(Full Disclosure: Long post ahead, probably full of incoherent rambling.)
Interesting. I'm glad we got to see the panel's thoughts. I feel like there was some disparity in how each panelist interpreted some of the categories, and also a major disparity in expectations. I think it's good to have different preferences, but for future contests I'd also like to have clearer uniform standards. A lot of the reasons the panelists had for giving specific grades came down to things that really don't seem like significant pros or cons to me.
e.g., Someone gave Tim a "–" for what amounts to giving the reader too much choice. I think there's as much an argument for that being a pro as a con, so I don't feel like it's justified to give him a "–" for that. Panelists should operate on a broader standard than simply whether they personally like choice. They should consider how the choice impacts the build, and whether restricting that choice would actually improve the build, and why.
Also looking at Tim's panel notes, someone gave him a "–" in Presentation because "I think gear icons could’ve been made smaller and arranged next to each other, making equipment section smaller and easier to read." Are these excerpts, or the complete notes? Because if this is the complete review, I feel like that's an extremely insufficient reason for giving him a net negative.
Another thing I noticed: In the notes for Snakes's Dark Supplicant, one of the panelists commented in the Roleplay that "I’m having trouble imagining this character becoming Dragonborn, and NoSnakes hasn’t detailed that part in his build." I'm not sure I follow this exactly. I feel like not every build needs to be presented as a Dragonborn to have a valid roleplay foundation. Even if you use Shouts, you can easily just roleplay them as extra spells, Daedric gifts, etc. Or you can just consider the Shouting as an added bonus that contributes nothing substantial to the roleplay experience. These all seem like valid approaches to incorporating Shouts without forcing the character to go through the process of becoming a Dragonborn. And I feel like if Shouts aren't a core aspect of gameplay/roleplay, it shouldn't be necessary to discuss them in the build write-up.
Another thing is, it seems like a common criticism across the board was that build elements weren't expanded upon in enough depth. And yet one of the most common criticisms I see on the blog in general is that build write-ups are too long and need to be trimmed. Not saying the panelists are doing these both, but it sets up a catch-22 regardless: As a builder, do you attempt to appeal to the panel by elaborating on every little detail, at the risk of losing the casual audience? Or do you keep it short and sweet, getting approval from the audience but criticism from the panel? I think it's nice that the panel wants depth, but they should keep in mind that many/most of the group prefers to avoid essays.
The same applies to artwork. One complain I had in a lot of my early builds was that they looked like walls of text. Not because I wasn't using paragraphs and headers and such, but purely because I wasn't using enough pictures. A criticism that multiple builds had was using too much artwork, but how do you quantify that? A lot of readers like pictures more than text. There's certainly a balance to be struck, but a bit of lee-way seems more than appropriate. In my opinion, none of the builds were excessive with the images, at least, not to the point that it detracted from the presentation. I understand the panelist(s) may have their own opinions, but in order to mark off for that, I'd like to see a bit more explanation than just the simple declaration of "too much art."
While true objectivity is essentially impossible with this kind of thing, I'd like to see more of a focus on the quantifiable stuff: spelling, grammar, syntax, formatting, style, innovation, synergy, lore adherence, etc. These are things that can be "graded" on a fairly consistent scale, even if each panelist has their own degree of strictness. Reading some of the notes, I kind of felt like some panelists may have gone in with specific standards for some of the builders, which just doesn't seem fair.
One last comment: Maybe it's just that I've read enough posts from most of the panelists to get a fair grasp of your writing styles, but I definitely felt like I could tell who wrote a fair number of the bullets. Not sure whether that's good or bad, or just interesting.... At any rate, I'm not trying to call anyone out, so please don't take my snippets from the notes as personal attacks. Just trying to point out some things I noticed so that future contests might be improved.
The panelists all did a great job. Cheers to you guys for your efforts, and thanks especially to Ponty for organizing this. It definitely gave the group a kick in the pants. Lots of great new builds in the past month. Can't wait for contest #2!
(Full Disclosure: Long post ahead, probably full of incoherent rambling.)
Interesting. I'm glad we got to see the panel's thoughts. I feel like there was some disparity in how each panelist interpreted some of the categories, and also a major disparity in expectations. I think it's good to have different preferences, but for future contests I'd also like to have clearer uniform standards. A lot of the reasons the panelists had for giving specific grades came down to things that really don't seem like significant pros or cons to me.
e.g., Someone gave Tim a "–" for what amounts to giving the reader too much choice. I think there's as much an argument for that being a pro as a con, so I don't feel like it's justified to give him a "–" for that. Panelists should operate on a broader standard than simply whether they personally like choice. They should consider how the choice impacts the build, and whether restricting that choice would actually improve the build, and why.
Also looking at Tim's panel notes, someone gave him a "–" in Presentation because "I think gear icons could’ve been made smaller and arranged next to each other, making equipment section smaller and easier to read." Are these excerpts, or the complete notes? Because if this is the complete review, I feel like that's an extremely insufficient reason for giving him a net negative.
Another thing I noticed: In the notes for Snakes's Dark Supplicant, one of the panelists commented in the Roleplay that "I’m having trouble imagining this character becoming Dragonborn, and NoSnakes hasn’t detailed that part in his build." I'm not sure I follow this exactly. I feel like not every build needs to be presented as a Dragonborn to have a valid roleplay foundation. Even if you use Shouts, you can easily just roleplay them as extra spells, Daedric gifts, etc. Or you can just consider the Shouting as an added bonus that contributes nothing substantial to the roleplay experience. These all seem like valid approaches to incorporating Shouts without forcing the character to go through the process of becoming a Dragonborn. And I feel like if Shouts aren't a core aspect of gameplay/roleplay, it shouldn't be necessary to discuss them in the build write-up.
Another thing is, it seems like a common criticism across the board was that build elements weren't expanded upon in enough depth. And yet one of the most common criticisms I see on the blog in general is that build write-ups are too long and need to be trimmed. Not saying the panelists are doing these both, but it sets up a catch-22 regardless: As a builder, do you attempt to appeal to the panel by elaborating on every little detail, at the risk of losing the casual audience? Or do you keep it short and sweet, getting approval from the audience but criticism from the panel? I think it's nice that the panel wants depth, but they should keep in mind that many/most of the group prefers to avoid essays.
The same applies to artwork. One complain I had in a lot of my early builds was that they looked like walls of text. Not because I wasn't using paragraphs and headers and such, but purely because I wasn't using enough pictures. A criticism that multiple builds had was using too much artwork, but how do you quantify that? A lot of readers like pictures more than text. There's certainly a balance to be struck, but a bit of lee-way seems more than appropriate. In my opinion, none of the builds were excessive with the images, at least, not to the point that it detracted from the presentation. I understand the panelist(s) may have their own opinions, but in order to mark off for that, I'd like to see a bit more explanation than just the simple declaration of "too much art."
While true objectivity is essentially impossible with this kind of thing, I'd like to see more of a focus on the quantifiable stuff: spelling, grammar, syntax, formatting, style, innovation, synergy, lore adherence, etc. These are things that can be "graded" on a fairly consistent scale, even if each panelist has their own degree of strictness. Reading some of the notes, I kind of felt like some panelists may have gone in with specific standards for some of the builders, which just doesn't seem fair.
One last comment: Maybe it's just that I've read enough posts from most of the panelists to get a fair grasp of your writing styles, but I definitely felt like I could tell who wrote a fair number of the bullets. Not sure whether that's good or bad, or just interesting.... At any rate, I'm not trying to call anyone out, so please don't take my snippets from the notes as personal attacks. Just trying to point out some things I noticed so that future contests might be improved.
The panelists all did a great job. Cheers to you guys for your efforts, and thanks especially to Ponty for organizing this. It definitely gave the group a kick in the pants. Lots of great new builds in the past month. Can't wait for contest #2!
