[note]This thread is made with the assumption that there is some intention by the staff here at renewing the idea of the Setting of the Week. If the intent was to close the idea permanently, I fully understand, and I ask the moderators to simply lock this thread.[/note]
I think we should reopen the idea of the setting of the week. I'm not asking that we reinstate it: I'm merely asking us to look at what it was, why and failed, and how we could implement a similar idea in the futher.
Obviously, the failure was due to a lack of reviews. That goes without saying. However, the question I'm asking the community is "why" - why didn't you review the setting of the week. (This is not accusatory. I'm as guilty as everyone else on this count. It's just that we can speculate all we like on why people didn't post, but the only thing you can really know for certian is why you yourself didn't post.) And, also, what would make you, personally, review the setting of the week?
For me, the problem was sheer lazyness. I kept thinking "I'll do it tomorrow..." but then tomorrow came, and it was the next week.
A possible incentive for furtue settings of the weeks would be that, to be in the rolling for next week, you have to review the pervious week's setting.
Those are just some basic ideas. I'd love to hear everyones thoughts: why didn't you personally post, and what would make you personally want to review? Or, if you did post, why did you make the extra effort to? What drew you to it?
I like the idea of not being in the list until you come up with a review, but that might just lead to posts that are just 'yeah it's great' or similar without any real substance.
Personally, I didn't review because very little of I saw peaked my interest enough to read through them and review. I think the problem was worse when the description blurb ran on past the area, and you had to click a link anyway just to see it all.
I'll not jump in on this subject for the time being, because it's still a touchy subject for me personally. However, I just wanted to say I fully support you starting this discussion, and hopefully something good comes of it. I'll be watching.
I think that the idea you propose about mandating that you review the previous week's setting to have your setting in the running for the next week is a fine one. Of course some of those reviews may be of the 'Yeah it's great' variety, but inevitably some will not be.
I'm not sure whether this was implemented in the old Setting of the Week feature, (I wasn't around for most of that 'era' of the Guild), but what if the person who won had to list particular questions or areas he wanted feedback on (either because he was particularly proud of some feature or because he was at a creative impasse)? This would, at least, give potential reviewers a place to start.
Quote from: Kalos MerI'm not sure whether this was implemented in the old Setting of the Week feature, (I wasn't around for most of that 'era' of the Guild), but what if the person who won had to list particular questions or areas he wanted feedback on (either because he was particularly proud of some feature or because he was at a creative impasse)? This would, at least, give potential reviewers a place to start.
I like that idea. If I might add to it, I think that the next week's setting should be the one of the person who answered the questions most throughly.
But how would that be judged? Would the first of the new "campaign settings of the week" be selected at random, and after that the 'successor' would be selected by the previous CSotW holder? Or would it be judged by the mods?
Quote from: Kalos MerBut how would that be judged? Would the first of the new "campaign settings of the week" be selected at random, and after that the 'successor' would be selected by the previous CSotW holder? Or would it be judged by the mods?
I'd say by whoever's campaign is the current one.
I'm just thinking out loud here, mind you. This could be completely ridiculous.
Quote from: Kalos MerI'm not sure whether this was implemented in the old Setting of the Week feature, (I wasn't around for most of that 'era' of the Guild), but what if the person who won had to list particular questions or areas he wanted feedback on (either because he was particularly proud of some feature or because he was at a creative impasse)? This would, at least, give potential reviewers a place to start.
Actually, that's very similar to a proposal Ishy did implement - that the setting writer should specify what he wanted reviewed.
I think one reason the Setting of the Week didn't do as well as we wanted was because of flucuations in the amount of time people have. It's like the site. Some weeks it sees lots of activity. Other weeks, people are caught up in work, school, or real life. About the time we dropped it, the site was quieter (IMO) than it is now. I had been trying to review each setting, but often I didn't get to one until the following week. And once you fall behind, you're left with either staying behind, or just skipping one...
But now that I have more time, I find I miss it, or that I'm sometimes filtering through the Homebrews to see if anything looks new or catchy to review. Could be we re-impliment the SotW and find out everyone is getting busy again. Maybe it's one of those things where a setting should only be featured during summer weeks (since many members are in high school or college; even those of us who aren't may have more time during those months). Or maybe a setting should be featured until it has had several reviews (minimum 1 week, but longer if necessary; maximum 3 weeks).
Or another idea would be to have a list of featured settings. These could be settings submitted by members they are currently working on and want feedback from. These settings should be removed from the list if the author is not currently working on them, has no new material for review, or otherwise hasn't updated in a while. So that it doesn't just turn into a list of the Homebrew's forum, an author should only submit something when he has moved beyond a certain developmental stage (i.e. more than conceptual, more than just cool ideas). That would give everyone a recent list (as a sidebar) of current settings, when they are looking for something to review. Maybe the list could even display the last time the author updated the setting.
A quick little thought I had was that one of the traits of this forum is the quality of the writing and the tendency for long, erudite posts; this is great normally, but in this case it can be somewhat off-putting. Perhaps having the comments right under the little setting of the week blurb would be useful? Kind of like the polls? I mean, while the four-page long reviews are great, most of us don't have the time to write those consistently.
Actually, if you will check the Showcase Archives (http://www.thecbg.org/page.php?38), you will see that under each "blurb" (or article, as I like to call them), there is an option for posting comments. Some people took advantage of it (mostly Cymro, who unfortunately, doesn't come around anymore), but it was mostly an ignored option.
Just checking in that the Showcase Archives is quite an awesome page, giving a nice overview of some of the CBG's most famous settings, including many of the "classics": Red Valor, Jade Stage, Xiluh, Sleep and a couple of Xathan's. ;) Even if the SotW is restarted, this page should stay.
Túrin [/off-topic]
What about just having the setting of the week appear in the CBGuide, and not on the front page of the site as it used to be?
You just the description (teaser) for the SotW? I assume you weren't talking about putting the entire setting in there? While it would go well with the idea of continuing interviews, I think having it on the site will get get more members to see it more often.
I'd guess not all members read the guide, and those of us that do probably do not read as many times as we visit the site in a week.
Still, a highlight in the mag might also encourage reviews.
Well, I mean just having the teaser and maybe an interview with the author of the setting asking some key questions for people's understanding of the setting. Then if people see it in there and like it, they'll come to the website and read up on it more fully, and if not they're not left feeling so guilty from not being able to review the one that was posted on the site each week.
I do think that some sort of crossover with the Guide could help the Setting of the Week, but the Guide isn't weekly - wouldn't that compel us to slow the pace to "Setting of the Month?"
Another thought I had on how to generate more reviews (and stop me if this has already been proposed or is already an implicit assumption) - but what if groups that PbP together have some kind of mutual-reviewing agreement amongst them?
I'd oppose tying reviews or the SotW (or SotM) to PbP. Not all of us have time for that, and even if we did, not everyone wants to play D&D. The great thing about this site is that we can write about worlds, and ask that they be interpretted independently of mechanics.
The Setting of the Month might work well, though a few concerns:
1) With so long a period, I fear people might be even more likely to procrastinate until time is up and thus no more (or possibly less) likely to review.
2) If the Setting is going to last that long, there will be only 1/4 as many. That means we might need stricker criteria for when a setting can be nominated. If we just did a rolling like before, you could wind up waiting 3-5 months for your setting to be chosen. For most world builders, waiting so long would not only be discouraging, but they might have moved on to some other project (setting-wise or RL).
I don't think if it became SotM and was put in the CBGuide that it would need to require any sort of review. Personally, with having an overview and maybe some example material from my setting featured in the Guide, as well as an interview about the setting, I'd be very satisfied with getting my setting featured.
Unless someone's got a distinct grudge against the author of the setting or the setting itself, I can't see many people overlooking it in the Guide assuming most people read magazines, books, and similar things the same way I do: when I get access to a new book, I look through it and stop to read things I immediately like the sound and/or look of, but I quickly take the time to give everything else in the said issue a good looking over and perhaps a response as well.
Just to clarify, I wasn't suggesting tying the SotW to PbP. That was a completely independent thought on a different way to get certain worlds some extra exposure, since any way to get settings some extra input is a good thing, right?
Quote from: Kalos Merbut what if groups that PbP together have some kind of mutual-reviewing agreement amongst them?
Quote from: Phoenix KnightI'd oppose tying reviews or the SotW (or SotM) to PbP. Not all of us have time for that, and even if we did, not everyone wants to play D&D. The great thing about this site is that we can write about worlds, and ask that they be interpretted independently of mechanics.
As for the issue of the SotW in general,[/b] I'm not sure whether tweaking a few details is ever going to transform it into a system that works as well as we'd all hoped it would. We can't obligate anyone to review the SotW-- the closest we come in that direction is self-obligating groups like the Sable Cabal, or more loosely, the group of folks participating in Raelifin's setting badges project. I think that if we really want to increase the amount of feedback that authors get in this community, we need to shift our focus away from projects like SotW that-- like it or not-- are somewhat guilt-oriented, and focus more on free-form and perhaps even competitive ideas.
I've been putting a little thought into ways to increase community interaction here lately. Here's one of them that still needs a lot of work, but this thread seems like the appropriate place to share it.
Review teams!Like SotW but smaller (and more tightly self-regulating), and also free-form and leisurely-paced! Interested people would form themselves into little groups of two or three, and coordinate their reviews. Teams review whatever settings they want, at whatever pace they want, but the reviews always come in groups.
For example, let's say I teamed up with sdragon1984, and we called ourselves a review team. We'd take turns deciding what we're going to review, and let's say we agree that for our first week, we're both going to review Aertica. If I decide to wuss out, procrastinate, or otherwise slack off with my review, sdragon can say, "Hey buddy, where's your Aertica review?" Since the groups are small, it's harder to weasel your way out of it. But different groups can work at different paces, so nobody feels overwhelmed. Maybe one review team does one setting a month, but another team does one or two every week, if they're comfortable doing that.
The effects I hope this would have on feedback would be pretty nice:
a.) More reviews overall (I hope!)
b.) Setting reviewed by a team would get two or three big reviews in a very short span of time (super-concentrated action!)
c.) Nobody has to submit their setting to a list for a review team to choose it (review-lightning strikes anywhere!)
d.) Harder for people to get burned out on the idea like so many people did with SotW, and end up reviewing nothing (durable and long-lasting!)
Discuss.
I like the review teams idea, and even if it isn't "officially" implemented, I'll bother Raelifin about it at my earliest convenience. Let our reviewing madness commence!
That's an interesting idea, LC. It sounds like the foundation for something with potential. Although it could also be the start of elitist clicks, which I wouldn't want to see here. And of guilds within the guild (how many levels does this place have, ah there's no bottom :?: )
As was you comment on the idea of competitiveness. I think that could have pros and cons. People might be more likely to get reviews if a contest was based on it, but if settings are competitive, some people might be discouraged by being compared in that way.
I wonder if somehow the setting of the week/month could be tied in to the monthly contests in some way? You know, design a monster, temple, write up an encounter or bit of fiction with the setting of the week/month as a theme.
If it worked, this might stimulate people to look into the setting in more detail, and provide some creative input. Of course, it would be understood that nothing actually becomes part of the setting unless/until the owner of the setting approves it.
And maybe the winner of the contest gets to have their setting chosen for the next week, or they get a badge, or they get to choose the next setting, or something.
Well, it might not work, but it would be a thought.
Quote from: Phoenix KnightThat's an interesting idea, LC. It sounds like the foundation for something with potential. Although it could also be the start of elitist clicks, which I wouldn't want to see here. And of guilds within the guild (how many levels does this place have, ah there's no bottom :?: )
As was you comment on the idea of competitiveness. I think that could have pros and cons. People might be more likely to get reviews if a contest was based on it, but if settings are competitive, some people might be discouraged by being compared in that way.
You're correct-- it's absolutely not a perfect idea, and it has a lot of wrinkles to be worked out!
I don't foresee it as likely to mutate into elitist cliques, although I guess the potential is there. (Didn't people raise the same objections about the Sable Cabal? I don't remember.) But let's not put the cart too far ahead of the horse: at its core, it's nothing more than reviewing using the buddy system to make sure it gets done.
Quote from: Phoenix Knight(how many levels does this place have, ah there's no bottom :?: )
and I want to add [new content]. Should I take [direction X], [direction Y], or [direction Z] with [new content]?"
Or: "My setting has [short blurb]. Would [X] fit in with [short blurb]: yes, no, or only if modified?"
Quote from: Luminous CrayonI don't foresee it as likely to mutate into elitist cliques, although I guess the potential is there. (Didn't people raise the same objections about the Sable Cabal? I don't remember.) But let's not put the cart too far ahead of the horse: at its core, it's nothing more than reviewing using the buddy system to make sure it gets done.
I like the idea LC. Just throwing this out, but maybe have each group have a badge as well? Something else to put in signatures ftw!
I say anyone that wants to review something, but doesn't know what to review, roll the dice. Roll a die and review the setting that is in that position.*
*Not a real suggestion, just wanted to be part of the in crowd. :(
I've been holding off on commenting on this conversation for a while, but I suppose I'll step in now and add a few comments.
We (meaning the Opal Council) have discussed a lot of the ideas that are being kicked around here, and if there's enough support, we're all for it. Namely, I know we've mentioned the interview/Guide "Setting of the Month" showcase as well as some of the earlier ideas (some of which we actually implemented!).
I wholeheartedly encourage folks to form autonomous "review teams." I don't really see how such a group would become "clique"-ish, especially if their goal is to benefit the community overall. (Besides, there's nothing wrong with a little camaraderie, in my opinion.) That being said, if review teams start to become a problem for setting owners (for whatever reason), it'd be fairly easy just to contact the "team leader" and try and resolve it-- all accomplished with minimal mod interaction. I'm all about member empowerment.
Who said I never look out for the little guy? :P
-ElDo
I'd be all for starting up review teams now. What with the three day weekend coming up for me I should have plenty of time to get a start on it.
Anyone else?
Count me in on a team.
If this has morphed into the thread to volunteer to be part of one of these review teams, then you can count me in, as well.
Quote from: WitchHuntCount me in on a team.
Quote from: Kalos MerIf this has morphed into the thread to volunteer to be part of one of these review teams, then you can count me in, as well.
So the three of us as a team then?
For sure. What do we call ourselves?
Three Dudes With Muskets?
THree muskets each?!?!?!#@?!?!
Wow, you guys are seriously packin. everyone else watch out.
The Triumvirus?
Quote from: IshmaylThe Triumvirus?
I'm partial to Porthos, Alvin, and Larry.
Quote from: stargate525I'm partial to Porthos, Alvin, and Larry.
It's amusing, but it doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.
Do you guys think the "looking for a review team" business warrants a seperate thread? I ask because it might be useful to have that information in a dedicated place (with a more descriptive thread title, for the uninitiated), and to make it easier for people to group with others who have similar ideas about how often they want to review stuff.
Quote from: Luminous CrayonQuote from: stargate525I'm partial to Porthos, Alvin, and Larry.
It's amusing, but it doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.
Do you guys think the "looking for a review team" business warrants a seperate thread? I ask because it might be useful to have that information in a dedicated place (with a more descriptive thread title, for the uninitiated), and to make it easier for people to group with others who have similar ideas about how often they want to review stuff.
It may. I'd suggest a sticky, with an updating first post listing groups by their frequency of review.
Names, Names, Names...
Reveiwer's Protectorate
The Circle of Three
Tatoren Drei
Portharamis
Unit three
Unit 1
Alpha Squadron
...Man am I tired....
Personally I'm in favor of fairly lighthearted names. The humor in the tavern and a few select threads is not enough!
But yeah, a stickied thread would be nice.
Quote from: WitchHuntPersonally I'm in favor of fairly lighthearted names. The humor in the tavern and a few select threads is not enough!
true that. Unfortunately, I'm on a naming slump right now, have been for awhile.
Three Dudes With Muskets
Three Cheers for Beers
Dance Dance Dragonlance
The Illuminaughty
Elves With Beards
Three Men and a Cabbage
Cannons for Canon
Review Team from Hell (Layer X)
Those are some names I thought of.
Quote from: WitchHuntThree Men and a Cabbage
We have a winner. :D
So, what has become of these projects?
Has anyone giving more thought to a revival of the SotW or some replacement?
Did review teams ever start? That might be good to join.
Should be have team badges/ensignia?
Honestly, i don't know what happened. It just sorta died.
Which unfortunately, seems to be the case with a lot of projects around here. :sadly glances over his shoulder at the CeBeGia forum:
Ah...I'd say this one may be worth the effort to revive. It'd be nice to work some kind of feature or something.
If the TMaaC are accepting suggestions for the SotW, I think it would be best if the author of said setting gave some info on what he wanted reviewers to focus on, what issues he needs to work out so that you don't have to read through the entire setting if you want to review it. That is very time consuming and sometimes a waste if they review sections that dont need it.
I agree that the focus can be helpful. On the other hand, sometimes, I'd guess especially for ethocentric settings, one cannot appreciate something taken out of context if not familiar with the big picture. It doesn't mean you have to read the entire setting to know whether one nation is interesting, but you'd want to be familiar with the setting.