TAFI Town Hall

[englanddg]

Right. But I think that's a "she," at least according to her profile.

Oh, well, my bad! (hides in a corner ashamed for using the incorrect pronoun) <grin>

 

[spacemt354]

He is actually a poster boy for the system being as simple as possible...as he is new and can give unvarnished opinions about what HE thinks is too complex.

In my mind, if it can't be understood after reading a post or two in a FAQ, it is too complex. And I think we use that as a razor of sorts to keep us from more complex ideas.

And this may sound so small of a suggestion, but instead of having the acronym ICS be the title of a thread, perhaps expand it out for the full name so new people know what it stands for in the thread title.

I will he honest I skipped over the ICS sticky thread in the beginning because it was just an acronym.

 

[englanddg]

And this may sound so small of a suggestion, but instead of having the acronym ICS be the title of a thread, perhaps expand it out for the full name so new people know what it stands for in the thread title.

I will he honest I skipped over the ICS sticky thread in the beginning because it was just an acronym.

Way to understand a community and therefore feel qualified to comment upon it.

I also joined a Disney forum, but I have no idea what MDX means. And what do you mean by MDE and DDP?

Part of joining a community is learning the community, it's not that you just show up and are amazing.

<rolls eyes>

That said, yes I am being snappy, and there is some nudge of the ribs meant to it, with a friendly wink. So take it with a smile.

I agree, FAQ (which is also an acronym, but would at least point people to the right place) would make a heck of a lot more sense...

 

[DinoInstitute]

Hello everyone.... I'm a little late, but I have a few thoughts on some of the tournament and point things I read

I think we should limit it to 16 people. I think that allows enough people to play without too many feeling left out. Also...If the contest started the last week of November it could be stretched out for four rounds.

With that the rounds would look like this:

Round 1 - Compete in 4 groups of 4. Two people from each group moves on.
Round 2 - Compete in 2 groups of 4. Two people from each group moves on.
Round 3 - Final 4 proposals are judged. Two people move on.
Round 4 - Final 2 proposals are judge, with one winner.

I think having maybe one round of teams is good, as part of determining the "best" could be arguably who can work well together. Though not too many rounds.

Also, how would having two people from each team move on work? Isn't the point that one of them wins? Otherwise eliminations would have to be more boardroom style (which takes up time)

I still think we should let everyone in. Someone who might very well be the best perhaps might not compete in one comp, and/or maybe gets eliminated early due to twists/politics in others, and then might not get enough points.

Lastly, I disagree with your point about people not feeling left out. The less exclusive it is, the easier it would be to get into (in theory) and less people would be left out, making those that aren't in it probably feel more upset (IMO).

Can we tentatively plan to do the Sweet Sixteen comp next year in December? This year we can still stick with the Elite Eight, if no one objects. Better to finish what we started than scrap it all halfway through.

The other thing that needs to be decided is the point system. I heard this a few pages back, which sounds eerily similar to the system we've been using, but simpler than the one we planned to use for next year:

• Competitors: 1 point for each person you beat
• Hosts: 1/2 point for each contestant in the competition
• Co-Judges/Co-Hosts: 1/4 point for each contestant in the competition
• Winner gets 2 extra points.

I think we could also add something based on the timeframe of the competition. For instance, competitors would receive 2 points for each month of the competition. This would not be based on how you rank in the comp-- it's solely a commitment bonus. For instance, someone eliminated in the first week of a 3 month comp would still receive 6 points.

I really like this idea! But the thing is, if it's a commitment bonus, we don't necessarily know that the person eliminated first would have stayed committed two or three weeks into it.
And if someone drops out/goes AWOL do they still get the bonus?

 

[spacemt354]

So I had a question for potential competition hosts next season based on this post yesterday that I took an interest to.

For example, these are the people who have already indicated they want to host next year.

RM wants TSI - 12 weeks
IDI (and I assume space is back for another ride) wants his comp - 12 weeks
JDM wants his comp - 12 weeks
Sam and I want to do 30 Days - 4 - 6 weeks
One slot should go to SYWTBAI for Tiki - 12+ weeks
Some sort of finisher (Elite 8 / Sweet 16) 5 - 8 weeks
Matt may want to do his comp again - 10-12 weeks

And, I may be forgetting someone, and that doesnt include anyone who may have their own ideas but havent come forward yet.

Do the math...not enough time.

Hence the idea of "Tiers" so some comps could slightly overlap (or completely overlap in the case of a smaller one like 30 days)

We have all be talking about having no schedule and just letting people do their own thing. I'm in favor of that, but one thing I was considering was feasibility

I wanted to ask potential hosts if they had any ideas as to how everyone listed above could run a comp next season without becoming oversaturated and without burning out contestants.

There's only 52 weeks in a year and based on the schedule above, there's much overlap.

I had two suggestions. First would be to start comps once a decent amount of contestants from the previous comps have been eliminated. Second would potentially be to shorten some comps from 12 weeks to 10 weeks or so.

Just looking to have a conversation about this because if this is the direction we are heading in, we should be prepared.

 

[Matt7187]

So I had a question for potential competition hosts next season based on this post yesterday that I took an interest to.



We have all be talking about having no schedule and just letting people do their own thing. I'm in favor of that, but one thing I was considering was feasibility

I wanted to ask potential hosts if they had any ideas as to how everyone listed above could run a comp next season without becoming oversaturated and without burning out contestants.

There's only 52 weeks in a year and based on the schedule above, there's much overlap.

I had two suggestions. First would be to start comps once a decent amount of contestants from the previous comps have been eliminated. Second would potentially be to shorten some comps from 12 weeks to 10 weeks or so.

Just looking to have a conversation about this because if this is the direction we are heading in, we should be prepared.

Honestly, I see no reason why we can't have 2 bigger comps running at the same time. If you don't want to juggle both comps along with other work (especially during school time), then you can join one or the other.

 

[DinoInstitute]

So I had a question for potential competition hosts next season based on this post yesterday that I took an interest to.



We have all be talking about having no schedule and just letting people do their own thing. I'm in favor of that, but one thing I was considering was feasibility

I wanted to ask potential hosts if they had any ideas as to how everyone listed above could run a comp next season without becoming oversaturated and without burning out contestants.

There's only 52 weeks in a year and based on the schedule above, there's much overlap.

I had two suggestions. First would be to start comps once a decent amount of contestants from the previous comps have been eliminated. Second would potentially be to shorten some comps from 12 weeks to 10 weeks or so.

Just looking to have a conversation about this because if this is the direction we are heading in, we should be prepared.

I think the bigger thing is how we can get more people involved in the community... If we have a lot of members that want to join in the comps, then it would be easier to hold multiple at the same time, as there would be plenty of people to join them. That's part of what the Twitter was supposed to do but I don't know how much it helped yet

But for now I'd say wait until more people were eliminated to host comps. Because shortening them can really take away from some of the comps.

 

[DinoInstitute]

Honestly, I see no reason why we can't have 2 bigger comps running at the same time. If you don't want to juggle both comps along with other work (especially during school time), then you can join one or the other.

The only problem I might see with that is not having enough people to partake in them.

 

[spacemt354]

I think the bigger thing is how we can get more people involved in the community... If we have a lot of members that want to join in the comps, then it would be easier to hold multiple at the same time, as there would be plenty of people to join them. That's part of what the Twitter was supposed to do but I don't know how much it helped yet

But for now I'd say wait until more people were eliminated to host comps. Because shortening them can really take away from some of the comps.

I think if you're looking for advertising you might as well look internally in the forums. A lot of stories of people joining the imagineer forums were basically from joining the site, then falling upon this.

The best candidates to do this would be people on the site, so I think advertising via our signatures like we have been and posting in a variety of threads on the site is a good way to do it

 

[spacemt354]

Honestly, I see no reason why we can't have 2 bigger comps running at the same time. If you don't want to juggle both comps along with other work (especially during school time), then you can join one or the other.

The problem is people have trouble juggling one comp with work.

I would suggest if you have 2 comps, do what we are doing now...

Have an old major comp, like SA run parallel with a comp made up of mostly new members, like 1984.

A "sequel" comp and a new comp. Kinda like how the MCU has had a pattern of 2 films per year, a sequel and a new character, in order to expand their universe. This would be to expand our community.

The rest would be slight overlaps towards the beginning and end of each comp.

 

[Zweiland]

Also, how would having two people from each team move on work? Isn't the point that one of them wins? Otherwise eliminations would have to be more boardroom style (which takes up time)

The 4 "groups" in Sam's idea weren't teams. They were like a bracket group, competing against each other.

 

[DinoInstitute]

The problem is people have trouble juggling one comp with work.

But why would however many comps there are going on make a difference?

I'm completely fine with this idea if everyone wants, but I'm just not sure I see what it's really doing.

The 4 "groups" in Sam's idea weren't teams. They were like a bracket group, competing against each other.

Oh, ok. Does each group have a different challenge then or something like that? What makes each group different than just all in one bracket I guess I'm wondering.

 

[Zweiland]

Oh, ok. Does each group have a different challenge then or something like that? What makes each group different than just all in one bracket I guess I'm wondering.

They'd have the same challenge. It's just like the groups of 2 people that competed against each other last year.

 

[DinoInstitute]

They'd have the same challenge. It's just like the groups of 2 people that competed against each other last year.

I'm confused then

Is there any real reason they are labeled as a group, or is that just for formatting/organizational purposes?

 

[jdmdisney99]

Sorry, guys, I'm not caught up, but here's some of my thoughts on everything...

I think everybody, especially the newer people, need to reevaluate the forum from the ground up. When this all began a few years ago, there was no organization. At first, it was a showcase for the big competitions that would repeat annually. Then it became a championship setup to pit the best Imagineers against each other come December. But, over time, if all became very complicated and almost overwhelming. It's time to go back to the basics. There is truly no need for a schedule. Ideas call for the public members of the forum to choose competitions that they'd like to participate in for the next year. Well, without a schedule, is that not what people are doing? They choose what they like, and what they don't participate in doesn't continue. If a host has a problem with another comps schedule, the hosts can discuss it. Two comps at once isn't a terrible thing. People just need to know their limits. Then, come December, you hold a championship tournament for 16 Imagineering competitors. Anybody who competed throughout the year should be able to join, and then they can be seeded based on point totals (newly created point system with simpler numbers (see Matts one point per round idea)). Then we have the Dreamfinder Awards and announce the winner of the tournament on December 31st. Instead of Convos, as the public seems to have grown displeased with that idea altogether, there should be organizing committees formed every time something comes up, like the Hall of Fame voting in October, the Dreamfinder Awards, and the ICS Tournament in December. It all could function in such a simpler way. I just want to see this forum dreaming again, like when I first ventured over here. Enough political drama. It's all about simple fun.

 

[RMichael21]

I had two suggestions. First would be to start comps once a decent amount of contestants from the previous comps have been eliminated. Second would potentially be to shorten some comps from 12 weeks to 10 weeks or so.

To be honest, shortening my competition from 15 weeks (like this year) to 12 weeks while trying to plan something has been extremely difficult. If I had to cut it down another 2 weeks, I'd be in hot water. At this point, I plan on TSI S2 being 12 weeks (maybe 13 if something happens).

But, for other competitions where a simpler format is used, I'm sure that would help a lot.

 

[Sam Magic]

As an aside, if I may, I feel that we are all either over evaluating how many contests people will actually play and how many there need to be. I have a feeling that most contests, like some small businesses will die from lack of interests, others will survive and five years from now there could be a natural schedule that just happens. Basically we are making this forum very capitalist. And I for one like that, it means things will be more natural and open.

 

[RMichael21]

By the way, I feel that with this new method, people will be "calling" times to host their comps a year or two in advance. In a way, that's fine, but I'd say that you can only "call" a time 6 months ahead (at the absolute earliest) of the start date of your competition.

 

[Flippin'Flounder]

By the way, I feel that with this new method, people will be "calling" times to host their comps a year or two in advance. In a way, that's fine, but I'd say that you can only "call" a time 6 months ahead (at the absolute earliest) of the start date of your competition.

But nothings stopping you from hosting at the same time as someone else, so I don't think that'll work. If I say that I'm going to host a competition in August 2017 right now, then everyone will know that I want it. Come February 2016 if someone else "calls" that spot, I could still use it because we can overlap.

 

[RMichael21]

But nothings stopping you from hosting at the same time as someone else, so I don't think that'll work. If I say that I'm going to host a competition in August 2017 right now, then everyone will know that I want it. Come February 2016 if someone else "calls" that spot, I could still use it because we can overlap.

That's true. I was just trying to think of a solution to a problem that we had before all of this scheduling stuff.