Handyman

I don't care about actually *participating* in such a contest. Still, I think ratings 1-5 should be given some more weight than the next ratings. I take part of the point of this contest as getting "unrated" scenarios to be "rated."

Why not just give extra points to *all* reviews of unrated scenarios? Perhaps, we could give an extra .5 points.

Thank you.

Hello, Perhaps this is an obvious question, but I can't find the answer on these fora or the documentation, so: What is the maximum value of an SDF? Thanks

(How often in physics to grant-pullers with large labs end up scoring credit for others' ideas?)

Originally Posted By: Metatron There's an xkcd strip that says that one field is just application of the broad generalities of another field. Oh, I get it, it's about science. Thank you! :-)

Mr. Eld's first sentence is absolutely, 100% vital. This is just another example of the media getting it horribly, horribly wrong. This reminds me of Mr. Drakefire's comment above. Neuroscience, like any scientific field, can be abused for hype or agendas. It is also socially relevant, making it more seductive. As for that stupid, stupid article: There is the error Mr. Eld pointed out. Cognitive neuroscience works on the assumption that mental phenomena can be wholly described by neural phenomena. To treat this as the "point" of the study seems so naive that it is probably a lie told for hype or grant money. This article has many words, but has no information that a lay person can understand, among the information that's not already false; and virtually no information that an informed person wouldn't already know. Perhaps most subtly, there is the idea of genetic determinism: While genes are obviously crucial to development, most people do not realize the importance of environment, especially to the brain. I don't know much about genetics, so I can't speak of the effect of environment elsewhere; but, the whole purpose of the brain is to regulate behavior according to complex and changing circumstances, so why should something as abstract and particular as "liberalism" be hard-wired? Well, I suppose I'm just venting: This sort of thing gets me absurdly riled up. But, of course, it could be worse. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11620971

Wouldn't an fMRI scan across test conditions be preferable to an MRI scan? (And, for that matter, wouldn't the responses occur in gustatory cortex?) And, what of single-cell recordings and neuropsychology? And, lastly, what does any of this have to do with Republican ideology?

I suppose I should be clearer: What I am interested in is a listing for where they can be downloaded. But, I suppose it is fine as long as they're all hosted somewhere.

Hello all, Is there a complete listing of scenarios out there? I suppose I can look at the various links posted at the top of the forum, but they all seem incomplete.

(Perhaps the idea is to verify by posting thoughtful reviews.)

When will these scenarios be released? I suppose Oops already was. But the others?

That is very depressing. If he hates BoA, perhaps he could make it free, so it could at least become more widely used by amateurs.

You mean Jeff Vogel, a small business owner, does not support contests that generate enthusiasm around his own products?

Perhaps Mr. Vogel can be asked to provide a "consolation" prize to the competitor who could not be judged? It might not earn him any income, since BoE is apparently dead. Still it's just ~$25, and it would be a sign of goodwill that would increase rapport. Otherwise, I don't really know what to do, other than plan better for the future. Perhaps future contests might ask for judges *before* the beginning is announced, so it can be known whether a BoE scenario would be viable. And, even if fewer judges will use BoE than BoA, perhaps the scores from non-BoE-using judges can be statistically manipulated to infer how they would have scored the BoE scenario, given those judges' average scores, deviations, etc. This obviously isn't perfect, and may seem unfair; but no option seems ideal.

Fair enough. I guess I'd want rotations to be longer than a week... (For instance, I know that if I only have a week, I simply will not get anything done, depending on the week.) Perhaps 2 weeks? I'd want each scenario to have at least 4 designers, too. So, perhaps 2-3 months? I suspect part of the fun will come not from designing itself, but from working with someone else's ideas.

Recording SDFs is probably not that difficult. If you are not clearly documenting what your SDFs are doing, you probably do not understand your own scenario. (More on this below.) This post is going to be a lot of words, but I'd like much of the following to be nitpicked as a proposed set of rules for the contest: 1. Begin your scenario well. (a) Not too restrictive, not too open-ended: The major plot hooks (ESPECIALLY the ending) should be left for others to decide, but they should have a fleshed-out setting in which to plan the action. ( Describe the characters as briefly as possible while still keeping them interesting. © Write a premise which can be wrapped up by the end of the contest, while also gives each designer enough to do. (d) Write an interesting premise. The initial encounters should provide some sort of build-up; however subtle or dramatic is up to you. (e) If you use any complicated, custom scripting that is used throughout the scenario; like requiring the party to eat food, leveling NPCs, special spells, etc.; make this as easy as possible for future designers to implement. 2. Contribute to scenarios well. (a) Adhere to the *initial designer's* vision of the scenario. If other designers have strayed, bring the scenario back in as well as you can. It does not matter if your contribution is not spectacular, as long as it fits. ( Leave as few loose ends as possible. (Some tasks, like "coding dialogue for towns," will probably not be finished by the first designers. However, leaving a dungeon or important encounter unfinished is ill advised.) © Fixing others' loose ends and bugs may be preferable to advancing the plot, depending on how much work must be done to complete a scenario. (E.g., it is understandable if you prioritize a good ending over fixing numerous errors.) (d) Record any *significant* errors in the version you were given, including loose ends, bugs, and departures from the initial designer's vision. If insignificant errors occur frequently, that is also significant. [Judges will evaluate your performance according to these priorities. Also, final contributions to scenarios will be most important.] 3. Finish your contribution well. (a) FINISH ON TIME. If you have loose ends, it does not matter; finish on time. ( Make your documentation clear enough for subsequent designers to understand. Document which SDFs, personalities, VTEs, towns, etc. are used for which purposes. (You should be documenting these things as you make scenarios anyway.) When scripting is more complex, comment it. © If there are any loose ends or bugs you neglected to or could not fix, document them for the next designer. (Some loose ends, such as incomplete dialogue, are perfectly acceptable, especially in earlier versions.) (d) Record the contributions you have made. This includes additions to the main plot, patching of loose ends, dialogue/terrain written, etc. (Minor changes should not be mentioned, unless they are cumulatively significant.) Documentation should be as short as possible while still hitting the main points. If someone does not continue a scenario successfully, then the scenario they started will be dropped from the competition, and they will not edit other scenarios. The remaining scenarios can be handed off to those remaining. Nobody should edit the same scenario twice. Therefore, there will be fewer rotations than there are designers, minimizing the odds of such redundancy. Progress on the disqualified scenario will still be used to judge other contributors. ...whew. I personally like this idea, because it forces designers into unique situations, like a good writing exercise. I would like for the contest to last no more than, say, eight months; and I would like for a rotation to last maybe 1-2 months. Later rotations should be given somewhat more time, so designers can test previous versions. The first rotation may also be given somewhat more time.

I was thinking instead of having multiple scenarios, each started by each contributor. Hopefully that clarifies things.

...the "passing it along" idea is one of the best I have heard in a long time. There are, obviously, some difficulties in coordination: How much "time" should a person be allowed to add to a scenario? Would we judge both the scenarios, and the individual contributions? Would subsequent editors be allowed to edit previous sections? (I'm leaning towards "no.") My favorite part of that suggestion is that it encourages people to design in different people's styles. So, I'm inclined to give the "first" designer great liberty over the rest of the scenario. I think designers should thus be judged based on their "vision" for the scenario they started; and the "insight" they provide to scenarios they continue, especially those they end. It might be interesting to specify which things the initial designer can specify: Setting? Main characters? Motives? Presumably, they can't simply script out the characters' actions. And, they can't write in *too* obvious of plot hooks. Perhaps designers' visions can be graded on how well they DON'T script the actions in their scenarios. We might also want to limit how many towns/outdoor sections the initial and subsequent designers are allowed to contribute. Also, there's the issue of timing: Presumably, we want to rotate these things, so that they all get worked on at the same rate. But, of course, people are often totally irresponsible. I don't know. Perhaps this contest is too ambitious; but the potential would be grand.

What does "bump" mean?

WikiFur's featured article of the day: http://en.wikifur.com/wiki/WikiFur_Furry_Central

Good luck on your test!

Oh well, that's a shame. As long as the judging gets done whatsoever, I suppose I can't complain.

Pardon me, but aren't most of these scenarios supposed to be of one outdoor section and no more than ten towns?

...can I make a second scenario?