Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2

[SKG_Scintill]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2 (Submissions CLOSED)

That's just procrastinating procrastination
(talking to yoman)

Edit @ iironiic:
Sure, but I hope the judges are aware of the consequences by now. It's been nearly every batch in the last few years.
It's not just one exam, this is every exam.

Edit v2 copy from prochat:
[9:39 PM] SKG_Scintill: can't just expect everyone to do their job when there's no surveillance

[iironiic]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2 (Submissions CLOSED)

Sure, but I hope the judges are aware of the consequences by now. It's been nearly every batch in the last few years.
It's not just one exam, this is every exam.

I realize it's "every exam" but the fact that it is "one exam" makes it insignificantly important. Using exams isn't the best metaphor since we are comparing something important to something meaningless, but the points come across.

Unfortunately, this will occur in every batch since there is too much leniency in the process. It's human nature to be extremely lazy and discouraged to get the most meaningless tasks done.

EDIT:

[9:39 PM] SKG_Scintill: can't just expect everyone to do their job when there's no surveillance

I agree. Hence why I suggested bmah and JX to keep tabs on the judges.

[SKG_Scintill]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2 (Submissions CLOSED)

There's been plenty of use of spreadsheets for tournaments, why not implement that for batches?
Might work?

[Wayward Vagabond]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2 (Submissions CLOSED)

Oh I'm sorry let me rephrase it because you guys want to pick at wording. It's being used as a tool/excuse to say that it's okay for things to be late because over 3 years ago it took longer.

i said do it that way so people know what really waiting for notes is not as an excuse to be late

[iironiic]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2 (Submissions CLOSED)

There's been plenty of use of spreadsheets for tournaments, why not implement that for batches?
Might work?

Not a bad idea. This will also give the chance for other judges to see each other scores, giving them a chance to discuss about their ratings and lessening the likelihood of inconsistent scores like + - - +.

[psychoangel691]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2 (Submissions CLOSED)

We're not supposed to be swayed by other people's judgements. That's the point of not knowing one another's scores. Otherwise someone can just go oh well this judge gave it x so I must be wrong about something. Defeats the purpose of multiple judges.

[SKG_Scintill]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2 (Submissions CLOSED)

Good that you mention, judges weren't supposed to be able to see the other's scores because of possible bias right?
Oh psycho said it

Anyhoo, you can censor the result until all judges have given a rating
Just show that they sent a result, not what it is

[yo man im awesome]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2 (Submissions CLOSED)

Good that you mention, judges weren't supposed to be able to see the other's scores because of possible bias right?
Oh psycho said it

Anyhoo, you can censor the result until all judges have given a rating
Just show that they sent a result, not what it is

this sounds very reasonable, and I like it alot

[SKG_Scintill]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2 (Submissions CLOSED)

Btw, I could make this a project for this year of my programming study. Second year, so this seems like a program of reasonable size. Also, to learn ActionScript.

[iironiic]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2 (Submissions CLOSED)

We're not supposed to be swayed by other people's judgements. That's the point of not knowing one another's scores. Otherwise someone can just go oh well this judge gave it x so I must be wrong about something. Defeats the purpose of multiple judges.

Well it's not the matter of convincing the other judge to give a certain rating. It's to discuss with each other about their ratings and consider the other judge's reasoning. You are not obliged to change after discussion since it is essentially your rating of the file.

I dislike the lack of communication between the judges because then there would be many controversial opinions about some files. I strongly believe that the process should reflect more teamwork than individualized judging.

Only my two cents.

[SKG_Scintill]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2 (Submissions CLOSED)

Controversial opinions are what make the balance, that's why there's more than one judge
Personal preference and shit

[iironiic]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2 (Submissions CLOSED)

Controversial opinions are what make the balance, that's why there's more than one judge
Personal preference and shit

I suppose so. Four judges having controversy over one file seems a bit unbalanced to me.

Is it possible to have all the judges look at that one file if there were inconsistency with that file? At least this will lessen the controversy a bit, based on having more different opinions

[SKG_Scintill]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2 (Submissions CLOSED)

Obviously, four is a very small number for what is essentialy probability theory
On the other hand, we can't put half the community up as judge

Your solution might work, just so there's an agreement for files that are borderlining acceptage

[Wayward Vagabond]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2 (Submissions CLOSED)

I suppose so. Four judges having controversy over one file seems a bit unbalanced to me.

Is it possible to have all the judges look at that one file if there were inconsistency with that file? At least this will lessen the controversy a bit, based on having more different opinions

another reason why we have multiple judges is to lighten the load and speed up the process. having all judges look at every file defeats the purpose. we already take votes on borderline files at the end of judgement anyway

also finished judging 6.97

there you go you bunch of ungrateful ignorant shit stained douche nozzle cock gobbling retarded good for nothing jackasses

[kommisar]

Re: Queue/Batch Discussion Thread v2 (Submissions CLOSED)

Generally if a file is good, most judges should see eye to eye. But some more tricky files or unusual charts its great to have multiple judges.

Hiding the deadline from the public is a great idea. And if judges being late is a big deal, then let jx decide the appropriate consequences. I agree with Carlos though; a few days vs 1 month is nothing to be super upset about. If nobody knew the deadline, nobody would be making a huge fuss.

I do think the judges' work should be given credit though. These are people who have been around for a long time and want to keep sharing their expertise with others. It's not super complicated work, but I don't think several hours of helping judge tons of files should be dismissed. Having said that, if there's any way to fix some of the judges procrastinating, if its that big of a deal, I'd love to hear it. I'm totally guilty of this as well, but I don't skim through files and judge in 2-3 hours subjectively saying (lol ya file sucks cak bye). Some of us take several hours for even just 35 files to be sure we cover everything because like Carlos said, we take judging seriously. And I certainly hope the other judges enjoy helping out like this.

I do enjoy doing this for helping this game grow. This isn't a thing of reputation at this point.