Since it has come up a few times in the last few weeks, I wanted to post a note about how we act towards each other.
First, if you think someone is doing something they shouldn't, my request would be that you contact me first to find out whether there's really even an issue. One was relating to authors posting self-reviews. The other was relating to multiple reviews by the same person. In both cases, what was a slight or offense to one person was either something encouraged by me (in the first case) or prevented from impacting the outcome (in the second case). So my advice is that in order to keep things civil, don't assume so much and post comments publicly that potentially put everyone on edge. Instead, go to me or the people concerned privately to discuss it first. So far, we've been able to work something out or explain the situation in every case.
The second point is the reason why we should treat each other professionally. That is that we are working on something collaborative as a team. This is not a typical web board or forum where everyone is kind of on their own. In this effort, we are going to have to work as a team, and I believe we will be very successful if we can work as a team. On successful teams, you still have healthy disagreements, but you don't have angry arguments. The line is easy to cross on the Internet without voice inflexion or body language, so just keep that in mind as you work with your colleagues in the Swarm. The more people we have involved, the more contributions we will have.
Mutual Respect.
One last thing I want to say on this topic:
Everyone who contributed a setting has proably put a lot of work and effort in it. I think that this makes it pretty much mandatory that it is a matter of mutual respect and politeness to at least review every setting in the competition to honor this work everyone did.
Yes, I definitely would like
Yes, I definitely would like everyone to review as many concepts as possible, if not all of them. It can be hard to give good constructive feedback to all of them, but like Satyr said it would be appreciated by all the authors.
Disagreements vs. arguments
I wasn't trying to say that I don't think there would be disagreement. I was more looking at how those disagreements are communicated. I could tell someone that they have an interesting perspective but that part of what they said confuses me, or I could tell someone that I hate their idea and that it's the dumbest thing ever. While I purposefully made that sort of extreme, there is a difference in how we communicate even if we disagree.
Perhaps a result of the competition
I am not sure about this, but I think it is not unlikely that the format of a competition of settings create a certain competetiveness and thoughts of concurrence. I think that everyone who contributed a setting is convinced that it is actually quite a good, if not the best idea in the whole run, and tend to disagree with everybody who do not see it as such.
Hopefully, if this is true, many of these tensions might disappear once the actual competion is over and the focus shifts from bellum omnium contra omnes to "We are all in it together".
Disagreement
I'd have to disagree with you on this point. Competition can cause strife, that is a given, but there is a difference between competitions for things like money, and competitions like this that are designed to push people to come up with ideas to further the group as a whole. Towards that end I find the competitiveness a bit fool hardy for if we cannot work together cooperatively to make a game, how can we expect to compete with other producers? I'd like to think my setting that I submitted are fairly good, but the best, hell no! My settings are weak in actual new thought in areas (they were supposed to be a bit that way, but that is neither here nor there) where as some other settings like Union Pangaea and Mist and Shadows manage to have very cool new ideas in a way that puts them beyond novelty and into the category of a great setting.
As for people thinking that their setting is the best anyone has ever seen, I don't think that is quite the case. Obviously, people who have submitted a setting want theirs to win because they like (why else would they have written it after all?), but as far as I can tell everyone has been receptive to criticism that was valid and explained (like Mike said, not saying 'this setting sucks / is uncreative / is boring / stupid' but instead saying 'I've seen X element used in Y game before, and while it is an interesting approach there isn't all that much that makes this RPG stand out as unique yet').
Finally, if I am wrong (which is always possible), I'd ask that everyone just consider that we are working together to design a game that not just we'd like but that other people would like, and if we do a good job who's to say we won't go back and use one of these other settings at a later date?
Disclaimer: I apologize for any hostility in this message. I am very tired and may have said things the wrong way. If I offended anyone, that was not my intent and I apologize.
competition is not bad.
Competition is not bad when it leads to a healthy rivalry and everyone has the personal grandeur to differntiate between criticism of the setting criticism of the own - or the favorite - setting. I trust that everybody involved here hopefully has this grandeur and therefore I think that
That doesn't mean that people should not be polite or honest to each other when it comes to the evaluation, but I don't think that it is totally unlikely that the overall tone might change to the better next week when the next phase kicks in. We should respect each other and each other's contributions, but it is also not very helpful if everybody stays too polite and doesn't say anything negative, because I think that you need an antithesis to come up with a finally good synthesis. That's basic dialectics.
People are passionate about the things they like, and even a heated debate can bring the you further if everybody who is involved can bring on valid arguments. The essential point is that people are willing to learn and to adapt and have a basically insightful approach to the debate's results.
I don't know what kind of strife all has happened here before, r what else has happened I had a discussion with RHManiac about the sense or nonsense of publishing a fantasy setting, where emotions flared up, but also calmed down quite fast; I found this exchange quite intersting and tried to include the critique in the appendix to the setting in question, and I think it helped me to reflect my own work. I have always found honest critique more helpful than just a short not how cool or terrible something is.
That said, a competition like that is perhaps not about money, but in a way it's about prestige and appreciation which are important motivations after all and which shouldn't be underestimated.
True
I never said competition was bad. I thought I included a line about how it helps bring about and further new ideas. Egotism though and obsession over the competition, and not the end goal, was what I was criticizing. It's all very well and good to point out flaws in an argument / setting, areas for improvement, or a dissenting opinion. However the whole 'lets jump down a persons throat because we think they are doing something wrong and it gives them an edge in the competition' aspect of competitiveness is one I think in this situation we can do without since winning the setting competition would be nice, but not as nice as publishing a sweet game and getting our name out there. So please don't misconstrue my statement as to saying that we should all be polite and chumming with not a bad word about anything, that is not what I'm getting at. The paranoia (and as gamers, we suffer from a ridiculous amount of this, especially in competitions) and the hostility that originates not from the ideas or opinions, but from the competition itself is something we could really do without, and for the most part I think we've done an okay job of that.
I completely agree. If no-one cared enough about anything to get worked up about it, nothing would ever get done.
That is also a valid point, and I also appreciate those sort of critiques (though admittedly I am not as good at giving them as my experience is limited). I don't seem to recall anyone just saying 'this setting sucks' or anything like that, so I don't think that is really an issue yet.
Ahhh, in other words we are competing for ego. I can't argue that that isn't true, because odds are it is for some us. However, I'm not sure that justifies the hostility. With my own settings, I have learned plenty after submitting them (like how people tend to not like Bob :P) that has proven useful, and I have been happy competing with other people who's settings interest me. I enjoy the struggle to come up with the best idea as I am sure many others do, but it is in the spirit of improving my own work, not in having my work win first place (though I'd still like to win).
I guess my point is that I understand that competition is good and that it will cause people to be more hostile. I just ask that we try to control ourselves as it is not a justifiable excuse.