Welcome to the ICM Forum. If you have an account but have trouble logging in, or have other questions, see THIS THREAD.
Podcast: Talking Images (Episode 16 released September 13th)
Polls: Romance (Results), 1951 (Results), 500<400 (Sep 23rd), 2008 (Oct 4th)
Challenges: Animation, Silent Era, Russia/USSR
Film of the Week: L'inhumaine, October nominations (Sep 25th)
World Cup S4: QF Schedule, Match QFB: India vs Greece (Sep 20th), Match QFC: Germany vs Italy (Oct 1st)

2021 Challenges: Voting and Permanency Discussion

User avatar
sol
Donator
Posts: 9493
Joined: Feb 03, 2017
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

2021 Challenges: Voting and Permanency Discussion

#1

Post by sol » September 5th, 2020, 3:16 am

Before we start voting on 2021 Challenge options, there are a couple of ideas that I would like to talk through on this thread:

1. Changes to the voting process and timeline this year

2. Permanent challenge options - i.e. options automatically included in the 2021 schedule without being voted for


Changes to the voting process and timeline this year

So, the good news is that I'm prepared to once again dedicate a large portion of my spare time towards setting up the 2021 Challenge Schedule. I do, however, want to change things in order that it is a less stressful and taxing process for me as host. What I have found particularly daunting over the past few years is responding to and dealing with the commentary from participants on the voting threads. There always seems to be quite a bit of anxiety from participants over which options are and are not doing well, and a lot of this anxiety seems to surface in the first days of the polls being opened, i.e. when there is still weeks and weeks left to go (since I have traditionally kept the polls open for a month). See here, here, here and here if you're not sure what I'm talking about in terms of some of the commentary that the threads attract even in only just a few days of being open.

Giving it some thought, I have come up with two possible solutions for this year and I would like everyone's feedback over which would work best.

:ICM: OPTION A: Have a public poll, but only run it for a week and get Admin or one of the mods to lock the thread

Reducing the amount of time that the poll is open for may alleviate some of the anxiety over which options are or are not performing well since the whole thing will be completed in 7 days rather than drawn out for the entire month. Users will also be able to vote anonymously (as in previous years). Locking the thread will also prevent the thread from being bogged down by worried comments about which options are or are not performing well.

On the other hand, 7 days may not necessarily give all active Challenge participants enough time to vote (though it surely would for most). Also, I don't really like the idea of the results being public as they slow trickle in. I would much prefer a private vote since that would guarantee that participants are voting for the challenges that they want to do in 2021, rather than just selecting from the ones that (after a few days) still stand half-a-chance of actually making the final cut.

:ICM: OPTION B: Have a private poll (ballots submitted via private message) (poll could be run for two or three weeks)

This would provide a more accurate snapshot of what options participants are really interested in since the results will not be visible as they trickle in. Without possible discussion about what is or is not doing well, I would also be comfortable letting a poll like this go on for two or three weeks (though I still think an entire month is overkill). If we don't use phpBB's voting software, we could also spice up the process: maybe allow every user to have a few 2-point votes so that they can really back up the options that they really want to do. Also, you'd be able to change your mind about what you have voted for any time up until the deadline with private voting.

The biggest downside (for some, maybe) of a private poll though is that for transparency purposes, I would need to publish everybody's ballot once the voting is over. I don't know if this would really be a problem; there have never been any options in the past that I have been embarrassed to vote for, but I suppose if there were some out there who didn't want others to know that they really liked sports movies (for example), maybe this would be a problem?


Permanent challenge options - i.e. options automatically included in the 2021 schedule without being voted for

Here is our thread on the topic from last year - viewtopic.php?f=9&t=4511 - which I would recommend reading if you are unsure what a "permanent challenge" is.

In the past, I have generally been a member of the anti-permanency camp (if a challenge is popular enough, it will receive enough votes anyway), however, I feel more pro-permanency now than ever before. The reason being is that we tried something new last year for the first time that worked incredibly well; namely, we had a single ballot to vote for all options for the first time, rather than three or six individual polls. The thing is, that final poll contained almost 50 options, which is a lot to sort through. If we had more permanent options, this would lead to a less cumbersome ballot.

These options have already been voted as permanent:

Horror
Film Noir
Documentary
<400 Checks

These options have been held every single year for the past five (or more) years, but are not officially "permanent"

Directed by Women
Sci-fi / Fantasy
Silent Era
TSPDT
Western

So, what I'm interested to know is whether everybody wants those five extra options to also be permanent, whether we should have a poll about which of those five should also be permanent, whether we should remove permanency altogether and just have a GIANT ballot for 2021 options or whatever else you think. Let me know your thoughts!
Former IMDb message boards user // iCM | IMDb | Letterboxd | My top 750 films // Long live the new flesh!
Image Image Image

blocho
Donator
Posts: 3490
Joined: Jul 20, 2014
Contact:

#2

Post by blocho » September 5th, 2020, 3:41 am

With regard to the different polling options question, Sol, I think you should just go with whichever is the least work/stress for you. As long as I get to vote, I don't care whether there is commentary or not, whether the vote is public or not. You are putting in a lot of work to make this challenge schedule, so I think you should pick the option that makes the least work. I suggest choosing the option you find most convenient.

User avatar
sol
Donator
Posts: 9493
Joined: Feb 03, 2017
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#3

Post by sol » September 5th, 2020, 3:48 am

blocho wrote:
September 5th, 2020, 3:41 am
You are putting in a lot of work to make this challenge schedule, so I think you should pick the option that makes the least work. I suggest choosing the option you find most convenient.
That's a really kind response, blocho. I appreciate the support. :thumbsup: I would like to hear what others have to say though before I make a decision. I mean, sure, it should be whatever is the most convenient for me, but I don't want to go against what the majority here want to see.
Former IMDb message boards user // iCM | IMDb | Letterboxd | My top 750 films // Long live the new flesh!
Image Image Image

User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 30871
Joined: May 05, 2011
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#4

Post by mightysparks » September 5th, 2020, 4:21 am

As I don't really participate in challenges anymore, I'm with blocho on whatever is easiest for you. I think both options are good. I also am happy the currently selected permanent challenges and I think the other five would also be great permanent options. One permanent poll for every month would be pretty nice if we could get to that point eventually.
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT

Image

User avatar
maxwelldeux
Donator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Jun 07, 2016
Location: Seattle-ish, WA, USA
Contact:

#5

Post by maxwelldeux » September 5th, 2020, 5:07 am

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 sol to pick all the non-country challenges.

This is not because I think sol is some sort of deity (though I have no evidence to disconfirm that), but because I think a single benevolent decider will produce a more interesting set of challenges than we could collectively come up with via voting.

Why do I say this? I think the 2020 challenges have been mostly uninspired (with some solid choices, and one gem).
- The one gem is the "Run the Director" challenge. I didn't like the rules of it (something I've said elsewhere, but is largely immaterial here), but there is no denying it was both innovative and engaging. Great participation (1500+ points) and 33 participants is awesome - and it was brand new.
- We have some solid choices for challenges (e.g., Black/African American Cinema, LGBT) which invite the player to dig deep and discover films from other points of view.
- We have some historical fun challenges we love (e.g., Horror, Noir) that garner a lot of participation.
- We have a ton of uninspired "let me clear out my backlog" challenges. Those for decades, specific lists, etc.

I don't have access to the individual votes, but the count on the polls seems to be greater than the number of regular challenge participants. I would rather that the regular challenge participants have more weight than the casual/non-participants.

If I had to vote on your options, I'd pick Option B - and I would prefer that vote weighted by the number of challenges the person participated in this past year or two. I'd be happy to help with this, should you go this or a similar route.

With regard to your "permanent challenges" question, I'd vote everything excite TSPDT be permanent.

And on an entirely separate note, thanks for running this! I know it's a largely thankless job, but and important one, and I definitely appreciate it. :cheers:

User avatar
RogerTheMovieManiac88
Posts: 1704
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Location: Westmeath, Ireland
Contact:

#6

Post by RogerTheMovieManiac88 » September 5th, 2020, 5:20 am

Hi Sol, and thanks for doing this. I'll have a think about those two options, but I'd be fine with you going for whichever one was less of a bother for you.

Directed by Women
Sci-fi / Fantasy
Silent Era
TSPDT
Western

Out of these, I'd like to see Directed by Women, Silent, and Western be permanent. Not too fussed about the other two rolling around year upon year.
Last edited by RogerTheMovieManiac88 on September 5th, 2020, 6:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
That's all, folks!

blocho
Donator
Posts: 3490
Joined: Jul 20, 2014
Contact:

#7

Post by blocho » September 5th, 2020, 5:21 am

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.

...

...

JUST KIDDING. I'm having a little fun with you, Max. Joke aside, I'm not in favor of the Sol-the-Decider option. Nothing against sol, but I think most challenge participants want input. You may be right, Max, that a poll yields "safer" or at least more predictable results. But if that's what the majority want, I can't argue against it. And voting did yield the "Run the Director" challenge, which I agree was excellent. If we want more unusual challenges, it's up to all of us to come up with good new challenge ideas and put them into the running. What about "Run the Actor" or "Run the Screenwriter"?

User avatar
sol
Donator
Posts: 9493
Joined: Feb 03, 2017
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#8

Post by sol » September 5th, 2020, 5:31 am

maxwelldeux wrote:
September 5th, 2020, 5:07 am
I don't have access to the individual votes, but the count on the polls seems to be greater than the number of regular challenge participants. I would rather that the regular challenge participants have more weight than the casual/non-participants.

If I had to vote on your options, I'd pick Option B - and I would prefer that vote weighted by the number of challenges the person participated in this past year or two. I'd be happy to help with this, should you go this or a similar route.
I actually agree with this, and that's sort of the reason why I prefer Option B. I want to see who is voting. I suspect that there are quite a few out there who only really participate in a handful of challenges each year and yet who are voting for a full slate of options whenever we have a poll - because you are right: the poll count per option does indeed generally seem higher than actual participation.

Weighting: I would love to do that, but I didn't suggest it myself because I thought there would be some resistance. But yeah, I'd like to see the votes of those who are regular participants weighted higher than casual participants. The only question is how to weight it, but I guess if you're prepared to help out and others are okay with it, we can explore this avenue further.

maxwelldeux wrote:
September 5th, 2020, 5:07 am
And on an entirely separate note, thanks for running this! I know it's a largely thankless job, but and important one, and I definitely appreciate it. :cheers:
No problem. ;) I care about the Challenges and I am happy to do what it takes to keep them chugging along. :party:
Former IMDb message boards user // iCM | IMDb | Letterboxd | My top 750 films // Long live the new flesh!
Image Image Image

User avatar
sol
Donator
Posts: 9493
Joined: Feb 03, 2017
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#9

Post by sol » September 5th, 2020, 5:34 am

blocho wrote:
September 5th, 2020, 5:21 am
I'm not in favor of the Sol-the-Decider option. Nothing against sol, but I think most challenge participants want input. You may be right, Max, that a poll yields "safer" or at least more predictable results. But if that's what the majority want, I can't argue against it. And voting did yield the "Run the Director" challenge, which I agree was excellent. If we want more unusual challenges, it's up to all of us to come up with good new challenge ideas and put them into the running. What about "Run the Actor" or "Run the Screenwriter"?
Yeah, I wouldn't feel comfortable selecting all of the challenges on my own. It is nice that max has faith in me, but if it were all up to me, we might end up with an unusually high number of borderline horror challenges. :whistling:
Former IMDb message boards user // iCM | IMDb | Letterboxd | My top 750 films // Long live the new flesh!
Image Image Image

User avatar
Traveller
Posts: 1382
Joined: Dec 31, 2018
Location: Germany
Contact:

#10

Post by Traveller » September 5th, 2020, 6:58 am

Pleased and excited to see you host the most difficult of all challenges in the entire year again this time, sol. I’m gonna echo the sentiment from above: what suits you best and makes life as easy for you as possible.

As for the permanent options: there are some I’d like to see as permanent and some where I’m indifferent towards it. Will each challenge individually be judged, or do we only adapt them as a batch to permanent status?
ICM
September Challenge: Image
But at the bottom, the immanent philosopher sees in the entire universe only the deepest longing for absolute annihilation, and it is as if he clearly hears the call that permeates all spheres of heaven: Redemption! Redemption! Death to our life! and the comforting answer: you will all find annihilation and be redeemed!

User avatar
sol
Donator
Posts: 9493
Joined: Feb 03, 2017
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#11

Post by sol » September 5th, 2020, 7:04 am

Traveller wrote:
September 5th, 2020, 6:58 am
Pleased and excited to see you host the most difficult of all challenges in the entire year again this time, sol.
Thank you. :) And yes, this is probably the most difficult one to host. :lol:
Traveller wrote:
September 5th, 2020, 6:58 am
As for the permanent options: there are some I’d like to see as permanent and some where I’m indifferent towards it. Will each challenge individually be judged, or do we only adapt them as a batch to permanent status?
Depends what everyone wants. If we go to a poll, we can vote for individual ones, or we can just discuss it.

Seems at the moment that there is strong interest towards making Westerns, Sci-fi/Fantasy, Silents and Directed by Women permanent. Less interest in the TSP option.
Former IMDb message boards user // iCM | IMDb | Letterboxd | My top 750 films // Long live the new flesh!
Image Image Image

User avatar
hurluberlu
Donator
Posts: 1905
Joined: Jan 04, 2017
Contact:

#12

Post by hurluberlu » September 5th, 2020, 9:26 am

Thanks Sol.

I am rather indifferent with option A or option B. I dont think option B is really ensuring that people will give a good thought to newly proposed challenge and don't default to what has been already played multiple times in the past. As discussed last year or the year before, I would rather reserve some slots for proposals we have never played yet.

I would remove permanency altogether...

:thumbsup:
#JeSuisCharlie Liberté, Liberté chérie !

Image
ImageImageImageImage

User avatar
RogerTheMovieManiac88
Posts: 1704
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Location: Westmeath, Ireland
Contact:

#13

Post by RogerTheMovieManiac88 » September 5th, 2020, 10:00 am

Having thought about those two proposals, I think both have drawbacks. I think comments as the voting is open is quite fun.

You are the one giving up considerable time to this, so I suppose, ultimately, it should be your call.
That's all, folks!

User avatar
sol
Donator
Posts: 9493
Joined: Feb 03, 2017
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#14

Post by sol » September 5th, 2020, 10:04 am

Heya hurlu. I agree that it would good to force some variety into the schedule, but if I recall correctly there was a move against that last year, which is why we ended up with one big poll ("and let the chips fall where they may") rather than Repeat / New Option polls.

I guess the only thing we could to do force more variety is automatically place last year's five runner-up options into the 2021 schedule without voting on them again... but new users, returning users, things have changed over 12 months and it might be more fair to just put them up for vote again.

As for Option B, it's a private vote, so I think that would encourage more voters to try to back something new as opposed to just voting for what seems to stand a chance of making the cut. But yeah, neither option will guarantee more variety. There's no way of really doing that without some sort of quotas. I guess that would be one possible option, but I don't know, like I said, I felt a push away from that last year.

As for removing permanency altogether, sure, if the majority of participants want that we could do it - though it would lead to a larger, more cumbersome single ballot.
Former IMDb message boards user // iCM | IMDb | Letterboxd | My top 750 films // Long live the new flesh!
Image Image Image

User avatar
3eyes
Donator
Posts: 7062
Joined: May 17, 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

#15

Post by 3eyes » September 5th, 2020, 12:20 pm

I find myself in the strange position of being an emeritus challenge enthusiast - I still make watchlists for the challenges, I just don't seem to be able to muster the energy to watch them.

Anyway, I'd be happy with making all those 5 except for TSPDT permanent.
As for voting options, as long as neither presents technical problems for us Luddites, I don't care.
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?
I do think there should be room for trying at least one new thing each year - in previous discussions there have been such a wealth of ideas. (Run the director was the one challenge I've really participated in so far this year.)
:run: STILL the Gaffer!

User avatar
peeptoad
Posts: 2257
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Contact:

#16

Post by peeptoad » September 5th, 2020, 12:54 pm

I plan on being less vociferous with the decision making process this year since I find it easier/less stressful to adapt to change than be the driver for change.(Hopefully that will also reduce some stressors on your part, sol. )

I like either options (A/B) you had listed, though I agree it would be beneficial for you to see who is doing the voting, and I have no problem with the transparency thing, so I am open to PMing my choices to you. During a normal poll in a thread can you not see who casts a vote for what? I thought a list of usernames appeared next to their selected option, though maybe I am misremembering (happens more and more nowadays).

I also am okay with those listed as permanent, but I am also not married to any of them staying permanent, save maybe Horror, which I look forward to every year.

User avatar
sol
Donator
Posts: 9493
Joined: Feb 03, 2017
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#17

Post by sol » September 5th, 2020, 1:11 pm

3eyes wrote:
September 5th, 2020, 12:20 pm
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).
3eyes wrote:
September 5th, 2020, 12:20 pm
I do think there should be room for trying at least one new thing each year - in previous discussions there have been such a wealth of ideas. (Run the director was the one challenge I've really participated in so far this year.)
I think we could do this - one new thing. So, like the top however many options that are voted for will be held in 2021, however, at least one of them has to be an option that has never been tried before. If at least one of them isn't completely new, whichever completely new topic gets the most votes gets added in to meet the quota. I think hurlu would be in favour of that from the sounds of things - what do others think?
peeptoad wrote:
September 5th, 2020, 12:54 pm
I agree it would be beneficial for you to see who is doing the voting, and I have no problem with the transparency thing, so I am open to PMing my choices to you. During a normal poll in a thread can you not see who casts a vote for what? I thought a list of usernames appeared next to their selected option
No, there is no way of a casual user knowing who is voting for what. It's completely anonymous. I know that Peaceful has investigated it before and gone through all the coding to work out who voted for what, but it's not something easily done. I would definitely prefer to know as poll host. As max has said, the number of users supporting challenge ideas in these threads and those actually participating are never even, so there must be a few users who vote for stuff that they never participate in, maybe just because they have the option of ticking more than one box?

I imagine most users will be okay if I publish their ballots once voting has ended. It would really only be if there was an option in there that somebody was ashamed to admit supporting.

The other thing about Option B - even if it is not possible to view the results as they trickle in, I could give updates every couple of days as Angel does with DTC without specifically stating which challenges are doing best or worst, only whether they are 2020 repeat, repeats of challenges run in 2019 or 2018 or completely new challenge ideas etc.
Former IMDb message boards user // iCM | IMDb | Letterboxd | My top 750 films // Long live the new flesh!
Image Image Image

User avatar
sol
Donator
Posts: 9493
Joined: Feb 03, 2017
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#18

Post by sol » September 5th, 2020, 1:14 pm

maxwelldeux wrote:
September 5th, 2020, 5:07 am
If I had to vote on your options, I'd pick Option B - and I would prefer that vote weighted by the number of challenges the person participated in this past year or two. I'd be happy to help with this, should you go this or a similar route.
Can we get some more feedback on this? I like the idea of weighting the votes of active challenge participants higher, but I don't want to support maxwell in the endeavour if nobody else thinks that it is a good idea.
Former IMDb message boards user // iCM | IMDb | Letterboxd | My top 750 films // Long live the new flesh!
Image Image Image

User avatar
peeptoad
Posts: 2257
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Contact:

#19

Post by peeptoad » September 5th, 2020, 1:29 pm

I'll back option B. And I do support giving more weight to those who actually participate (or intend on participating since sometimes life doesn't go as planned).

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 11190
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#20

Post by St. Gloede » September 5th, 2020, 2:21 pm

I'm inclined towards option A as it is a lot less work for you.

I would also definitely support Silent becoming permant, but preferably Silent Films rather than Silent Era, as I don't understand the need to exclude the 10-20 or so films made after the 30s, and they make for an interesting comparison.

User avatar
Lilarcor
Donator
Posts: 2991
Joined: Jun 14, 2011
Contact:

#21

Post by Lilarcor » September 5th, 2020, 2:29 pm

There are loads of post-30s experimental films that are silent too, though. Keep it a purely historical challenge imo.

User avatar
hurluberlu
Donator
Posts: 1905
Joined: Jan 04, 2017
Contact:

#22

Post by hurluberlu » September 5th, 2020, 4:03 pm

sol wrote:
September 5th, 2020, 1:11 pm

3eyes wrote:
September 5th, 2020, 12:20 pm
I do think there should be room for trying at least one new thing each year - in previous discussions there have been such a wealth of ideas. (Run the director was the one challenge I've really participated in so far this year.)
I think we could do this - one new thing. So, like the top however many options that are voted for will be held in 2021, however, at least one of them has to be an option that has never been tried before. If at least one of them isn't completely new, whichever completely new topic gets the most votes gets added in to meet the quota. I think hurlu would be in favour of that from the sounds of things - what do others think?
I was about to counter-propose this, let’s indeed try with one slot.
#JeSuisCharlie Liberté, Liberté chérie !

Image
ImageImageImageImage

User avatar
maxwelldeux
Donator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Jun 07, 2016
Location: Seattle-ish, WA, USA
Contact:

#23

Post by maxwelldeux » September 5th, 2020, 5:24 pm

sol wrote:
September 5th, 2020, 1:14 pm
maxwelldeux wrote:
September 5th, 2020, 5:07 am
If I had to vote on your options, I'd pick Option B - and I would prefer that vote weighted by the number of challenges the person participated in this past year or two. I'd be happy to help with this, should you go this or a similar route.
Can we get some more feedback on this? I like the idea of weighting the votes of active challenge participants higher, but I don't want to support maxwell in the endeavour if nobody else thinks that it is a good idea.
We can do the "public vote not poll" option like we do for the year-by-year threads - just post your votes in a post so it's public, but without the forum's poll function.

For the weighting, I'm thinking something like once you reach [threshold] it's a full vote - folks not meeting that threshold would receive fractional votes. Like if the threshold is 8 and you've played in 6 challenges, your vote would be 75% of a full vote - still contributing, but not quite as much.

User avatar
Fergenaprido
Donator
Posts: 4403
Joined: Jun 03, 2014
Location: Malaysia
Contact:

#24

Post by Fergenaprido » September 5th, 2020, 5:58 pm

maxwelldeux wrote:
September 5th, 2020, 5:24 pm
sol wrote:
September 5th, 2020, 1:14 pm
maxwelldeux wrote:
September 5th, 2020, 5:07 am
If I had to vote on your options, I'd pick Option B - and I would prefer that vote weighted by the number of challenges the person participated in this past year or two. I'd be happy to help with this, should you go this or a similar route.
Can we get some more feedback on this? I like the idea of weighting the votes of active challenge participants higher, but I don't want to support maxwell in the endeavour if nobody else thinks that it is a good idea.
We can do the "public vote not poll" option like we do for the year-by-year threads - just post your votes in a post so it's public, but without the forum's poll function.

For the weighting, I'm thinking something like once you reach [threshold] it's a full vote - folks not meeting that threshold would receive fractional votes. Like if the threshold is 8 and you've played in 6 challenges, your vote would be 75% of a full vote - still contributing, but not quite as much.
I've largely stopped participating in the forum challenges because I don't watch nearly as many films as the main participants here, and following the challenges was causing me to prioritize films I wasn't super interested in watching, and putting off films that I'd been wanting to see. With limited time to set aside for watching a film (or two) each day, it was getting more tedious and less enjoyable.

I don't remember if I voted in the polls last year or not (I think I did), even though I didn't participate in any 2019 challenge (and only 1 2020 challenge so far). I'm still interested in the challenges, even if I don't want to participate and post all my viewings every day/week/month. They still do have some influence over what I watch, especially those challenges that precede a poll. Plus, I enjoy encouraging others to explore areas of cinema they may not necessarily think of seeking out.

I think that changing the vote weighting of participants is a positive thing if you want to create a small insular group of highly competitive viewers who will watch the most films they can on the topics they enjoy.
I think that changing the vote weighting of participants is a negative thing if you want to encourage more casual and new users to participate in the challenges, and help people to push their cinematic boundaries.

User avatar
maxwelldeux
Donator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Jun 07, 2016
Location: Seattle-ish, WA, USA
Contact:

#25

Post by maxwelldeux » September 5th, 2020, 6:07 pm

Fergenaprido wrote:
September 5th, 2020, 5:58 pm
I think that changing the vote weighting of participants is a positive thing if you want to create a small insular group of highly competitive viewers who will watch the most films they can on the topics they enjoy.
I think that changing the vote weighting of participants is a negative thing if you want to encourage more casual and new users to participate in the challenges, and help people to push their cinematic boundaries.
I think your points there are fair - except that my proposal to weight votes was to "help people to push their cinematic boundaries".

I'm just tired of decade challenges (we have 5 of them in 2020) and challenges based on official lists, which are already motivating enough. My goal with weighting was to get more interesting and boundary-pushing challenges for us. If we don't think the weighting would accomplish this, let's not do it.

psychotronicbeatnik
Donator
Posts: 1818
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Location: Oregon
Contact:

#26

Post by psychotronicbeatnik » September 5th, 2020, 6:17 pm

I'm OK with option A or B. I do enjoy seeing what is leading in the poll so I would miss that aspect if we did go with B but that's not a biggie, especially if we shorten the length of the poll. I can do without reading the endless discussions while voting is still going on too and would be glad to save sol that task as the "host" of this poll.

A month is way too long for this poll, but a week may be too short - I would propose 10 days to 2 weeks. Two weeks max anyway.

I have mixed feelings about any of the challenges being permanent (although I would really miss horror if it didn't get voted in). Nevertheless, I think we should eliminate permanent challenges altogether (except for the countries which are ensured a spot every other year). I'm more likely to participate in a challenge that I am feeling borderline about (film noir, for instance) if I don't know that it will be around again next year. There's also a burn-out factor, I love silents and won that challenge the last two times it was held but I'm feeling burnt out this year and opted not to participate. If we add too many permanent ones then the whole schedule may just get stale.

I agree with ferganaprido's points about the possible results of vote weighting creating a more insular challenge mix, one that is unfriendly to encouraging new participants. Weighting the votes based on participation feels a little elitist to me.

:cheers:

User avatar
St. Gloede
Moderator
Posts: 11190
Joined: May 06, 2011
Contact:

#27

Post by St. Gloede » September 5th, 2020, 10:16 pm

Lilarcor wrote:
September 5th, 2020, 2:29 pm
There are loads of post-30s experimental films that are silent too, though. Keep it a purely historical challenge imo.
Depends what you call a silent, do you just mean films without sound? If so, yes, true, but they are not actually silents, they are just soundless. I guess that ties into definitions, but who would actually sit down and see Andy Warhol films for a silent challenge?

User avatar
3eyes
Donator
Posts: 7062
Joined: May 17, 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

#28

Post by 3eyes » September 6th, 2020, 12:34 am

I'm with Ferg and Psychotronic on the weighting thing.
:run: STILL the Gaffer!

User avatar
sol
Donator
Posts: 9493
Joined: Feb 03, 2017
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#29

Post by sol » September 6th, 2020, 2:51 am

hurluberlu wrote:
September 5th, 2020, 4:03 pm
sol wrote:
September 5th, 2020, 1:11 pm
3eyes wrote:
September 5th, 2020, 12:20 pm
I do think there should be room for trying at least one new thing each year - in previous discussions there have been such a wealth of ideas. (Run the director was the one challenge I've really participated in so far this year.)
I think we could do this - one new thing. So, like the top however many options that are voted for will be held in 2021, however, at least one of them has to be an option that has never been tried before. If at least one of them isn't completely new, whichever completely new topic gets the most votes gets added in to meet the quota. I think hurlu would be in favour of that from the sounds of things - what do others think?
I was about to counter-propose this, let’s indeed try with one slot.
Awesome; let's try running with this.

psychotronicbeatnik wrote:
September 5th, 2020, 6:17 pm
I'm OK with option A or B. I do enjoy seeing what is leading in the poll so I would miss that aspect if we did go with B but that's not a biggie, especially if we shorten the length of the poll. I can do without reading the endless discussions while voting is still going on too and would be glad to save sol that task as the "host" of this poll.

A month is way too long for this poll, but a week may be too short - I would propose 10 days to 2 weeks. Two weeks max anyway.
Yeah, I'm honestly much more interested in Option B myself, and if we are doing private voting, we can be more flexible with the start, end date and length of the private poll.

The whole idea of having the vote in early October was so that it could coincide with the school holidays for me so that I'm available to jump in and quell the upset and worry from those commentating on the results when there are still days and days left to run. With private voting, we could pretty much hold the poll whenever, as long as it ended on a Saturday so that I would be available to tabulate results.
psychotronicbeatnik wrote:
September 5th, 2020, 6:17 pm
I agree with ferganaprido's points about the possible results of vote weighting creating a more insular challenge mix, one that is unfriendly to encouraging new participants. Weighting the votes based on participation feels a little elitist to me.
It depends on how heavily we weight it. Like, I don't think you should be penalised for only participating in 50% of challenges over the past 12 months. However, I don't really like the idea of someone who has only participated in one or two challenges this year getting the same say as regular participants. This might not be an issue though. Max and I have just been speculating some of the imbalanced numbers between voting options and regular challenge participation. What we could do is wait and see who votes and then discuss what to do. Also, if I present regular updates Angel/DTC style (as suggested above), I could provide voter profile information anonymously as the results trickle in.

e.g. an update could look like this:

Best Performing Challenge Options so far:
- Repeat 2020 Challenge
- Repeat 2020 Challenge
- Repeat 2018 Challenge
- Repeat 2019 Challenge
- New Challenge Idea
- Repeat 2020 Challenge

Voter profile:
- Participated in 24 Challenges this year: 7
- Participated in 17-23 Challenges this year: 3
- Participated in 9-16 Challenges this year: 1
- Participated in 2-8 Challenges this year: 4
- Participated in one Challenge this year: 1
- Participated in zero Challenges this year: 2

...or something like that.
Former IMDb message boards user // iCM | IMDb | Letterboxd | My top 750 films // Long live the new flesh!
Image Image Image

User avatar
sol
Donator
Posts: 9493
Joined: Feb 03, 2017
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#30

Post by sol » September 6th, 2020, 4:07 am

Trying to work out where we all stand on the permanency issue. Let me know if I've forgotten to include you or listed your vote incorrectly!

Each YES counts as +1, each 'no' counts as -1.

UserHorrorNoir<400DocoWestSci/FanSilentsFem. DTSPDT
solYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES -
mightysparksYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES
maxwelldeuxYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESno
RogerYESYESYESYESYES - YESYES -
hurluberlunonononononononono
3eyesYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESno
peeptoadYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES
St. GloedeYESYESYESYES - - YES - -
psychotronicbeatnikYESnononononononono
TOTAL+7+5+5+5+4+3+5+4-2
Former IMDb message boards user // iCM | IMDb | Letterboxd | My top 750 films // Long live the new flesh!
Image Image Image

User avatar
mightysparks
Site Admin
Posts: 30871
Joined: May 05, 2011
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#31

Post by mightysparks » September 6th, 2020, 4:16 am

I'm probably more of a meh/neutral vote on TSPDT, but not fussed.
"I do not always know what I want, but I do know what I don't want." - Stanley Kubrick

iCM | IMDb | LastFM | TSZDT

Image

User avatar
3eyes
Donator
Posts: 7062
Joined: May 17, 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

#32

Post by 3eyes » September 6th, 2020, 1:22 pm

I'm no on Horror and Noir, but I didn't think we were voting on those.
:run: STILL the Gaffer!

User avatar
blueboybob
Donator
Posts: 2261
Joined: Mar 11, 2013
Location: DC
Contact:

#33

Post by blueboybob » September 6th, 2020, 1:29 pm

Horror - Yes
Noir - No
< 400 - Yes
Doco - Yes
West - No
Sci/Fan - Yes
Silents - No
Fem (change to POC) - Yes
TSPDT - Yes

User avatar
OldAle1
Donator
Posts: 4815
Joined: Feb 09, 2017
Location: Dairyland, USA
Contact:

#34

Post by OldAle1 » September 6th, 2020, 2:21 pm

I want to post while this is still in mind but don't have a lot of time at the moment, so will return maybe in a few hours. My main first thoughts are -

agree in principal with max re: uninspired challenges (and the one GREAT new challenge, run-the-director). Frankly, the least-interesting/useless challenges to me are pretty much all in one of two categories:

* decade challenges
* official list-based challenges - apart from 500<400 and MAYBE DTC.

So for me, throw out TSPDT. Most people are highly familiar with those lists anyway, lots of people have seen all or nearly all of the films on them, people either work on those lists on their own (or work some of the films into other challenges), or they don't. I don't think we need to promote it anymore than it already has been. And while I love Rosenbaum's list, I don't want to see that challenge run again. Or UNESCO (don't know if that's been done, but I don't see much value in it). These just aren't interesting to me as challenges even if I like the lists - there's little in the way of cohesiveness as there is in the genre lists or (to some extent) countries.

And make run-the-director permanent, or alternate it with run-the-actor or one of the other suggestions in the other thread. Lots of interest, and lots of good commentary in that challenge, easily the best of the year so far and unlikely to be topped.

As to how to vote - yeah, do whatever's easiest. I guess private is the best option for me personally but I really don't care all that much and I really don't know how much I'll play next year anyway, I may finally get going on some of my own personal challenges. Or not.

User avatar
sol
Donator
Posts: 9493
Joined: Feb 03, 2017
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#35

Post by sol » September 6th, 2020, 2:33 pm

OldAle1 wrote:
September 6th, 2020, 2:21 pm
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. :mellow:

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.

Something else for everyone:

Permanency - try not think about how worthwhile the option is, but rather how likely it is that it would get voted in anyway were it put to vote. As mentioned in the OP, I'm more pro-permanency because I want to reduce my workload - especially if we (highly likely) go to private voting. And if stuff like Horror and Noir are going to get in anyway, it's easier for me if they are not in the "let's vote anyway and just see if interest has died down" basket.

The only reason why I didn't support TSPDT is not because I think it is a bad idea, but rather that for the past few years, it has own just sneaked across the line, as opposed to Westerns, Sci-fi, Silents and Female Directors, which have always consistently attracted a lot of votes.

(For a side note, the reason why I don't think TSPDT is a bad idea is that the challenge now includes 1001-2000 and 21st Cent also... although I still don't know if I'd vote for it myself depending on what else in on the table.)

What else? I'll try to update that table later. And the table isn't the be-all-and-end-all; I'm just trying to get a snapshot of where the entire forum sits on the permanency issue.
Former IMDb message boards user // iCM | IMDb | Letterboxd | My top 750 films // Long live the new flesh!
Image Image Image

User avatar
peeptoad
Posts: 2257
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Contact:

#36

Post by peeptoad » September 6th, 2020, 2:51 pm

sol wrote:
September 6th, 2020, 4:07 am
Trying to work out where we all stand on the permanency issue. Let me know if I've forgotten to include you or listed your vote incorrectly!

Each YES counts as +1, each 'no' counts as -1.

UserHorrorNoir<400DocoWestSci/FanSilentsFem. DTSPDT
solYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES -
mightysparksYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES
maxwelldeuxYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESno
RogerYESYESYESYESYES - YESYES -
hurluberlunonononononononono
3eyesYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESno
peeptoadYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES
St. GloedeYESYESYESYES - - YES - -
psychotronicbeatnikYESnononononononono
TOTAL+7+5+5+5+4+3+5+4-2
I don't know that I would actually vote yes to anything except horror. I am more indifferent about the rest other than that one, though I certainly don't mind them being permanent either. With the exception of women directors and sci fi I don't normally partake in the others, so I guess you could put "no" for those*, if it helps any.

*"those" meaning noir, <400, Western, TSPDT, doco and silents in case that wasn't clear

User avatar
sol
Donator
Posts: 9493
Joined: Feb 03, 2017
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#37

Post by sol » September 6th, 2020, 3:07 pm

peeptoad wrote:
September 6th, 2020, 2:51 pm
With the exception of women directors and sci fi I don't normally partake in the others, so I guess you could put "no" for those*, if it helps any.
If that's the case, then you probably should have a neutral (-) rather than a "no", but I think this thread is starting to detour off where I wanted it to go.

I guess if I find some spare time (when?? no idea) the OP should probably be reworded.

What I'm interested in is finding out which challenges everybody expects will be continued to get voted in every year - not which ones appeal to individual user sensibilities.

If we are looking at filling in 24 slots, ballot would probably have to be ~48 choices to give some variety.

If we are only looking to fill in 16 slots (because 8 challenges are permanent), we could get through with ~32 choice ballot.

Definitely a big workload difference for me, especially since I know Film Noir (for example) will get voted in each and every year no matter how little the filmmaking mode personally appeals to me.
Former IMDb message boards user // iCM | IMDb | Letterboxd | My top 750 films // Long live the new flesh!
Image Image Image

User avatar
RogerTheMovieManiac88
Posts: 1704
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Location: Westmeath, Ireland
Contact:

#38

Post by RogerTheMovieManiac88 » September 6th, 2020, 3:11 pm

You can put me down for a 'No' in regards to TSPDT, Sol.
That's all, folks!

User avatar
peeptoad
Posts: 2257
Joined: Feb 04, 2017
Contact:

#39

Post by peeptoad » September 6th, 2020, 3:29 pm

sol wrote:
September 6th, 2020, 3:07 pm

What I'm interested in is finding out which challenges everybody expects will be continued to get voted in every year - not which ones appeal to individual user sensibilities.
Noir, Horror, SciFi/Fantasy, <400, Doc, Silents, TSPDT are what I expect to continue.
I feel less certain about Westerns, Women Directors.

ororama
Posts: 2034
Joined: Jun 19, 2011
Contact:

#40

Post by ororama » September 6th, 2020, 6:33 pm

Horror yes
Film Noir yes
Documentary yes
<400 Checks yes
Directed by Women yes
Sci-fi / Fantasy yes
Silent Era yes
TSPDT no
Western yes

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.

I don't care about the way that the voting is conducted, whatever is easiest is fine.

Post Reply