2021 Challenges: How should we track TV episodes?

[Onderhond]

whereas a film is definitively one length

Not the interactive films (like that Black Mirror: Bandersnatch thing, or the recent Kimmy Schmidt movie). You can get stuck in loops, reach multiple endings or take different paths with different runtimes.

Unless you want to be very strict and exclude these

Anyway, my point is that the type of arguments and/or the methodology of arguing for the inclusion of TV allows for the inclusion of pretty much everything, even when that doesn't suit people's personal frame of reference. Personally I'd prefer no TV, but clearly enough people here want it included. It would just be nice if it was explained for what it was: some random exceptions because some people have trouble watching things they deem interesting if they can't log it in the ICM forum challenges.

Do I really want games to be included? Not at all. Do I see any reason not to include them when TV does get included? Not really.

[Knaldskalle]

It is hoped with this poll that we can get a snapshot of what the majority of challenge participants would be keen on

I would like to emphasise that this intended as a mere snapshot poll of where interest lies. Not the be-all-and-end-all - just testing the water to see where interest lies with regards to these four options.

If I presented you with a poll where the four options are

• Red
• Crimson
• Cinnabar
• Terracotta

and then asked you to pick your favorite color, would you do that or would you take exception to the way the poll is framed?

I don't find any of the options in this poll to be even close to what I would vote for, so I'm worried that you'll take the winning option and present it as being representative of what people want, when the truth might be that most people didn't vote at all because they didn't like any of the options.

[blocho]

It is hoped with this poll that we can get a snapshot of what the majority of challenge participants would be keen on

I would like to emphasise that this intended as a mere snapshot poll of where interest lies. Not the be-all-and-end-all - just testing the water to see where interest lies with regards to these four options.

If I presented you with a poll where the four options are

• Red
• Crimson
• Cinnabar
• Terracotta

and then asked you to pick your favorite color, would you do that or would you take exception to the way the poll is framed?

I don't find any of the options in this poll to be even close to what I would vote for, so I'm worried that you'll take the winning option and present it as being representative of what people want, when the truth might be that most people didn't vote at all because they didn't like any of the options.

Perhaps you've stated it before and I forgot. What would you vote for?

Never heard of cinnabar before. Or terracotta used as a color rather than a form of earthware. I'm learning a lot here.

[sol]

I don't find any of the options in this poll to be even close to what I would vote for, so I'm worried that you'll take the winning option and present it as being representative of what people want, when the truth might be that most people didn't vote at all because they didn't like any of the options.

That's an intriguing comment. That's not my intention with this poll, and I thought that I had mentioned that a few times. Are you able to elaborate on what has made you reach that conclusion?

All that we are trying to do with this poll is gauge community interest based on five options that were popular suggestions when the topic was being discussed on the other thread. Like blocho, I don't remember your contribution to the discussion, but the above options were definitely the ones that kept getting talked about again and again and again.

And to be clear, I don't think the poll tells as much as it is at the moment. The main thing that it tells us right now is that there is a lot of divide over the issue since none of the options have (at the moment) overwhelming support. If one of the options at the end of the poll has overwhelming support, we can discuss what to do then. Or maybe we'll decide to have another poll with just the two most popular options run against each other. I don't know yet what we'll do and there is no way of knowing at this stage.

And for what it's worth, it was the participants on the discussion thread asking for a poll, and this poll is a result of honoring that request.

[sol]

By the way, I admire and appreciate how much you put into the challenges format and schedule sol.

Thanks, Geoff. It's good to know that my efforts are appreciated because I do sometimes wonder whether it is worth it.

[Lonewolf2003]

I don't find any of the options in this poll to be even close to what I would vote for, so I'm worried that you'll take the winning option and present it as being representative of what people want, when the truth might be that most people didn't vote at all because they didn't like any of the options.

That's an intriguing comment. That's not my intention with this poll, and I thought that I had mentioned that a few times. Are you able to elaborate on what has made you reach that conclusion?

All that we are trying to do with this poll is gauge community interest based on five options that were popular suggestions when the topic was being discussed on the other thread. Like blocho, I don't remember your contribution to the discussion, but the above options were definitely the ones that kept getting talked about again and again and again.

And to be clear, I don't think the poll tells as much as it is at the moment. The main thing that it tells us right now is that there is a lot of divide over the issue since none of the options have (at the moment) overwhelming support. If one of the options at the end of the poll has overwhelming support, we can discuss what to do then. Or maybe we'll decide to have another poll with just the two most popular options run against each other. I don't know yet what we'll do and there is no way of knowing at this stage.

And for what it's worth, it was the participants on the discussion thread asking for a poll, and this poll is a result of honoring that request.

I think the poll at this moment shows there is major support for having the same run-time per point for everything non-tv. The only difference still is how long that run time should be. Two "one point for all" options are clearly in the lead. And then there are a few who think tv should be 90 per point and shorts it should be 60 minutes per point. The later is the reason I expressed here multiples times alsob by people choosing a run-time of 60m over 90m for everything non-movie (inc. myself). So I see room for negotiations.

Btw your efforts are appreciated indeed.

[St. Gloede]

Re: Movie/TV Series/Video Game discussion

I would not be upset if TV shows were excluded from challenges - and i don't think I have never included a TV show (mini-series and serials, yes) but I find the idea that video games is somehow as close to films and series as they are too each other.

Film and TV is for all intents and purposes the same craft - if arguably a slightly different artform. The only difference between them is scope/length, and portions of the production (i.e. show-runner replacing the director as the top creative person(s) involved). They are worked on by the same people doing exactly the same thing.

I understand that there is a small overlap between interactive films and interactive games - and that games often have animation sequences, etc. but video games are about interactive experiences - films (with the exception of a few borderline items) are not. This is a different craft/artform.

[PeacefulAnarchy]

Adding minutes is a huge pain in the ass and why I watched very few shorts when I did challenges. I'd prefer binning shorts/TV eps into standardized groups and have a quantity of such things equal a point.
So for example:
Shorts/eps under 5min =3 min,
Shorts/eps 5-15 min =10 min
Shorts/eps 16-31 = 23 min
Shorts/eps 31-60= 45 min
90 (or 75?) mins equals one entry.

You get similar variability as with features, even the lower end of those ranges still reaches a reasonable length and I don't need to be wondering how exactly my 22:30 or 42:37 TV episode should count or if the credits count or whatever other garbage minutia counting. There'll still be edge cases, but much fewer and the lengths I chose above ensure the most common runtimes are not edge cases.

I'm the one person who voted 75 because 90 minutes sounds clean but is also the most cumbersome given common TV runtimes and much more of a pain in the ass to meet than 75 (80 would work too).

[sebby]

I do agree that adding mins is a huge pain, and indeed 90 is potentially a mega pain for tv/minis when so many run around 40-44 mins per. I nterms of grouping I'm ntot sure whether or not I like the idea, but if it's something that goes forth rounding to the neaerest x0 or x5 seems a neater option for addition's sake (e.g., 42 min tv ep = 40, 24 min short = 25) with the exception of shorts 5 min and under which are so short that they should simply just count for as long as they are IMO.

[Lonewolf2003]

I don’t see how that’s easier. When I f.e. watched a 7m, 28m and 43m shorts I would first have to look up for how much they count, instead of easily adding 7+28+43=78 minutes.
Or do people actually also count seconds when adding runtimes?

To avoid the pain of adding for series we could also do a season = x points. A point per season will be very disadvantage for series compared to movies. But based on the average amount of episode and average total run time we could decide how much it should be worth.

[flavo5000]

Just my two cents on the TV front. There is a large chunk of television, particularly things like reality series, game shows, sitcoms, etc. that certainly do not feel like a fulfilling self-contained narrative experience. But particularly nowadays, there are also quite a few shows and particularly the kind of dramatic series that HBO pioneering in the late '90s that tell a complete, cohesive story often with more of auteur lens. The big difference with many TV series vs. films is that the auteur role has shifted from director to showrunner. The showrunner on a series often actually plays more the role of the director in film, making key decisions, guiding the narrative, even molding the look, feel, aesthetic of the series (see Noah Hawley with Legion and Fargo, Ryan Murphy with American Horror Story, Bryan Fuller with Hannibal, Pushing Daisies, Wonderfalls, David Lynch & Mark Frost with Twin Peaks, etc.). Occasionally you even have the rare occurrence where you have a single person writing and/or directing every episode, giving the series very much that auteur feel. Examples include Soderbergh's The Knick, True Detective, Maniac, Mike Flanagan's Haunting of Hill House & Bly Manor as well as aforementioned examples like Bergman's Fanny & Alexander and Scenes from a Marriage and Fassbinder's Berlin Alexanderplatz among many others. I think it's doing a disservice to the industry as a whole to completely exclude TV from all challenges. But I also think it's annoying to see people log disposable nonsense in large quantities (which thankfully almost never happens). I can only think of maybe twice where someone has really abused the TV rule to win, once logging close to 100 points of reality TV and another just binging a long-running sitcom (was it Seinfeld? Can't remember which one specifically).

My main thing is with uniformity between TV and shorts. I'm not the biggest fan of 90 minutes, particularly of the minimum for a feature stays at 40 minutes since people could just game the system watching long short films and short features. Particularly easy to do with things like horror, animation and really any challenge that showcases B-movies from the 30s-50s (many of them are around the hour mark or less).

On the video game front, I would say only certain games create the same kind of narrative experience that films and the type of TV series/mini-series I'm referring to like the aforementioned Edith Finch, Gone Home, Firewatch, etc. that tell a singular cohesive narrative. The comparison to something like the pick-a-path shows on Netflix is actually valid. There are certainly games that play exactly like those, usually referred to as interactive or visual novels. I could actually see making the case for allowing those more than something like Borderlands which is about 80% wandering around barren wastelands collecting guns and ammo and shooting things while occasionally interacting with a wacky robot (especially the first Borderlands).

[sol]

It might be a bit too early to commentate on the results, but with the current definite divide that seems to exist between 60 and 90 minutes, we might have to think of an in-between option since it won't be possible to satisfy both sides of the equation. Peaceful brought up 80 minutes, and that kind of fits in nicely with what sebby has said about 40-44 minute episodes in many shows with longer episodes; 80mins would make it easier to add these up. I also like the maths with the 40min cut-off being half of 80min, but yeah, don't know, it all seems a little early to speculate on what to do.

[PeacefulAnarchy]

I don’t see how that’s easier. When I f.e. watched a 7m, 28m and 43m shorts I would first have to look up for how much they count, instead of easily adding 7+28+43=78 minutes.
Or do people actually also count seconds when adding runtimes?

To avoid the pain of adding for series we could also do a season = x points. A point per season will be very disadvantage for series compared to movies. But based on the average amount of episode and average total run time we could decide how much it should be worth.

There are only 4 categories, it wouldn't be that hard to keep track. How long is my 22:27 episode with the end of the credits that no one watches cut off? What if I watch it on a different service that cuts off the credits completely and is 21:15? Or on one that has the full credits and a site specific intro making it 23:30? Do those 2 minute episode recaps at the beginning of a lot of episodes count as part of the runtime even though I skip them because I just watched the damn episode they're recapping 5 minutes ago?

What about the many silent shorts that are sped up or slowed down and have dozens of different runtimes. You might say "just look at the runtime of what you watched" but a lot of files/clips have extended intros or outros or blank space. I could watch the exact same thing but uploaded by a different person on youtube and now it's 1 or 2 minutes longer/shorter.

I chose those runtimes for the categories because it makes the most common episode lengths (and short lengths) fall clearly in one category and reduces this. Maybe this is just my own thing where when I did watch shorts I'd feel compelled to plan around them so that they would add close to what the limit was because if you need 90 minutes of shorts and I watched two 40 minute ones then I'd rather find a 10-15 minute one to cap off than a 3rd 40 minute one and "waste" 30 mins. Not a big deal if you're only watching one batch of shorts, but if you're watching a lot then it feels like you're penalized for not planning out the efficiency of your short (or rewarded for being nitpicky and planning out the runtimes of your viewings). And yes I know that the time spent planning out short runtimes is more than the time spent just watching an extra short to make it not matter.

A season is a completely arbitrary thing that can be anywhere from 6 to 30+ episodes. Even if you make an analogy to films of different lengths there is much more variability here than with movies.

You could simplify my proposal to only apply to TV episodes and say 3(or 4) 20-35 min count as one movie and 2 (or 3) 35-50 episodes count as another and anything longer counts as 1.

Another completely different option to consider is, if you say 90 mins is one entry then add up all episodes and shorts and divide by 90 at the end, instead of forcing each batch to fit in a 90 minute group. This lets you just add the runtimes, which you think is easier than runtime categories, but minimizes the fiddlyness of having to order your short/episode viewings just-so to maximize their worth.

[RogerTheMovieManiac88]

Or, just stick with the 60 minute rule for non-features, and divide by 60...

I just realised that short films aren't mentioned in the thread title. That should perhaps be rectified.

[St. Gloede]

Very good point Roger, I think most people here ignore TV episodes for challenges (I almost never see anyone log them) - surprised there is as much traction here as it is - but shorts are actually still included - and most participants do log shorts.

[Lonewolf2003]

I don’t see how that’s easier. When I f.e. watched a 7m, 28m and 43m shorts I would first have to look up for how much they count, instead of easily adding 7+28+43=78 minutes.
Or do people actually also count seconds when adding runtimes?

To avoid the pain of adding for series we could also do a season = x points. A point per season will be very disadvantage for series compared to movies. But based on the average amount of episode and average total run time we could decide how much it should be worth.

There are only 4 categories, it wouldn't be that hard to keep track. How long is my 22:27 episode with the end of the credits that no one watches cut off? What if I watch it on a different service that cuts off the credits completely and is 21:15? Or on one that has the full credits and a site specific intro making it 23:30? Do those 2 minute episode recaps at the beginning of a lot of episodes count as part of the runtime even though I skip them because I just watched the damn episode they're recapping 5 minutes ago?

Just simply round it off. So that episode counts as 22 or 23 minutes. Choose one, who cares? All others examples are so petty, I'm not going to even address them. Just pick the run time that's listed in a source like IMDb, iCM, wikipedia, Netflix or your dvd box. Who cares if maybe it was a minute longer or shorter with or without credits and intro logo's?! It's a voluntary game on a internet forum, not the Olympics! Let's not get anal about this.

What about the many silent shorts that are sped up or slowed down and have dozens of different runtimes. You might say "just look at the runtime of what you watched" but a lot of files/clips have extended intros or outros or blank space. I could watch the exact same thing but uploaded by a different person on youtube and now it's 1 or 2 minutes longer/shorter.

Again honestly do we really care if a short on some sources are maybe a (few) minutes longer than on others? I don't. But I wil give you that if indeed everyone is that anal about possible small differences between sources your system is fairer.

I chose those runtimes for the categories because it makes the most common episode lengths (and short lengths) fall clearly in one category and reduces this. Maybe this is just my own thing where when I did watch shorts I'd feel compelled to plan around them so that they would add close to what the limit was because if you need 90 minutes of shorts and I watched two 40 minute ones then I'd rather find a 10-15 minute one to cap off than a 3rd 40 minute one and "waste" 30 mins. Not a big deal if you're only watching one batch of shorts, but if you're watching a lot then it feels like you're penalized for not planning out the efficiency of your short (or rewarded for being nitpicky and planning out the runtimes of your viewings). And yes I know that the time spent planning out short runtimes is more than the time spent just watching an extra short to make it not matter.

No I do that too. But apparently aren't as upset as you when that means I have a few minutes leftover, cause a short was 28 minutes instead of the 22 I need f.e.

A season is a completely arbitrary thing that can be anywhere from 6 to 30+ episodes. Even if you make an analogy to films of different lengths there is much more variability here than with movies.

That's why I suggested if we could find an average episode and run time for series. It was an idea to discuss. Not completely worked out. Maybe this system would have been much easier 10 years ago when there was much more consistency in amount of episode per season (at least for American tv). Now it's indeed much more arbitrary and harder to define.

You could simplify my proposal to only apply to TV episodes and say 3(or 4) 20-35 min count as one movie and 2 (or 3) 35-50 episodes count as another and anything longer counts as 1.

Another completely different option to consider is, if you say 90 mins is one entry then add up all episodes and shorts and divide by 90 at the end, instead of forcing each batch to fit in a 90 minute group. This lets you just add the runtimes, which you think is easier than runtime categories, but minimizes the fiddlyness of having to order your short/episode viewings just-so to maximize their worth.

Not against these ideas. Only downside is that people will mostly list episodes and shorts at the end of the challenge, diminishing the shared viewing aspect during a challenge.

We could also let people carry over leftover runtimes from one batch to the next, so it also minimizes the fiddlyness of having to order your short/episode viewings just-so to maximize their worth.

[Onderhond]

Can I convert anthology films into a list of shorts for more points?

[St. Gloede]

I really dislike dwelling on the point system in the challenges too much. I know gamification is fun, and a way to get people to push themselves - but too much focus on the game more than the films do decrease the fun. I really hope we never end up counting runtime.

(To be honest, in my "perfect world" challenges would not be gamified, but simply monthly themes/focuses about exploration and discussion- sharing recommendations, thoughts, lists, screenshots, ratings, etc. I wonder how "just get rid of points" would have fared in the poll - I guess not really well Don't worry, I don't mind: the challenges are great as they are - and I love seeing all the write-ups).

[Lonewolf2003]

I really dislike dwelling on the point system in the challenges too much. I know gamification is fun, and a way to get people to push themselves - but too much focus on the game more than the films do decrease the fun. I really hope we never end up counting runtime.

(To be honest, in my "perfect world" challenges would not be gamified, but simply monthly themes/focuses about exploration and discussion- sharing recommendations, thoughts, lists, screenshots, ratings, etc. I wonder how "just get rid of points" would have fared in the poll - I guess not really well Don't worry, I don't mind: the challenges are great as they are - and I love seeing all the write-ups).

I suggested the same half jokingly in the other thread too, so totally agree with you. But indeed others do like the competitive aspect of the challenges, so they should have their fun too. I also did suggest options to award contributions above simply summing up watches.

[flavo5000]

I really dislike dwelling on the point system in the challenges too much. I know gamification is fun, and a way to get people to push themselves - but too much focus on the game more than the films do decrease the fun. I really hope we never end up counting runtime.

(To be honest, in my "perfect world" challenges would not be gamified, but simply monthly themes/focuses about exploration and discussion- sharing recommendations, thoughts, lists, screenshots, ratings, etc. I wonder how "just get rid of points" would have fared in the poll - I guess not really well Don't worry, I don't mind: the challenges are great as they are - and I love seeing all the write-ups).

I suggested the same half jokingly in the other thread too, so totally agree with you. But indeed others do like the competitive aspect of the challenges, so they should have their fun too. I also did suggest options to award contributions above simply summing up watches.

I'd honestly be fine getting rid of the points too. Like I said, I generally use the challenges to direct my viewing in particular directions since I own somewhere in the neighborhood of 15K physical movies (DVD/blu-ray) and thousands more on my hard drive, it's not uncommon for me to get analysis paralysis just trying to decide what to watch. I do think there are definitely people that get super into the game aspect of it though. I've suggested before but I also like the idea of having alternative ways of winning challenges. The bonus challenges are generally the best way to do that although they aren't officially tracked in a leaderboard beyond that month.

What if we actually created a standardized secondary bonus challenge leaderboard that was kept track of month to month with each challenge having a specific set of extra challenges, like two for instance, and the winners of each bonus challenge would be ranked by points similar to the main challenge? I know this would be more to keep track of for some but I'd be willing to help keep track of them in each challenge. The one host doesn't necessarily have to be the sole person keeping track of all the stats in a challenge. But this would be a good way to promote the "more ways to win" for those who don't have the free time that folks like myself and blueboybob working from home do to power through a couple hundred movies a month.

Doing stuff like this I think would also lessen the general annoyance with people who abuse rules like binging TV to rack up points because there are more ways to win a challenge than that.

[AdamH]

I really dislike dwelling on the point system in the challenges too much. I know gamification is fun, and a way to get people to push themselves - but too much focus on the game more than the films do decrease the fun. I really hope we never end up counting runtime.

(To be honest, in my "perfect world" challenges would not be gamified, but simply monthly themes/focuses about exploration and discussion- sharing recommendations, thoughts, lists, screenshots, ratings, etc. I wonder how "just get rid of points" would have fared in the poll - I guess not really well Don't worry, I don't mind: the challenges are great as they are - and I love seeing all the write-ups).

I would vote for "just get rid of points" too.

[Lonewolf2003]

I really dislike dwelling on the point system in the challenges too much. I know gamification is fun, and a way to get people to push themselves - but too much focus on the game more than the films do decrease the fun. I really hope we never end up counting runtime.

(To be honest, in my "perfect world" challenges would not be gamified, but simply monthly themes/focuses about exploration and discussion- sharing recommendations, thoughts, lists, screenshots, ratings, etc. I wonder how "just get rid of points" would have fared in the poll - I guess not really well Don't worry, I don't mind: the challenges are great as they are - and I love seeing all the write-ups).

I suggested the same half jokingly in the other thread too, so totally agree with you. But indeed others do like the competitive aspect of the challenges, so they should have their fun too. I also did suggest options to award contributions above simply summing up watches.

I'd honestly be fine getting rid of the points too. Like I said, I generally use the challenges to direct my viewing in particular directions since I own somewhere in the neighborhood of 15K physical movies (DVD/blu-ray) and thousands more on my hard drive, it's not uncommon for me to get analysis paralysis just trying to decide what to watch. I do think there are definitely people that get super into the game aspect of it though. I've suggested before but I also like the idea of having alternative ways of winning challenges. The bonus challenges are generally the best way to do that although they aren't officially tracked in a leaderboard beyond that month.

What if we actually created a standardized secondary bonus challenge leaderboard that was kept track of month to month with each challenge having a specific set of extra challenges, like two for instance, and the winners of each bonus challenge would be ranked by points similar to the main challenge? I know this would be more to keep track of for some but I'd be willing to help keep track of them in each challenge. The one host doesn't necessarily have to be the sole person keeping track of all the stats in a challenge. But this would be a good way to promote the "more ways to win" for those who don't have the free time that folks like myself and blueboybob working from home do to power through a couple hundred movies a month.

Doing stuff like this I think would also lessen the general annoyance with people who abuse rules like binging TV to rack up points because there are more ways to win a challenge than that.

Nice to hear that one of the biggest competitors is actually also for changing the system.
Like I suggested in the other thread also, I think keeping the BCs woud be the best and most fun way to still have the gamification aspect of challenges when getting rid of the point system.

What kind of standardized secondary bonus challenge were you thinking about? To me those would be most interesting if they had to do with contributions (reviews, discussions, rating, screenshots and such). Cause those being another way to win would be a good way to encourage contributions. Cause other BCs to me aren't so much about another way of winning, but more fun goals to aim for myself during a challenge.

[Lilarcor]

I really dislike dwelling on the point system in the challenges too much. I know gamification is fun, and a way to get people to push themselves - but too much focus on the game more than the films do decrease the fun. I really hope we never end up counting runtime.

(To be honest, in my "perfect world" challenges would not be gamified, but simply monthly themes/focuses about exploration and discussion- sharing recommendations, thoughts, lists, screenshots, ratings, etc. I wonder how "just get rid of points" would have fared in the poll - I guess not really well Don't worry, I don't mind: the challenges are great as they are - and I love seeing all the write-ups).

I would vote for "just get rid of points" too.

Same. Would be very interesting to see a poll on this, if there's enough votes perhaps there's room for a fourth official (and pointless) challenge per month. For all us slow watchers out there.

[sebby]

I would support a less aggressively competitive scoring system rather than scrapping it altogether. For those tha t don't care at all about the competitive aspect, points and how they're accrued don' t affect their challenge participation and enjoyment, but if you drop the point system those that like the competitive kick suffer. Once again I'm in the corner of whatever doesn't turn people off and /or encourages the most participation. So in this case I think sol's proposed scoring change -- or a variation ther of -- is fine.

[flavo5000]

What kind of standardized secondary bonus challenge were you thinking about? To me those would be most interesting if they had to do with contributions (reviews, discussions, rating, screenshots and such). Cause those being another way to win would be a good way to encourage contributions. Cause other BCs to me aren't so much about another way of winning, but more fun goals to aim for myself during a challenge.

I personally quite liked the scavenger hunt-style ones that have been done in the past (see for instance the BC in the comedy challenge). Those generally involve at least some kind of write-up, review, comment and/or screenshot to complete.

[sol]

Lots to read through, but some brief thoughts:

1. I am not opposed to scrapping points altogether; that could work (though I do have some concerns)

2. I am happy to have a poll (as suggested) on whether or not to scrap points, but I would like to wait for this poll to wrap up first

I agree with what sebby has said in this post:

I would support a less aggressively competitive scoring system rather than scrapping it altogether. For those tha t don't care at all about the competitive aspect, points and how they're accrued don' t affect their challenge participation and enjoyment, but if you drop the point system those that like the competitive kick suffer. Once again I'm in the corner of whatever doesn't turn people off and /or encourages the most participation. So in this case I think sol's proposed scoring change -- or a variation ther of -- is fine.

Having points is what motivates me to explore films beyond my comfort zone and I concerned than in a system without points I would put too many challenges on the backburner. Many of my favourite first time viewings this year have been in Challenges that I would not have deeply participated in without scoring in place. This includes my #1 favourite first time viewing this year (Euridice BA 2037) and I love the fact that my plowing through the Balkan Challenge caused me to seek it out.

I think the key, as sebby has stated, is to have a less aggressive scoring system - one that recognises decent participation (not just top 5 users) and which only has a few points difference between 1st and 20th place. This is the alternative leaderboard that seb is talking about:

Rank	Participant	Points	Challenges Won	Top 5 Finishes	Top 10 Finishers	Top 20 Finishers
-	-	-	-	-	-	-

In this model, all challenge wins would be worth 1+1+1+1 = 4 points. All top 5 spots would be worth 1+1+1 = 3 points and so on.

I am happy to put the alternative leaderboard up to vote in a poll that also has the option of removing points altogether, but as stated earlier, let's wait for this poll to end first.

[blueboybob]

Im like Flavo. Challenges just help guide me what to watch. I'm indifferent about points or a winner.

[Onderhond]

Just wondering, but when even the bigger players don't really play to win ... how many people are actually playing?

[sol]

So, I'm assuming that we want to have a poll on whether or not to ditch challenge points before discussing what to make of the results here.

These are the options that I am thinking of for the next poll:

TITLE: 2021 Challenges: Should we change the leaderboard or get rid of points entirely?

OPTION 1 - Stop tracking points altogether (get rid of the current leaderboard and do not replace it)

OPTION 2 - Use a less aggressive leaderboard (less point difference between first and last place)

OPTION 3 - Keep the current leaderboard (assuming that someone can be found to host it)

OPTION 4 - Other or maybe "Indifferent"

I'm kind of weary of having the "Other" option since it doesn't tell us a lot in itself unless everybody who votes for "Other" specifies what they have in mind. Having "indifferent" as a voting option though might be a good way to measure just how many care about the leaderboard and points and will participate happily regardless of what we do.

I am also weary about having "keep the current leaderboard" as an option since the more I think about it, I don't know if I would happy to host a continuation of the current leaderboard given how aggressive and hyper-competitive it is - and the general push across the board to have things less competitive. But I guess we could find somebody else to host a continuation of the current leaderboard even if max and myself are not up to the task.

Regarding the "less aggressive leaderboard" option, I don't think we need to specify what that would look like at the moment. If this option ends up getting the most support, we can then vote or discuss whether we want use the Obgeoff suggested (Winner / Seen 30 films / Seen 20 films / Seen 10 films) or Sol suggested (Winner / Top 5 Finish / Top 10 Finish / Top 20 Finish) variation. I would be happy to host either of these variations.

Any thoughts would be appreciated before I open a poll on this matter. Including if you guys don't want to poll this issue.

[albajos]

As we have all time leaderboards the rules should be somewhat consistent from time to time in that challenge, but can be different from each type of challenge

So no, I will not vote for a overall rule. It's for the host to decide. After all it's them that has to count the points, and most of them just copy the rules from the previous challenge anyway.

[St. Gloede]

I am for whatever increases discussion, participation and overall enjoyment (regardless of what people take away from the challenges).

If there is a number of people, even a minority, that love the leaderboard and the feeling of racing to the top/tight competition: then I think we should keep it. I don't want to vote against anyone else's enjoyment - though seeing Flavo, Blueboy and you, Sol, all not needing the leaderboard it seems the top competitors are out. So this might not be an issue at all.

If not, I think we can simply remove the leaderboard and have the host come up with bonus games, etc. if wanted (as plenty seem to love them).

*I do like the "badge idea", i.e. 30 films seen, 20 films seen, etc. though.

[sol]

If there is a number of people, even a minority, that love the leaderboard and the feeling of racing to the top/tight competition: then I think we should keep it. I don't want to vote against anyone else's enjoyment - though seeing Flavo, Blueboy and you, Sol, all not needing the leaderboard it seems the top competitors are out. So this might not be an issue at all.

To be clear, I'm not in favour of removing the overall leaderboard altogether. If it was up to me, I would go for one of the "less aggressive" alternative options, whether it be tracking Win/30/20/10watches or Win/Top5/10/20Finishes. I do, however, understand the possible positives of removing points altogether, so I don't mind putting it up to vote.

[frbrown]

So, I'm assuming that we want to have a poll on whether or not to ditch challenge points before discussing what to make of the results here.

These are the options that I am thinking of for the next poll:

TITLE: 2021 Challenges: Should we change the leaderboard or get rid of points entirely?

OPTION 1 - Stop tracking points altogether (get rid of the current leaderboard and do not replace it)

OPTION 2 - Use a less aggressive leaderboard (less point difference between first and last place)

OPTION 3 - Keep the current leaderboard (assuming that someone can be found to host it)

OPTION 4 - Other or maybe "Indifferent"

We could ditch the leaderboard, but keep the scoring in individual challenges.

[Lonewolf2003]

So, I'm assuming that we want to have a poll on whether or not to ditch challenge points before discussing what to make of the results here.

These are the options that I am thinking of for the next poll:

TITLE: 2021 Challenges: Should we change the leaderboard or get rid of points entirely?

OPTION 1 - Stop tracking points altogether (get rid of the current leaderboard and do not replace it)

OPTION 2 - Use a less aggressive leaderboard (less point difference between first and last place)

OPTION 3 - Keep the current leaderboard (assuming that someone can be found to host it)

OPTION 4 - Other or maybe "Indifferent"

We could ditch the leaderboard, but keep the scoring in individual challenges.

That's not a bad idea. Especially combined with the badges idea.

[sol]

We could ditch the leaderboard, but keep the scoring in individual challenges.

That's not a bad idea. Especially combined with the badges idea.

If we decide to still track points in individual challenges then I will just voluntarily host a "less aggressive" overall leaderboard, because... I might as well. Those who don't care about points can ignore it; those who want the recognition/"badges" can follow it.

So, I will either do a simpler overall leaderboard that looks like:

Rank	Participant	Points	Challenges Won	Top 5 Finishes	Top 10 Finishers	Top 20 Finishers
-	-	-	-	-	-	-

or

Rank	Participant	Points	Challenges Won	Seen 30 Films	Seen 20 Films	Seen 10 Films
-	-	-	-	-	-	-

[RogerTheMovieManiac88]

I'd like to keep points, as that slight competitive angle does make me watch films that I might otherwise put on the back-burner.

Of those two simpler overall leaderboards, I very much like the look of the first one. I think tracking Top 5, Top 10 and Top 20 would be fun to see done.

[mjf314]

Somehow I completely missed this thread, but I'm ok with either 80 or 90 minutes.

My preference is 80, to make the calculations easier, and so people don't avoid the series in the 40-44 range. 40-44 is pretty common, but they might be listed as 45 on websites, so it'll be annoying to have to check every episode. On the other hand, 35-39 is less common, so it's less of an issue.

[Fergenaprido]

A someone who's disenchanted with challenges, here are my two cents about this thread:

- I agree with Onderhond's points on the first page.
- I like 90 minutes for TV and 60 minutes for shorts, but understand why people want a single number for everything.
- Not a fan of random tv episodes in challenges, and people racking up points on those is one reason I stopped participating. I do see a difference between standalone anthology episodes and something like Friends, though.
- The only year I really went all-in on challenges (and enjoyed it) was the first year of the various awards/badges (2017? 2018?). That gave me something to aim toward, knowing I would never win a challenge given some people watch more films for a single challenge in one month than I may watch overall in a whole quarter. I did feel a bit burnt out by the end of the year, though, especially since focusing so much on challenges meant that I was putting off watching other films that were more interesting to me. As someone who hasn't already seen all of the usual suspects, there's still a whole lot of cinema left for me to explore without needing to be pushed to seek out new things.
- Challenge threads are rather boring with people just listing the films they saw, sometimes without even giving a rating. I don't expect a review for every film, but some extra text is nice, especially when it helps others decide whether or not to watch a film for that challenge.
- I may participate in a few challenges next year (already starting to plan my film goals for 2021, and may have some related to the upcoming challenges), but it will only be those themes that interest me or where I feel I need a push to see more. Nothing in this discussion made me more interested in participating next year, except for...:
- I'm all for getting rid of points in favour of badges - if we're going to gamify watching films then let's make it more interesting/rewarding for all participants instead of just the winner/top 3.