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: Coming of Age (Results), DtC - Ratings (Results), 1933 (May 12th), 1970s (May 29th)
Challenges: Japan, Mystery/Thriller, Western
Film of the Week: La donna del lago, June nominations (May 28th)

2021 Challenges: Leaderboard and Rules Discussion

User avatar
sol
Donator
Posts: 11444
Joined: February 3rd, 2017, 7:00 am
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

2021 Challenges: Leaderboard and Rules Discussion

#1

Post by sol »

Image

2021 Challenges: Leaderboard and Rules Discussion

A few weeks ago, we agreed upon a Schedule for the 2021 Challenges after voting on a number of options.

This is a thread where you can discussing rule changes and ideas going forward. There has been some heated discussion this year with what to do with the television episode conundrum, whether individual TV episodes should even be eligible for Challenges and if so, what the restrictions on duration should be. This is the perfect thread to put any ideas or suggestions forward if you have any.

The other thing we need to discuss is what we want to do about the Official Challenge leaderboard going forward.

As most of you are aware, maxwell recently announced that he is going to retire from hosting the Challenge Olympics at the end of 2020.

With nobody else volunteering to take on the project themselves -- or at least not yet -- I have stated that I would be prepared to still track challenge progress next year, but I would be keen to introduce an alternate system that recognises Winners, Top 5 Finishes and Top 10 Finishers.

Under such a system, a win would be worth 3 points, a top-5 worth 2 points and a top-10 worth 1 point. It is my feeling that this will still provide a competitive edge next year (for those who want that sort of thing) while also making it more achievable for casual participants to get their name on the leaderboard. It would also be my hope that the less competitive nature of the alternate leaderboard would be lead to a healthier and less "bloodthirsty" competition since only two points will separate 1st from 10th place.

If the appetite isn't there for my alternate leaderboard idea -- and if nobody else wants to take the Challenge Olympics on -- I suppose I could continue the leaderboard as we have done since 2017 and just present it without any awards. That wouldn't be my first preference, but I'm keen to hear feedback.
Former IMDb message boards user // iCM | IMDb | Letterboxd | My top 750 films // Long live the new flesh!
Image Image Image
User avatar
jeroeno
Posts: 3769
Joined: June 22nd, 2011, 6:00 am
Location: Valkenswaard, The Netherlands
Contact:

#2

Post by jeroeno »

If you want to change the point system anyway perhaps I can add this idea into the mix : instead of counting the number of watches, why not count the actual runtime of the things you watch. That solves your short, mini-series, tv-episodes etc. problem AND perhaps people will watch longer movies this way.
User avatar
sol
Donator
Posts: 11444
Joined: February 3rd, 2017, 7:00 am
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#3

Post by sol »

jeroeno wrote: November 15th, 2020, 2:48 pm If you want to change the point system anyway perhaps I can add this idea into the mix : instead of counting the number of watches, why not count the actual runtime of the things you watch. That solves your short, mini-series, tv-episodes etc. problem AND perhaps people will watch longer movies this way.
It's an interesting idea, but ultimately I think it would just make it harder for users to participate and for users to host.

At the moment, it's fairly easy to host a challenge, because all you are doing is increasing numbers, often only by 1 or 2 at a time. Under the runtime system, hosts would need to get out the calculator and add up the durations, which is okay, not too hard if it's you or me posting, but some participants post their watches in batches of ten or eleven. I just see it as a very daunting prospect as host. We could of course tell participants that in order to participate they must add up their own runtimes or else their watches won't be included - but this doesn't seem a very inviting way of getting casual participants to contribute. I mean, adding in runtime information is nothing too daunting for me, but as host I would refuse to look such information up, and to be honest, I have had enough trouble trying to remind participants to include country info in the regional challenges that I have hosted. I can only imagine the dramas if I had to keep sending out reminders in every single challenge I hosted about runtime information. But hmm, basically the only way I see this working is by forcing everybody who wants to participate to manage and keeping add to their own culminative runtime. I mean, it's doable, but I don't know if it is worth the extra stress.
Former IMDb message boards user // iCM | IMDb | Letterboxd | My top 750 films // Long live the new flesh!
Image Image Image
User avatar
blueboybob
Donator
Posts: 2518
Joined: March 11th, 2013, 6:00 am
Location: DC
Contact:

#4

Post by blueboybob »

I most likely won't be competing next year (or at least like this year). But I agree 100% with both of these suggestions.
blocho
Donator
Posts: 4625
Joined: July 20th, 2014, 6:00 am
Contact:

#5

Post by blocho »

I also support moving to a system based on runtime. My suggestion is that 90 minutes equals one point. The motivation for this change is to eliminate the preferential system we have been using thus far in which movies earn one point if they are at least 40 minutes (but nothing extra if they are 120 minutes or 180 minutes or longer), and episodes are valued differently based on the preferences of the host. As a host, I've experimented with awarding a point for 60 minutes, 90 minutes, and 120 minutes of TV/miniseries episodes. I've also had a different system for miniseries episodes versus episodes of longer-lasting series. Whatever system I've used, someone is always unhappy. I think a new system (let's call it the "runtime system") will provide consistency and simplicity and eliminate the favoritism of one format over another.

FAQ

Won't this be too difficult to administer?
All participants would need to do is list the runtime in each post. As someone who has hosted a bunch over the past year, I can say it's very little extra work for me to add a column to my spreadsheet for runtime. If participants want to make it easier on the host, they could keep a cumulative runtime tally in each post they make.

But TV is less challenging or easier to binge
TV has been allowed in most challenges since I've been on this forum. If it's allowed, I don't think it should be treated as something lesser. I hasten to add that I'm not much of a TV watcher myself. But I don't think my personal preferences should dictate how the challenge works for others.

What if we don't want TV in a certain challenge?
Some hosts have banned TV from a specific challenge. I don't think that has to stop with the runtime system. If the host thinks TV, for whatever reason, doesn't belong, they should make that argument ahead of time in the "future challenges" thread, and it can be discussed on a case-by-case basis.
blocho
Donator
Posts: 4625
Joined: July 20th, 2014, 6:00 am
Contact:

#6

Post by blocho »

I should add that even if people don't want the runtime system, let's at least decide on a consistent, simpler system. Something like 90 minutes = one point for TV episodes, miniseries episodes, and shorts. Ninety minutes is about the average runtime of a feature, so there's some rough equivalency.
User avatar
frbrown
Posts: 6640
Joined: November 1st, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#7

Post by frbrown »

sol wrote: November 15th, 2020, 11:20 am Under such a system, a win would be worth 3 points, a top-5 worth 2 points and a top-10 worth 1 point. It is my feeling that this will still provide a competitive edge next year (for those who want that sort of thing) while also making it more achievable for casual participants to get their name on the leaderboard. It would also be my hope that the less competitive nature of the alternate leaderboard would be lead to a healthier and less "bloodthirsty" competition since only two points will separate 1st from 10th place.
But finishing out of the top 10 gets you zero points. Could this make the competition more "bloodthirsty", not less?
User avatar
maxwelldeux
Donator
Posts: 8991
Joined: June 7th, 2016, 6:00 am
Location: Seattle-ish, WA, USA
Contact:

#8

Post by maxwelldeux »

sol wrote: November 15th, 2020, 11:20 am Under such a system, a win would be worth 3 points, a top-5 worth 2 points and a top-10 worth 1 point. It is my feeling that this will still provide a competitive edge next year (for those who want that sort of thing) while also making it more achievable for casual participants to get their name on the leaderboard. It would also be my hope that the less competitive nature of the alternate leaderboard would be lead to a healthier and less "bloodthirsty" competition since only two points will separate 1st from 10th place.
Well, here's the table comparing the results of the scoring systems based on 2020 Challenge Data:
Spoiler
Person New Scoring Old Scoring RankNew RankOld
blueboybob 56 789 1 1
flavo5000 55 779.5 2 2
sol 49 763.5 3 3
jdidaco 47 747 4 4
psychotronicbeatnik 25 354 5 15
Traveller 20 278 6 19
Mario Gaborović 19 207 7 25
OldAle1 19 607 7 5
Obgeoff 14 369 9 12
AB537 13 470 10 6
allisoncm 13 439.5 10 9
jeroeno 13 332.5 10 16
72aicm 9 175.5 13 29
ororama 9 444.5 13 8
RogerTheMovieManiac88 9 360 13 13
Lonewolf2003 7 355.5 16 14
maxwelldeux 7 461 16 7
PUNQ 7 120.5 16 34
St. Gloede 7 187.5 16 28
peeptoad 6 274 20 20
AssOnFire 5 190 21 27
blocho 5 312.5 21 17
hurluberlu 5 408 21 11
frbrown 4 212.5 24 24
albajos 3 101.5 25 38
cinephage 3 417 25 10
jajusu 3 30 25 70
lineuphere 3 83 25 42
nimimerkillinen 3 129.5 25 32
sebby 3 283.5 25 18
zzzorf 3 226 25 22
adwest 2 88 32 41
Daviddoes 2 121 32 33
erde 2 40 32 62
funkybusiness 2 64.5 32 50
India Istanbul 2 94 32 40
Kublai Khan 2 80 32 43
Mate_cosido 2 47.5 32 56
Melvelet 2 174 32 30
mjf314 2 53.5 32 53
morrison-dylan-fan 2 159 32 31
Onderhond 2 112 32 37
Prat 2 25 32 78
redcard29 2 35 32 67
sortile9io 2 26 32 76
vortexsurfer 2 252 32 21
zuma 2 29 32 72
1SO 1 47 48 57
burneyfan 1 79 48 44
ChrisReynolds 1 119.5 48 36
Cinepolis 1 58 48 52
Fergenaprido 1 28.5 48 73
klaus78 1 120.5 48 34
mathiasa 1 66.5 48 49
Perception de Ambiguity 1 25.5 48 77
Straka 1 40.5 48 61
tourdesb 1 22.5 48 79
VincentPrice 1 225 48 23
wasabi 1 36 48 66
weirdboy 1 70.5 48 47
3eyes 0 28.5 61 73
AdamH 0 17 61 85
beavis 0 48 61 55
bentoga 0 5.5 61 97
clemmetarey 0 27.5 61 75
connordenney 0 59.5 61 51
Coryn 0 16 61 87
DareDaniel 0 5 61 99
drayton_cross 0 46 61 58
DudeLanez 0 30 61 70
Ebbywebby 0 31 61 69
explorer95 0 11 61 93
fear of 13 0 5.5 61 97
filmbantha 0 75 61 45
Good_Will_Harding 0 39 61 64
greenhorg 0 19 61 82
GruesomeTwosome 0 11.5 61 92
Harco 0 16 61 87
insomnius 0 18.5 61 84
jal90 0 46 61 58
John Milton 0 12 61 91
kingink 0 38 61 65
Knaldskalle 0 22.5 61 79
Lakigigar 0 3 61 101
Leopardi 0 40 61 62
Lilarcor 0 67 61 48
Local Hero 0 15.5 61 89
matthewscott8 0 3 61 101
max-scl 0 3 61 101
mightysparks 0 74 61 46
Mochard 0 95.5 61 39
Nathan Treadway 0 7 61 95
outdoorcats 0 17 61 85
pitchorneirda 0 20.5 61 81
RBG 0 19 61 82
rnilsson19 0 13.5 61 90
sacmersault 0 9 61 94
Samar 0 7 61 95
sennaho 0 3.5 61 100
SeVKiTT 0 1 61 104
sheikofhyrule 0 48.5 61 54
shugs 0 198.5 61 26
Tarris1 0 31.5 61 68
Teproc 0 42.5 61 60
My fear is that this updating scoring is going to have the opposite effect you're intending - the scoring explicitly rewards winning/placing high in the challenges and discourages any casual player from playing if they don't think they can crack the top ten. For example, this month I know I'm not going to finish Top 10 in either Noir or Mexico, so my incentive would be to just stop watching anything for those two challenges and go whole-hog into Unofficial.

A few interesting facts to note about the changes:
- The rank-order correlation between the two leaderboards is 0.82, so fairly high, but some pretty interesting differences.
- shugs, who is sitting at the 75th percentile (26th of 104 total) with the current leaderboard, would have zero points with the updated scoring.
- This rewards playing hard in one only challenge/month (c.f., Traveller), counterpoint (c.f., cinephage)
- This will probably incentivize more Country participation (c.f., Mario)
- 44/104 challenge participants would have zero points under the new system
User avatar
maxwelldeux
Donator
Posts: 8991
Joined: June 7th, 2016, 6:00 am
Location: Seattle-ish, WA, USA
Contact:

#9

Post by maxwelldeux »

blocho wrote: November 15th, 2020, 7:02 pm I also support moving to a system based on runtime. My suggestion is that 90 minutes equals one point. The motivation for this change is to eliminate the preferential system we have been using thus far in which movies earn one point if they are at least 40 minutes (but nothing extra if they are 120 minutes or 180 minutes or longer), and episodes are valued differently based on the preferences of the host. As a host, I've experimented with awarding a point for 60 minutes, 90 minutes, and 120 minutes of TV/miniseries episodes. I've also had a different system for miniseries episodes versus episodes of longer-lasting series. Whatever system I've used, someone is always unhappy. I think a new system (let's call it the "runtime system") will provide consistency and simplicity and eliminate the favoritism of one format over another.

FAQ

Won't this be too difficult to administer?
All participants would need to do is list the runtime in each post. As someone who has hosted a bunch over the past year, I can say it's very little extra work for me to add a column to my spreadsheet for runtime. If participants want to make it easier on the host, they could keep a cumulative runtime tally in each post they make.

But TV is less challenging or easier to binge
TV has been allowed in most challenges since I've been on this forum. If it's allowed, I don't think it should be treated as something lesser. I hasten to add that I'm not much of a TV watcher myself. But I don't think my personal preferences should dictate how the challenge works for others.

What if we don't want TV in a certain challenge?
Some hosts have banned TV from a specific challenge. I don't think that has to stop with the runtime system. If the host thinks TV, for whatever reason, doesn't belong, they should make that argument ahead of time in the "future challenges" thread, and it can be discussed on a case-by-case basis.
Personally, I'm against a runtime-based scoring system. To me, it devolves into "who has the most time" and removes any of the gamesmanship from the challenges. It's also a seismic shift scoring and would pretty well render comparisons with historical challenges useless.

It also bring into question credits... if you turn off the film as the credits start rolling, do you get to count the full run-time of the film? What if your disc skipped and you missed several minutes? What if you watched the extended cut that doesn't have a time listed on IMDB?

And it incentivizes shitty film watching. Want to rack up points? Throw on a long movie you've see and/or don't care about while you work/eat/clean/etc. Not that this isn't already an issue, but if I could count Endgame for 181 minutes while paying as little attention to it as I can justify, I would.
User avatar
flavo5000
Posts: 4530
Joined: July 10th, 2014, 6:00 am
Location: Arkansas, USA
Contact:

#10

Post by flavo5000 »

Personally I'm not a fan of the runtime system at all. It seems like a bigger hassle to keep track of for both the participants and judges as well as the points max brings up around what exactly constitutes the "full runtime" as well as the point around rendering all previous challenge score comparison moot.

Plus we actually have more quirky challenges next year like Run the Director including Run the Actor and the Movements around the world. It seems like this arbitrary 90 minutes would make it much more difficult to plan for those kinds of challenges in particular (or am I the only one that doesn't obsessively select movies based on their runtime?).

On the subject of TV, I will say I'm not AS negative on TV as I was last year. Looking at the challenges this year, I haven't really seen anyone horribly abuse the TV rules like last year. Having said that, on the challenges that do allow TV (and I definitely don't think all of them should like Unofficial), I would support a higher runtime total to count as a point for episodes (60 to 90 minutes probably). Having someone watch 12 40-minute episodes count for the same amount of points as watching 12 2-hour movies seems pretty unbalanced.

Maybe something a compromise like if any watch whether it be movie, TV episode, short film, etc. falls under 60 minutes, then require addition watches to add up to 60 minutes like we do with shorts already, rather than the 40 minutes for movies and TV cut off we have today for most challenges.

At the end of the day, I think if people wanted to watch longer movies more, the Long Film Challenge would've gotten the votes to become an official next year.

On how the leaderboard is totalled, honestly I don't really care too much on that point. As insane as it is, I actually don't really do the challenges for the competition aspect, more just to give me a focus on what to watch. It does sound like the "only the top 10 get points" rule would alienate people though and reduce participation. If anything, I would play up and maybe create more variety in different kinds of awards like max has been doing with all the monthly recognitions. Come up with some more awards than would reward people who may play differently than somebody like me who just watches a shitload of movies every month (fanciest write-ups, coolest screenshots, etc. that may encourage folks to comment more too). Although I understand that could be tougher to keep track of for sure .
Obgeoff
Posts: 627
Joined: May 29th, 2019, 9:23 am
Contact:

#11

Post by Obgeoff »

My suggestion would be to base the overall points on number of points scored as a way to increase participation across challenges and not to scare off people who won't score ~100 in a single challenge in month.

5 points in a single challenge - 1 overall point
15 points in a single challenge - 2 overall points
30 points in a single challenge - 3 overall points
Include 1 or 2 bonus points for challenge winner or Top 3/5/10.

that way there is a manageable number of points available to all to score well regardless of how many others watch and there is incentive to be competitive too.
Image
User avatar
shugs
Donator
Posts: 740
Joined: November 15th, 2014, 7:00 am
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Contact:

#12

Post by shugs »

Not a fan of the runtime system either. As a host it would be a pain in the butt to make sure everyone's runtime is right, and as a participant that doesn't care about the leaderboards, I'd just participate "unranked" instead of tallying all my runtimes.

+1 on the "X minutes of anything that's not a feature = 1 point" idea. I think the current rules are pretty convoluted and this would simplify things. 90 minutes sounds like a good middle ground.
User avatar
Coryn
Posts: 1608
Joined: December 5th, 2018, 2:53 pm
Contact:

#13

Post by Coryn »

Obgeoff wrote: November 15th, 2020, 8:35 pm My suggestion would be to base the overall points on number of points scored as a way to increase participation across challenges and not to scare off people who won't score ~100 in a single challenge in month.

5 points in a single challenge - 1 overall point
15 points in a single challenge - 2 overall points
30 points in a single challenge - 3 overall points
Include 1 or 2 bonus points for challenge winner or Top 3/5/10.

that way there is a manageable number of points available to all to score well regardless of how many others watch and there is incentive to be competitive too.
I like this idea too. As someone who is competitive and wants to watch and explore movies from all kinds of genres but lacks the time to do it so this would be interesting.
I saved Latin, what did you ever do ?
User avatar
sol
Donator
Posts: 11444
Joined: February 3rd, 2017, 7:00 am
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#14

Post by sol »

blocho wrote: November 15th, 2020, 7:03 pm If people don't want the runtime system, let's at least decide on a consistent, simpler system. Something like 90 minutes = one point for TV episodes, miniseries episodes, and shorts. Ninety minutes is about the average runtime of a feature, so there's some rough equivalency.
This sound fair to me.
flavo5000 wrote: November 15th, 2020, 8:35 pmOn the challenges that do allow TV (and I definitely don't think all of them should like Unofficial), I would support a higher runtime total to count as a point for episodes (60 to 90 minutes probably). Having someone watch 12 40-minute episodes count for the same amount of points as watching 12 2-hour movies seems pretty unbalanced.
You're right about the imbalance. I think it's something we need to fix.
shugs wrote: November 16th, 2020, 7:12 am +1 on the "X minutes of anything that's not a feature = 1 point" idea. I think the current rules are pretty convoluted and this would simplify things. 90 minutes sounds like a good middle ground.
That's cool. I agree with that too (90 mins of shorts or episodes = 1 point). That makes at least four of us who agree.
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: 11444
Joined: February 3rd, 2017, 7:00 am
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#15

Post by sol »

frbrown wrote: November 15th, 2020, 7:16 pm
sol wrote: November 15th, 2020, 11:20 am Under such a system, a win would be worth 3 points, a top-5 worth 2 points and a top-10 worth 1 point. It is my feeling that this will still provide a competitive edge next year (for those who want that sort of thing) while also making it more achievable for casual participants to get their name on the leaderboard. It would also be my hope that the less competitive nature of the alternate leaderboard would be lead to a healthier and less "bloodthirsty" competition since only two points will separate 1st from 10th place.
But finishing out of the top 10 gets you zero points. Could this make the competition more "bloodthirsty", not less?
We could place a 4th column for top 20 finishers.

Win = 4pts
Top 5 = 3pts
Top 10 = 2pts
Top 20 = 1pt

Other than Horror, it should be easy for casual participants for finish inside the top 20 for any of the challenges this year.

Or, we could hybrid with ObGeoff's idea and go for:

Win = 4pts
Top 5 = 3pts
Top 10 = 2pts
Seen at least 5 films = 1pt
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: 11444
Joined: February 3rd, 2017, 7:00 am
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#16

Post by sol »

An additional note for clarity:

The reason why I am looking to change the leaderboard is in order to have a system that recognise more than just single winners and ranks attained.

I could just run the leaderboard the same as myself and max did this year - but it would be without awards, since these are too hard for me to auto or manually generate.

An alternate leaderboard could recognise finishers or # of films watched. I don't know how well a complete hybrid of those two systems would work because there would be A LOT of columns to fill.

A partial hybrid could be possible.

OPTION A:
RankParticipantPointsChallenges WonTop 5 FinishesTop 10 FinishersWatched 5+ Films
-------


OPTION B:
RankParticipantPointsChallenges WonWatched 20+ FilmsTop 10+ FilmsWatched 5+ Films
-------


I don't really want more than four (maybe five) columns to fill beyond Rank/Name/Points.

Non-hybrid options:

OPTION C:
RankParticipantPointsChallenges WonTop 5 FinishesTop 10 FinishersTop 20 Finishers
-------


OPTION D:
RankParticipantPointsWatched 40+ FilmsWatched 20+ FilmsTop 10+ FilmsWatched 5+ Films
-------


Further ideas?
Former IMDb message boards user // iCM | IMDb | Letterboxd | My top 750 films // Long live the new flesh!
Image Image Image
User avatar
frbrown
Posts: 6640
Joined: November 1st, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#17

Post by frbrown »

sol wrote: November 16th, 2020, 9:38 am
frbrown wrote: November 15th, 2020, 7:16 pm
sol wrote: November 15th, 2020, 11:20 am Under such a system, a win would be worth 3 points, a top-5 worth 2 points and a top-10 worth 1 point. It is my feeling that this will still provide a competitive edge next year (for those who want that sort of thing) while also making it more achievable for casual participants to get their name on the leaderboard. It would also be my hope that the less competitive nature of the alternate leaderboard would be lead to a healthier and less "bloodthirsty" competition since only two points will separate 1st from 10th place.
But finishing out of the top 10 gets you zero points. Could this make the competition more "bloodthirsty", not less?
We could place a 4th column for top 20 finishers.

Win = 4pts
Top 5 = 3pts
Top 10 = 2pts
Top 20 = 1pt

Other than Horror, it should be easy for casual participants for finish inside the top 20 for any of the challenges this year.

Or, we could hybrid with ObGeoff's idea and go for:

Win = 4pts
Top 5 = 3pts
Top 10 = 2pts
Seen at least 5 films = 1pt
Either one of those looks fine to me.
psychotronicbeatnik
Donator
Posts: 1923
Joined: February 4th, 2017, 7:00 am
Location: Oregon
Contact:

#18

Post by psychotronicbeatnik »

I favor a system based on runtimes but I do see some problems with it. The main one is it doesn't fit in with the current Official Leader Board so if we are going to maintain that board the way it is we should stick with points (Damn, I really would like to see us go to runtime too - it's simpler, encourages the watching of everything regardless of length, and would eliminate the need for separate runtime rulings every challenge). If no one is going to be maintaining the records for the current leader board then I vote for challenge based on runtime. And it is up to each participant to keep their own tally. The time they record is based upon the version they watch - this really helps clarify director's cuts and unrated vs rated runtimes which can vary widely. If some one is not watching a film from beginning to end, including the credits, then it should not be counted at all with one exception: runtime also allows for the inclusion of films that have survived in an incomplete state.

I think the challenge olympics were great when Max first introduced them but it seems as if interest in them has waned and it is time to move on. I would favor that we maintain the current leader board and have the monthly leader board based on the same criteria. Big kudos to Max and sol for keeping these both going.

If we do stick with points I would like to see TV, shorts and movies standardized. Since there are a lot of movies that fall around 75 minutes plus, I think it would get too unwieldy for participants to have to find shorts to make them fit the 90 minute challenge, but I would favor a system like this:

Any movie or TV/mini series episode over an hour in length counts as one point. Movies, shorts, and TV episodes under an hour can be combined to be worth a point for every 90 minutes watched. Movies over 180 minutes can be counted for multiple points as follows - divide the running time by 90 minutes, so a film that is 180-269 minutes would count for 2 points and a film that is 270-359 minutes would count for 3 points.

This system still slightly favors movies over TV and shorts because of the gap between 60 and 90 minutes but I think most of the movies that fall in this gap will be closer to 90 minutes in runtime. I've kept track of my own challenge runtimes all year and my monthly average per point usually falls between 80-90 minutes regardless of whether or not I watched any TV or shorts. My overall average runtime per point for the year is 79.22 minutes - but with the higher runtime of 90 minutes for shorts and TV and shorter movies combos that I am proposing that would certainly go up. whatever points advantage I may gain by watching shorts or TV episodes is certainly paid for by the increase in my own record keeping. It's a lot easier to record one movie than multiple shorts or TV episodes.

If people are still concerned about challengers watching too much TV then a percentage could be applied - no one can win a challenge if more than 33 1/3 % of their watches are TV episodes. I'm a vinyl fan so that's why I chose 33 1/3 but some other number could be applied.

The main point is make it consistent. There are some list based challenges that naturally do not include TV, but it should be allowed for the other challenges.
User avatar
maxwelldeux
Donator
Posts: 8991
Joined: June 7th, 2016, 6:00 am
Location: Seattle-ish, WA, USA
Contact:

#19

Post by maxwelldeux »

sol wrote: November 16th, 2020, 9:51 am I could just run the leaderboard the same as myself and max did this year - but it would be without awards, since these are too hard for me to auto or manually generate.

An alternate leaderboard could recognise finishers or # of films watched. I don't know how well a complete hybrid of those two systems would work because there would be A LOT of columns to fill.
I can automate everything you've proposed so far in Excel. The big issue with the current iteration is tracking status from the prior month - if we eliminate that, it simplifies the process.

And I'm certainly willing to help get everything set up and ready to go. :cheers:
blocho
Donator
Posts: 4625
Joined: July 20th, 2014, 6:00 am
Contact:

#20

Post by blocho »

It seems like opinion is coalescing against my proposed runtime system but in favor of my proposed fallback -- 90 minutes = 1 point for all TV episodes, miniseries episodes, and shorts. That's something I can live with.

By the way, I'm in favor of keeping the leaderboards as is
psychotronicbeatnik
Donator
Posts: 1923
Joined: February 4th, 2017, 7:00 am
Location: Oregon
Contact:

#21

Post by psychotronicbeatnik »

blocho wrote: November 17th, 2020, 12:14 am It seems like opinion is coalescing against my proposed runtime system but in favor of my proposed fallback -- 90 minutes = 1 point for all TV episodes, miniseries episodes, and shorts. That's something I can live with.

By the way, I'm in favor of keeping the leaderboards as is
I agree with you that a runtime system would work great but I think it would be difficult to implement and keep the current leaderboards as is - which I also favor. If someone can figure that one out then I would vote for runtimes.
User avatar
maxwelldeux
Donator
Posts: 8991
Joined: June 7th, 2016, 6:00 am
Location: Seattle-ish, WA, USA
Contact:

#22

Post by maxwelldeux »

blocho wrote: November 17th, 2020, 12:14 am It seems like opinion is coalescing against my proposed runtime system but in favor of my proposed fallback -- 90 minutes = 1 point for all TV episodes, miniseries episodes, and shorts. That's something I can live with.

By the way, I'm in favor of keeping the leaderboards as is
I can live with that too. The biggest thing I like is the consistency across everything.

Only clarification I'd suggest is that anthology series be counted in the same way as the not-movie rules.
User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 11371
Joined: December 29th, 2012, 7:00 am
Contact:

#23

Post by Lonewolf2003 »

psychotronicbeatnik wrote: November 16th, 2020, 7:29 pm Any movie or TV/mini series episode over an hour in length counts as one point. Movies, shorts, and TV episodes under an hour can be combined to be worth a point for every 90 minutes watched. Movies over 180 minutes can be counted for multiple points as follows - divide the running time by 90 minutes, so a film that is 180-269 minutes would count for 2 points and a film that is 270-359 minutes would count for 3 points.
I like this idea. Sounds fair to me.
I'm also not for a runtime based system. But am too for more uniformity in the rules for the length of non-movie per point. A total of 60 to 90 minutes of short or episodes consist a point seems far to me, the exact amount I don't care that much about. But it should be higher than it is now and uniform. Think we should also increase the minimum length of a feature from 40 to 60 minutes when we do that. To make that also more consistent and fairer

But most of all I think there should be less focus on the competitive aspect of the challenges, how much one watches, and more on the participation aspect of it. I would like all challenges to include at least a contribution BC in which you get one point for any kind of contribution; Most simple version would be; one point for every review (no matter how short even smiley's count), screenshots or ratings per movie. Posting a screenshot + review + ratings also counts for one point, but could also count for 3 points, this we could discuss further if people like this idea. I would like if those points somehow are added or multiplied with the number of watches. So that top ranked players of a challenge aren't just those who watch the most, but (also) those that really contribute and interact in the challenges.
I don't know if that would be much more work for host to keep track of this. But of course users can keep track themselves also for this.

Next to that there could also be a BC award for best contribution: Best screenshot(s), best reviews and such. Every host can decide for themselves of course if and what kind of award they would like to do.

Don't care about the overal Challenge board.
Last edited by Lonewolf2003 on November 17th, 2020, 10:37 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
sol
Donator
Posts: 11444
Joined: February 3rd, 2017, 7:00 am
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#24

Post by sol »

How things are currently looking:

- Majority support for consistency in points for non-movies with 90mins for all shorts and episodes (tv or miniseries)
- Point system (rather than culminative runtimes) seems to be favoured from most regular challenge hosts - myself included
- Division on what the leaderboard for next year should look like

Assuming that we are sticking with points, these are once again the options that we are looking at:

CURRENT:
Rank Participant Total Score # Challenges Competed In Total Number of films Watched for Official Challenges Average Rank in Challenges Number of Challenge Wins

If we stick with this though, I may not be able to generate awards, so the only things that the leaderboard will recognise is ranking and wins.

ALTERNATIVE OPTION A:
RankParticipantPointsChallenges WonTop 5 FinishesTop 10 FinishersWatched 5+ Films
-------


ALTERNATIVE OPTION B:
RankParticipantPointsChallenges WonWatched 20+ FilmsTop 10+ FilmsWatched 5+ Films
-------


ALTERNATIVE OPTION C: - my own preference
RankParticipantPointsChallenges WonTop 5 FinishesTop 10 FinishersTop 20 Finishers
-------


ALTERNATIVE OPTION D:
RankParticipantPointsWatched 40+ FilmsWatched 20+ FilmsTop 10+ FilmsWatched 5+ Films
-------


I could put this up to vote if we aren't able to sort out what we want moving forward via discussion alone.
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: 11444
Joined: February 3rd, 2017, 7:00 am
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#25

Post by sol »

Lonewolf2003 wrote: November 17th, 2020, 10:34 am But most of all I think there should be less focus on the competitive aspect of the challenges, how much one watches, and more on the participation aspect of it.
I agree - and that's one of the reasons why I wanted to shake the current leaderboard up. The competitive aspect of the challenges kind of makes no sense at the moment, since those in Covid lockdown who haven't left their houses in nine months are naturally racking up more points by a matter of circumstance. I would like wins to be worth less points, and placing fairly high in a challenge to still be worth something. Whether you've come first or twelfth in a challenge, you've placed a lot of effort to get there, and that should be recognised in a more even manner - which explains my top5/10/20 leaderboard preference.
Lonewolf2003 wrote: November 17th, 2020, 10:34 am I would like all challenges to include at least a contribution BC in which you get one point for any kind of contribution ...
I don't know if that would be much more work for host to keep track of this. But of course users can keep track themselves also for this.
As somebody who has posted screenshots and reviews for every single film he watched in a challenge during the past 2+ years, I would like more participation, but yeah, it would be hard to enforce/keep track of. Systems that rely on participants to self-report/keep track of their own scores are hard to manage. I've definitely pulled up over 20 people (some more than once!) during the Country/Region Challenges that I have hosted in which I have merely asked participants to self-report country details. I think it's a little discouraging to casual participants if they have to self-report a lot.
Lonewolf2003 wrote: November 17th, 2020, 10:34 am Next to that there could also be a BC award for best contribution: Best screenshot(s), best reviews and such. Every host can decide for themselves of course if and what kind of award they would like to do.
Not really a fan of subjective awards, tbh, or even peer-voted ones. And I say that as someone who won blocho's 70s Best Contributor award and Hurlu's Hong Kong Best Screenshot award. Maybe that's just me.
Former IMDb message boards user // iCM | IMDb | Letterboxd | My top 750 films // Long live the new flesh!
Image Image Image
User avatar
Lonewolf2003
Donator
Posts: 11371
Joined: December 29th, 2012, 7:00 am
Contact:

#26

Post by Lonewolf2003 »

sol wrote: November 17th, 2020, 10:46 am
Lonewolf2003 wrote: November 17th, 2020, 10:34 am But most of all I think there should be less focus on the competitive aspect of the challenges, how much one watches, and more on the participation aspect of it.
I agree - and that's one of the reasons why I wanted to shake the current leaderboard up. The competitive aspect of the challenges kind of makes no sense at the moment, since those in Covid lockdown who haven't left their houses in nine months are naturally racking up more points by a matter of circumstance. I would like wins to be worth less points, and placing fairly high in a challenge to still be worth something. Whether you've come first or twelfth in a challenge, you've placed a lot of effort to get there, and that should be recognised in a more even manner - which explains my top5/10/20 leaderboard preference.
Lonewolf2003 wrote: November 17th, 2020, 10:34 am I would like all challenges to include at least a contribution BC in which you get one point for any kind of contribution ...
I don't know if that would be much more work for host to keep track of this. But of course users can keep track themselves also for this.
As somebody who has posted screenshots and reviews for every single film he watched in a challenge during the past 2+ years, I would like more participation, but yeah, it would be hard to enforce/keep track of. Systems that rely on participants to self-report/keep track of their own scores are hard to manage. I've definitely pulled up over 20 people (some more than once!) during the Country/Region Challenges that I have hosted in which I have merely asked participants to self-report country details. I think it's a little discouraging to casual participants if they have to self-report a lot.
As a non-host I'm curious why it would be hard to keep track of. Couldn't you leave it (more) to their own adult responsibility? And as a host monitor and address people less when they forget something, since it's their own fault when they miss a point? Or give people one or two reminders and that's it? Honestly, sol, I think you might be a bit too nice at times.
Lonewolf2003 wrote: November 17th, 2020, 10:34 am Next to that there could also be a BC award for best contribution: Best screenshot(s), best reviews and such. Every host can decide for themselves of course if and what kind of award they would like to do.
Not really a fan of subjective awards, tbh, or even peer-voted ones. And I say that as someone who won blocho's 70s Best Contributor award and Hurlu's Hong Kong Best Screenshot award. Maybe that's just me.
My idea about subjective awards is mostly to balance out the objective contribution awards, so it's not just about getting a point for posting a thumbup/-down smiley, but also getting recognition by your peers for great contributions.
User avatar
sebby
Posts: 6768
Joined: July 4th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#27

Post by sebby »

I don't see any reason at all to move shorts/Tv/minseries to 90 mins. If you choose to watch long films during a challenge, that's your choice. you could also choose to watch 45 - 65 min features as well. A long film is not a more difficult watch than a short one, or even a tv episode simply bc it is long. The Godfather is a fucking breeze; Brakhage, not so much.

I say keep the scoring system as is. 40+ min of anything is a point. <40 and use the shorts rule.

Only change I would make is putting a cap on the number of tv episodes that one can watch for a challenge. 50% of total watches seems fine to me. If the goal is to prevent abuse, that should be enough.
User avatar
sol
Donator
Posts: 11444
Joined: February 3rd, 2017, 7:00 am
Location: Perth, WA, Australia
Contact:

#28

Post by sol »

Lonewolf2003 wrote: November 17th, 2020, 11:09 am
sol wrote: November 17th, 2020, 10:46 am Systems that rely on participants to self-report/keep track of their own scores are hard to manage. I've definitely pulled up over 20 people (some more than once!) during the Country/Region Challenges that I have hosted in which I have merely asked participants to self-report country details. I think it's a little discouraging to casual participants if they have to self-report a lot.
As a non-host I'm curious why it would be hard to keep track of. Couldn't you leave it (more) to their own adult responsibility? And as a host monitor and address people less when they forget something, since it's their own fault when they miss a point? Or give people one or two reminders and that's it? Honestly, sol, I think you might be a bit too nice at times.
Maybe I am too nice, but yeah, there's nothing more annoying than trying to update a leaderboard, getting to somebody who forgets to include Country details, and having to call them out on the challenge thread. It's extra work that I don't need. That said, I also don't know if it is fair to include a rule that it is mandatory to self-report and that you will not be reminded if you forget. Sounds harsh.
Former IMDb message boards user // iCM | IMDb | Letterboxd | My top 750 films // Long live the new flesh!
Image Image Image
User avatar
peeptoad
Posts: 2800
Joined: February 4th, 2017, 7:00 am
Contact:

#29

Post by peeptoad »

Entering this discussion (very briefly) from the throws of a personnel management ...event, I guess is the best word:
I agree with Lonewolf and sol on the notion of people self-reporting or maintaining their own challenge details per requirement (country/run time/whatever, per the challenge rules). I'd post it in the OP, give them one reminder, and then too bad/so sad if they don't get points/extra points for their views. I support whatever the "lower-maintenance, people looking out for themselves and not relying on the host, etc." option is.

I also like the general idea of incorporating quality as well as quantity into the scoring system however that may be achieved. I don't have a real, vested interest in the overall leader board though, or the way in which it's ultimately constructed, so no real opinion there.
User avatar
RogerTheMovieManiac88
Posts: 2013
Joined: February 4th, 2017, 7:00 am
Location: Westmeath, Ireland
Contact:

#30

Post by RogerTheMovieManiac88 »

sebby wrote: November 17th, 2020, 11:44 am I don't see any reason at all to move shorts/Tv/minseries to 90 mins. If you choose to watch long films during a challenge, that's your choice. you could also choose to watch 45 - 65 min features as well. A long film is not a more difficult watch than a short one, or even a tv episode simply bc it is long. The Godfather is a fucking breeze; Brakhage, not so much.

I say keep the scoring system as is. 40+ min of anything is a point. <40 and use the shorts rule.

Only change I would make is putting a cap on the number of tv episodes that one can watch for a challenge. 50% of total watches seems fine to me. If the goal is to prevent abuse, that should be enough.
For what it's worth, I totally agree with this. 60 minutes of shorts has always appealed to me as a nice way to bring up an hour and gather up 1 additional point.
That's all, folks!
User avatar
DulceDoes
Posts: 1351
Joined: August 6th, 2012, 6:00 am
Contact:

#31

Post by DulceDoes »

+1 from me for shorts/TV being 90 minutes for a point
blocho
Donator
Posts: 4625
Joined: July 20th, 2014, 6:00 am
Contact:

#32

Post by blocho »

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?
User avatar
sebby
Posts: 6768
Joined: July 4th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#33

Post by sebby »

I also support alt C, by the way, since i think a 4-3-2-1 system of scoring for win-top 5-top 10-top 20 is the grooviest option.
User avatar
maxwelldeux
Donator
Posts: 8991
Joined: June 7th, 2016, 6:00 am
Location: Seattle-ish, WA, USA
Contact:

#34

Post by maxwelldeux »

sebby wrote: November 17th, 2020, 11:44 am Only change I would make is putting a cap on the number of tv episodes that one can watch for a challenge. 50% of total watches seems fine to me. If the goal is to prevent abuse, that should be enough.
This is the part I'm really against - it's something additional that users have to track as well as hosts. I don't want to make things harder.
User avatar
sebby
Posts: 6768
Joined: July 4th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#35

Post by sebby »

maxwelldeux wrote: November 18th, 2020, 12:14 am
sebby wrote: November 17th, 2020, 11:44 am Only change I would make is putting a cap on the number of tv episodes that one can watch for a challenge. 50% of total watches seems fine to me. If the goal is to prevent abuse, that should be enough.
This is the part I'm really against - it's something additional that users have to track as well as hosts. I don't want to make things harder.
In that case the 90 min rule should be a no go then, yeah? I still don't get the desire to move away from the 40/60 rule we've had for almost a decade.

Also, wjatever rules are adopted still require a bit of honor system trust. There's no way to know if everyone is actually watching the films they log. Let people police themselves and hosts simply tabulate numbers :shrug:
User avatar
maxwelldeux
Donator
Posts: 8991
Joined: June 7th, 2016, 6:00 am
Location: Seattle-ish, WA, USA
Contact:

#36

Post by maxwelldeux »

sebby wrote: November 18th, 2020, 12:45 am
maxwelldeux wrote: November 18th, 2020, 12:14 am
sebby wrote: November 17th, 2020, 11:44 am Only change I would make is putting a cap on the number of tv episodes that one can watch for a challenge. 50% of total watches seems fine to me. If the goal is to prevent abuse, that should be enough.
This is the part I'm really against - it's something additional that users have to track as well as hosts. I don't want to make things harder.
In that case the 90 min rule should be a no go then, yeah? I still don't get the desire to move away from the 40/60 rule we've had for almost a decade.

Also, wjatever rules are adopted still require a bit of honor system trust. There's no way to know if everyone is actually watching the films they log. Let people police themselves and hosts simply tabulate numbers :shrug:
Well, I'm with you on just about everything there. I also don't see the need to fix what isn't broken. :shrug:
blocho
Donator
Posts: 4625
Joined: July 20th, 2014, 6:00 am
Contact:

#37

Post by blocho »

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.
psychotronicbeatnik
Donator
Posts: 1923
Joined: February 4th, 2017, 7:00 am
Location: Oregon
Contact:

#38

Post by psychotronicbeatnik »

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.
I put 90 minutes in my proposal for the same reason - it's a compromise between the two extremes. I have been turned off from doing some of the challenges this year where the host went too extreme in their TV restrictions even if i was not planning to watch any TV at all. I get tired of the constant changes in rules from challenge to challenge which are largely based on some hosts and participants wanting to eliminate or restrict TV viewing.

I agree with max's statement, if it ain't broke don't fix it. I don't think the original rules for shorts and TV are broken, but the negative attitude that some hosts and other participants have toward them and the constant fiddling with them has created an atmosphere that makes things seem broken. I'm not against a compromise but I think it should be applied consistently - and with no more bickering throughout the year.

If we were to vote on this I would cast my vote for keeping things the way they are. If we have to make a change then I favor a 90 minute equals a point cap on shorts and TV.
User avatar
maxwelldeux
Donator
Posts: 8991
Joined: June 7th, 2016, 6:00 am
Location: Seattle-ish, WA, USA
Contact:

#39

Post by maxwelldeux »

psychotronicbeatnik wrote: November 18th, 2020, 1:51 am If we were to vote on this I would cast my vote for keeping things the way they are. If we have to make a change then I favor a 90 minute equals a point cap on shorts and TV.
Seconded.
User avatar
sebby
Posts: 6768
Joined: July 4th, 2011, 6:00 am
Contact:

#40

Post by sebby »

Seems we need a poll
Post Reply