayer Allied and Multiplayer Axis

Then have seperate text fields to comment on specific items... Map, Briefing, Balance, overall impression.

With this, you get a rating for other players to go by, and with the specific text fields, you get a good chance for some decent feedback to the authors because it focuses the reviewer's responses. Make sense?

[Michael Dorosh]

I would support Berli's proposal 100 percent.

Let's hear some other views!

[Pzman]

The idea of the Cabal bothers me as well, sounds like it would make matters worse not better.

I agree with Berlichtingen's last post as well. That said it needs to remain simple, because many of us get so few reviews compared to downloads. Having 300+ D/L and no reviews isn't very helpful.

[ December 05, 2003, 01:51 AM: Message edited by: Panzerman ]

[GJK]

I'd like to throw in my $.02 if I may.

I modeled The Proving Grounds heavily on the SD after emailing Adm. Keth and discussing my idea with him over a year ago now. I feel that we've had a pretty good review-scenario ratio, granted we have just over 100 scenarios compared to the 1000's that the SD has (scenario's are moved from TPG to other sites, primarily SD though, so this isn't an actual reflection of all the scenarios that have been on the site).

My review section is very limited, it's just a comment with no rating - I wanted to keep it that way for TPG and don't recommend that for the SD, but I think the best thing I added was the scenario discussions area, which supplements the reviews section. In the discussion area, members can post comments on the scenario as they're playing or have just played it. The author is encouraged to post there as well, answering such questions as why something was included in the scenario, what was background information for the design, etc. Spoilers are commonly posted in the discussions area, as a warning indicates.

That, coupled with the front page message board encourages interaction between members - downloaders, and authors alike. We have sort of a communal feel to the whole thing and I've been very pleased to have been able to offer the site for others to enjoy.

For TPG, membership is required. This tracks who downloads scenarios. All downloads are logged and available for the scenario authors to review in their authors administration area. Their admin area quickly shows what scenarios they have uploaded, how many and who has download them, and the reviews for each - all from this one area. Authors can use their admin area to follow up with people that have downloaded their scenario but have yet to review or comment on it - should they choose.

When a scenario is uploaded, a discussion area (thread) is automatically started for that scenario. The author doesn't need to do anything to get the discussions started.

Keith, if there's anything on my site that interests you, let me know and I can work with you as best I can. I'm programmed in WebDNA, but the concepts are close enough that the ideas could be converted to PHP. There's nothing brilliant with the code on my site I don't think.

Also, and I know you have a lot on your plate so I haven't brought this up again until now, but I used the same variable names for all the parameters of my scenario upload with the idea being that someday in the future authors could easily move their "proven" scenarios from TPG to the SD without having to retype all the information. Some sort of import function. I can discuss this further with you via email if you'd be interested. I think interlinking our sites would benefit us both - the idea of TPG is that just developed scenarios in need of playtested are uploaded here. Once they're ready, they then move along to the SD. This gives you the cream of the crop - without being a "competitor" to your site, but hopefully more of a compliment to.

Please feel free to contact me should you like to discuss anything mentioned here, or if I can help in any other way.

[Spookster]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Spookster:

[QB] Concerns:

1) After CMBO, CMBB,the recently released CMAK, the time it will take AK et. al. (us) to design a new system, and all the time AK will take to implement the new system, will the CM craze be past its zenith. Will it be worth it for AK to put this together for FREE?

I sincerely hope you are joking - this is suggesting that designing a new SD will take a year (CMBB is still going strong after 1 year) or that people will be bored with CMAK in just a few weeks. Don't forget we are expecting a new engine in a couple of years too....

> I hope so, too. <

2) Should we (designers/players) pitch in $20 to a pool to aid in AK's efforts? I understand there is a "free rider" problem to this solution, but I'm willing, and I've only designed and posted five scenarios. (I've already gotten much > $20 out of the current system.)

How many have you reviewed?

> Too many to count.

I'd suggest a Paypal button on the main page and those that wish to donate, can. I certainly would. I already have at the Mod Depot.

> This will work.

Let me suggest a more modest fix to the system that a) grants the designer better feedback involves less bias c) keeps this particular message board in business d) uses the system that AK has in place.

SUGGESTION

Keep the SD as is, but allow scenarios to be tagged as follows: recommended (bronze star), highly recommended (silver star), elite (gold star).

Terribly cheesy. I already thought the medals given out were silly (I've received a couple of them myself - funny, no one told me about it; I was checking the CMBO scenarios to download some of my moldy oldies with a view to updating them for CMAK and happened to notice the awards). What next - assigning fake ranks to all the scenario designers? With rank insignia and grandiose titles? Ugh.

> Not sure what your argument is here? Too cheesy? Did you know that Keth has a fake rank?

Three will be elected (using this message board) to a board of review (a Cabal) and one BACKUP. If two of three recommend a scenario, then it gets a bronze star. If two of three highly recommend a scenario it gets a silver star. If all members believe it is an elite scenario, then it gets a gold star.

(Note: The Cabal could include five, seven, or more members...but this system needs DEDICATED CMers to work...can we find THREE?)

Yuck. Far too much potential for personality conflicts and perceived hurt feelings. This will only insure that some people feel excluded from the whole process and they will stop submitting their scenarios. I have no desire to have my own work put before a review board, frankly, and have enjoyed the feedback of "regular gamers" as well as fellow designers.

> Lol. When I read the title message of this discussion above, I got the distinct impression you had contempt for the "regular" gamer ("First of all - the person posting the scenario gets the option of disabling some, none or all of the following criteria so mouth breathing morons don't rate him down on "historical accuracy" and "playable vs AI"...") My bad.

For a scenario to be considered, it must be nominated by someone on the Cabal.

> No.

So if I want to put a scenario up at the depot, I have to have it voted on first by people I don't even know? No thanks.

> Considered for the Cabal's recommended list.

If a scenario is considered, someone on the board (or a trusted proxy) should submit a quick review outlining weaknesses/strengths (though if the Cabal discussions are posted here, that may not be necessary.) Scenarios may be reconsidered.

The elections for the board will be yearly. Memebers of the board may resign at any time between elections...the retiring (or vacationing)member and remaining members of the board will elect a replacement. A member of the Cabal may not nominate or recommend his own scenarios -- the BACKUP will vote instead.

So the board is going to decide who is good enough (or not) to have their scenario even considered for simple submission?

> No. The Cabal is simply to review scenarios already posted at the SD.

My opinion is the more scenarios presented, the better for the community.

> Yes.

The cream will (and should) rise to the top on their own merits - not on what some elected board of governors has to say.

> Actually, if you measuring the "top" as number of downloads, the biggest factors are "time of submission," "alphabetical order" and "ratings".

Wait, though - if I donate 50 dollars or more via Paypal, do I get to be one of the Cabal? Slippery slope ahead...

> That slippery slope is the basis for REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT...I think they have one of those in Canada. [since the Cabal will be discussing issues HERE - at this web site - the process is more open.]

Pros:

a) Good feedback for the designers.

Except the ones that were never "permitted" on the depot in the first place - the ones who probably need the feedback the most.

>Everyone may still upload to the depot, status quo. The current 1-10 system (or, if people are willing to pay A.Keth, another system) will still be used and posted. The Cabal is simply an extra method of reviewing new scenarios. In short, the "regular guy" can still rank the scenarios, and write a review.

As the Cabal discusses a particular scenario on this messageboard, non-Cabal members

can inject their own two cents.

Scenario reviews have been far more useful to me than forum discussions. They don't happen here often enough to be useful.

> Um...perhaps that would change with the Cabal. And by the way, if scenario reviews are so useful, why did you start this thread stressing a new numeric system? Why not kill the numbers and go with a straight review system?

Keeps this message board hopping. (It seems a bit slow lately.)

People seem not to prefer discussing scenarios here. See above - why presume they would just because "the Cabal" is going to discuss something?

> Michael, I get the feeling by the way you write that you are an incredibly smug person. Why presume? Why presume that YOUR system is going to work? In regards to your system, I wrote above that it may be too complicated for the casual reviewer; you laughed my concerns away and called me "son". "Son"? How do you know that I'm not older than you or more experienced in life or have a Masters in Military History or a Ph.D. in Basket Weaving? Please, in the future, when you make your arguments, don't include words like "yuck" or "son", it reads poorly.

c) Cheaper than a re-programing the SD.

Cheaper??

> Time is money? Right?

d) More useful to gamers in choosing scenarios.

Arguable; without detailed reviews, who is going to believe a simple bronze star/silver star/gold star system? This would make choosing even more difficult, as you now have a system in which, by definition, every one is a winner, but no one knows why.

> Who's going to believe a 1-4 system? "Everyone is winner and no one knows why?" Did you read my suggestion? The Cabal will WRITE A REVIEW which will be posted at the SD.

Cons:

a) Can we find three honorable and dedicated CMers for the Cabal?

Personality conflicts will emerge no matter who is elected.

> Like your personality and mine. We can only hope that members are not like-minded so as to add diversity to the review process.

This system is useful for CMAK, but can we go back and use it for BB and BO?

Irrelevant; let's move forward and not worry about BB and BO, as Berli and other point out.

> "We" cannot move forward...Admiral Keth will move "forward"; we will ride upon his back. One of the ideas behind the Cabal is to lessen the load on the programmer.

My opinion anyway. I'm not championing my system from post one, that was presented to generate discussion.

> Your suggest was a good one...but it is refreshing to see a glint of modesty in your steely exterior.

I'm glad it has, but we've taken a right hand turn firmly in the wrong direction. I think all designers and all players should have a voice in the process; nothing is broken at the depot, we just need a way of allowing those voices to be expressed more clearly. Cutting off entirely the ability of mere mortals to review, and restricting the ability of designers to upload their creations, is not going to do anything but kill off the depot entirely.

> You assumed that the Cabal was going to take over for the SD when in fact it was to supplement the site.

> In brief, I think the Cabal system is a good idea if people are willing to trust a group of critics to evaluate their work in a public forum. (Designers may, of course, opt out.) If this seems too personal...as it clearly does to Dorosh...then designers may opt to avoid the Cabal altogether.

> Ironically, the greatest case against the Cabal is not what Dorosh wrote in criticism against the idea but HOW he wrote it. Designers may be afraid that member of the Cabal will write things like "yuck" or "turn firmly in the wrong direction" to belittle instead of inform. In which case, the Cabal is a very bad idea.

> To those reading my reply, forgive my anger...some people just get under my skin.

</font>

[Mad Russian]

This discussion is great. I'm not sure, that the review by committee, is feasible without designers though. The gaming community seems, as a whole, quite lazy and designers are the more active of the participants.

I have more than 30 scenarios posted to the SD so I have a fairly large commitment to the site. I also was disgruntled enough to plan an alternate web site. The main reason was the review system. AK and I talked(email) almost an entire day, I must have set him back hours on his paying job.... there are some issues with the site, but I think they can be resolved.

My recommendations are:

Site registratiion. That way you control the site, you have accountability for both uploads and reviews. The registration may keep virus' from being sent to the SD as well. If they know you can trace it back to them and they could be liable for damages maybe they won't do it. We do live in a legalistic world.

A rating committee has it's plus' and minus'. The problem is that all reviews are subjective. You have a group of people now that are rating the scenarios. You are getting widely varying results because there are no control parameters.

What is a 10? What is a 6? It is open to the interpretation of the reviewer.

ANY review system will be open to that same interpretation. Some systems are better than others. The numbers without some standardization are poor. They are better than nothing but not much. A number system with a meaningful set of criteria such as MD proposes is better but still easily padded. Scrapping the numbers and going to a thumbs up or a thumbs down seems swinging the pendulem all the way in the other direction. The system that has Very Good, Good, Average, Below Average, Don't Bother is the best. That system too can be padded.

Now you are proposing to add controled reviews on top of posted reviews. To give them the golden star!! But that system isn't infallible either. "Well you know I NEVER get reviewed by the committee....they just don't like me."

Whatever you do, there should be "NO" reviews posted without a comment. I hate getting numbers and them not telling me about my scenario. I want to know if they liked it or not. But mostly WHY!! The numbers mean little to me, EXCEPT that they put you on the lists, and if you make the lists you get more DL's, which means that more people see your work. It's an ego thing...<G>

Where this is all going is to say that I'm not sure a committee is needed to review the work reviewers are already doing. UNLESS you use just the committee to do the reviews. Let people choose to be included on the committe. What if we have people sign up to be reviewers? They agree to do at least one review a week, or some other such number, they are on record, you know who they are, if they join a group they drop out of the reviewing pool.

Just my $.04 worth.

Panther Commander

[Michael Dorosh]

I hope so, too.

I don't think the CM craze will be over anytime soon!

How many have you reviewed?

Ø Too many to count.

IIRC, including one or two of mine, which I found to be extremely valuable (and for which I hope I have given you my thanks in the author's comments to the review - a dfeature we definitely need to keep) - not because you are a "big man on campus" but because you gave intelligent analysis based on personal experience, couched in well written prose and with a view to improving the product, not simply stating an opinion. That is exactly what we need. Perhaps a cabal would be more suited to that - but it still rubs the wrong way.

I'd suggest a Paypal button on the main page and those that wish to donate, can. I certainly would. I already have at the Mod Depot.

Ø This will work.

I think so. I don't agree with your free-rider comment though. If the site is worth something to you, you pay. If not, even if you use it frequently, you don't. It's how a free economy works, and I like it. For the record, I would donate.

quote: Let me suggest a more modest fix to the system that a) grants the designer better feedback involves less bias c) keeps this particular message board in business d) uses the system that AK has in place.

SUGGESTION Keep the SD as is, but allow scenarios to be tagged as follows: recommended (bronze star), highly recommended (silver star), elite

(gold star).

Terribly cheesy. I already thought the medals given out were silly (I've received a couple of them myself - funny, no one told me about it; I was checking the CMBO scenarios to download some of my moldy oldies with a view to updating them for CMAK and happened to notice the awards). What next - assigning fake ranks to all the scenario designers? With rank insignia and grandiose titles? Ugh.

> Not sure what your argument is here? Too cheesy? Did you know that Keth has a fake rank?

And I initially felt dumb calling him "Admiral" but I am sure Tennile felt the same way about the Captain. After a while, it has a certain charm. It works for the Admiral. It would be cheesy to do for everyone else - but this is a red herring. Back to the medals. - yes, it's cheesy, and so would a bronze star/silver star whatever. My personal opinion. I got gold stars in kiddy-garten, in University I got a rating on the 4 point system….but either way, if there are no hard and fast descriptions of what the ratings mean, it doesn't matter if you have Lucky Charms for ratings or 3 point decimals.

> Lol. When I read the title message of this discussion above, I got the distinct impression you had contempt for the "regular" gamer ("First of all - the person posting the scenario gets the option of disabling some, none or all of the following criteria so mouth breathing morons don't rate him down on "historical accuracy" and "playable vs AI"...") My bad.

Anyone who rates a scenario honestly is to be commended, except for those retards who go in and rate something down because it doesn't play well vs the AI when clearly it is marked as PBEM only. You know exactly what I am talking about. Most people don't do this. The end users are by and large not designers and just want to have fun. They don't just "should" be heard from, they NEED to be heard from.

quote: For a scenario to be considered, it must be nominated by someone on the Cabal.

Ø No.

I thought I might be misinterpreting your comments but let my post stand. It still seems like you want to create a two-tiered review process, which I am opposed to.

> Actually, if you measuring the "top" as number of downloads, the biggest factors are "time of submission," "alphabetical order" and "ratings".

Why have a depot at all then? I personally look for ratings first, and try and play 9s and 10s, but have found these ratings are sometimes not achieved fairly, or even comprehensibly. Hence my posting here! Download ratings I do like (ie number of downloads) but this may have more to do with subject matter. 5PzGren or whatever at the Depot is the highest download getter - I would argue due as much to its obvious inclusion of SS armour, a popular topic.

Wait, though - if I donate 50 dollars or more via Paypal, do I get to be one of the Cabal? Slippery slope ahead...

> That slippery slope is the basis for REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT...I think they have one of those in Canada. [since the Cabal will be discussing issues HERE - at

this web site - the process is more open.]

We don't purchase our members of parliament…perhaps I'm misunderstanding again. Then again, we might argue that Canada does not truly have representative government based on recent policies...

quote:

Pros:

a) Good feedback for the designers.

Except the ones that were never "permitted" on the depot in the first place - the ones who probably need the feedback the most.

>Everyone may still upload to the depot, status quo. The current 1-10 system (or,if people are willing to pay A.Keth, another system) will still be used and posted.

The Cabal is simply an extra method of reviewing new scenarios. In short, the

"regular guy" can still rank the scenarios, and write a review.

Yes, but you are suggesting his opinion is worth less than the Cabal's.

quote:

As the Cabal discusses a particular scenario on this messageboard,

non-Cabal members

can inject their own two cents.

Scenario reviews have been far more useful to me than forum discussions. They

don't happen here often enough to be useful.

> Um...perhaps that would change with the Cabal. And by the way, if scenario

reviews are so useful, why did you start this thread stressing a new numeric

system? Why not kill the numbers and go with a straight review system?

Every review system has some rating method attached, I am not sure it would work without one. Are you suggesting it could?

quote:

Keeps this message board hopping. (It seems a bit slow lately.)

People seem not to prefer discussing scenarios here. See above - why presume

they would just because "the Cabal" is going to discuss something?

> Michael, I get the feeling by the way you write that you are an incredibly smug

person. Why presume?

I can only look at this forum, which has been in operation for two years or so - specific scenarios seem to rarely get discussed. I hope the Scenario of the Week idea of Shep's changes that.

Why presume that YOUR system is going to work?

Where do I do that? As stated, it was a starting point for conversation. AK said there is no point hollering "it's broke" unless you have a suggested fix. That was mine.

In regards to your system, I wrote above that it may be too complicated for the

casual reviewer; you laughed my concerns away and called me "son". "Son"? How

do you know that I'm not older than you or more experienced in life or have a

Masters in Military History or a Ph.D. in Basket Weaving? Please, in the future,

when you make your arguments, don't include words like "yuck" or "son", it reads

poorly.

Heh, I wouldn't take that so personally or out of context if I was you. Reread the entire sentence, it was a jab at Florida voters!

quote:

c) Cheaper than a re-programing the SD.

Cheaper??

Ø Time is money? Right?

You would still be reprogrammin the SD, though - it currently does not have a Cabal or a star system…??

> To those reading my reply, forgive my anger...some people just get under my

skin.

I didn't detect any anger at all until I got to this sentence, actually. I kind of thought we were here to discuss this - and that we've done. I won't apologize for aggressively prosecuting my views. I would suggest you don't either - your points were well stated. Never saw much point in pussyfooting around things.

[Michael Dorosh]

I'll add that the ability to select "favourite reviewers" would give ALL users the ability to create their own individual cabal, according to their tastes. If Ebert consistently likes the same movies that you do, but Roeper always hates them, you tend to listen to Ebert more. This is the same thing.

[WWB]

I think we are arriving at some sort of a consensus here, nonwithstanding 5 page posts about the social effects of cabals.

*WWB puts his web developer hat on*

I think the favorite reviewer thing is a great idea, but we really need to come up with a set of priorities in this case--Keith does not have an unlimited amount of time for this project. Priorities should be something like this:

1: Adjust ratings system to whatever is agreed upon here (Andreas! Hans! We need your 2c!)

2: Build Regisration Features. Note that making a no-registration site registration based is essentially a rewrite from scratch. There is not a method to say "And you are now blessed with regisration!" and it appears.

3: Develop search and display mechinasims based on new ratings and regisration system.

1 and 2 have to happen. Number 3 has to happen to some extent, but not the same extent as 1 and 2.

*WWB puts down developer hat as scenario and scenariocollection objects start floating in his head.*

One other more sociological comment on the whole thing. Over at B&T we have had a long-standing policy of NOT revieing one another's work. Our time for feedback is in playtesting, not in pumping things at the depot. Now, we have a reasonably popular website and some 'brand recognition' from whence to push our wares, so getting into the vaunted lists is not as big an issue. But I really think a gentleman's agreement to not have playtesters review battles would be a good thing. I know who is on DK or the CDST and can ignore those reviews as tainted, but the general public does not. What say ye other 'corporate' designer types?

WWB

[Mad Russian]

Since it is CSDT and not CDST, maybe you don't know who it consists of.

At the moment it is in retirement. Does that mean that the former designers or playtesters should not review any scenarios done by other former members? And how would you know if they did?

Just asking...

Panther Commander

[Mad Russian]

However, I wholehearted agree, that there should be no reviews done by playtester or the designer himself if there is anything other than comments put on the review.

Panther Commander

[Pzman]

WWB I resent the fact that you consider my reviews at tainted. (I'm sorry if I have miss-read what you have said). I have always held to the idea that members of a design group should not review their own groups battles. I have reviewed battles done by PC because he now runs his own group (Historical Scenario Group or HSG). Although I know him, I do not test any of this battles anymore so it would be hard to say its tainted.

BTW PC, its not dead just resting while waiting for CMAK to arrive on my door step.

[Mad Russian]

Panzerman, I knew it would never die. Old wagamers and thier organizations never do.

Best of luck with CSDT... and I will review any scenario you put up. Objectively, I might add.

I would only say to WWB, that, I have no reviews done by him on any of my scenarios. So how would he know if the reviews were tainted? And if you played them why didn't you leave a review behind?

Panther Commander

[WWB]

Originally posted by Panzerman:

WWB I resent the fact that you consider my reviews at tainted. (I'm sorry if I have miss-read what you have said). I have always held to the idea that members of a design group should not review their own groups battles. I have reviewed battles done by PC because he now runs his own group (Historical Scenario Group or HSG). Although I know him, I do not test any of this battles anymore so it would be hard to say its tainted.

BTW PC, its not dead just resting while waiting for CMAK to arrive on my door step.

PM: Was not too clear above. Basically, if you are involved on a team that did a battle, dont review it. If you playtested a battle, dont review it. If you know the guy, that is your call. There are a pretty limited number of scenario junkies so limiting all connections is a bit of overkill.

PC: Getting uppity about a minor typo? And, no I did not get the memo on the demise of the CSDT. I think we agree on benefit, though I think the designer should stick to the author comments (note to Keith: feature to keep), and if the playtesters have a comment they probably should have been made during playtesting.

WWB

[Pzman]

WWB: That's what I thought after I read it again a few times, just wasn't sure.

As noted above the demise of the CSDT is greatly overstated, as it hasn't happened. Thus no memo... lol.

[Mad Russian]

WWB I'm not getting uppity about a minor typo. I was upset at your slam that the CSDT group doctored their reviews.

If that wasn't your intent then no problem.

But to name a group, and then get it wrong, is a bit malicious don't you think?

Tell you what after you play my scenarios and leave a review then you can tell me anything you want about them.

Deal?

Panther Commander

[Pzman]

Can we get back to the topic of SD now? No need to start a fight here over a minor issue such as messing up the order of words, PC.

[Mad Russian]

WWB, As PM stated, it has been the standing policy of CSDT and also HSG, to not review our own group's scenarios.

From your earlier comments to PM it is obvious that you didn't intend to make a slight to CSDT.

Please do not take what I said personally, but I put a lot of effort into my work, and I don't care for anyone who hasn't even reviewed it, to pass it off as tainted. You probably feel the same way about your own scenarios.

I see you have 12 battles and 3 operations posted to the SD. I don't believe that I have played any of them yet. I like the smaller historical ones and I may give one a run through.

Now, as PM suggested, let's get on with the job of seeing what needs to be done to make SD even better than it is now.

Panther Commander

[GreenAsJade]

Interesting conversation.

A context that seems to be missing:

- The current system is not broken.

- The current system has an awesome amount

of investment in it. Look the stats

in the Admiral's sig.

- All ratings systems are subjective.

Subjectivity must be accepted, and even

welcomed. The range of opinions is valuable.

- People using the reviews are not silly. They

can recognise the "friends" syndrome.

The current system does have some flaws.

Maybe these can be redressed without a major overhaul.

Here's a suggestion:

1) Implement registration

2) Put in place a guiding scale like Dorosh's.

Never forget that guidance is all it can be.

3) Allow the designer to describe their scenario

against the rating categories.

IE When they submit a scenario, they fill in

numbers, 0-10, against the categories.

These serve two purposes:

1) People get to see them, so if the

designer puts 0 for "vs AI", then we

know that play against the AI is not

recommended. If the designer puts

3 for "balance" then we know that

its not supposed to be balanced,

so don't bitch about that.

2) These designer ratings are

used to weight the reviewer ratings .

This means that if I submit a scenario

with 0 for "vs AI" then the reviewer

numbers for "vs AI" don't affect the

scenario rating! And if I put 3/10

for "balance", then what people think

about the balance issue is way less

significant.

A beauty (in my eyes) of this is that

it is entirely backwards compatible and

retrofittable. Admiral could allow designers

to fill in the settings for their current scenarios, with entirely appropriate effects...

... all that investment in effort that is

there already would not be lost, and the system

would be improved.

GaJ.

[WWB]

Good suggestions GaJ, but one part is fundamentally flawed. Back in younger and freer times I did a bit of creative writing. My professor drilled one point home--author's intentions do not matter once a work has been made public.

There is no way an author should be allowed to "weight" reviews of a given battle. No player knows the author's intentions when opening a battle, aside from what should be made clear in the briefings. If an author makes a battle only suitable for AI play, but expects people to divine that, he should be penalized, rather than allowed to jimmy things around to hide his error.

WWB

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

[snip]

Here's an idea for the reviews...

Start with a simple rating as set forward by jwxspoon

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />1. Highly Recommended

2. Somewhat Recommended

3. Reviewer is Neutral

4. Somewhat Negative

5. Extremely Negative

Follow that with a played as as put forward by WWB

I Played This Scenario:

[]Allied vs the AI

[]Axis vs the AI

[]Multiplayer

Although I'd recommend changing Multiplayer to Multplayer Allied and Multiplayer Axis

[other good stuff snipped] </font>