SaperPL

Eurobricks Knights
  • Content Count

    766
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SaperPL

  1. If you take a look at TC20, which had public vote first and jury afterwards is an interesting case of community choice vs what jury "disqualified" and thus so what ended up on podium. The main voting criteria was replicating studded sets as close as possible with studless Lego Technic, so just from the rules you could figure out that the point of it is to recreate those frame/edge built models with holes, just with liftarms, which effectively could be boring replacement of beams with liftarms. But once the discussion and questions about the rules went on, you could figure out that you are supposed to go with modern approach with panels and rule of the thumb is just that the model should be instantly recognizable. Because of this ambiguity, quite a few people went on to build models in modern standard where the holes and gaps are supposed to be closed, and the model winning by popular vote by most amount of points, was removed from podium because of the modern approach with panels, but once you'd check it against others who used panels, it's like it was disqualified for using panels in just one spot on both the sides of the tow truck. So one thing is that criteria not being fleshed out could mean completely different perception of what the contest is supposed to be about between contestants and jury, second thing is that contest shows that people may also vote completely different than jury. Finally note that since there are different outcomes between jury vote and public vote, if the method is decided at the beginning, your approach to picking out what to do and how to do it may differ. And therefore changing the method of choosing who ends up on the podium after the beginning of contest may not be right if there was ambiguity in the criteria, and such change happened when jury vote was added on top of public vote. If popular vote winners not being on the podium because of how jury voted isn't an example of jury picking "wrong winners" as you said it in context of what majority of voters picked, then I don't know what is...
  2. For two entries that are similar quality it can happen the same way if they alternately land on similar spots. For three that alternately land on similar spots it can also be the case and so on. It's easier to get to that situation if scoring criteria are not that clear or when we have community voting and you so people don't want to be too harsh on overall good entries. The more specific criteria for penalty are, the faster the first pass will be. With a clear outline of what should the points be subtracted for each criteria, first pass could be like running a checklist for each entry. Actually having to decide which entry is better or worse against multiple of them is really hard until you've listed yourself specific quality scores. If you already do that in the jury vote or community vote that everyone scores on each criteria, and then it's translated into the positions - there's a room for gerrymandering-like translation of results in this approach and some of the entries will be misrepresented. If you don't do this criteria scoring internally before translating it into the positions, then jurors are just picking what they like, I guess? So it's similar to community vote but maybe more organised and quicker. It still is hard to choose the order without preparing clear data. If it's clear what the penalties are going to be for, what is supposed to be judged and how, and then we end up with multiple entries taking spots on the podium because all of them are close to perfection and having same scores, it is only then that it becomes a problem of the second pass of rating just those that are fighting for the podium. At that point jury could start adding rules for penalties increasing the quality bar this way. Depending on how clear criteria and penalties are in the first place at the start of the contest it will better or worse when it comes to resolving issue of entries having same score. The more vague the criteria are and more room they leave for interpretation, the more room there is for quality entries scoring same max amount of points. It's the same when you have to pick entries in order and not just pick what you like more but adhere to the criteria that are not clear enough for you to easily penalise entries.
  3. I beg to differ on that, the internal structure of chassis / steering isn't something that would be acceptable build quality for Lego as a set and also Akkasin did state that he wants to make a separate improved build for instruction, while the one submitted for contest was with implementing everything as close to original as possible, which he did. I guess I have a different standards for build quality, and so does Lego btw... Anyway congrats to the winners, and hopefully more of the entries will be preserved in form of instructions.
  4. Well, there are different people and they have different motivation when it comes to taking part in a contest. If you're only taking into account this point of view that it's about having friendly community build challenge and it should by only about fun of building etc because that's how most of the consecutive contestants view this and not taking into account potential views of people outside this group, then it might be a survivor bias if that's the base for deciding whether current approach is good or not. Also if you react in a way that this point of view is only the correct one as this is how contests were envisioned to be, then you may not have a lot of people even consider stating their point of view that is different. If we want contests to have more participants and quality entries, then maybe we shouldn't limit ourselves to the views of the people who already are taking part in contests consecutively? @Jim After the ruling of this contests, I have two questions hoping that you'll explain it: The requirement for having a discussion topic with some actual progress. My perception so far was that in the spirit of the competition we should be able to see side by side what kind of build everyone is making. Of course it's not there in the rules, so now after how this contest podium looks, is it okay to not show anything throughout whole contest period and drop everything ready with some historical steps of how the build came to be, in last day before the deadline? You noted in the results that being last in this exact contest doesn't mean the entry was so bad as all the entries were really high quality and it was tough to decide between each other. Wouldn't it make sense to have jury score each submission on each criteria and give out like 0-5 or 0-10 points for each criteria and then this would be summarised between jurors? In both cases of how you scored it currently and in case of giving a specific score for criteria, there is a chance that we'll have two entries with same amount of points, with higher possibility of it happening in the scheme proposed by me, and so requiring second step of ruling which one is better, but the current used approach requires every juror to decide specific order which seems really hard. With scoring, I would expect results in the current contest ending up with 4th place being populated by multiple people and then 5th place being populated by multiple people, but it'd represent the quality of the entries reasonably well. This would work as long as we're not stuck with many people on the first place in the score.
  5. This is how it supposedly works like now when you end up in situation where all entries are high quality according to the voting criteria/base theme/topic of the specific contest. What happens then is that submissions with more features/bigger will win against the smaller ones, when both "score" 100% on all other voting criteria, despite in theory competition theme not being about who can build something bigger with more functions. So it's not necessarily problem of it being fair as long as it would be clearly stated that in such situation where everything else is on par, the jury will pick a more complex build with more functions which often means a bigger model - the problem that I'm picking the fight about is the clarity of that situation and effectively contest inclusive for newcomers. It's like making a race open to casuals only to allow professionals to take the lead anyway for example because they have sponsors and better cars and you're just entering with your everyday family car - a lot of people simple won't bother participating in something like that. That is why I'm picking a fight with rules of some of the contests (not all) being precise enough to be inclusive to people who don't have the same amount of time and spare bricks to build bigger things. Yes, but also are there any art competitions without specific rules of what the theme and format is supposed to be? I'm curious if that reference even makes sense here. Someone has used car shows as a reference, but we're like making casual contest about car show where most of people thing they are supposed to bring a car, and then there's few guys that come in with trucks and excavators and people just love it for being so unique on a car contest. I think the best way to make the competitions fair and clear is to specify a size - this way if an entry needs to be bigger, those who don't have time will know it doesn't make sense for them to participate, and they won't feel like they're wasted their time after participating if they lose to bigger entries. But making it this way would make those people ask for contests in specific size requirement they are okay with next time.
  6. The will still be compared to each other if both recreate the original to the same degree... Yep, the specific scale, not necessarily small (although it seems to have shown good results with TC18 and few others) is something that works well.
  7. Since you're already dropping ideas for future contest: Fixed size requirement doesn't necessarily need to mean a small model. A 1:8 or 1:10 supercar-sized contest could be interesting as we have some experienced builders doing those here from time to time. From my perspective it would be clear how big your model needs to be to compete against others this way. Such requirement might mesh well with RC-based contest as well :)
  8. Yep, I'm blind, thanks! . It's like with the saying that goes: The Best Place To Hide A Dead Body Is The Second Page Of Google :D
  9. I think I ate "all" in my sentence. My point was is there a thread listing all previous contests that is pinned... Can you point me in the right direction? I may be blind/not knowing where to look for it. I don't see anything like that pinned in this section. Unless there is an index thread for whole forum will all sections/themes contests? I did try looking for it through search function assuming that it will be a topic that has technic and contest in its title, but I didn't notice anything like a list of contests.
  10. @Jim is there a place where are previous contests are linked? If not, wouldn't it be good to have a pinned post with all previous contests where you could reach the contest description and entries? I remember someone posted a compiled list from the beginning to a specific contest some time ago in this discussion, but it's not the same as some pinned access to historical list of contests.
  11. Well, in context of this contest we could still try to convince do so in this contest since there's a lot of high quality entries here :) Well yes, but should this be a proper approach? If someone followed thread to see the final result and the final result is posted in separate thread and not in the original one? Also you can simply update the opening post like I usually do when the project is finalised. I get that it can get under radar of moderation and not be frontpaged because of that, but is there a reason that old thread that was showing a progress to not be front paged? Like an actual advantage of having a fresh topic without many comments or disadvantage of topic already having more than one page? For me this is the best part of this forum that people are making WIP threads here and this way you can see some ideas being analysed and tested, some pitfalls where others already failed and so on. The best part of the adventure is the journey and not the destination if you know what I mean :)
  12. But that could be the contest completion reward and additional motivation for people to participate and do good in the future contests. Also this is something that is counter-intuitive for me with frontpaging the topics against work-in-progress topics - it feels to me that if you come in with a complete MOC with great photos right when creating a thread, you have a big chance of it being frontpaged, but for topics that were work in progress and were updated with great photos when the project is finished, it's harder to be front paged since they are not new threads and so it's harder for them to be spotted by moderation. What is counter intuitive in this for me is that it's a place where people do WIP threads and especially when you require doing them for the contest and then you're not frontpaging those feels like additional penalty for them being part of the contest if they didn't win, when it could've been a reward. You will be judging those and it's not like in other cases where someone from moderation has to specifically spot that an existing WIP thread was updated with good photos. I'm not talking about frontpaging every entry, just the ones that are up to the quality to be front paged. I feel like the WIP threads that come out with great models and quality photos in the end are something that the forum should be proud of, and also frontpaging them is additional opportunity for those checking out what's new through front page to notice them and share them to other sites/communities, which effectively brings more people to the forum. But I guess that's just my opinion here...
  13. @Jim is there any chance that after the results are out, to have all those quality entries that won't fit the podium frontpaged? Not all at once, but maybe spread over some time?
  14. This is an interesting angle here because if I were to give it a go at shrinking down the crane, I would probably try to go with separate knobs for separate functions right away, like I did with my tow truck - the original model had the function switch on gearbox parts as well. This trade off decision between playability / rigidity and fully remaking the original functions is a challenge for more complex and more interesting sets like this one.
  15. Can't the last design, the one on the bottom, be used here though? It looks like you could have that LBG pin on the left side of that sticking out pin hole riding on the middle axle if you only have just one connector there on that yellow axle.
  16. Does it have to be rigid? does the sticking out pin hole need to be a pin hole, can't it be an axle? Is there any clearance around this sticking out pin hole? If that's supposed to be fixed, then I'd assume you could use at least one stud beside it to reinforce it. Here are my attempts, I'd put a bet that the last one is something that could be useful, unless the other two pin holes in black connectors on the sides are important:
  17. Yes, it could mean that, but still - we have a single line with few sentences where each voting criteria is stated as single or few words. And I already stated that it would make a lot more sense to me, for a contest with 4 criteria to make a 5 sentence paragraph for each explaining how they will (by jury) or should (by popular vote) be judged. It means that it would grow from few sentences in one line to few paragraphs and total of 20~ish sentences. The defense of single line of criteria with the argument of going to infinity is like if we add anything more, we keep adding more and more, which is not true, because it will depend on how well the criteria are outlined in those paragraphs. Of course if there would be a more interesting topic where criteria would be more tricky to explain, it could require more explanation, but it would either mean that we should do it for that specific contest, or the idea of the contest having to rely on something needing so much explanation may not be a valid one. About stifling creativity - exactly more precise rules make it so that you need to be more creative to tackle the challenge. Yes - too much would be stifling, but I'm not asking for too much, but for good enough so each contest topic is not mostly about asking for interpretation of criteria. Don't use the argument of infinite detail where I never asked for infinite detail. Also don't prove a point because someone may get offended doesn't work on me. You extrapolated to Infinity to prove a point which I wasn't fighting against to begin with - yes, if you go to Infinity with detailed requirements, it will be paralysing for the contest, I agree, but that is beside the point.
  18. There was a strict rule about the size which I already argued that it's good to not make the contests about who can build bigger, so you're just confirming what I said, while there's some who say with open rules being able to build bigger model because of more time and bigger repository of parts is like genetics in sport... TC18 is indeed a great example of having clear rules that are open, but not every contest was clear like that. Again with the extrapolation to infinite. You're simply not right here and it's not a valid argument. You're defending one line of voting criteria and putting infinity as the opposite option. Do I have to draw an axis proving there are numbers like 5 or 12 between number 1 and infinity? As I stated multiple times - there is an example of a contest (TC20) where entry winning by popular vote was then disqualified by jury through the interpretation of the rules that wasn't obvious despite being asked about and answered differently at the beginning of the contest. I already suggested that long time ago that the process should be jury vetting the entries against criteria first and then choosing those who were accepted into contest by jury by popular vote. This is something that also gives community a moment to respond and discuss the jury's interpretation of rules and maybe if someone would be unfairly disqualified, the bigger community would decide before popular vote. But I guess this kind of system stretches out the contest in time and means double the work on choosing the winner... Also I actually went over the criteria with a spreadsheet in both previous contests where I took part and wanted to be fair in casting a vote, but I get that not everyone will go this far. Thanks for explanation. But looking at that thread, it kind of makes sense to me? Unless you edited it out in the opening post, you didn't really have much explained what is your initial plan in digital model until you've shown your first video of a chassis. As Jim explained, the number of views and replies has nothing to do with how people vote. On a side note here, there's also a freshness effect, where if people looked at something for a long time, simply a newer thing is better for them, so finishing the build or just digital design early on may work against you in a popular vote...
  19. Looks really good, but what blows my mind is that cut into the telescopic gear rack assembly between two gear racks. Why not ensure that gear rack ends won't be directly matching plate ends there? Wheels are sometimes touching the wheel archers when turning and I've also got a feeling that it's not by design, but because how weak some of the chassis structure there is. I wish Lego would already acknowledge that we should have proper steering hubs with input for this scale. I didn't know that this set had just one motor and so many gearbox switches, that's insane. And that's a lot of cranking in your model, but I guess can't do anything about it if you want to stay true to the original.
  20. For people who get into the contest not only because of interesting topic, but also to try themselves and compete with others, if rules are not reliable, it stops being fun. By not reliable, I mean that you have to make some assumptions based on the criteria and you ask about some of them, but some if not explicitly stated, can be often misjudged until we actually ask if something is allowed, how it'll be judged etc. If you keep misjudging "the spirit of the competition" because how rules are not clear, it starts feeling random and out of control, so not fun in context of competition. Some information is required to figure out if I actually did good - if there is no precise criteria explanation, but there is a list with who's got which place, then you can try to figure out where you're at in comparison to other entries. If there's no list of places then clear explanation of the criteria - how those were judged is something that can give you feedback here. And for the record, I'm talking about all this because the more clear and restrictive the rules, the more inclusive the contest will be to new people and we'll have more people entering the contest. Some of the contests here with a lot of entries are big repositories of unique building techniques, but also the more people are involved, the more people roam around topics of others and give them feedback throughout the contest time, and that's also part of the fun to interact and have feedback and test various ideas from others giving the feedback. Anyway, I'm repeating myself, because you are repeating same questions/arguments, and the bottom line is people are different and have different approach to things, and so if you all guys think it's not about the rewards, why not make contests more often without physical rewards, but with various cool topics? (this question was already answered by Jim some time ago - it's rhetorical here) Should the contest be only aimed at those who have same approach to this as you, or do you want the physical rewards to be also a bait for bringing other types of contestants? @msk6003 I agree about wanting for people to interact with you in your thread, but the view count metric doesn't directly represent the quality of the entry. Sometimes the topic you've chosen may be enough for a lot of people to check it out of curiosity, but it doesn't mean those people that peeked inside actually like what's inside. Car transporter set is well known and that's probably why you've had a lot of views, although I don't know if you're referring to this specific contest or something from previous contests. About posting WIP and not getting any replies - if you add a thread where you're like 100% done with what you want to make and there is no room for improvement (like your thread suggests that you've got your digital design done), it also means there's no room for interaction from others. Also I feel like the western approach here is to just give out positive feedback, and sometimes you shouldn't get a pat on the back, but hard truth that you won't be able to compete with others entries with what you've build. Note that regardless of whether it's a contest/non-contest thread, if I just drop a complete thing once, or something that is close to completion, there will be just few comments, while starting a thread with just a concept and slowly building on top of that mechanism by mechanism, iteration, by iteration, creates more opportunities for people to see this thread and to comment on the progress. If you drop something close to completion, there's also not that much incentive for someone to take a look at the thread again when it pops up with an update.
  21. Try to use morning light, open up windows/doors to let as much light in, and if your phone camera app isn't letting you tweak the exposition/white balance, you can try openCamera app. I guess next time when you'll be making some photos/video. Anyway, do you have an ldd/studio model for this? I'd be nice to leave those things that you've figured out here with the front axle with suspension and engine behind for future reference for others :)
  22. Look, for me the current approach to how criteria are laid out imprecisely and later judged makes it less fun. When I want to discuss this when the competition is not on, the response is let's wait for the next contest to be laid out. When I ask about how criteria will be judged during the contest, the response is to wait and see the results. And "Trust me bro, we'll judge it right"... When I criticize with arguments why I believe this is a problem, instead of discussing it with counter arguments for why shouldn't we have criteria slightly more fleshed out, it's either "it's just for fun" or extrapolating to "you'd want 500 pages of rules" which imo are not reasonable arguments in the discussion. I don't think anyone brought up a counter argument that more open criteria are good for creativity or something like that, because that could have been a good start for the actual discussion here. The argument about Jim's effort to source and handle the rewards is a good argument, but for a discussion about having contests more often. And when we had that discussion, and some of us stated that we would be okay with more contests without physical rewards, there was a reason behind having actual rewards, so I feel like at least for Jim that only 1% being about the rewards vs 99% about building might not be so true when it comes to bringing new people to the contests. And mostly I would agree with this kind of approach, if it was clearly laid out what's the criteria for winning - in your example of a runner race it's not like everyone goes in a different direction, some go uphill, others go downwards etc. It's clear that everyone races on the same/complaint path (same distance and difficulty) and the winners by decide by who gets to finish line faster. It's a clear criteria. But for one look at TC20 - Studless Recreation results, where the base criteria were not so clear so two solid entries were "disqualified" in a way that doesn't really make sense, so we even have a track record of baseline being not clear to the contestants. For two, what's my problem with how we use this approach with criteria being the small baseline and leaving a lot of parameters up in the air is that again more functions, bigger build will score more points than a small build despite both scoring 100% on the baseline. If the size & more functions is the part of build quality voting criteria, then it's not obvious to newcomers and we all already know isn't good enough imo, but also it means the contests are kind of pay2win this way, where having big repository of bricks + more time for building bigger models will mean competitive advantage over another entry if both have 100% on the baseline. If it's all we already know about how we should judge the build quality, then why not state it once and re-use it for every contest by linking to that statement or including it in the opening post? Then it would be clear that amount of functions does indeed matter in the end, so if you can't afford building something big/complex, then you're not having a chance to actually compete despite fully adhering to the voting criteria.
  23. You asked and I elaborated :D Like I explained to Jim already in the generic contest topic, it's my OCD of digging into things like this because that's part of my job in game development. This is not a good reference because there is a precise baseline that you don't need to explain, where the vehicle probably should be street legal, you're using either industry standard parts fit for their job or have some parts custom made for the specific build. You don't compromise on doors because you can't ft a steering wheel etc. Also I'm guessing there are not a lot of shows where a construction vehicle would be competing against a car or a bike. Also with explanation on the ruling in previous contests there were situations when they went in detail like that. And otherwise if you'd just get a number of points you got for specific criteria and the criteria is vague or you just get a place for your entry, it still doesn't let you know how you should improve next time. All-in-all it boils down to the fact that we are taking part in the contests for various reasons and IF you want more new people to take part in them and keep taking part in them, you should cater to the newcomers' needs and their perception of the contest as well.
  24. It's either let's say 100% for originality because I picked up a set that multiple people stated they didn't even know it existed, or it's 0% because it's a truck with elevated bed so it's a pretty common topic. It has 3 functions beside steering, so if it gets 100% points on all criteria and competes against a bigger model that has all 100% of stated criteria, but that bigger model has more functions, my entry will probable lose there. One of those functions is fully manual, so it's one step more than what we've been okay with so far with knuckle boom cranes and excavator arms where you have a knob at each stage and not input routed to the tower. Will this be penalised or not? It's worth noting that almost no of the tow truck sets have fully functional tow bar/tow tray because they either have it too close to the arm holding it, or it doesn't tilt so you cannot pivot the towed car when steering the tow truck. Does this count the same way as the acceptable true to the original model or not? If it's gonna get penalised for this not being mechanically actuated, then it's like 33% of it's original functions while for example winch not being implemented fully in extreme adventure is like just 1 out of 8 functions - does it matter? By the way I don't know if building in original colour scheme will have significant value. One of the reasons I picked this set is because of it's colour scheme. If the color and for example stickers were to be negligible in how this is valued, I probably would've picked something different and made something in different color theme. A good example of the problems I considered was the extreme adventure set's purple panels that had to be replaced with blue. At this point I feel like penalising those who picked sets they couldn't replicate in original scheme could be a bit too much, but at the same time someone will have to get short end of the stick - either it's them, or those who chose specifically sets that they could replicate with correct color theme while potentially risking other features being implemented with imperfections. Also about the set choice - I feel it's kind of in the middle of the stack when it comes to number of features that are not that common in models that the community is building. If the number of unique/complicated functions that are not purely car steering/drive/suspension/engine doesn't matter, then the optimal choice might have been to go for 41999 as two of contestants did. I feel/have a hunch like this might have been easiest build ot make because we're all building cars with suspension and there's a lot of ideas on how you can implement those mechanisms. But if the number of unique functions does count, this could have been a bad bet to go with something like that. Similarly if you for example were to pick a sian as a target and make it with parts from recent tecnica sets. I'm not sure if that answers your question though. Whether it's something wrong with it or not remains to be seen how jury will vote.
  25. I would say it's 50:50 for me, not 99 to 1. Still the problem here is not that I'm not winning, but the problem for me is taking part in a challenge where conditions may change afterwards based on the interpretation, and that feels to me like a waste of my time. The challenge of making a build for the given topic is nice, but if afterwards I see that I did not understood the rules the same as they were valued, it's not fun for me anymore as it starts feeling as I wasted the time because of that, where I could make different choices if criteria interpretation was clearer from the beginning. And I already said that I'm pretty pedantic about the rules, but I also believe that better rules will mean more contestants will re-enter in following contests if rules make more sense to them and challenge is more approachable. Yes, but no. I'm not saying for every scenario, but criteria for originality could have stated whether it includes the pick of a set to shrink or not. And how that originality would be treated, whether being about picking out some obscure sets or picking out sets that depict things that we don't often build, so something different than trucks, tractors, sport cars etc. Things like how is the jury going to decide between two entries that have full scores outlined criteria. Also does shrink ratio matter or not apart from being a requirement to be a reasonable amount of shrink? I didn't get an answer for that - if it doesn't matter, than IF someone went ahead and sacrificed build quality for heavily shrinking down to a small scale, now he's done it without knowing it doesn't really matter that much. Also we don't know whether keeping the original colour scheme/not keeping it will be a part of staying true to the original, where picking a set that you can source parts in specific colour might be treated as a part of the challenge. Voting criteria has literally one line - two sentences in total. I'm not saying that it should be 500 pages, but it could be a paragraph for each of the four criteria that we have here. You have extrapolated it a bit too much by estimating 500 pages document.