What if we limit it to 3 responses? I worry that if we can vote for everything then people won't have to really decide which they prefer... they can just vote for all of them and we wouldn't have any clear distinction.Originally Posted by SeattleSauve
Except guitar is not a sport or a competition. I'm also surprised that you'd be arguing so vehemently about how important score based competition is for the weekly songs after you argued so vehemently about how score shouldn't be important at all when we were talking about how the game encourages you to play early. There, you were pretty clear that you looked down on playing for score. I guess you've had a change of heart?
There actually is a point and it's been mentioned multiple times by multiple people. It's incentive for people to focus on a song and do it as a community. That may not be a good reason for you, but it's still a reason, and a reason that seems good enough to others.Heck, if it's just about let's all play guitar and get better, there's no point to it at all, since that's what RS does, anyway. We can all just post our scores of whatever song we happen to be working on at the time, or subscribe to one of the tracking sites to keep detailed stats.
I guess I missed where you polled everyone who participates in the weekly songsI think it's great you and a couple others just enjoy playing and don't care about the competitive aspect, but you're in the minority.
Last edited by rchiav; 05-23-2012 at 11:57 PM.
I've read through all the posts and your first point up to now. He's the only one purposely using inflammatory prose like "global tragedy", "elite empire" and "get off your high horse".Hi All - the night shift here again
I'm gonna try(!) and keep this short because I 'd like people to read it and I'd like us to move on. If you don't have time or just can't take any frickin' more just go to point 4.
1. People need to lay off Steel_Nirvana at a personal level (as I'd suggest for any poster). He may be somewhat robust in his expressions but at least he's trying to make something better based on his view of what's fair - particularly for beginners.
Carry on.
Last edited by ZumaRocks; 05-24-2012 at 01:05 AM. Reason: removed name calling
I personally cast my vote for propsal 6 or 7.
Doesn't this (#5 on your list):
Go with these (meaning not a separate proposal)?
Last edited by Cloudfuel; 05-24-2012 at 12:29 AM.
I've just got out of bed to post this question. After all the talk about sandbagging etc. I don't think it completely off-topic but it's kind of an ethics question ultimately, I'd be keen to hear what people think. I realsie it might come off like a loaded question but I promise it not, its a gennuine enquiry.
I was just thinking to myself about how ironic it was that I hadn't time to enter the competition this week. I have one version of this song to about 80K and I'm pretty sure 0 for whatever other versions there are are, including the competition version. So I said to myself ok - between now and Sunday I'd have maybe 3 hours to practice. Let's say that 3 hours got me to 65K and then I ran out of time. I found that I was saying to myself "well you couldn't post that - that's a beginners score. That's not fair. Just don't enter this week". Then I said "Well that's hardly motivational is it? Not actually practicing it or taking part because you can't get it to a 'respectable' score in the time available". Whats' the right approach there?
Anyone have a view on that?
Again, I think the groups were just to diversify who picked the song and not disclude a group of a particular skill level. I don't personally see a reason not to post it unless you didn't want to. It's all for fun and at the end of the day, is it really going to matter? I don't think so.
Good catch cloudfuel - the first part you quoted was supposed to go with #4. Fixed that. #3 and 4 are separate.
This is why I like cgeorg's idea.... you would be in a division of your own choosing (independent of scoring) so if you didn't get much time this week, then you'd probably end up towards the bottom of your division.
This was set up as a competition; maybe you missed the beginnings of it? It was originally proposed as a 1-N ranking, IIRC, but we decided to add the categories and song-choosing rotation as incentive for people to compete. It was never just, "Let's all get together and play the same song this week," although that's a legitimate way to approach it.
Also, the question of how to organize and run a weekly competition is a completely separate question from how best to play guitar. Within the context of a competition, the idea of an objective--even if imperfect--criterion for separating people into relatively evenly-matched skill groups for the purposes of fair competition makes perfect sense. That's why I dislike the idea of self-selecting; it's too easy to abuse as well as too open to interpretation, whereas the score is what it is, agree with it or not.
In terms of the timing, my objection wasn't that score was somehow not useful. I was arguing against the idea that the scoring mechanism must be changed in order to compensate for certain people's lack of self-control because they claim the the game somehow forces them to play "wrong" because by doing so they get a higher score...despite the fact that changing the game to compensate for their lack of self-control would have the net effect of punishing a great number of other players who didn't take the time to dial in their video lag and who weren't obsessed with exploiting the game for maximum score. My point being, of course, that exploiting the game for points is a choice. So it doesn't make a lot of sense to punish casual players who may not take the time (or even know there's an option) to dial in the video lag, for no better reason than that a certain percentage of already-accomplished guitarists don't have the self-control not to try cheating the system put in place to protect the less technically savvy.
So, as you can see, you're talking apples and orangutans, and I'm not being the least bit inconsistent. If anything, it shows I'm consistently in favor of not punishing the less experienced players for the sake of the really good ones. See also my take on the dynamic leveling changes, put in place to save good players a few minutes' time, but which ended up making the game much harder for intermediate players.
Posting Permissions
Cloudfuel
rchiav