Villainous Competition XXXIX: Sorta Psuedo

[jdizzlean]

Final table :

Name of Dish	Stub	Score - GWG	Score - Thurbane	Score - H_H_F_F	Score - GrayDeath	Current Total Score	Chef
tentacle kitty	Pseudonatural Legendary Tiger	8.8	12.5	9.9	13.00	44.2 ​HM Winner	PrismCat21
Shadow Of The World	Shadow Simulacrum of Poisonlaced Corrupted By The Abyss Awakened Skeletal Dragon Half-Dragon (Li Lung) Hecatoncheires	16.05	14.0	14.5	12.75	57.3	NotInventedHere
Nyekdar	Half-farspawn grell Scout 3/Wild Shape Ranger 10/Whirling Frenzy Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian 1	15.6	15.5	11.15	14.25	56.5	InvisibleBison
It Came From the Unknown	Lolth-touched Feral Natural Lycanthrope(Giant Octopus) Amphibious Neanderthal Whirling Frenzy Barbarian 2/Martial Rogue 2/Witch Slayer 5	10.5	14.5	13.55	14.00	52.55	smasher0404
Jon Eh Zoidburg	Half-Farspawn Half Ogre Entomanothrope (Monstrous Crab) Ardent 3/Flayspawn Psychic 10	7.9	15.0	13	14.25	50.15	PrismCat21

New round up in a few, maybe a few few, gotta take the kiddo to the park before the weather turns south..

I believe Nyekdar, and Kitty both have a vote for HM, I'll split the tie and give it to kitty since Nyekdar took 2nd. tentacle kitty won the Honorable Mention

[NotInventedHere]

I absolutely was not expecting to win when I submitted Shadow Of The World. I knew it was a mess that deserved a solid 1 in Elegance from every judge. But apparently my fluff was well-loved and memorable enough that I got first place? Well. Awesome.

I would like to thank all the judges, for your hard work and for all the really nice comments everyone gave me about my fluff work! I put a lot of effort in, in a lot of weird ways (I don't know if anyone clocked it, but the first given names of the 4 original Hecatoncheires are modified versions of the words in Draconic for the four elements, while their second given names are based on the names of the actual Greek Hecatoncheires (except for Threa whose second name is based on the Titaness Thea because there are only 3 Greek Hecatoncheires)). My apologies, once again, for subjecting you all to such a mess mechanics-wise. I did say this was a Very Bad Idea when I started, and it kept on being so. I nearly pulled my hair out when I saw that "living" requirement in Shadow Simulacrum, but I found a dubiously-plausible solution, and honestly, dubiously-plausible Rube Goldberg machines of mechanics are sometimes the most entertaining option.

I'm definitely going to be taking part in more Villainous Competitions, and hopefully with something slightly less held-together-with-string next time.

Many thanks to all the other contestants too! Given that this is the Villainous Competition I should probably gloat and/or let off an evil cackle right now, but honestly, I'm mostly just impressed with everyone's hard work.

[H_H_F_F]

Congratulations to Notinventedhere, as well as to the rest of the gang and my fellow judges!

I loved seeing so many diverse entries, and I liked them all. I also loved being part of a big team of judges, something I'm always advocating for in these forums. I think it's a way better experience to have a multitude of judges, both as a contesrant and as a judge.

I apologize again for taking so long with my judgement.

Hope to see you all as contestants and judges next round, as well as in the Iron Chef! Well done, everyone.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Considering the flavor that brought SotW to victory—the way its mere existence would, appropriately enough, cast a shadow over the entire campaign world—just standing there menacingly might be more appropriate than malevolent cackling.

[AvatarVecna]

I think it's a way better experience to have a multitude of judges, both as a contesrant and as a judge.

Seconded. It always makes me feel a bit worse about pushing back against disputes when I'm the only judge. When my opinion is the sole arbiter of how well you do, my bias is inevitably going to sink into the judgement. Two is better than one, three is better than two. Four is better than three, although the step from 2 to 3 is the biggest in my mind - that's the point where the slight biases of the individual judges are diluted enough for the true merit of the build to shine through. More judges refines it further, but three is the sweet spot IMO.

[Thurbane]

Congrats to all the entrants this round.

[PrismCat21]

There are only two rules Judges need to follow in this competition.

Judging will be based on the following criteria, with each build rated on a scale from 1 (very poor) to 5 (exemplary) in each area: Originality, Build Elegance, Competence and Power, Memorable Villainy.

Chair, since one of the Judges ended up breaking both those rules, shouldn't their scores be voided? It's worse than a contestant ignoring the rules since their builds can be disqualified by Judges. Judges have no one to rectify when they overstep their bounds, except you.

At the very least every score below the minimum should be brought up to the minimum of 1 (affecting 2 contestants, 3 builds), and the scores in the additional areas be removed completely (affecting every build). But that still would be unfair to the other contestants and Judges that chose to follow the rules. Again, only two rules for Judges.

This is a bad precedent to set if the scores are allowed. There'll be nothing to dissuade future Judges from ignoring the rules for themselves when they feel like it.

[AvatarVecna]

1) I can maybe see an argument for limbs being its own category (even if I vehemently disagree with it), but "Lovecraftiness" should really have been a factor in the Memorability/Villainy category rather than its own thing (in no small part because "lovecraftiness" isn't even the point of the contest in the first place).

2) A score of 0 should be rare, but occasionally it will be warranted by a complete and utter failure in that category.

A villain that never manages to be a real physical, magical, social, or existential threat would get a 0 in Power from me.

I've scored "technically RAW legal" builds that were piles of cheese as Elegance 1s, in addition to builds that were riddled with small fixable mechanical mistakes. But if a build came up that was blatantly illegal to the point they're either extremely stupid or intentionally breaking the rules, or bounced back and forth between "RAW is stupid but you have to obey it" and "RAW is stupid, so use RAI this time" to pull off their super-cheese...that'd probably earn Elegance 0.

Someone evil but who is boring and has no talent for villainy would earn a 1 from me in Memorability/Villainy; to earn a 0, you would have to put forth an uninteresting do-gooder with no moral quandaries muddying them.

The most cookie-cutter builds and the most bland backstories would earn a 1 in Originality from me; for a 0, you'd have to cross over into the realm of plagiarism.

3) Reading through the thread, the response to when this was brought up in disputes was "keep complaining and I'll make your score lower purely out of spite", which is an even more blatant sign of judging in bad faith than either the 0 scoring or the extra categories.

4) The judgement in question has been up for a month. This exact issue has been brought up publicly and privately and the judgement was allowed to stand as-is for a month in total, and the contest has moved on to the next round. Neither the chair nor the judge addressed it, then there's little that can be done about it short of starting a coup or a schism.

EDIT: I will also add that the last time I saw a judge acting like this, both in their judgement and their disputes, it motivated me (and maybe others) to judge specifically to spite them, their judgement did in fact end up getting tossed out, and their behavior in the following few contests got them banned from the contest entirely (and the forum entirely, shortly thereafter).

[jdizzlean]

I'll review, and if necessary and warranted change things later. it's not being ignored, just postponed.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Chair, since one of the Judges ended up breaking both those rules, shouldn't their scores be voided?

Incorrect. I changed my scores to remove the 0 when that was pointed out. I'll grant that I did add an extra category.

1) I can maybe see an argument for limbs being its own category (even if I vehemently disagree with it), but "Lovecraftiness" should really have been a factor in the Memorability/Villainy category rather than its own thing (in no small part because "lovecraftiness" isn't even the point of the contest in the first place).

It was.

I'll be rating [Lovecraftiness] on a scale of 0 to 1, then adding that to the 1-4 points I assign to the Originality and Memorable Villainy rankings.

This wasn't even in a spoiler or anything. It was right there in my post.

3) Reading through the thread, the response to when this was brought up in disputes was "keep complaining and I'll make your score lower purely out of spite", which is an even more blatant sign of judging in bad faith than either the 0 scoring or the extra categories.

That's not what that was responding to.

You don't get to tell me what I think about your entry. That makes me want to go back and mark your entry lower.

For those in back: I didn't say "Keep complaining and I'll lower your score". I said "Keep telling me what I think of your entry and I'll lower your score". We can argue over whether that's a valid reaction or not, but I hope we can agree that that's meaningfully distinct.

[AvatarVecna]

I was mistaken about Lovecraftiness being separate from Memorability, that is fair. I still think it shouldn't have even been a factor, because this isn't a contest about making a lovecraftian being.

The Thing That Should Not Be

Limitations:

• The character presented must be "Lovecraftian" in nature - encouraged: tentacles, Aberrations, Far Realm related.
• Must be able to inspire insanity in others (either literally or metaphorically).
• Must NOT be of the Humanoid, Monstrous Humanoid, Fey or Giant type.
• Must have an Evil or Chaotic Neutral alignment.

Elder Evils!

Limitations

• Must be a cultist, worshipper, emissary or other servant of an Elder Evil (as per the book Elder Evils. I believe a handful of additional Elder Evils appeared in other official sources - these are also allowed)
• Optional: you may create your own custom Elder Evil for the entry to be the servant of. If you do so, please use a format similar to the official Elder Evils, and present enough info for your new Elder Evil to be used in someone else's game. WARNING: this may entail a lot of work. This is the first time we are opening up what is essentially homebrew, so try to use a little common sense and don't use this as an opportunity to "break the game".
• As always, must be Evil in alignment

Sorta Psuedo

Limitations

• Mimic the Psuedonatural Template, w/o taking it..(mass tentacles/arms/etc)
• Warshaper is Banned
• Totemist is Banned
• the more arms, tentacles, limbs, natural attacks, etc, the better
• must have zero equipment reliance

Complaints about "lovecraftiness" are warranted, because that's not what people were told to build. In more than a couple places I've seen you say something along the lines of "this isn't some monstrous thing man was not meant to know, this is just some big dumb brute with a lot of tentacles".

Yeah gold. You're right. That's what they are. That was kinda the contest.

---

As far as the "mark you lower out of spite" thing:

You don't get to tell me what I think about your entry. That makes me want to go back and mark your entry lower.

Would you rather I give you a zero in those categories? I'm considering it!
If your complaints had been limited to the new categories, I'd be inclined to listen. But instead, you complained about the adjectives I used, told me how original I thought your villain was, said I should rate your monster higher because it's a Futurama reference (or something?), and talked a big deal about how much better your entry could have been if you had access to everything you'd written.

1) It happened twice, and one was under the exact circumstances I described, somebody complaining about the new categories.

2) The circumstances you mentioned, which you feel justifies that reaction? I don't think it does. I've been judging pretty frequently, and I gotta tell ya: people reading what you wrote and saying "well wait a minute, you said X and Y, which feels like it deserves this score, but you gave me a lower score than that? What gives"? That happens a lot. People reading what you wrote and saying "this should've gotten me a higher score than it did" is literally the entire point of disputes. Throwing a fit when people think there is a disparity between the view you professed to have on their build and the score you gave their build is childish, even if they're objectively wrong about that disparity.

People telling you what they think you thought about their build is just gonna happen. Threatening to flip the table over a fairly common dispute is pointless - just say "you're wrong and here's why" and move on. There's nobody forcing you to accept a dispute most of the time, since judging is largely a matter of opinion. Making threats like just sours everybody on participating if there's a chance you're gonna be involved again.

Speaking of things that sour anybody on participating when you are again, I noticed you completely avoided addressing the point about all the scores below 0. Do you feel I was so inaccurate that it didn't even deign a response? Or maybe there was just some other reason you left it unaddressed.

"so I'll go with the suggested minimum score of 0.25."

The default minimum score is 1. Going below that is reserved for special cases. You have three, and would've had a fourth if you hadn't decided that the chair's tacit approval meant you couldn't give yet another 0 (and so you gave them a 2, because I guess that was the only major thing wrong with the build? Idk that's not a complaint, it just seems weird). The fact that you changed one zero to a 2 doesn't change the continued presence of the other two zeroes and the one 0.25 that were still very generally not fitting with the community guidelines on judging. And as somebody who isn't new to judging, you should know better.

This contest has issues with participation enough as it is. Don't be one of them.

[GreatWyrmGold]

This contest has issues with participation enough as it is. Don't be one of them.

Then I guess I don't get to defend myself? Would that be "being an issue with participation"? I guess "raking judges over the coals for judging wrong after not participating at all" isn't an issue.

Spoiler: In case I do...

Show

Complaints about "lovecraftiness" are warranted, because that's not what people were told to build.

Whatever. Fine. Most of the participants were fine with it, and the one who complained was more angry about thinking he deserved more points.

In more than a couple places I've seen you say something along the lines of "this isn't some monstrous thing man was not meant to know, this is just some big dumb brute with a lot of tentacles".

I said that about Tentacle Kitty and Zoidberg, and I'd say that about them in any other contest. They don't have even an ounce of flavor text. They're not villains; they barely have enough substance to be a villain's nameless elite minion.

2) The circumstances you mentioned, which you feel justifies that reaction? I don't think it does. I've been judging pretty frequently, and I gotta tell ya: people reading what you wrote and saying "well wait a minute, you said X and Y, which feels like it deserves this score, but you gave me a lower score than that? What gives"? That happens a lot. People reading what you wrote and saying "this should've gotten me a higher score than it did" is literally the entire point of disputes. Throwing a fit when people think there is a disparity between the view you professed to have on their build and the score you gave their build is childish, even if they're objectively wrong about that disparity.

Tell that to the guy who pointed out ways that I actually failed to follow the rules. Which isn't remotely "Your description sounds makes it sound like you think I deserve Score X". And I'd argue that there's a difference between "You said you liked it and gave me a bad score" and "You liked the jokes in my entry, that means I should get a good score".

And being lost in here is the fact that, despite threatening pettiness, I didn't actually do anything about it. I was in a bad mood from being told what I thought about my own entry, and I left it there.

"so I'll go with the suggested minimum score of 0.25."

The default minimum score is 1.

I was going to say "0.25 was what was recommended to me," but upon rereading the thread I realize I misinterpreted the advice.
Still, I don't see this as being a huge issue for the same reason that I don't see point granularity as being a huge issue—it doesn't actually affect the rankings. It affects the numbers everyone gets, but not whose numbers are biggest, and that's what matters. Calling "your minimum score is lower than everyone else's" something that could cause issues with participation—ie, something that could drive off potential competitors—would be ridiculous.

I'm kind of curious what you're after now. It's too late to change my scores for this round, so that's not it. Is this a warning—"don't do anything clever when judging (even when one of those things actually lets you score how well the participants did in the theoretical goal of this challenge) again or I'll yell at you"? Are you trying to convince the contest runners to ban me from judging? Are you hoping to get an apology? If it's that last one, calling me an "issue with participation" (which I guess means you think I'm going to drive off participants?) is an odd way to go about it.

[smasher0404]

At the very least, it is probably a good idea moving forward that scores remain within a 20 point scale model (5 points for each of the 4 categories).

The addition of another category of judgement without any scaling provides a bias to the overall scores towards the opinions of the judge who added the category. Consider the case of 2 entries (let's call them Entry A and Entry B) and 2 judges (Judge A and Judge B).

Judge A adds another category to the established rubric. Judge B maintains the existing rubric.

Entry A in Judge A's opinion scores on average 4 out of 5 points for each of the categories. Entry B scores 3 out of 5 for each category for Judge A.

Conversely, Entry A earns 3 out of 5 from Judge B across the board, and Entry B earns 4 out of 5 from Judge B across the board.

If Judge A used the established rubric, this would result in a tie (which makes sense, because Judge A's overall favorability for Entry A is the same as Judge B's overall favorability of Entry B).

However with the addition of another category from Judge A, Entry A would actually win by a slight margin. Entry A would have an average score of 16 (20 from Judge A, 12 from Judge B), while Entry B would have an average score of 15.5 (15 from Judge A, 16 from Judge B).

Judge A gains more influence over the average score by introducing that new category. Scores should probably either be normalized during judgement or in the final results to be out of a 20 point scale from each judge (which would be a 5 point scale for each of the established categories), to ensure that each judge's scores are weighted equally when the final results are tallied.

[H_H_F_F]

Guys, I feel like we need to cool off here. There's no reason for tones to get this intense. Even if we get upset or otherwise emotional (which is completely legitimate) we can still discuss issues with respect and with assumption of good will.

Now, GwG, I feel like you're misunderstanding the reasoning behind the arguments against your judgement. This isn't about getting you to apologize, I think. It seems like it's mainly about seeing your judgement as unfair, and trying to talk these things out so feelings won't sour again in the future.

That aside, I also think that you make a false equivalency between granularity (which I agreed with you on) and minimal score: minimal/maximal score make sure all judgement have approximately the same weight. Now, this issue is bigger than that, and is hard to address: My approach usually leads to a pretty small difference in final scores compared to judges that easily throw around 5s. If a very good entry (IMO) gets 15 from me and a pretty bad one gets 10, while someone else gives around 19 to very good entries (in their opinion) and around 6 to pretty bad ones, their judgement will carry more weight than mine.

This isn't easily solveable, but having minimal/maximal scores helps making that issue more manageable. Imagine for a moment that instead of giving a score below 1, you'd give an extraordinarily creative entry a 10 in originality. That would break the metric, and make your evaluation of that entey be much more important than the other judges'.

Minimal score is not as big of an issue in that regard, since it's bounded (as long as you're not going negative) but it can also cause issues with entrants being upset. While losing by 0.1 can feel like "shucks, I was so close" being rated below 1 in a category when 1 is the accepted minimum can feel like a judge "going after" you, and can cause feelings to sour. "The rules say Judge X should have stopped, but they didn't, which led to me not getting bronze / ending dead last".

I'm not going to get deep into the other discussions, though I do think "are you sure you rated my entry fairly? You seem to have given it less significantly points than to entries that got a similar amount of praise/condemnation" is a legitimate dispute.

Again, guys, let's try and be respectful. We all want what's best for the competition. Remember you can't read tone on the internet - hell AvatarVecna, your usual schtick of "can't wait for the salt" can seem just as offensive as GWG's "be thankful I'm not dropping your score more." Let's assume good faith, and act with such.