Welcome to the ICM Forum. If you have an account but have trouble logging in, or have other questions, see THIS THREAD.
NOTE: Board emails should be working again. Information on forum upgrade and style issues.
Podcast: Talking Images (Episode 22 released November 17th * EXCLUSIVE * We Are Mentioned in a Book!!! Interview with Mary Guillermin on Rapture, JG & More)
Polls: Directors (Waiting for results), 1929 (Results), Directorial Debut Features (Mar 12th), DtC - Nominations (Mar 20th), Favourite Movies (Mar 28th)
Challenges: UK/Ireland, Directed by Women, Waves from around the World
Film of the Week: Lean on Pete, April nominations (Apr 1st)

2021 Challenges: Leaderboard and Rules Discussion

User avatar
sol
Donator
Posts: 10814
Joined: February 3rd, 2017, 7:00 am
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#41

Post by sol »

Welcome to Page 2 of this thread. This is where we are currently up to:


1. We are looking to achieve consistency with points for TV eps, miniseries eps and short films by making it 90min = 1pt for anything non-movie

Having a consistent appropriate for anything non-movie will make it easier for Challenge hosts to keep track of points. It should also make it easier for participants who want to include a mix of episodes and short films when posting their viewings.

Why 90 minutes? I think blocho put it more eloquently than I could do:
blocho wrote: November 18th, 2020, 1:09 am The main goal of my proposal for the 90 minute rule was consistency, so that the rules for shorts/episodes were not different from challenge to challenge. I've hosted challenges in the past year that have used a 120 minute rule, a 90 minute rule, and a 60 minute rule. Someone is always unhappy because I've learned that people have a wide variety of opinions on this issue. Some adamantly support 60 minutes, but there are others who prefer a longer length and some who don't want any TV.

I think 90 minutes is a fair compromise between the extremes. It's also closer to the average length of a feature movie. We use a 40-minute minimum for features, but most movies are longer. Just as an example, I've seen seven movies for the Mexican challenge this month, and the average runtime was 98 minutes (though one was only 43 minutes). I think if you added up the features seen in any challenge, the mean runtime would be close to 90. Using a 90-minute rule for shorts/episodes would provide some equivalency between features, shorts, and episodes.
In short, if movies should be worth 1pt and the average movie runtime is 90 minutes, then 90 minutes is only fair for 1pt of anything non-movie.


2. With maxwell discontinuing the Challenge Olympics in 2021, we are discussing changing the challenge leaderboard

I have put a number of alternative leaderboards forward. The most popular model at the moment is this:

ALTERNATIVE OPTION C:
RankParticipantPointsChallenges WonTop 5 FinishesTop 10 FinishersTop 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.

It is hoped that this alternative leaderboard will encourage greater participation since (other than in the Horror Challenge) it does not take a lot of viewings to place inside the top 20 for any of our Challenges. Having only three points difference between 1st and 20th spot should also make the competition less bloodthirsty and will hopefully curve some of the unfair play issues we had this year.

We could stick with the current leaderboard -- but if we do, I probably won't be able to generate any awards, so the only things that will be recognised would be ranks and wins.
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: 10814
Joined: February 3rd, 2017, 7:00 am
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#42

Post by sol »

blocho wrote: November 17th, 2020, 9:28 pm Sol, with your proposed alternative leaderboards, would the score be a sum of points gained in each challenge, rather than the "Nascar-style" scoring that Max used?
The scoring wouldn't be NASCAR style in any of my proposed alternative leaderboards. They all work on the win being worth 4 points in every single challenge.

If we looking at the Horror Challenge results for this year, this is what the results would translate to:

(points = all four columns on the right added together)

RankParticipantPointsChallenges WonTop 5 FinishesTop 10 FinishersTop 20 Finishers
1flavo500041111
2adwest3-111
2blueboybob3-111
2Daviddoes3-111
2psychotronicbeatnik3-111
61SO2--11
6OldAle12--11
6sebby2--11
6VincentPrice2--11
6weirdboy2--11
etc
Former IMDb message boards user // iCM | IMDb | Letterboxd | My top 750 films // Long live the new flesh!
Image Image Image
User avatar
sebby
Posts: 6738
Joined: July 4th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#43

Post by sebby »

I would still like a poll to decide the 90 min rule. My counter would be that it is far easier on the brains to watch a 90 min feature than four 22.5 min shorts, for example.
User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 6176
Joined: December 23rd, 2012, 7:00 am
Contact:

#44

Post by Onderhond »

blocho wrote: November 18th, 2020, 1:09 am and some who don't want any TV.
B)

Still don't see the point.
User avatar
sol
Donator
Posts: 10814
Joined: February 3rd, 2017, 7:00 am
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#45

Post by sol »

sebby wrote: November 18th, 2020, 8:31 am I would still like a poll to decide the 90 min rule. My counter would be that it is far easier on the brains to watch a 90 min feature than four 22.5 min shorts, for example.
And my counter to that is that it is far easier on my brain for me to watch four 22.5 shorts or television episodes, since I write a Letterboxd review for every feature film that I view and log it on IMDb, whereas for TV eps and shorts I only keep track of them on iCM. ;)

We could do a poll about whether to use 90 minutes. If we did though, the question would be 80 vs 90 vs 100 minutes, because we are looking to adjust the runtime required in order to achieve "equivalency between features, shorts, and episodes" to quote blocho. I don't know if the appetite for a poll on 80 vs 90 vs 100 minutes exist though since most contributors on this thread seem okay with 90 minutes - or okay with 90 minutes if the system needs to change. And it does - to improve the system, quell the bickering, and makes things fair with equivalency regarding what is being watched/logged.

P.S.: Thanks for your support on the alternate leaderboard. I think it could be really interesting going forwards. B)
Former IMDb message boards user // iCM | IMDb | Letterboxd | My top 750 films // Long live the new flesh!
Image Image Image
User avatar
sebby
Posts: 6738
Joined: July 4th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#46

Post by sebby »

sol wrote: November 18th, 2020, 9:07 am
sebby wrote: November 18th, 2020, 8:31 am I would still like a poll to decide the 90 min rule. My counter would be that it is far easier on the brains to watch a 90 min feature than four 22.5 min shorts, for example.
And my counter to that is that it is far easier on my brain for me to watch four 22.5 shorts or television episodes, since I write a Letterboxd review for every feature film that I view and log it on IMDb, whereas for TV eps and shorts I only keep track of them on iCM. ;)

We could do a poll about whether to use 90 minutes. If we did though, the question would be 80 vs 90 vs 100 minutes, because we are looking to adjust the runtime required in order to achieve "equivalency between features, shorts, and episodes" to quote blocho. I don't know if the appetite for a poll on 80 vs 90 vs 100 minutes exist though since most contributors on this thread seem okay with 90 minutes - or okay with 90 minutes if the system needs to change. And it does - to improve the system, quell the bickering, and makes things fair with equivalency regarding what is being watched/logged.

P.S.: Thanks for your support on the alternate leaderboard. I think it could be really interesting going forwards. B)
If your assertion is that everyone wants to move away from the 40/60 rule, than it certainly would not hurt to include it in the poll :whistling:

If people are so concerned about runtime, then there's an ongoing challenge for them there types of folks, no? Or otherwise, swap points for minutes and assuage the challenge equality seekers and be done with it.
User avatar
sol
Donator
Posts: 10814
Joined: February 3rd, 2017, 7:00 am
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#47

Post by sol »

sebby wrote: November 18th, 2020, 9:14 am If your assertion is that everyone wants to move away from the 40/60 rule, than it certainly would not hurt to include it in the poll
I don't know if everybody wants to move away from the 40/60 rule, but I acknowledge that the rule is not fair and does not achieve equivalency with regards to average film length.

In the interest in fairness, I don't see any reason not to increase the 1pt runtime to something to closer to the average length of the movies being included for a single point in a challenge.
Former IMDb message boards user // iCM | IMDb | Letterboxd | My top 750 films // Long live the new flesh!
Image Image Image
User avatar
flavo5000
Posts: 4131
Joined: July 10th, 2014, 6:00 am
Location: Arkansas, USA
Contact:

#48

Post by flavo5000 »

sol wrote: November 18th, 2020, 9:07 am
sebby wrote: November 18th, 2020, 8:31 am I would still like a poll to decide the 90 min rule. My counter would be that it is far easier on the brains to watch a 90 min feature than four 22.5 min shorts, for example.
And my counter to that is that it is far easier on my brain for me to watch four 22.5 shorts or television episodes, since I write a Letterboxd review for every feature film that I view and log it on IMDb, whereas for TV eps and shorts I only keep track of them on iCM. ;)

We could do a poll about whether to use 90 minutes. If we did though, the question would be 80 vs 90 vs 100 minutes, because we are looking to adjust the runtime required in order to achieve "equivalency between features, shorts, and episodes" to quote blocho. I don't know if the appetite for a poll on 80 vs 90 vs 100 minutes exist though since most contributors on this thread seem okay with 90 minutes - or okay with 90 minutes if the system needs to change. And it does - to improve the system, quell the bickering, and makes things fair with equivalency regarding what is being watched/logged.

P.S.: Thanks for your support on the alternate leaderboard. I think it could be really interesting going forwards. B)
I honestly think 90 minutes is a little high for shorts as well personally. What's wrong with just a flat 60-minute rule? It's still similar to how many of the challenges are run now while also leveling the playing field for shorts and TV.
So basically, you'd need to watch three 24-minute episodes of a series like you do now, two 45-minute episodes which is a change. shorts doesn't change. Features less than 60 minutes would need a short to bump it up to 60.

With 90 minutes, are you saying that non-movies would need 90 minutes but movies would still need just 40 minutes? Or would that bump up to 60? Either way, it's still something of an inconsistency in how runtime is tracked, basically rendering shorts worth "less than a super short movie.
jdidaco
Posts: 1595
Joined: February 3rd, 2017, 7:00 am
Contact:

#49

Post by jdidaco »

psychotronicbeatnik wrote:If we were to vote on this I would cast my vote for keeping things the way they are.
Thirded. Maintain the current rules consistent through all challenges though.
User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 6176
Joined: December 23rd, 2012, 7:00 am
Contact:

#50

Post by Onderhond »

flavo5000 wrote: November 18th, 2020, 6:25 pm Features less than 60 minutes would need a short to bump it up to 60.
So short films (45-60 minutes) wouldn't count because of some rule to allow for TV episodes & shorts? :ermm:
User avatar
RogerTheMovieManiac88
Posts: 1962
Joined: February 4th, 2017, 7:00 am
Location: Westmeath, Ireland
Contact:

#51

Post by RogerTheMovieManiac88 »

jdidaco wrote: November 18th, 2020, 6:51 pm
psychotronicbeatnik wrote:If we were to vote on this I would cast my vote for keeping things the way they are.
Thirded. Maintain the current rules consistent through all challenges though.
Seconded, or is it 'fourthed'. Consistency would be nice.

Having to make up 90 minutes of shorts would probably deter me from watching shorts for the challenges. I would like 60/40 to be kept.
That's all, folks!
User avatar
72aicm
Donator
Posts: 3469
Joined: November 13th, 2016, 7:00 am
Contact:

#52

Post by 72aicm »

RogerTheMovieManiac88 wrote: November 18th, 2020, 7:04 pm
jdidaco wrote: November 18th, 2020, 6:51 pm
psychotronicbeatnik wrote:If we were to vote on this I would cast my vote for keeping things the way they are.
Thirded. Maintain the current rules consistent through all challenges though.
Seconded, or is it 'fourthed'. Consistency would be nice.

Having to make up 90 minutes of shorts would probably deter me from watching shorts for the challenges. I would like 60/40 to be kept.
For what it worth, I feel the same.
User avatar
flavo5000
Posts: 4131
Joined: July 10th, 2014, 6:00 am
Location: Arkansas, USA
Contact:

#53

Post by flavo5000 »

I'd honestly be happy if we just standardized on TV specifically and left shorts and movies the way they are. TV episodes seems to be the most wildly variable from challenge to challenge. Movies and shorts have followed the 40/60 rule for at least the six or seven years I've been doing challenges.
User avatar
sol
Donator
Posts: 10814
Joined: February 3rd, 2017, 7:00 am
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#54

Post by sol »

flavo5000 wrote: November 18th, 2020, 8:53 pm I'd honestly be happy if we just standardized on TV specifically and left shorts and movies the way they are. TV episodes seems to be the most wildly variable from challenge to challenge. Movies and shorts have followed the 40/60 rule for at least the six or seven years I've been doing challenges.
Well, my own personal preference would be to either ban individual TV episodes or make 120 minutes of them worth 1 point since it's soo easy to binge watch a TV show compared sitting through an entire movie. I have, however, listened to feedback over the past few months and with some small countries having limited filmic output outside of TV, and with other hosts saying that they want to treat episodes as short films, I have arrived at the conclusion that they could have some place in the challenge series so long as they aren't automatically worth more than movies.

If we want a situation in which TV episodes are eligible, then the points gained for watching them needs to be fair. Like it or not, the average running time for a feature film is not 60 minutes. Sure, there are some that are around that mark, but the vast majority are 90 minutes or longer, so the points gained from watching them should be similar to watching the same minutes of a feature film. I mean, I guess we could go for 80 minutes = 1 point, but 60 minutes is certainly unfair. We shouldn't have a situation in which somebody who watches 105 hours of TV episodes beats somebody who spends at least 120 hours watching feature length films.

It probably should be noted that most of the resistance against changing the 40/60 rule seems to come from those who want to still have 1pt for an hour of shorts. I think that leaves us with two distinct possibilities:

- Make it 80 or 90 minutes for anything non-movie (easier for hosts to keep track of; allows you to mix points between shorts and episodes)

- Make it 90 minutes for TV/miniseries episodes but keep short films at 60 minutes (slightly harder to keep track of; mixing between shorts and episodes not possible)

I do think there needs to be a change here somewhere. The TV episode issue has been divisive for far too long and to repeat what blocho has said elsewhere, it all about finding an equivalency between average film length and episode length. And the average film watched for any given challenge is a lot longer than 60 minutes. Let's keep this fair.
Former IMDb message boards user // iCM | IMDb | Letterboxd | My top 750 films // Long live the new flesh!
Image Image Image
User avatar
maxwelldeux
Donator
Posts: 8925
Joined: June 7th, 2016, 6:00 am
Location: Seattle-ish, WA, USA
Contact:

#55

Post by maxwelldeux »

sol wrote: November 18th, 2020, 11:24 pm - Make it 90 minutes for TV/miniseries episodes but keep short films at 60 minutes (slightly harder to keep track of; mixing between shorts and episodes not possible)

I do think there needs to be a change here somewhere. The TV episode issue has been divisive for far too long and to repeat what blocho has said elsewhere, it all about finding an equivalency between average film length and episode length. And the average film watched for any given challenge is a lot longer than 60 minutes. Let's keep this fair.
The 90 vs. 60 rule is the worst possible option proposed. Requires tracking different types differently.

And in every single challenge, the same rules apply to everyone. Just because some people choose not to watch TV doesn't mean it's not "fair."
User avatar
frbrown
Posts: 6573
Joined: November 1st, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#56

Post by frbrown »

sol wrote: November 18th, 2020, 11:24 pm It probably should be noted that most of the resistance against changing the 40/60 rule seems to come from those who want to still have 1pt for an hour of shorts. I think that leaves us with two distinct possibilities:

- Make it 80 or 90 minutes for anything non-movie (easier for hosts to keep track of; allows you to mix points between shorts and episodes)

- Make it 90 minutes for TV/miniseries episodes but keep short films at 60 minutes (slightly harder to keep track of; mixing between shorts and episodes not possible)
The bolded part is something I hope we can avoid. I'd prefer the same rules for shorts and episodes (and the ability to combine them), whether it's 60 or 90 minutes.
User avatar
maxwelldeux
Donator
Posts: 8925
Joined: June 7th, 2016, 6:00 am
Location: Seattle-ish, WA, USA
Contact:

#57

Post by maxwelldeux »

frbrown wrote: November 19th, 2020, 12:49 am
sol wrote: November 18th, 2020, 11:24 pm It probably should be noted that most of the resistance against changing the 40/60 rule seems to come from those who want to still have 1pt for an hour of shorts. I think that leaves us with two distinct possibilities:

- Make it 80 or 90 minutes for anything non-movie (easier for hosts to keep track of; allows you to mix points between shorts and episodes)

- Make it 90 minutes for TV/miniseries episodes but keep short films at 60 minutes (slightly harder to keep track of; mixing between shorts and episodes not possible)
The bolded part is something I hope we can avoid. I'd prefer the same rules for shorts and episodes (and the ability to combine them), whether it's 60 or 90 minutes.
Agreed - that's why that's the worst option.
User avatar
sebby
Posts: 6738
Joined: July 4th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#58

Post by sebby »

Seems clear most people want to keep the 40/60 rule.

Look, we've been doing challenges for nearly a decade; howe often has someoen abused TV/miniseries and shorts to game the system and win (or come close to winning) a challenge? This is starting to seem more like an artificial problem than an actual problem.

A compromise I would offer is keep 40/60 as is, but up anything including non-miniseries TV to 75 -- with th e option of padding that 75 number with shorts if need be.

So in that scenario:

40+ min feature = 1 pt
60 mins of shorts/miniseries eps = 1 pt
75 mins of tv only = 1 pt
75 mins of some combo of tv/mini/shorts = 1 pt

Thoughts?
User avatar
sol
Donator
Posts: 10814
Joined: February 3rd, 2017, 7:00 am
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#59

Post by sol »

sebby wrote: November 19th, 2020, 2:24 amA compromise I would offer is keep 40/60 as is, but up anything including non-miniseries TV to 75 -- with th e option of padding that 75 number with shorts if need be.

So in that scenario:

40+ min feature = 1 pt
60 mins of shorts/miniseries eps = 1 pt
75 mins of tv only = 1 pt
75 mins of some combo of tv/mini/shorts = 1 pt

Thoughts?
I would honestly prefer 90 rather 75 because it's a bit of push to say that the average film out there is only 75 minutes long... but I could live with that compromise. :thumbsup:

How about these then for two possibilities? (acknowledging that there is still some push to weight anything not-a-film equally)

OPTION A
40+ min feature = 1 pt
60 mins of shorts/miniseries eps = 1 pt
75 mins of tv only = 1 pt
75 mins of some combo of tv/mini/shorts = 1 pt

OPTION B
40+ min feature = 1 pt
75 mins of shorts/miniseries eps = 1 pt
75 mins of tv only = 1 pt
75 mins of some combo of tv/mini/shorts = 1 pt

I could live with either of those two options and would be fine putting those up to vote since both those systems address the need for equivalency between TV episodes and movies.

maxwelldeux wrote: November 19th, 2020, 12:07 am In every single challenge, the same rules apply to everyone. Just because some people choose not to watch TV doesn't mean it's not "fair."
I disagree with that. I mean yes, we all have the option to binge watch television shows to get through the challenges. That's not what is in question. What is in question is the way that this tracked. If 1 point represents a viewing of an average film out there, 1 point should also represent an equivalent time spent watching TV shows. I can't see any compelling reason not to raise the bar higher than 60 minutes other than tradition. It certainly makes the playing field more level by adjusting the system.
Former IMDb message boards user // iCM | IMDb | Letterboxd | My top 750 films // Long live the new flesh!
Image Image Image
User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 6176
Joined: December 23rd, 2012, 7:00 am
Contact:

#60

Post by Onderhond »

maxwelldeux wrote: November 19th, 2020, 12:07 am Just because some people choose not to watch TV doesn't mean it's not "fair."
I watch TV, but I don't expect to log those views in an ICheckMovies forum challenge.

This whole TV debate seems to be centered around somewhat compulsive logging/challenge behavior. There's nothing wrong with watching TV and not being able to log that in a forum challenge. If people feel there is, it might be time to take a little step back?
User avatar
albajos
Posts: 6942
Joined: May 24th, 2016, 6:00 am
Location: Norway
Contact:

#61

Post by albajos »

I really don't see the point in changing it. Now you need to update both boards, including all previous challenges to the new system?

The old system is fine as it is. It's easy to update, and easy correct if a score is incorrect.
With more values it takes a longer time to update a new system. Time well spent watching movies instead.

The simplicity of the current one, and the non-competiveness of it, just makes it more fun.
User avatar
sol
Donator
Posts: 10814
Joined: February 3rd, 2017, 7:00 am
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#62

Post by sol »

albajos wrote: November 19th, 2020, 9:52 am I really don't see the point in changing it. Now you need to update both boards, including all previous challenges to the new system?
We don't have to change the format of the leaderboard. It is just an option with maxwell retiring from the Challenge Olympics and the distinct possibility that I would unable to generate awards if I took over the leaderboard as-is in 2021.

If we did change system, the Olympics leaderboard would stay preserved as is. There wouldn't be any overall leaderboard to update. The only thing being tracked would be progress for the year every single year.
albajos wrote: November 19th, 2020, 9:52 am The old system is fine as it is. It's easy to update, and easy correct if a score is incorrect.
With more values it takes a longer time to update a new system. Time well spent watching movies instead.
There would actually be less values to add in if I switched to just tracking top 20 participants. With the current system, I need to include everyone's rank and score in each challenge and manually assign NASCAR style points. I anticipate that Option C would be less work for me, but I guess there is no way to know for sure if I haven't tried it.
albajos wrote: November 19th, 2020, 9:52 am The simplicity of the current one, and the non-competiveness of it, just makes it more fun.
I actually think the current leaderboard is super-competitive since it's all about trying to watch more films that the person(s) ahead of you to achieve one or two points more at the end of the Challenge. I like the idea of everybody in the top 2-5 and top 6-10 etc receiving the same points. I think it would personally reduce my own anxiety. If I don't do well in a Challenge in the current system, it could "cost" me 50 points; in the alternative system, it would only "cost" me 4 points at the most if I wanted to sit a challenge out.
Former IMDb message boards user // iCM | IMDb | Letterboxd | My top 750 films // Long live the new flesh!
Image Image Image
User avatar
peeptoad
Posts: 2580
Joined: February 4th, 2017, 7:00 am
Contact:

#63

Post by peeptoad »

Onderhond wrote: November 19th, 2020, 9:49 am
maxwelldeux wrote: November 19th, 2020, 12:07 am Just because some people choose not to watch TV doesn't mean it's not "fair."
I watch TV, but I don't expect to log those views in an ICheckMovies forum challenge.

This whole TV debate seems to be centered around somewhat compulsive logging/challenge behavior. There's nothing wrong with watching TV and not being able to log that in a forum challenge. If people feel there is, it might be time to take a little step back?
+1
User avatar
Prat
Posts: 652
Joined: May 4th, 2012, 6:00 am
Location: France
Contact:

#64

Post by Prat »

I don't participate much in challenges (or even the forum) but I really appreciate all the discussion here. I like the idea of points for win/top 5/top 10/top 20.
I recognize myself in what Sol just said. When I do participate in a challenge, I choose one in which I have a great interest in ; so I could watch a lot and have a high rank. But I would like to participate in others and everytime I'm like "well, if it's just for 5-10 films, why should I ?" (yeah, competitive, I know :lol: ) and this system of points for top 20/10 seems to me like a real incentive reason to participate in many challenges and, in the process, discover or go further in a theme/country/genre. Eventually, there will be more participants in some of the less popular challenges so it will be harder to achieve a good rank, but well, it's also a competition ^^

For shorts/TV/miniseries, I have no preference, really. It would be quite a challenge in itself to watch 90min of shorts for a point, but on the other hand if these are official shorts they're still official and "easy" checks... I would prefer that watching miniseries stays profitable in a challenge, because most of the time they are just one check on ICM ; during the TSPDT challenge this year, I took that into consideration and finally watched some miniseries because, by the system in the challenge, it was encouraged (so I watch Berlin Alexanderplatz, Les vampires, Out 1 and these were great discoveries).

If I had to choose, I like the 75min option with the possibility to combine short/mini/tv.
User avatar
cinephage
Donator
Posts: 4284
Joined: November 11th, 2011, 7:00 am
Contact:

#65

Post by cinephage »

sol wrote: November 18th, 2020, 11:24 pm Well, my own personal preference would be to either ban individual TV episodes or make 120 minutes of them worth 1 point since it's soo easy to binge watch a TV show compared sitting through an entire movie. I have, however, listened to feedback over the past few months and with some small countries having limited filmic output outside of TV, and with other hosts saying that they want to treat episodes as short films, I have arrived at the conclusion that they could have some place in the challenge series so long as they aren't automatically worth more than movies.
Just because you feel that way doesn't mean it should be imposed on others. I usually watch more films than TV, but find the challenges can be a good opportunity to catch up on TV. I also don't see a point in banning a program, which is the same as excluding those who indulge in them. Some day, I'll probably try to binge watch the tomb from the crypt tv series, and that will certainly occur in october. I would hate to see this get thrown out. It is neither convivial, nor inclusive. I don't participate in challenges to win, I consider there is nothing whatsoever sportive in watching films for long hours. There is, however, comfort in sharing reviews and having a collective activity with like-minded movie buffs.
sol wrote: November 18th, 2020, 11:24 pm We shouldn't have a situation in which somebody who watches 105 hours of TV episodes beats somebody who spends at least 120 hours watching feature length films.
That"s where the term "challenge" is misleading. I never win those challenges, but I've never been beat by anyone doing these games. This should be a cooperative, collective game, a mock competition, never a true one. i enjoy when others list tv-episodes, because it gives me ideas of things to watch, like all other titles. I feel your orientation conducts to give more respect to the challenger having sat in front of Satantango and an unworded despise for the one who watched the Simpsons. I don't subscribe to this position, and feel the previous way of counting points sort of discouraged that approach.

I don't mind adapting the rules of the competition, but this must be tread carefully, the cost of such changes shouldn't be the conviviality and good humor of those games.
User avatar
sol
Donator
Posts: 10814
Joined: February 3rd, 2017, 7:00 am
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#66

Post by sol »

cinephage wrote: November 19th, 2020, 11:14 am I also don't see a point in banning a program, which is the same as excluding those who indulge in them.
Um, same? :blink: As stated in the paragraph that you quoted, I originally came from the position of banning TV altogether, but have softened this stance through discussions with others. I'm okay with television being included. The only thing that I am advocating is that television episode watching and movie watching should have an equivalent number of points assigned to them. That's only fair.
cinephage wrote: November 19th, 2020, 11:14 am I don't mind adapting the rules of the competition, but this must be tread carefully, the cost of such changes shouldn't be the conviviality and good humor of those games.
Which is exactly why I putting this out as a discussion topic rather than making decisions myself. I think we have already reached some healthy compromise positions with sebby's suggestions. I don't see any reason why having 75 mins of TV = 1 pt will make the challenges less fun or interesting. It will make the challenges fairer though, which can only be a good thing.
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: 10814
Joined: February 3rd, 2017, 7:00 am
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#67

Post by sol »

peeptoad wrote: November 19th, 2020, 10:36 am
Onderhond wrote: November 19th, 2020, 9:49 am
maxwelldeux wrote: November 19th, 2020, 12:07 am Just because some people choose not to watch TV doesn't mean it's not "fair."
I watch TV, but I don't expect to log those views in an ICheckMovies forum challenge.

This whole TV debate seems to be centered around somewhat compulsive logging/challenge behavior. There's nothing wrong with watching TV and not being able to log that in a forum challenge. If people feel there is, it might be time to take a little step back?
+1
+ 2

Although as mentioned many times, I can accept TV being included in the challenges. In the interest of fairness though, 1 point of TV watching should be roughly equivalent to 1 point of movie watching. I think sebby's 75min suggestion goes a long way to achieving this while not being a dramatic enough shift in scoring to making watching TV less fun/interesting if one wishes to include it.
Former IMDb message boards user // iCM | IMDb | Letterboxd | My top 750 films // Long live the new flesh!
Image Image Image
User avatar
peeptoad
Posts: 2580
Joined: February 4th, 2017, 7:00 am
Contact:

#68

Post by peeptoad »

sol wrote: November 19th, 2020, 11:28 am
peeptoad wrote: November 19th, 2020, 10:36 am
Onderhond wrote: November 19th, 2020, 9:49 am
I watch TV, but I don't expect to log those views in an ICheckMovies forum challenge.

This whole TV debate seems to be centered around somewhat compulsive logging/challenge behavior. There's nothing wrong with watching TV and not being able to log that in a forum challenge. If people feel there is, it might be time to take a little step back?
+1
+ 2

Although as mentioned many times, I can accept TV being included in the challenges. In the interest of fairness though, 1 point of TV watching should be roughly equivalent to 1 point of movie watching. I think sebby's 75min suggestion goes a long way to achieving this while not being a dramatic enough shift in scoring to making watching TV less fun/interesting if one wishes to include it.
Yeah, I can accept it being included too; I took a little issue with the Animation month, but I'll rescind that feeling/issue and just plan on recreating Saturday Morning cartoons of my youth next time that one runs (if I partake at all). :D

Otherwise, I could care less about counting TV episodes for official challenges; I do watch the occasional ep of something or other, but have no intentions of counting that toward any kind of film total in a challenge. I'm not in these things to win em anyway... just want to watch more movies. Incidentally, there was at least one time (back in 2018 maybe) when a challenge or two was won by someone loading up on TV sitcoms. And it did rankle some at the time, but that's water under the bridge... and it doesn't bother me (personally) all that much in the grand scheme anyway. The way that TV series have changed over the last decade is also more in alignment with film anyway (e.g. The Queen's Gambit played out more like a miniseries vs. a TV series imho, since it had a clearly defined ending, but the ongoing/trickling nature of television shows is something that I typically don't care for).

The 75min suggestion for TV eps, shorts seems reasonable (and keeping the 60/40 for short films, miniseries).
User avatar
frbrown
Posts: 6573
Joined: November 1st, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#69

Post by frbrown »

sol wrote: November 19th, 2020, 9:31 am How about these then for two possibilities? (acknowledging that there is still some push to weight anything not-a-film equally)

OPTION A
40+ min feature = 1 pt
60 mins of shorts/miniseries eps = 1 pt
75 mins of tv only = 1 pt
75 mins of some combo of tv/mini/shorts = 1 pt

OPTION B
40+ min feature = 1 pt
75 mins of shorts/miniseries eps = 1 pt
75 mins of tv only = 1 pt
75 mins of some combo of tv/mini/shorts = 1 pt
I prefer option B, because it's simpler, with the same rules for everything, and with no need to differentiate between series and mini-series.
blocho
Donator
Posts: 4418
Joined: July 20th, 2014, 6:00 am
Contact:

#70

Post by blocho »

I don't know why 75 minutes has become an option. I know it's a compromise, but 90 minutes was my proposed compromise between those who want 60 minutes = 1 point and those who want 120 minutes = 1 point (not to mention those who don't want to allow any TV). The difference between 60 versus 75 minutes of TV is negligible enough that I really don't care.

Since there's much disagreement, I would propose that we move ahead with a poll based on the following three options:

Option 1
90 minutes = 1 point for all TV episodes, miniseries episodes, and shorts

Option 2
60 minutes = 1 point for all shorts
90 minutes = 1 point for all TV and miniseries episodes

Option 3 (our current system)
60 minutes = 1 point for all shorts
The host chooses what they want for TV and miniseries episodes

Option 1 is my proposed change. Option 3 is what we have been doing for the past several years. Option 2 is a compromise between the two. We can debate some more, but I don't think this getting resolved without a poll.
User avatar
sol
Donator
Posts: 10814
Joined: February 3rd, 2017, 7:00 am
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#71

Post by sol »

blocho wrote: November 19th, 2020, 3:34 pmSince there's much disagreement, I would propose that we move ahead with a poll based on the following three options:

Option 1
90 minutes = 1 point for all TV episodes, miniseries episodes, and shorts

Option 2
60 minutes = 1 point for all shorts
90 minutes = 1 point for all TV and miniseries episodes

Option 3 (our current system)
60 minutes = 1 point for all shorts
The host chooses what they want for TV and miniseries episodes

Option 1 is my proposed change. Option 3 is what we have been doing for the past several years. Option 2 is a compromise between the two. We can debate some more, but I don't think this getting resolved without a poll.
I'm okay with putting this forward in a poll. What do others think?

It seems to a shame to maybe go down the Option 3 pathway after all this debate, but I guess it might be necessary if we can't agree on how many minutes of television episodes are equivalent to the average length of a one-point movie. :shrug:
Former IMDb message boards user // iCM | IMDb | Letterboxd | My top 750 films // Long live the new flesh!
Image Image Image
User avatar
flavo5000
Posts: 4131
Joined: July 10th, 2014, 6:00 am
Location: Arkansas, USA
Contact:

#72

Post by flavo5000 »

frbrown wrote: November 19th, 2020, 3:01 pm
sol wrote: November 19th, 2020, 9:31 am How about these then for two possibilities? (acknowledging that there is still some push to weight anything not-a-film equally)

OPTION A
40+ min feature = 1 pt
60 mins of shorts/miniseries eps = 1 pt
75 mins of tv only = 1 pt
75 mins of some combo of tv/mini/shorts = 1 pt

OPTION B
40+ min feature = 1 pt
75 mins of shorts/miniseries eps = 1 pt
75 mins of tv only = 1 pt
75 mins of some combo of tv/mini/shorts = 1 pt
I prefer option B, because it's simpler, with the same rules for everything, and with no need to differentiate between series and mini-series.
Same. I think 90 minutes of shorts just feels too long to me.

and blocho, the shift moved away from 90 because several people chimed in that they didn't see a reason to change the rules at all. And 90 doesn't seem like a compromise between 60 and 120 to me because very few people would advocate for 120 minutes in general. The average length of a film definitely does not clock in at 120 minutes unless we're looking at epics or superhero movies. Making shorts 90 minutes would definitely hobble some challenges. In particular animation where many countries' output are primarily shorts. But also some of the more specialized challenges like Run the Director and Run the Actor. Having shorts that high would basically eliminate the possibility of even doing some fairly significant actors and directors, or severely limiting what could be watched for them like Jean Vigo or Kenneth Anger.
User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 10662
Joined: December 29th, 2012, 7:00 am
Contact:

#73

Post by Lonewolf2003 »

@sol; Yeah, I would also be disappointed if we get back to the host deciding the rules per challenge. I thought this whole discussion was to make the rules uniform in all challenges and to make the run-time consistent for everything non-movie, so it's just easier to keep track of for yourself and the hosts. And totally not about taking the viewing pleasures of others away, and also not about making it more or less easy to compete in challenge.

I would propose an option 4 in blocho's poll:
60 minutes = 1 point for all TV episodes, miniseries episodes, and shorts.

Which would by my choice, cause I do agree that 90 min for non-movie sounds too long.
User avatar
RogerTheMovieManiac88
Posts: 1962
Joined: February 4th, 2017, 7:00 am
Location: Westmeath, Ireland
Contact:

#74

Post by RogerTheMovieManiac88 »

60 minutes = 1 point for all TV episodes, miniseries episodes, and shorts.

I like this, due to it offering uniformity and keeping the 60 minutes.

I hardly ever watch TV episodes/series for the challenges but if someone wishes to watch 2 or 3 episodes for a point, that seems fine to me.
That's all, folks!
User avatar
sol
Donator
Posts: 10814
Joined: February 3rd, 2017, 7:00 am
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#75

Post by sol »

Lonewolf2003 wrote: November 19th, 2020, 5:17 pm @sol; Yeah, I would also be disappointed if we get back to the host deciding the rules per challenge. I thought this whole discussion was to make the rules uniform in all challenges and to make the run-time consistent for everything non-movie, so it's just easier to keep track of for yourself and the hosts. And totally not about taking the viewing pleasures of others away, and also not about making it more or less easy to compete in challenge.

I would propose an option 4 in blocho's poll:
60 minutes = 1 point for all TV episodes, miniseries episodes, and shorts.
This isn't an option because one of the points of this discussion is to have an amount of minutes for 1 point worth of TV episodes that is similar to the average runtime of a film.

I can, however, add this as a fourth option:

75 minutes = 1 point for all TV episodes, miniseries episodes, and shorts. (maybe 80 because that's equivalent to two 40 minute episodes)

I'll see if I can pull a poll together some time after work today (gimme 10-12 hours) depending on what other feedback I get on this matter in this next few hours.
Former IMDb message boards user // iCM | IMDb | Letterboxd | My top 750 films // Long live the new flesh!
Image Image Image
psychotronicbeatnik
Donator
Posts: 1919
Joined: February 4th, 2017, 7:00 am
Location: Oregon
Contact:

#76

Post by psychotronicbeatnik »

Lonewolf2003 wrote: November 19th, 2020, 5:17 pm @sol; Yeah, I would also be disappointed if we get back to the host deciding the rules per challenge. I thought this whole discussion was to make the rules uniform in all challenges and to make the run-time consistent for everything non-movie, so it's just easier to keep track of for yourself and the hosts. And totally not about taking the viewing pleasures of others away, and also not about making it more or less easy to compete in challenge.

I would propose an option 4 in blocho's poll:
60 minutes = 1 point for all TV episodes, miniseries episodes, and shorts.

Which would by my choice, cause I do agree that 90 min for non-movie sounds too long.
I second Lonewolf on this. There has been a lot of comment already that many participants would like to keep the system we have but make it the standard and do away with the constant tinkering for each challenge that has been engaged in in by hosts. This option should be on the ballot.
User avatar
sebby
Posts: 6738
Joined: July 4th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#77

Post by sebby »

I don't think minseries eps or shorts should be subject to the same rules as TV. Plenty of miniseries are cinematic in nature, and as such 40+ min (length of a feature) should = 1 pt IMO. Good points have already been made about why increasing mins required for shorts to = 1 pt is no t a brat idea .

Perhaps we should have two polls: one in which literally every possivle option is made avalilble to vote on, with people allowed to choose their top 3 or 4 options, and then the top 3 or 4 from that poll making up a final winner tak e all poll.
User avatar
sebby
Posts: 6738
Joined: July 4th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#78

Post by sebby »

I would also support a 60 minutes = 1 point for all TV episodes, miniseries episodes, and shorts option now that i think about it. Simple as we can get to keep it at 60 mins across the board, and increases the threshold to get a point over features by 50%.
User avatar
Onderhond
Posts: 6176
Joined: December 23rd, 2012, 7:00 am
Contact:

#79

Post by Onderhond »

3 votes of TV-favoring and/or short people should equal 1 point whereas 1 vote of a film-favoring person also equals one point. Just to make sure our forum keeps a film focus.
User avatar
RogerTheMovieManiac88
Posts: 1962
Joined: February 4th, 2017, 7:00 am
Location: Westmeath, Ireland
Contact:

#80

Post by RogerTheMovieManiac88 »

Onderhond wrote: November 20th, 2020, 6:05 am 3 votes of TV-favoring and/or short people should equal 1 point whereas 1 vote of a film-favoring person also equals one point. Just to make sure our forum keeps a film focus.
I'm not saying this because I want to splurge on hours of TV. I just think it makes sense to allow those few users who are interested in TV fare (in a perfectly reasonable manner from what I've seen; the only ''abuse'' I can recall is from the Ch/HK/Tw Challenge a couple of years ago) to work in the TV they are interested in exploring, for whatever challenge it might be.

I don't believe film watchers on here want to abuse the challenge rules.
That's all, folks!
Post Reply