2021 Challenges: Voting and Permanency Discussion

[sebby]

In favor of option B. Only in favor of horror, docu, <400, and dbwomen being permanent. dbPOC can be a seperate challenge idea.

My radical idea for one year, and only one year, that maybe 2-3 people will not vehemently oppose: Put every challenge idea except for the few that are permanent into a hat. Randomly pull ideas out of the hat until the calendar is filled up. Care not for imbalance among decades, genres, popular and unpopular challenge ideas and simply let randomness rule the day

[St. Gloede]

"St. Gloede YES YES YES YES"

Just to be clear, I didn't actually give my support to the above. I don't mind keeping them permanent, but I never participate in the Horror, Noir or Documentary challenges (or at least I haven't in a long time).

[blocho]

Sol wants to make certain challenges permanent based on whether people support them consistently. Rather than say which challenges I personally prefer, I looked up the average number of participants for the last two editions of the challenges he mentioned. Here are the results:

Horror - 61 participants
<400 - 45 participants
Sci/Fan - 43 participants
Noir - 41.5 participants
Directed by Women - 37 participants
Western - 34 participants
Documentary - 32 participants
Silent - 30.5 participants
TSPDT - 28.5 participants

By point of comparison, here are the non-geographic challenges of the past year with the most participants (other than those listed above):
Comedy - 38 participants
Travel the World - 38 participants
Academy Award - 37 participants
21st Century - 37 participants
Doubling the Canon - 35 participants
1950s - 35 participants
Run the Director - 33 participants
Unofficial - 32 participants

Of course, simple participation is not a definitive indicator of popularity. A lot of people (such as myself) will participate in a challenge no matter what. That's one of the reason the numbers are so similar. But it's food for thought.

[Knaldskalle]

I want sol to pick all the non-country challenges.

This is weird and will be long-winded, so I apologize for that in advance, but I'm going to take an extreme position regarding the challenges:

I want maxwelldeux to pick all the non-country challenges.

Here's an idea: For a set number of challenges (say 4 of the 36) we could have it be "host's choice" or "wildcard challenge". Whoever hosts the challenge gets to pick what it is. Host candidates can be selected in advance. I did initially think that perhaps we could let the hosts "campaign" with their challenge ideas, but then it'll devolve into the usual votes on challenges.

How about it? Ready for challenges where all movies have to have a question mark in the title? Or one where the main character has to be a child? Or one where the opening shot has to be a close-up?

[sol]

It seems to me that horror, film noir and sc-fi/fantasy are always going to make the cut, so it's superfluous to vote on them. I think documentary, western, silent and directed by women should be permanent on film history grounds, to push some participants to go beyond their comfort zones. I feel particularly strong about that for directed by women. I think that I watch a reasonable number of movies directed by women, but when I looked at my top 100 favorites, only a few were directed by women (I think that is probably mainly because so many of my favorites are old movies). I would have said TSPDT should be permanent, but I think that is mainly because any new check would be an official check. I found the arguments in this thread against permanency to be convincing, and I think that I usually watch a few from the 3 lists most months anyway. I suspect that it is very likely to make the cut after voting anyway.

Very good arguments, ororama - and that's what I am gravitating towards myself. I will post an update under this post in a few minutes.

My radical idea for one year, and only one year, that maybe 2-3 people will not vehemently oppose: Put every challenge idea except for the few that are permanent into a hat. Randomly pull ideas out of the hat until the calendar is filled up. Care not for imbalance among decades, genres, popular and unpopular challenge ideas and simply let randomness rule the day

This has been suggested before and shouted down. When I get some spare time, I'll try to dig up a link to the discussion, but yeah, that's not going to happen this year. Thanks for the suggestion though!

Of course, simple participation is not a definitive indicator of popularity. A lot of people (such as myself) will participate in a challenge no matter what. That's one of the reason the numbers are so similar. But it's food for thought.

Yes, that's a problem. Also the fact that it is hard to go an entire month without seeing a single comedy, so Comedy would naturally just rack up a large number of participants.

I'll post an update soon with my permanency stance and where I see things moving forward.

Here's an idea: For a set number of challenges (say 4 of the 36) we could have it be "host's choice" or "wildcard challenge". Whoever hosts the challenge gets to pick what it is. Host candidates can be selected in advance.

Believe it or not, this has also been suggested in the past (or a variety of it; I think when maxwell was discussing trying to encourage more challenge hosts?). Again, if I was self-isolating with oodles of time on my hands, I'd dig up the link, but I'll still working full time. Discussion on this headed towards 'no', and there is really no way of fairly selecting a mere four people to be wildcard hosts. I do appreciate the suggestion though.

Give me a few minutes guys and I'll post an update on the permanency issue...

[sol]

Permanency Discussion Update

OK, so this thread didn't end up going quite where I planned; lots of users talking about which challenges they would participate in themselves and only some trying to look objectively at challenge popularity. That's okay, though, my fault - I should have made things clearer in the intro. But maybe I should also stop pussyfooting around the issue and share my own personal stance on the permanency debate - especially since quite a few out there seem to back me up. Not everyone; but you can never please everyone.

I would like to make the executive decision to make the following eight (+4 from last year) challenges permanent:

HORROR
FILM NOIR
<400 CHECKS
DOCUMENTARY

WESTERN
SCI-FI
SILENT ERA
DIRECTED BY WOMEN

Why?

I have hosted the setting up of the challenge schedule every year since 2017, and in each of these years, all of these options have received overwhelming support and have consistently been among the top 10 most voted on options. When we couple this against the fact that each of these challenges has been voted for five consecutive years, I think it is pretty hard to deny that there is substantial support for them out there.

TSP is more of an odd choice. I think every year I have hosted it has only made the cut by 1-3 votes; certainly nothing compared to the vote showings of the other challenges.

But there's more!

Since we are going for Option B at this stage, and for the sake of a simpler voting ballot, I have thought it over and decided that our final ballot should feature no more than 32 to 36 choices.

Each year there are 24 slots to fill - excluding country/region changes.

If 8 of the challenges are permanent, those 32 slots on the final voting ballot would be filled by:

16 x Revotes of non-permanent 2020 Challenge Ideas
5 x Holdovers (runners-up) in the 2020 poll
11 x New suggestions (ideas not run in 2020)

If, however, we go for no permanent challenges, those 32 slots on the final voting ballot would be filled by:

24 x Revotes of 2020 Challenge Ideas
5 x Holdovers (runners-up) in the 2020 poll
3 x New suggestions (ideas not run in 2020)

And again 32 is just a working number. It could be slightly more. But I don't feel that there is need to have a significantly larger final ballot than that.

In short (I know that's a lot of reading): having more permanent challenges would put more new suggestions into the mix for the final voting ballot.

[sol]

dbPOC can be a seperate challenge idea.

Oh, and yes - that will be.

I'm kind of confused why blueboybob wants to merge the two ideas. I have suggested the POC one separately on the Ideas thread.

[St. Gloede]

Sounds perfectly reasonable sol, especially if we are going with B (which really sounds like an extra hassle for you, hope you are ok with it).

[Fergenaprido]

Since we are going for Option B at this stage, and for the sake of a simpler voting ballot, I have thought it over and decided that our final ballot should feature no more than 32 to 36 choices.

Each year there are 24 slots to fill - excluding country/region changes.

If 8 of the challenges are permanent, those 32 slots on the final voting ballot would be filled by:

16 x Revotes of non-permanent 2020 Challenge Ideas
5 x Holdovers (runners-up) in the 2020 poll
11 x New suggestions (ideas not run in 2020)

If, however, we go for no permanent challenges, those 32 slots on the final voting ballot would be filled by:

24 x Revotes of 2020 Challenge Ideas
5 x Holdovers (runners-up) in the 2020 poll
3 x New suggestions (ideas not run in 2020)

And again 32 is just a working number. It could be slightly more. But I don't feel that there is need to have a significantly larger final ballot than that.

In short (I know that's a lot of reading): having more permanent challenges would put more new suggestions into the mix for the final voting ballot.

I'm not sure I understand the logic of this part.
With 8 permanent challenges, the final ballot has 32 slots to decide the remaining 16 challenges. Top 50% get selected.
With 0 permanent challenges, the final ballot has 32 slots to decide the remaining 24 challenges. Top 75% get selected.
Having more permanent challenges would indeed put more new suggestions into the mix based on your proposal, but those new suggestions wouldn't necessarily have a better chance of making the final list since there would be fewer slots up for grabs.

I don't have any issue with making those 8 permanent, or with capping the final ballot at 32 - I'm just confused about this one part.

[sol]

I don't have any issue with making those 8 permanent, or with capping the final ballot at 32 - I'm just confused about this one part.

Cool. Let's see if I can explain this better...

Having more permanent challenges would indeed put more new suggestions into the mix based on your proposal, but those new suggestions wouldn't necessarily have a better chance of making the final list since there would be fewer slots up for grabs.

It's not that they have a statistically better chance of being selected -- it's just that there will be more new options to choose from - if voters want to go down this path.

In the 8-permanent model, 11 out of 32 suggestions are NEW, or 34% of the options that we will be choosing from will be NEW

In the 0-permanent model, 3 out of 32 suggestions are NEW, or 9% of the options that would be choosing from would be NEW

Also, at least one 2021 Challenge will be completely new due to the quota set in place.

[Lonewolf2003]

Apparently I'm already too late to have my say in this, since I wasn't in the mood to go trough this whole discussion in the weekend. (some people don't check the forum while they are watching movies for current challenges ) and this whole discussion has already been decided in two days.

But anyway, I'm glad with the decision. I'm also for giving Directed by Women, Sci-fi / Fantasy, Silent Era and Western. Actually for the reasons, sol mentioned; those will be chosen in a poll again anyhow, so it seems redundant to vote for them again. I'm all for more variety in the schedule and against permanency, but having seen these challenge win the polls every year, this hope for change seems futile.

As for the voting procedure, like many said before, you should chose what works best for you sol. The biggest advantage of private voting would be indeed that people vote for what they want, instead of tactically.

But if you go with public polls again: I'm sorry to hear that reacting to reaction during that been daunting for you, sol. But personally I don't see the big problem with people commenting on the results about the public poll while it's being held, just means they are passionate about the forum and challenges. I don't think it necessary for you, sol, to react to those comments always, I think those users know the poll is still open (a long time). They just comment on the result so far, like people do in result threads while the list is not completed yet. This is not meant as an attack on you sol in any way, in opposite its meant to relieve you of some of the anxiety you feel while running these polls.

One week is too short for either procedure option, a month too long. I would go for 10 days to 2 weeks. That gives everyone enough change to react. Maybe having the poll run for a shorter time will also reduce the numbers of casual voters who don't participate in challenges at all. Since people who really care about challenges and participate in them regular will probably vote asap as they can, while casual voters might drop in to vote when they feel like it when the poll is open for a long time.

[3eyes]

This is a can of worms that might need its own thread but:
DPoC: does that include all African, East Asian, and indigenous - directed movies? Or do only American movies count? or what?
I have a longstanding feud with that term. It's virtually impossible to define the boundaries. How about Iranians? (see Bashu, the little stranger)
How about Indians - who I believe are technically "Caucasian" (and I will punch anybody in the face who calls me that)

In my Quaker meeting there's a lot of focus on "making the Society of Friends welcoming for People of Color" but in practice it means for African-Americans; the 4 Asian members don't feel it has anything to do with them, they just have their own small support group.

[Lonewolf2003]

so will return maybe in a few hours.

You're welcome to return in a few hours, just don't expect an immediate reply from me since I'll be sleeping.

Actually - and this goes for everyone - next week is a regular work week for me so I will not be able to regularly check in and respond to stuff on this thread. If I'm not responding, it doesn't mean that I am ignoring you, just that I have no time in the morning before work, or that I am at work, or that I am sleeping. I'll try to check these threads as regularly as possible.

This is totally unacceptable!! You should have taken a week off from work and deprive yourself from sleep to 24/7 check and react in these threads!! I already am feeling ignored, and am taken legal steps to claim the emotional damage done to me because of this. You wil hear from my lawyers soon, sol!

[Lonewolf2003]

This is a can of worms that might need its own thread but:
DPoC: does that include all African, East Asian, and indigenous - directed movies? Or do only American movies count? or what?
I have a longstanding feud with that term. It's virtually impossible to define the boundaries. How about Iranians? (see Bashu, the little stranger)
How about Indians - who I believe are technically "Caucasian" (and I will punch anybody in the face who calls me that)

In my Quaker meeting there's a lot of focus on "making the Society of Friends welcoming for People of Color" but in practice it means for African-Americans; the 4 Asian members don't feel it has anything to do with them, they just have their own small support group.

Good questions, and probably better addressed: in the ideas thread where the idea was suggested

[Lonewolf2003]

I seem to remember that the country challenges are set in a sort of alternate-year pattern? Do we, or should we, have something similar for decade challenges?

We could, but I don't think there is appetite for that. The reason why we have it for the country/region challenges is that everyone (or almost everyone) believes that we should have region/country challenges. There is a sizeable faction that objects to the decade challenges though, so I think it would be a bit weird to have them as a permanent rotating fixture. I do like them myself though (more for older than more recent decades, mind you).

If the decade challenges are voted in again it the polls, and also gain a de facto permanency status, I'm also for making a permanent rotating fixture for them. Not cause I'm the biggest fan of them, but because of the same reason the above mentioned challenges also been made permanent.

Could we at least put a cap on them anyway? That there are only 3 or 4 decades challenges each year, one every 3 or 4 months?

(To be clear permanency status is of course relatively, it's not a status set in stone till kingdom come. We can always re-evaluate the schedule in time and remove permanency status again.)

[sol]

this whole discussion has already been decided in two days

Just niggling over small details, but it's technically two and a half days, and I am still willing to take feedback/suggestions.

But anyway, I'm glad with the decision. I'm also for giving Directed by Women, Sci-fi / Fantasy, Silent Era and Western. Actually for the reasons, sol mentioned; those will be chosen in a poll again anyhow, so it seems redundant to vote for them again. I'm all for more variety in the schedule and against permanency, but having seen these challenge win the polls every year, this hope for change seems futile.

Oh, good. I come from the same standpoint. Three years ago, I was heavily against permanency, but after running these polls time and time again, the same options do always keep floating for the top.

The biggest advantage of private voting would be indeed that people vote for what they want, instead of tactically.

Oh, definitely.

They just comment on the result so far, like people do in result threads while the list is not completed yet.

They will still be able to do this with a private vote since I'll be releasing daily (or every couple of days) anonymous stats, just like Angel does to keep us in suspense and guessing with the DTC results.

One week is too short for either procedure option, a month too long. I would go for 10 days to 2 weeks. That gives everyone enough change to react. Maybe having the poll run for a shorter time will also reduce the numbers of casual voters who don't participate in challenges at all. Since people who really care about challenges and participate in them regular will probably vote asap as they can, while casual voters might drop in to vote when they feel like it when the poll is open for a long time.

Sure, I can manage that. More than happily to be flexible with the poll duration if we are doing a private vote.

[sol]

The reason why we have it for the country/region challenges is that everyone (or almost everyone) believes that we should have region/country challenges. There is a sizeable faction that objects to the decade challenges though, so I think it would be a bit weird to have them as a permanent rotating fixture.

If the decade challenges are voted in again it the polls, and also gain a de facto permanency status, I'm also for making a permanent rotating fixture for them. Not cause I'm the biggest fan of them, but because of the same reason the above mentioned challenges also been made permanent.

The decade options have never been among the most highly voted challenge options. They have gotten in a few times, but never with as much of a fanbase as Western or Directed by Women etc. I don't think there is anywhere near the support out there to make them permanent. To be clear, I am not proposing making them permanent; that was a question asked by someone else and replied (or thought I replied) no.

[flavo5000]

The reason why we have it for the country/region challenges is that everyone (or almost everyone) believes that we should have region/country challenges. There is a sizeable faction that objects to the decade challenges though, so I think it would be a bit weird to have them as a permanent rotating fixture.

If the decade challenges are voted in again it the polls, and also gain a de facto permanency status, I'm also for making a permanent rotating fixture for them. Not cause I'm the biggest fan of them, but because of the same reason the above mentioned challenges also been made permanent.

The decade options have never been among the most highly voted challenge options. They have gotten in a few times, but never with as much of a fanbase as Western or Directed by Women etc. I don't think there is anywhere near the support out there to make them permanent. To be clear, I am not proposing making them permanent; that was a question asked by someone else and replied (or thought I replied) no.

I'm personally not much of a fan of the decade challenges in general and really only participate in them in combination with other challenges. I wouldn't be heartbroken if we just didn't have any next year (or just had one similar to Run the Director as I had recommended in the other thread), and I definitely do not want any decade challenges permanent.
I'm fine with whatever polling decisions and am ok with sol's proposals on the permanent ones since those will get voted in regardless.
As someone who pretty much participates in nearly every challenge, I'm also ok with challenge participants having more weight in the voting.
I do like having new challenges in the mix, and I'm glad the Run the Director one seems to have been both well-received and jump-started people's juices in coming up with other more interesting challenges than the usual generic genre/year ones in the other thread.
Also it feels like there's a lot of similarity in DtC and 500 < 400 to me honestly. I know those votes are different times of the year but what if they were combined into one Hidden Gems challenge?

[sol]

I'm fine with whatever polling decisions and am ok with sol's proposals on the permanent ones since those will get voted in regardless.

Good to know.

Also it feels like there's a lot of similarity in DtC and 500 < 400 to me honestly. I know those votes are different times of the year but what if they were combined into one Hidden Gems challenge?

The current option being revoted for next year is "Doubling the Canon nominees" - not the official iCM list (which does indeed share quite an overlap with 500<400).

On a semi-related nore, I like having DTC Nominees as an Official Challenge; I think it pays a lot of respect to Angel's efforts in running things. It's also very different to <400 Checks, because, well, >400 check movies can be nominated for the DTC. And they often are.

[3eyes]

To be clear, I'm not a great fan of the decade challenges either - silent era (culturally adjusted) excepted, of course. I get nostalgic about different decades than most of you do, but that's neither here nor there.

[Onderhond]

Please don't get rid of the "current" decade challenge. ICMf really really needs it.

[Lonewolf2003]

Please don't get rid of the "current" decade challenge. ICMf really really needs it.

I don't think there is a current decade challenge in the current schedule. There is a TSPDT challenge, that includes their 21st century list. And there was an ongoing unofficial current decade challenge. But I stopped running that one. Cause that was meant as lead-up to the annual 2010s poll, which won't be held annually anymore. Plus the whole summation characters of the whole thread was starting to rub me the wrong way to spent any more energy into it.

You can of course suggest the idea here: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=5077