Confuse a Mineral by Hemingway Kat, Crusher Joe, Bubblesort's Ghost
May 22nd, 2007 9:42 AM1 vote(s)
Terms
(none yet)37 comment(s)
I like the methodology and I gave a vote to the "Document Confusion" task (Edit: Oops, I kinda misread that one. Whatever). But I think it's unfair to use this method for three different tasks (plus the two-three related ones) with collaborators for each, especially for a very high-scoring task like this one.
That's a total of around 500 points. Can you really justify all that?
Doing it once = good. Doing it three times, with no real variation, for tasks that are worth a lot? I don't think so. At the very least, this one should be flagged- it's obviously intended to be a higher-difficulty task.
In any event, keep up the good work, and I really do like it.
I'd have to agree with Darkaardvark on this one. Sure, there is always the creative license behind how you interpret tasks, to me, you interpreted one task one way, and then used it to complete as many other tasks that ask of different things in the same format. That is not originality; it's one original thought that was milked for the sake of points.
And no offense, Bubblesort, but I know you can come up with more original ideas than purposefully misinterpreting what the task asks of you within its technical limits to get it done in a different (and in this case, much less difficult) way.
But really, that's just my beef with these completions from a creative potential standpoint. However, I still don't believe you completed this task. If the task read Confuse "a mineral", then I would love this, and you would have completed this thoroughly. But it doesn't read that, it reads Confuse a mineral. I could imagine the creator of this task or one of the creators of SF0 saying, "I like the thought, but you knew what I meant when I asked you to 'confuse a mineral'."
As far as I'm concerned, you confused "a mineral", but you did not confuse a mineral, or complete this task.
Being a collaborator, I can't say that my opinion is unbiased. Having said that, here's my 2 cents:
From dictionary.com:
con·fuse
1. to perplex or bewilder
2. to make unclear or indistinct
I would say that the execution of this task was an excellent enacting of definition 2.
keep in mind this is all being delivered MUCH nicer than Rubin would have done it, but I don't think that playing like this is ok. You jumped to the top of the 1st page earlier in the era by doing kind of iffy cop-out proofs (Though there have been a couple gems thrown in). Also, you and all of your friends voted for each other on every task adding additional unearned points. My first inclination is to say "Whatever, let her play however she wants. I am not competing with her", but I think the problem lies in that when new players come on and see the obvious point mongering they won't understand that it really is not cool. Before long we will have a praxis filled with a grip of boring. I'm not trying to discourage you, in fact, like I said, there have been a few really vote worthy completions. I have a feeling that, like me, all the other toss-aways have kept people from voting for them.
please let me know if I am totally off base here.
'kay, dude, i can't control what my friends vote for, but if you want to police it, i can link you to where i asked them NOT to.
i have no idea what "first page" you're talking about, by the way, dearest.
oh, and, cause you asked, i don't give a damn about "point mongering" or "first pages" because, well, i have a pretty dimesional existence and don't need things like that to validate myself. i kinda thought i was here to enjoy myself and learn some interesting stuff.
when my start wasn't to your liking, i took a month off and came back to it... i'm not surprised that new players get scared off - if this was meant to be for a particular group of people who already know all there is to know, and not really conducive to giving new people a chance to figure it out before making them feel like crap about something they actually enjoyed doing, then it should be made known, and not presented as open to new people.
please don't take this as a personal attack - i'm always accepting of people's thoughts and opinions, but i do share mine in return.
oh, and, also... i just went back over my tasks with the intent to delete anything that there was a "problem" with, and, with the exception of two that people pointed out a problem with, (which i instantly attempted to correct in the "spirit" of the "game" - even driving from austin to galveston for one expressly to complete the task) and the ones completed with Bubblesort, (which i won't take charge of deleting the proofs for, cause they're not totally mine,) i don't see any that i attempted to 'skirt around' or didn't make an effort to comply with the intent of the task... maybe they didn't have sparklers and fireworks, but, once again, i thought i was here to figure it out and enjoy myself. i've not been motivated by "points" and, like i stated, i took some time to try to figure out how to play better. and, again - it's not like i ASKED anyone for votes, ever, and i CAN'T control that.
So... we're not supposed to vote for tasks on any of the people we have "relationship" with? I never saw that mentioned in the rules.
Ack. As far as I'm concerned, just short of making an alternate account for the sake of giving yourself votes, any votes gained are ones earned. If someone likes what someone does with a task, they vote for it, and the player who completed the task deserved the vote, because they made something someone enjoyed. Simple as that.
However, aside from my objections concerning creative potential that I mentioned earlier, I still believe that this isn't a completed task. You confused "a mineral", but you did not confuse a mineral. Does that make sense?
I do totally see your point, and I'm personally happy to think about it, even though I still like Bubblesort's idea, and maybe add to the proof.
I just object to being accused of things I had no intention of doing, but, then, I have no right or ability to dictate other's opinions, nor would I want to, so, I would say that makes my objection a moot point.
I believe that you can argue the author's intent in writing a task, but, honestly, I think that sometimes what happens is that a task's author has how they would complete it in mind, and they want to see if anyone else is clever enough to guess it - anything else violates the 'intent.'
i think it's a disservice to not allow tasks to be completely open to interpretation - I really, really do get the point about lazy completions for points, but I don't think that's the case here at all. No, I'm not impartial, but I'd like to think I'd feel the same way regardless.
If a task's author wants something specific, or wants to disallow certian things, that should be made clear. Because, otherwise, people will always interpret them differently.
No need to get defensive, Bubblesort. I was just posting my opinion. I can't help it that I get a lesser creative impression when you use the same method for three separate tasks, rather than a completely unique impression for each individual task.
And what I meant what I said "I know you can come up with more original ideas" is because one of the reasons I know you'd be good with SF0 is due to the excellent, imaginative ideas that you came up with when we talked in person.
I did nothing to personally attack you, yet you still say "You lack the creativity to even attempt to do what I've done here." This statement was a blatant attack, and completely unnecessary. I could say something to defend this, and if you want to hear it, just let me know, but I can tell you now you wouldn't like me posting it here.
"As far as the powers that be saying, 'I like the thought, but you knew what I meant when I asked you to 'confuse a mineral'.', I disagree. This is exactly what they meant when they posted this task." Well, Daarkardvark posted this task, and he has already expressed his sentiments about it.
Again, I'm not here to make enemies, and I do find that this proof was clever, but I still feel that without quotes around "a mineral" in the proof description, you did not complete this task.
Guys, isn't the point of this to have fun? Everybody is sitting at their computers arguing over this one series of tasks, rather than going out an completing more tasks. Are you having fun arguing with one another?
I believe Bubblesort's idea was original and creative. I believe it was a lot of work and an example of good group work between people from 3 different groups. Everyone involved in completing this task enjoyed it.
When you give task instructions such as "Confuse a mineral." I think you really are leaving a lot to interpretation, which is half the fun. Another task said "Go to the airport and standby for love." Not specific, but you could get some creative results. The "Suicide!!!" task is another good example. Directions weren't specific and I came up with the best interpretation of the task I could and went for it. Personally, I liked my results. I don't think you can really argue intention after the fact, or maybe at all in this case.
As far as points are concerned, it's a game and we aren't competing with one another, so points don't really matter except either as self-validation or in order to gain access to higher levels in order to do more interesting and complex tasks; some of the lower level tasks aren't interesting and it's hard to develop points and get to the levels with tasks that are of interest.
Maybe it might have been more creative to do three different interpretations of the tasks, but there was nothing in the rules that said theyhad to and the truth is, the three of them collaborated on these tasks, came up with a creative solution, and did the work of three separate tasks regardless of whether or not they used the same method. It was the same collaborators so I see nothing wrong with using the same method.
At this point, the whole argument is seeming really petty when this site is about having fun.
for what it's worth, here is my opinion.
Clever idea. Would have possibly won my vote on a lower point task like confuse a plant. But, used over and over again? Not so clever any more.
However, you all have a valid point. You are free to complete your tasks any way you wish and if others are unhappy with those completions they are free to either flag them or simply not vote for them. I think the lack of votes for this task reflect a consensus that this completion was not up to snuff for a task worth this many points.
So, the next step is up to you. If you don't care about attempting to complete a task in such a manner as to gain votes, keep doing as you are. *shrug* If you're happy with that and having fun, who am I to tell you to act differently.
Speaking of votes, I sure could use a few on my Campaign Trail task :) Only 9 more to go!
This blatant ad paid for by the Committee to Elect Cyber Kitty to Senate - Join me in CECKS now!
Hahaha, I love the shameless plug, Cyber Kitty. I almost did decide to vote for you completely out of impulse. It was very odd thought process... "Oh, she could use some more votes? I might as well... Wait, what am I doing again?"
But it will take more than that to win me over! =P
Why are you calling me out? I'm not the only one who expressed the same sentiments that I did...
Regardless, it's impossible for me to do until J. reaches level 5 (since this is a Level 5 Biome task, and Kat did it already), and she lives on the other side of the country, that is if she was even willing to collaborate.
Glove slap perhaps? (Wow, what a great task. I sure would vote in the senatorial campaign for whoever came up with that task)
Your challenge to Ziggy C gave me an idea for completion of confuse a mineral. (Though I too am currently unable to sign up for this task.) You said that Ziggy doesn't have the "stones" to complete this task. I say to you that he does have the stones, and that they are quite probably "precious" to him. And as we all know, precious stones, or gems, are minerals. So if he's a boxer guy, and for the next week or so he switches to briefs, he will end up confusing his "stones"!
I'd vote for that...but I am a bit biased... :)
going from breezy and comfortable to tight and constrictive might be a bit confusing....
Wow, this is a long and generally illuminating discussion. Let me ask another question of the collaborators: how do you feel about this and the other confuse tasks and the completions, as a Biome task, in the context of its role within the aims and interests of that group?
Burn Unit,
that's pretty much the only worthwhile and valid comment I've read so far regarding the task, and I love your point. Within the framework of the group, I can agree.
I don't have ANY sort of issue with players not liking the completion, or flagging it, or anything...
Here's my problem: The reasons.
Like I stated earlier, if the author of a task has a specific intent - share it. Being esoteric and expecting players to read your mind and not interpret the task differently is beyond silly, it's pointless.
Tasks like this, or ones like Glove Slap (no offense at all CK, it's a good task) that say things like, Challenge another player to a duel, and then completions get lambasted because they stopped where the task did.... "you haven't HAD a duel, etc..." well, then, shouldn't the task have read "challenge a player to a duel, then have one?" (see also, war of escalating dares.)
Also, I object strongly to being told I'm doing silly things like "pointmongering" and it being implied that I'm evidently holding my friends at gunpoint and forcing them to vote for my evidently mediocre tasks...
Look, kids, I'm unemployed, I had to drop all my classes for the semester, I live with a man that works generally from 9-5, then 12am-4am meaning, I don't sleep. Ever. I'm not rushing to complete tasks for the glory of having my little picture thingy beat your picture thingy... I'm trying to occupy some time when I can't be volunteering or working on school. Period. I don't care about the rest of it - I just wanted to talk to interesting people and have some fun.
So, thank you for all the constructive criticism, which I have listened to and taken to heart, and I do appreciate you sharing, because if you can't share it, what's the point? I get that.
But if you really want to stop completions that aren't to your liking, view it from every level - this one (trying to kindly educate new players about the expectations) but also the others (consider the wording of tasks, and don't expect people to infer "intent" that isn't there.)
Kat, thanks! I wasn't making a point, I was sincerely asking a question. I think there's a lot of points already made.
Bubblesort: thanks for the reply, but I submit that you will find you are very much mistaken when you say "Groups and levels are meaningless except that they force people to collaborate. That's it. If they wanted meaningful groups they would make them geographic." The choice to join a group has far reaching implications. Recall too: "groups exist in the real world." Further note, on the basis of Trajectory of Desire, it's worth 400 points to the collaborators who make a group for sf0. So I argue that they have meaning and value.
then i love your question... and, honestly, the angle of the group is not one i thought about.
but, at that angle, no, i don't think that the completion fit into the framework of Biome.
It’s not that you voted for your friends or your friends voted for you..it's that it was rather indiscriminant. Aside from a couple almost every single vote he has cast was for you or Linda...and you and Linda are the only two that have voted for him and he and you are the only ones who have voted for Linda....and most of the tasks were not really vote worthy...it just seems a little unethical.
You can see how a gaggle of people who don’t seem to be interested in anything but gaining points as easily as possible might be a concern. This may not be the case but it has appeared so. Before I started playing I did know several ppl personally, but I'vie gotten maybe one or two votes from them over the course of the last 6 months.
From meeting players I have found that most people playing take days and weeks to knock out even a 15pt task because they want to create something interesting more than just get to the next level.
POOn,
Okay, sure, I see your point, but, please, hear me when I say this for the last damn time...
I CAN'T CONTROL OTHER PEOPLE VOTING FOR ME. I ASKED THEM NOT TO. I EXPLAINED WHY I ASKED THEM NOT TO. AND, I'VE SAID THIS FOUR TIMES ALREADY!
Please hear it this time, and accept it, and stop harassing ME about something I have ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROL OVER.
as a note, i haven't taken any of the criticism of the task personally at all, nor do i have any issue with anyone who's commented.
in fact, i do take the ideas, thoughts, and opinions of those that have expressed them seriously. some of them i agree with, and i'm happy to say that. some of them i don't, and that's okay, too.
three things about me:
- i don't mind criticism
- i'm not afraid to change my mind
- i have no fear of saying i think i was wrong, or right
but i do find it hurtful when i try to explain something, and i have to say it over and over and over, and the person who seemingly desired the explanation won't listen.
but, then, i have no control over someone's choice to listen to me or not listen to me, so...
once again, i've made a moot point.
crap. dudes, i'm verbose.
POOn,
also, once again, i did take a month off from this game; during that month, with the exception of these three tasks, i worked on all the tasks i've posted in the last few days besides Spread sf0.
but, Kamikaze, Plant a Plant, and Mail Something Amazing were all thoughtful, planned, fun-for-me-to-do, ways for me to try to return to the game and be closer and more knowledgeable in the purpose.
It made me incredibly happy that you acknowledged that with your votes, so please understand that i'm trying... I didn't work on these tasks for easy or quick points, but because i thought it was a creative idea. you disagree. that's all.
and, i think that your initial comment was very well-put, and it was clear that you were trying to make us see that you didn't have any personal ill-intent. thank you for that.
I still stand by my assertion that the completion of this task was valid, but I have no interest in beating a dead horse. I'll kiss the points bye-bye, learn a lesson or two, acknowledge and move on (because that is what I do).
Kat:
I am not trying to be an ass. I am not trying to say that all of your completions are without merit. I know that you can not control what your friends do. I was just trying to explain the perception. This was a very creative completion. no one has disagreed with that. The conflict comes from the fact that we don’t think it was a valid completion for three tasks. we were just expressing our feelings about that, and I was commenting on some misgivings I have had in the past. you have explained. no big deal. again....not an ass....not jabbing a finger or trying to start an inquisition. keep up the good work.
Bubblesort:
the players are your jury.
this task was Xed because enough people felt that it was not done in a way that validated the number of points it was worth. Just because a task is technically valid does not mean that it won't get Xed if ppl feel that what you did was not up to par. When you are at a lower level you can get away with more, but as you ascend everyone expects a higher caliber of task completion.
I personally think that all of you who worked on these three tasks should get credit for one (not the really high level one) and everone (including me) who thinks that it is awesome should vote for it.
this is my suggestion at a resolution.
I'm sorry if I came across wrong. My intent was not to offend, simply to discuss. I have not been here long enough to be an authority on the game. these have just been my personal feelings on the subject.
Okay - I misconceived your intent - I totally see why you thought the things you did... I just really want you to know I never intended for two people to vote for everything I did.
I know you're not trying to be an ass - I do. I just let my frustration caused by my misinterpretation of your intent, and at being misunderstood, come across.
I still don't argue or disagree with your opinions, or anyone who's posted here. I'm not calling for an unflagging or a return of points... yeah, I did the work, and yeah, it does suck, but... so what? It's a game. And I feel that when you agree to play a game, you are entering into a contract, essentially, to play fairly, and graciously accept the outcome that results from fair play.
Thanks for your thoughts...
"Why the big red X?" - the shortest answer is because people flagged it. I forget exactly when, but the number of a flags it takes to auto-deny something was reduced (because it had been high enough that the intended "peer moderation" aspect never played out).
I had written more, but I'll leave it at the for the moment.
I don't want to cause more trouble but I am really offended by Poon's statement. First of all, I have not voted for everyone of her posts. I have voted for the ones that I thought were clever and the vote was merited. I was under the impression that was what the voting system was for? I have also voted on other people too. Second, all of my tasks, save for the accidental kitty posting, are valid. The accidental kitty one I misunderstood and I sent a message to sf0 and asked to self flag that task. The other tasks have been followed per the instructions, and I am not sure what you mean by saying that they are not "vote worthy" I would think that voting is up to the individual, you may not appreciate them and that is fine, but to say that others shouldn't really isn't fair. I thought that this site was suppose to be fun.
"You seriously need to document exactly how this peer moderation stuff works."
I could not agree more.
I'm starting to wonder how many people actually know what flagging does and how the big red X comes about. I, for one, thought that when enough people flagged a task, a mod would come and review the task, and decide if it should remain or not. That seemed to be the most logical thing, anyway...
lindz (i adore you):
i actually never addressed it with you, cause i never thought i needed to, as you just said.
i was definitely more talking about keith... and i'm hoping you can attest that i asked him to stop doing it in several comments.
Bubblesort:
I don't mind leaving our X-ed proof here - not as a point of contention, but, even if we didn't get to keep the points, we did the work, and I'm proud of it.
In General:
I'm thinking at this point, that a lot of these comments can, and maybe should, be addressed through private messaging.
I've really truly gotten what everyone's trying to say, and I'm happy to discuss with anyone.
After a kind request from from your fellow collaborator L'audacieuse for this comment war to end, you insist on reviving this? Please, everyone's said enough about this. Take it up in private messages, if you must.
We decided to view the three tasks as a group, and apply the same process to all.
If it might be argued that this is not in the "spirit" of the game, I would say that I enjoyed a collaboration with another player that I hadn't 'met' yet, and, because of the repetition of the process over three tasks, I learned A LOT about a new set of skills (notice I don't say 'mastered' by any means!)
Hence, I believe that our collaboration, thought, and care (and I truly believe that Bubblesort had an ingenious idea) in executing the three tasks as a cohesive unit, and the fact that, as the other collaborators, Crusher Joe and I learned and had a fantastic time doing our part, that the three proofs embody the spirit of the game.
:)