On May 22 2016 09:54 ZigguratOfUr wrote: For example in gymnastic they are scored for difficulty, execution, composition and artistry. So I fail to see the difference there.
That's why I cited trampoline specifically, which doesn't have composition nor artistry in its judging system. it's basically just technical
difficulty, execution, flight time
anyway boys you're getting me on tilt, time to quit. hope the bystanders learned something
On May 22 2016 09:54 Xenotolerance wrote: I don't see how that's a counterargument
I meant that for sunshine, but it applies to both of you
Because if you're subjectively upset with the subjective decision of a group of judges, that does not necessarily call for reform in the judging process. Basic public policy, the thing that pleases the largest group to the largest extent invariably still displeases someone. That doesn't mean you pick something that displeases a larger group, just to placate that small group of people.
Xeno I get it, you're mad your map didn't make it. Let's leave that in the other thread. I'm confident that the top maps submitted are in the top 15 (subject to category limits, of course).
With regard to the process, the only issue I have with it is that we were tied to 15 maps (my rankings only had a clear top 11, or 12 with a change; one of which wasn't in the top 15 which is understandable due to concept overlap).
On May 22 2016 09:39 Xenotolerance wrote: and about cream of the crop
Eris got picked over Uvantak's three other maps
None of his other maps made the short list. A reformed method of judging wouldn't change anything here.
Frozen Zone got picked over those same maps, plus say, Frostbite
Frozen Zone scored way better than Frostbite in the macro category. Not even close
Gojira got picked for a category it wasn't submitted into (which, btw, makes me question WTH is up with that), over Dead Winter Reigns, and over any number of other maps in the other categories whose gold bases are used in a cool fashion
I already explained why Gojira was picked for a different category... Incidentally Gojira was the highest scoring map not only among Gold maps and Macro maps, but among ALL finalists. It was also many judges' favorite map. DWR scored one of the worst.
Namaste got picked... at all. sorry avex I love you but it's not your best work
Yes, it was a weaker map in an extremely weak category as I've mentioned many times. DWR was weaker as determined b the judges.
New Gettysburg got picked in spite of glaring issues that I'm surprised Jacky put in the map. maybe the judges are banking on the iteration phase, but if that's the case, why wasn't a similar consideration made for other maps?
People really liked New Gettysburg. All maps were picked with the idea that there might be changes.
On May 22 2016 09:54 Xenotolerance wrote: I don't see how that's a counterargument
I meant that for sunshine, but it applies to both of you
Because if you're subjectively upset with the subjective decision of a group of judges, that does not necessarily call for reform in the judging process. Basic public policy, the thing that pleases the largest group to the largest extent invariably still displeases someone. That doesn't mean you pick something that displeases a larger group, just to placate that small group of people.
I think one part of Xeno's original argument is mostly reasonable: that the top maps as given by the average of the judge's scores will be less "bold" than the top picks of any individual judge. I think that this is important because a part of all mapmaking (in general) and TLMC Judging (in particular) is cultivating a vision for the future of the game and for the future of the map pool - especially now, I think, as Blizzard seems to have acquired the (extremely laudable) goal of widening the range of what an "acceptable ladder map" looks like (what with their recent focus on "experimental" maps). An individual judge might have a strong vision that becomes diluted when everyone's opinions are "averaged out".
A lot of this is corrected for, of course, by healthy communication, debate and discussion among the judges - which, judging from Monk's description of the process, seems to have happened. I'm happy with how this TLMC went (though, duh, I am biased because one of my maps is a finalist). There were a ton of great maps submitted (just like every TLMC) and it sure seems like they had to make some hard choices.
One of the things I really liked about this TLMC is that the submissions asked for a short description of the map and for a justification for the categorization of the map - allowing us to communicate important information about the map.
On May 22 2016 11:04 Plexa wrote: Xeno I get it, you're mad your map didn't make it. Let's leave that in the other thread.
With regard to the process, the only issue I have with it is that we were tied to 15 maps (my rankings only had a clear top 11, or 12 with a change; one of which wasn't in the top 15 which is understandable due to concept overlap).
On May 22 2016 11:13 Namrufus wrote: I think one part of Xeno's original argument is mostly reasonable: that the top maps as given by the average of the judge's scores will be less "bold" than the top picks of any individual judge.
This isn't part of it, it's my entire argument. The salt and the rest just came up from arguing with peeps who wanted to tear me down because they thought I was just mad, or some other reason maybe
Like I said, if it's only that I disagree with the judges, it's not worth fighting about.
If it's that the point system distorts the results, it is worth fighting about. The judges should consider fairly if it does, and move forward according to their discretion. That's all I'm pushing for.
You've all got me wrong, thinking this is just because I'm mad about not placing, making sure to point out that my map scored super bad like that's related to the argument, less than cordial I think.
Obviously I disagree with some of the choices and process, but I've been shouted way way down, and it's turning vile, so I'm done with the subject, you can stop slinging shit now.
On May 22 2016 11:13 Namrufus wrote: I think one part of Xeno's original argument is mostly reasonable: that the top maps as given by the average of the judge's scores will be less "bold" than the top picks of any individual judge.
I just re-read the thread, and I'd like to retract the accusation of shit-slinging. Pretty sure the worst thing that anyone suggested was that I'm arguing because I'm mad, which is false, but isn't even that harsh of a thing to say. So I'm retracting that, you're all cool to me
Also I just want to make sure this gets seen at this stage, I wrote this a few pages ago:
and let me be clear, I don't think the judges did anything wrong, so it's not a criticism of you as people or judges or anything like that. I just think if the same judges made the same evaluations in a different process, they'd end up with a stronger pool of finalists
On May 22 2016 12:31 Youngrustler wrote: Hey just wondering if it is possible for the people that didn't make the cut could see what the feedback from the judges was on the map?
There is a thread on that in the sc2map forum on TL. Post your map and ask there.
The one thing I agree with Xeno is I'd love to see the Google doc with the judge information. Hell, go ahead and blur out / delete all the judges name, I'd just love to see who voted what score for what map and how far along different maps got.
On May 23 2016 01:02 RCCar wrote: What a shame non of the maps I liked actually made it I really liked Zerus, Erebus, and Frostbite. Is there anyone who knows why they didn't?
On May 23 2016 01:02 RCCar wrote: What a shame non of the maps I liked actually made it I really liked Zerus, Erebus, and Frostbite. Is there anyone who knows why they didn't?
The latter were really close, but yeah you need to check out the thread linked in the above post.
EPT
I really liked Zerus, Erebus, and Frostbite. Is there anyone who knows why they didn't? 
