Staff Feedback/Feedback Discussion

[gimmepie]

We've gotten a lot of good feedback this year, so let's take some time to properly go over it and see what we can agree on. Some things to look into/discuss.

- Point Distributions for certain events.
- Increasing EO involvement during planning
- Continuing pingable roles
- Team leads/Ensuring an even spread of EOs/GT staff across team
- Number of teams going forwards
- Accessibility of events ("paywalled" games)
- Calendar

Feel free to bring up anything else you think warrants mention - whether it's good or bad.

 

[professor plum]

hi this is my second GT to really participate in and my first to host an event in - here are some of my thoughts so far

Re: GT Management

I'd like to start off on a positive note by saying that planning this year was very smooth compared to previous years. this gt was great! there were just some....minor issues i had.

From my perspective as an Event Organizer, it felt like the GT Managers minus April, and to an extent Faffy/GP/Zach, took a step back once the Get-Together started. (Minus Jo who was completely absent - but I understand they had some personal things come up). It'd be one thing if people posted in the Short LoA thread or mentioned being busy, but as far as I know no one (aside from Jo) was officially on leave. This resulted in me throwing on my admin hat, awkwardly stepping in, and conferring with all of the event organizers to create a schedule of events despite it being discussed prior to GT starting. I realize other GTs have done okay without one, but frankly... it was needed. We absolutely need to utilize Google Calendars next year.

We also need to make sure that when we say the event ends on a certain date, it needs to actually happen. We need to communicate to the Event Organizers that their events need to be resolved and scores added to the totals within a certain timeframe - preferably the day prior to the event ending (So, for this event, Sunday if possible). From what I understand, the last day was intended to be Monday; however, it felt like no one was in a particular rush to wrap up the event. It fell on April, Janna, and myself to follow-up with the final event's organizers to get the scores publicly posted so the event would end on Tuesday.

It's one thing to plan an event - it's another to follow-through, manage, and step-in when needed. Even when I wound up having to miss 95% of the Discord Birthday event due to prior conflicts, I was still on Discord DMing and following up with the Event Organizers to guarantee everything was running smoothly. This doesn't mean I think that micromanaging or whatever is needed - just a little more direction.

Lack of involvement from GT Management was mentioned as an issue in last year's Staff GT discussion thread.

Re: Number of Teams

I've said my two cents on this -- however, I can acknowledge that 2 teams aren't as fun as far as like quizzes and whatnot go. If we do more than 2 teams in future years, we absolutely should sort the GT Managers / Event Organizers / staff interested in GT prior to GT starting just to make sure everything's balanced. Most of the Moderoids/Admins were on Solum, with 2 on Aecor, and 3 on Caelum.

Re: ""Paywalled"" Events

I think we can agree that the happy compromise is not absolutely removing these events, simply nerfing the points. For example, re; the ACNH event, the winner could receive 100 points for their team instead of 300, 2nd 75, 3rd 50, 30 for participating, etc. etc.

 

[gimmepie]

Snip

I 100% agree we need to be on EO's asses about finishing events on time next year. The Map-Off went way too long and in the end their final scoring was too rushed to even give critique because they didn't allow themselves time between their event ending and GT ending to properly judge. Aldo was also really slow at getting results out. I think that next year we should have a hard deadline for "events end here" and another for the end of the GT itself to allow a set block as judging time.

As far as the calendar, I'm honestly not sure I was there for that discussion. I do agree though that we definitely benefited from having one and that it should have been there for the beginning. The closing of the GT though? I just... wasn't there when we finally decided to pull the plug after Map-Off concluded. If GT had properly ended when it was actually meant to, myself and others would all have been present to close it off. So hopefully fixing the formermost issue will also fix that.

 

[Arcaneum]

You were 100% present for the conversation re: the schedule and I will not lie, I am actually extremely frustrated (not directed specifically at you GP) that it did not get picked up.

I already had more than enough to deal with (as you all told me several times) and also CHASED GT Management about getting this done (because I was at the time doing the Daily article which was already late AND I stayed up late to get done) and looking back at the conversation... it wasn't even looked at. Between the however many of us there were, I'm sorry but that's just completely dropping the ball.

Another frustration was also how half the team just up and evaporated once we got going - to echo Tyler's post, if anything we're needed most when the event is live. If you can't make it or don't want to do it at that point, then just say? There were a few times where I was coming on and having to look at something or do something which could've been picked up before and despite said people being active, was not done.

Venting over, now to address the feedback. So this is what we mostly garnered from people's responses:

- Point Distributions for certain events.
- Increasing EO involvement during planning
- Continuing pingable roles
- Team leads/Ensuring an even spread of EOs/GT staff across team
- Number of teams going forwards
- Accessibility of events ("paywalled" games)
- Calendar

So I'll go ahead and address these and my thoughts on them.

Points Distribution

Well this firstly depends, clearly, on the setup we will be going with for future GTs. Example: I don't think longform events in a two team GT should be awarding participation points for entrants. For me there should always be the risk of losing out on points if you do not win, so that people try HARDER in the event, rather than what I have been seeing which is teams actually just throw as many people at an event as possible.

Now I understand there does need to be a balance, because some people will be put off by them not feeling they can do good enough etc. So... would it actually just be a good idea to scrap the forced structure altogether? Like, sure have them as guidelines for people that are stuck and maybe set things such as a minimum and maximum allowance, but otherwise I think potentially some more free choice may actually be better. Some events sit in weird areas where they shouldn't really be either long- or short- form and I think this means weird inflation of points where not due.

Also some events specifically that I think need a bit of re-jig in terms of point structure:

Jackbox - Not thinking a HUGE increase, but considering actually what people do to get the points here (several events so to speak over the GT) I feel it has like no sway really in the rankings. Not to say I want it to be the deciding event, but I was thinking either 5 points for participating with a further 5 points per win, or just a flat out 10 points per win. I did this for one of mine due to an issue my end and IDK I liked how the points distributed more tbh.

Arcade - One of the huge point swingers when it comes to events, however I feel that the participation points may be a bit too much. Again this is mostly due to the model we used, and I do know me and Austin spoke about what to do here, but I think even removing or heavily reducing participation points (10 max imo) will potentially help.

HOWEVER this aside, if we're looking at potentially free-willing points anyway, it may be that these events and others have new structures anyway.

EO involvement

I wasn't 100% sure what this was referring to... however I think during planning we can be a bit more proactive in getting people to shape up events. Among Us is a good example - I think actually we could've avoided the mess has we spoken to Megan a bit more; her not really doing anything with the event until last minute was I think an alarm bell for us. But yeah, I think more poking never hurts.

Otherwise... what sort of involvement would we be wanting during planning? They're making their own events anyway and there's not really much else for them to get involved in?

Ping Roles

Moving forward, I think rather than asking, we just make one for every event. That way, if the EO needs to ping for any reason, it's there and available for them. Not like having the role hurts anyone. I THINK Erica mentioned a react bot for easier assigning etc. so we'll leave that to the Moderoids to decide how best to handle that.

Team Leads

So who remembers when we did this for... GT 2017 I think? I know I do, because I was one! I think in the event of a Team somewhat struggling with activity, this is a great idea. Hell, I'd even go as far as maybe something like 1 GT Manager (depending on placements ofc) and maybe 2 Leads (which tbh I think we could just open up to anyone in the channel). It takes the pressure off one person and means if they aren't present, it's still covered. A GT Manager being part of it means also there's staff presence in case it's needed.

EO/GT Staff coverage across teams

So... unsure what spreading out the EOs across teams will really do to make a huge impact really and the GT Staff are omnipresent. I think we need to really think about how RNG may have, unfortunately, been the largest factor as to why Team Caelum really did just decide to not participate as much. Obviously we can try to remedy the situation but I am not 100% sure this is the way to do it.

Team Sizes

Now I was very much Team Two Teams when we initially mentioned this, HOWEVER I have seen good cases for 2, 3 and 4 teams, I guess I'll list my reasons for/against:

2 Teams
+ Easier to sort people
+ Less likely to have inactive teams
+ Can opt for co-operative themes vs. competitive themes (see: Detective Pikachu GT)

- Points will need rethinking massively
- Harder to create elements of competition
- Easier for gap between teams (due to only being the two) and cause demotivation

3 Teams
+ More team diversity
+ Easier to set up for competitive-style GT
+ Good number to spread people out but not feel too overwhelmed by amount of teams etc.

- Easier for one team to flag behind and cause demotivation
- Participation points being guaranteed means teams benefit more from throwing everyone at everything

4 Teams
+ Huge team diversity
+ Has been hugely successful previous
+ Better for competitive GT, as more is on stake as one team can potentially not win any points from an event

- Risk of multiple teams being inactive
- Harder to come up with good sorting process
- If one team loses multiple events, huge demotivation due to no points being earned at all

Personally I think 3 could work again with the other changes implemented to prevent another Caelum Moment, but I would honestly be happier with 3/4 teams. IDK the more I look at it the more I worry about 2 teams being essentially a little bit too boring. Not sure how else to articulate specifically what I'm feeling about it really, sorry.

"Paywalled" games

My stance is that these are still 100% going ahead. People own them, people play them and the ones picked have generally been popular. I think the whole "fair" argument is a bit naff, but personal thoughts aside I think we could definitely review these more when it comes to creating the events. We could look at things such as:

- Can it be opened up to more games in the series at all?
- Less points awarded?
- Is it something active enough in the community that people will attend and make it worthwhile?

I'm happy to compromise where needed, but still want these to go ahead because it may be 'unfair' on people who do not have the access, but it is also 'unfair' to people who DO have them, WANT them in events and get denied that.

Calendar

It's happening and if this means I have to do it myself this time then so be it, however we can't afford to have another moment like this year where we discussed it and had it ready to organise and just... didn't.

GT Management Team

Saving this one for last. Simply - if you want to join then please be aware that not only is there the planning, but the event too. Not asking people to be around 24/7 for it, but at the same time you do still have to be at least present when required and stuff. IMPORTANT: if you're struggling to meet that, then say! The team is a team for a reason - we can cover if needed, rather than thinking something is OK and it isn't done because people have had to take a break.

Happy to discuss further, just quote whatever you want to talk about <3.

 

[Aquacorde]

I don't have much to add atm but I am questioning the allegation that people are being thrown at events just to claim participation points, or that that may have even tipped the scales. I may just be unobservant but I just don't see that being the case at least in long-form events. Excuse me if my quick skimming counts are wrong here but Map-Off had 8 entries, SWC has 8 entries, ACNH Design had 8, FFXIV had 6 or 7? Fortune Cup required three battles for participation points and while a lot of people got some, they all actually did the things y'know? Everything I saw for these events was a perfectly valid and lovely attempt, with care and consideration put into each entry, and I think that deserves participation points. If there are no participation points it almost feels like a wasted effort, and that's rather discouraging to people who want to try but already aren't so confident!

& yeah as an aside I'll admit to making jokes about handing in an an SWC entry just for participation points but GP and several others know full well that I literally hadn't intended to submit anything at all because I had no ideas until the very last minute. so that was more like "good luck to me cause this ain't polished at all".

So basically I'm wondering where the idea that people are being thrown at events for participation points is coming from, and if there are specific events that need to be tweaked (is it literally just Arcade?) rather than nixing participation points across the board.

 

[Arcaneum]

I don't have much to add atm but I am questioning the allegation that people are being thrown at events just to claim participation points, or that that may have even tipped the scales. I may just be unobservant but I just don't see that being the case at least in long-form events. Excuse me if my quick skimming counts are wrong here but Map-Off had 8 entries, SWC has 8 entries, ACNH Design had 8, FFXIV had 6 or 7? Fortune Cup required three battles for participation points and while a lot of people got some, they all actually did the things y'know? Everything I saw for these events was a perfectly valid and lovely attempt, with care and consideration put into each entry, and I think that deserves participation points. If there are no participation points it almost feels like a wasted effort, and that's rather discouraging to people who want to try but already aren't so confident!

& yeah as an aside I'll admit to making jokes about handing in an an SWC entry just for participation points but GP and several others know full well that I literally hadn't intended to submit anything at all because I had no ideas until the very last minute. so that was more like "good luck to me cause this ain't polished at all".

So basically I'm wondering where the idea that people are being thrown at events for participation points is coming from, and if there are specific events that need to be tweaked (is it literally just Arcade?) rather than nixing participation points across the board.

Arcade was the biggest one for it for me and the main reason I brought it up; however the point mostly was to follow on to the second point I make about actually just maybe freestyling them, so those that could do with the tweaking can be tweaked and others left alone, rather than the current system causing, well, what I mentioned previously.

 

[Flowerchild]

I don't have much to say this year, which surprised me. It went... unremarkably. Which is good.

I was pretty burned out from spending hours on quiz setup in advance, so I'll admit I could have participated more than the event began, but I also didn't see much for me to help with. I read the conversations in #gt-2021, and most of them seemed to be about Bella's Among Us event (which isn't a game or event I really knew anything about) or how something needed to be done about Caelum (which I disagreed with on the basis that the GT is just a fun voluntary event and the teams are just an extra little bit of motivation to compete on top of that, not the point of the event. so shaming one team for inactivity feels unnecessary. but anyways that was clearly the minority opinion so I stopped fighting). Then there was also Tyler making the calendar which was good! But mostly happened while I was offline afaik.

Next year, I think I'll probably limit my involvement to developing the technical side and minor suggestions. I can tell I'm becoming less interested in it as it moves more and more to discord (except for PMD&D that was fab and should happen again/continue as a campaign x). Probably, anyways. Can't say how I'll be feeling in 9 months.

But... suggestions. Suggestions...

- The ping system this year was a breath of fresh air I got one (1) ping I didn't sign up for over the whole event (and it was from Tyler. figures :P). Let's keep that up.

- I don't want to restart this fight, so consider this me just stating my opinion for the record, but I still don't see how the cause of Caelum's inactivity was us having 3 teams. We could just as easily have one inactive team in a two-team match, or four! Of course, the more teams the higher chance that one will be inactive, but some people seem to be suggesting 4 while saying 3 was a mistake, which... doesn't make sense. Anyways, if there ends up being a quiz next year and house-style teams again, then 2 is definitely too few.

- Alternatively, and I know this probably won't happen, but consider not doing teams for next year? The GT wasn't always team-based! That's simply the way the Modern GT has been for the past 5 years or so, and we've all come to expect it. I know it's an easy way to get competitive activity going, but there are other ways to do that too, like individual leaderboards or something completely different. It'd just be interesting to see a break in the formula at this point.

- The calendar was good. I'd like to integrate that more next year when we have more time, like displaying it in the forum itself. And definitely making EOs aware of it in advance.

- I think we should try a bit to encourage new blood and new events among the EOs. I don't mean this to belittle the work everyone put into their events, I'm only speaking for my own interests. I'm sure plenty of people are more than happy with this, and that's fine! But I have to admit the GT feels less exciting to me when a huge chunk of the events have been going on for year after year.

- In the spirit of "the GT is for fun and the teams are a secondary thing, and not everyone has to participate in everything", I have no issue with events based on non-free games. Of course, the points distribution being fair does matter too, so if they were giving out too much then sure let's nerf that.

- Re: team leads + letting EOs take the quiz in advance to balance them evenly. Agreed. We've done it in the past.

That's it from me!

 

[gimmepie]

Arcade was definitely the big one where it happened. I know that I myself really only made a real effort in Combo Pool, but I figured that I may as well grab the extra points while I was there. Others I think didn't even do that much and were just piling in for the "free" 50pts. Maybe it would have been better if it was like FC in that it required you to make a certain score to get the participation points?

I actually think that Caelum's lack of activity has a lot more to do with Caelum itself than statistics or the number of teams. We sorted the teams based on personality traits. Looking at the traits that pushed people towards certain teams, Caelum was always more likely to have less invested people because they were the team getting primarily populated by people with a more "chill, go-with-the-flow, whatever happens" personality. So I think my preference for future GTs will continue to sit with three and we should just be more careful about how we divide teams.

As far as team leads go, I'm not against the idea. I absolutely do think that we should have two or three to a team though. That is a lot of pressure to put on a single person and after last year's GT I'm in no rush to deal with that kind of stress for what should be a fun event again. One of the things I loved about this event was that the team was actually present during it. There's certainly still room for improvement though, I think that we actually had the planning stage down this year. We just need to do a better job of keeping that momentum going through the event itself. Communicating more between ourselves would definitely help with that.

Lastly, back on the calendar, if I was there for that discussion and it slipped my mind or I missed it in the text sea or whatever - that's on me. Same goes for anyone else in the same situation. Next year we should absolutely endeavour to make sure we have the calendar ready to go before the GT goes live to ensure that we do not find ourselves in that situation again.

 

[colours]

- Alternatively, and I know this probably won't happen, but consider not doing teams for next year? The GT wasn't always team-based! That's simply the way the Modern GT has been for the past 5 years or so, and we've all come to expect it. I know it's an easy way to get competitive activity going, but there are other ways to do that too, like individual leaderboards or something completely different. It'd just be interesting to see a break in the formula at this point.

this this a thousand times this!

i didn't participate this year. forgive me for not doing so, i just wasn't interested in a whole teams thing again and the pressures that come along with it. as simple as it is to plan out a theme that's around teams, surely we can flex some creative muscle and come up with something that isn't teams-based? we have artists on the staff team (even pixel artists! we have jo, after all!), surely it wouldn't be a big deal to whip up pokemon gym badges and hand them out to users who place 1st in events? i realise i'm throwing spaghetti at the wall here and next year's gt planning is quite a while away, but something to consider nonetheless. at least this way, no one would have to feel bad for lack of participation, and it feels more like a casual, drop-in/drop-out as you please sorta thing.

as a side note, before anyone points it out, yes, i realise i made this post early in the planning process. while i stand by what i said re: reusing themes because it'd be easier on resources, it doesn't have to be teams.

 

[gimmepie]

Snip

I like the badges idea. Reminds me of those events you'd do as a kid where you'd get a stamp at different check points. Maybe make it for placing in general though, not just for first, or for reaching personal point thresholds. Otherwise I don't think anyone would manage to get every badge.