Login / Register  0 items | $0.00 NewWhat is KVR? Submit News Advertise
Ivan_C
KVRian
 
1017 posts since 11 Aug, 2004, from Marcoussis, France

Postby Ivan_C; Sun Dec 18, 2016 12:31 pm Re: Developer Challenge 2016 Rules - Violations and Prize Distribution criticism

We are still Sunday aren't we :o

Image

:lol:
Compyfox
KVRAF
 
14164 posts since 18 Oct, 2003, from Berlin, Germany

Postby Compyfox; Sun Dec 18, 2016 1:51 pm Re: Developer Challenge 2016 Rules - Violations and Prize Distribution criticism

Aloysius wrote:
Compyfox wrote:I think I have made my point clear with editing my first post.

I still find it strange though. And in fact, since I can only vote for 5 plugins in this challenge, my points belong to other devs.


Quoted in case you decide to change this post.


Got to love the conspiracy theorists and forum police on this one... :roll:


D.H. Miltz wrote:I think that'd be just Ben. I have nothing to do with the DC and to the best of my knowledge neither do the other mods. I could be mistaken about the other mods, but in any case I'd start with Ben, who can be contacted the same as always.


I sent it to all of you (at least the most active mods I know), since I find "reporting" the thread inappropriate (and I barely get ANY feedback in return - especially if people lash out). I don't know if you forward this to the internal discussion section or not. But at least "one of the mods" got aware of this topic - even though you sadly can't do anything about it it.



Ivan_C wrote:So that's a fast answer.


Didn't see any other response so far. :shrug:
Apparently, the "voting process" is also still open (so it might be EST/UTC-7 time, not UTC+0)



Also... nice XKCD comic cross-link...
Next step might be Shael Riley's "Arguing on the Internet" song (from the 2005 released album "Toybox")...
[ Studio Page / Twitter ] | [ KVRmarks (see: metering tools) ] | [ Mix Challenge ] | [ Video Project (in the making) ]
User avatar
Numanoid
KVRAF
 
25857 posts since 20 Jan, 2008, from a star near where you are

Postby Numanoid; Sun Dec 18, 2016 2:00 pm Re: Developer Challenge 2016 Rules - Violations and Prize Distribution criticism

Compyfox wrote:What is your opinion on the rule set?
Is the "possible disqualification of participants" adjusted?
What can we do to improve the current and further challenges?

Please discuss

Man, I was afraid I was the worst case of obsessive-compulsive nitpickers around these parts :phew:

None of the three "violators" are in any chance of winning, the best chance goes to SnareBuzz, but even though it was Kontakt instrument before, Kontakt aint free for everybody to use, but with this plug SnareBuzz is liberated as a plug in itself.
Compyfox
KVRAF
 
14164 posts since 18 Oct, 2003, from Berlin, Germany

Postby Compyfox; Sun Dec 18, 2016 2:26 pm Re: Developer Challenge 2016 Rules - Violations and Prize Distribution criticism

So AutoTonic did not violate the rules by submitting a run-down version of a previously released plugin?

Obviously, "disqualification" is out of the option at this point, which in turn means for the future "hey, it's okay to still release my demo versions and shoot for the big price - nothing will happen to me anyway".



Am I getting you right on this one?
[ Studio Page / Twitter ] | [ KVRmarks (see: metering tools) ] | [ Mix Challenge ] | [ Video Project (in the making) ]
User avatar
Aloysius
KVRAF
 
20505 posts since 11 Aug, 2008, from a computer

Postby Aloysius; Sun Dec 18, 2016 2:33 pm Re: Developer Challenge 2016 Rules - Violations and Prize Distribution criticism

Oh you and your conspiracy theories. :dog:
Hug a Thug.
User avatar
Numanoid
KVRAF
 
25857 posts since 20 Jan, 2008, from a star near where you are

Postby Numanoid; Sun Dec 18, 2016 2:36 pm Re: Developer Challenge 2016 Rules - Violations and Prize Distribution criticism

Compyfox wrote:So AutoTonic did not violate the rules by submitting a run-down version of a previously released plugin?

Should SpaceDelay be disqualified because such delays have been released previously?

AutoTonic did a remix of their plug, so what :neutral:
Compyfox wrote:Obviously, "disqualification" is out of the option at this point, which in turn means for the future "hey, it's okay to still release my demo versions and shoot for the big price - nothing will happen to me anyway".

What kind of punishment would you think is fitting, for such rule breakers?
Compyfox
KVRAF
 
14164 posts since 18 Oct, 2003, from Berlin, Germany

Postby Compyfox; Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:01 pm Re: Developer Challenge 2016 Rules - Violations and Prize Distribution criticism

Aloysius wrote:Oh you and your conspiracy theories. :dog:


*plays: "we didn't start the fire" by Billy Joel*


Numanoid wrote:Should SpaceDelay be disqualified because such delays have been released previously?


SpaceDelay, or the developer MusicalEntropy for that matter, did not violate the rules. He created something new out of his house, that wasn't released in any previous form.


Numanoid wrote:AutoTonic did a remix of their plug, so what :neutral:


No, they released a "run down" version of their in July 2016 already released, commercial plugin "AutoTonic", and even called it "AutoTonic Player".



Numanoid wrote:What kind of punishment would you think is fitting, for such rule breakers?


Didn't know that I wrote anything else since page 1 (and my post in the other thread): Disqualification.

No matter at which point in the challenge we're currently at.
[ Studio Page / Twitter ] | [ KVRmarks (see: metering tools) ] | [ Mix Challenge ] | [ Video Project (in the making) ]
User avatar
Numanoid
KVRAF
 
25857 posts since 20 Jan, 2008, from a star near where you are

Postby Numanoid; Sun Dec 18, 2016 3:22 pm Re: Developer Challenge 2016 Rules - Violations and Prize Distribution criticism

xoxos wrote:there are so many terrible things in the world, and you are applying your energy to this?

The most interesting discovery of this thread, a "regular-joe" like reply from xoxos.

As a voigth-kampff test in disguise, this thread was at least useful to reveal that the everyday weirdness is just a mask, a play for today.

So will not get my vote.
Compyfox
KVRAF
 
14164 posts since 18 Oct, 2003, from Berlin, Germany

Postby Compyfox; Sun Dec 18, 2016 4:24 pm Re: Developer Challenge 2016 Rules - Violations and Prize Distribution criticism

Numanoid wrote:As a voigth-kampff test in disguise, this thread was at least useful to reveal that the everyday weirdness is just a mask, a play for today.



Blade Runner wrote:Holden: Describe in single words only the good things that come into your mind about... your mother.
Leon: My mother?
Holden: Yeah.
Leon: Let me tell you about my mother.
[Leon shoots Holden with a gun he had pulled out under the table]


:tu:
[ Studio Page / Twitter ] | [ KVRmarks (see: metering tools) ] | [ Mix Challenge ] | [ Video Project (in the making) ]
funky lime
KVRian
 
913 posts since 17 Sep, 2002, from the imagination

Postby funky lime; Sun Dec 18, 2016 5:29 pm Re: Developer Challenge 2016 Rules - Violations and Prize Distribution criticism

I think Compyfox has a point with the rules, and though I might disagree with the way this point is presented, I think it is worth discussing.

If Company X submits an entry that is against the rules, but it never gets disqualified, then Company X just got a bunch of free advertising for their brand/demo/plugins, because of everybody trying it, talking/arguing about it, etc. And that seems to go against the spirit of the contest.

So if all I have to do to advertise my product (for free) on one of the most popular websites of its kind is to cut away some features and call it "free," then I have beaten the system and have managed to advertise to hundreds/thousands of people without actually paying for that space, regardless of actual chances of winning or whatever.

This example might be extreme, but is indicative of what could happen if the submissions aren't moderated. I understand one major point of the DC is exposure for developers, but this can be exploited in a less-than-scrupulous way.

Compy's #3 from the OP seems to be bordering on this sort of behavior. As for the other two (Snarebuzz and the Beat thing), I don't really see the problem. As for the Beat one, that's like saying, "well xoxos already has $1000, so it's not fair to let him compete for another $1000" or something along those lines.
Compyfox
KVRAF
 
14164 posts since 18 Oct, 2003, from Berlin, Germany

Postby Compyfox; Sun Dec 18, 2016 5:48 pm Re: Developer Challenge 2016 Rules - Violations and Prize Distribution criticism

I think we discussed point 1 and 2 ad infinity at this point. The focus has been (and still is) the rule violation with point 3.


So there is another vote for disqualification... good to read.

Still no response from Ben though...
[ Studio Page / Twitter ] | [ KVRmarks (see: metering tools) ] | [ Mix Challenge ] | [ Video Project (in the making) ]
AXP
KVRist
 
95 posts since 24 Mar, 2012

Postby AXP; Mon Dec 19, 2016 2:59 am Re: Developer Challenge 2016 Rules - Violations and Prize Distribution criticism

I'll try to keep it short (edit: I failed!)

0. The DC rules are apparently not enforced. I think it's bad because of free advertising the violators get (bad mouthing is still advertising) and also because it blurs the borders for participants of the future contests. Ho much do I have to follow rules if others do not and still get by?

1. I believe the idea of the hosts of the challenge is to let the voters decide what's good and "disqualify" the entry by not voting for it. I agree though that many folks may not read this part of the forum before voting.

2. This applies to violating entries, post-release modifications and meeting the deadlines. I faced a very good possibility of doing the latter, I've done my submission like half an hour before the deadline and still wasn't sure what the deadline was. Midnight in your local timezone, huh? I'm left with a feeling that I could have uploaded it the next day and still get into the contest.

3. I understand that it's all manual process and we owe to a couple of people for making this happen at all. What I'd like to see is some automated moderation at least for the deadlines (both submission and voting).

4. It was voiced here that some manual pre-voting moderation would be good. I agree. I have to say though, that the entries are already processed manually. I saw them fixing my spelling a few times before making them public (this applies to previous DC's).

5. About the contest timeframe. I wholeheartedly agree that more regular and predictable contests would be great. Also, I think that it would be interesting to have (a choice of) specific goals for each challenge in order to prevent devs from spending a year or two on their entry. If anybody is curious, for this and the previous DC, it took me 2 months to develop a plugin, the plan that I tried to follow was 1 month for coming up with an idea, doing the research and coding the DSP part and another month for UI, integration and testing. This year I slipped with the DSP part and had only about 10 days for UI and the rest. It was fun, but unhealthy! :)


6. Regarding the established commercial companies winning a ticket to NAMM. As far as I remember, what they offer is just a piece of a table at the KVR booth, which any commercial company would not even consider a prize. There's a picture of a typical booth here: https://www.namm.org/thenammshow/2017/software-namm
For an indie developer it's absolutely fantastic though.

7. Regarding this thread's topic, first of all thanks to Compyfox for bringing this up. It bothered me too. I agree with the Autotonic thing, the other two seem to be in the grey area (just my humble opinion!), but don't break the rules.

8. The sponsored prize distribution is not made clear. Who gets the monitors, for example? A clear statement that a sponsor gets to pick its own winner would be fine.

9. Overall, I think that they barely get enough submissions to keep the DC alive, so they're not in a position to make the rules more strict without also taking some steps to increase the interest of developers as well as the voting crowd.

10. Speaking of which, I personally would like to see at least a bit of the voting statistics. One thing I know for sure is the number of direct downloads of my plugin - about 3500.
My free VST guitar effects
www.soft-amp.com
User avatar
Taron
KVRAF
 
1876 posts since 17 Apr, 2010, from Croatia

Postby Taron; Mon Dec 19, 2016 3:37 am Re: Developer Challenge 2016 Rules - Violations and Prize Distribution criticism

AXP wrote:5. About the contest timeframe. I wholeheartedly agree that more regular and predictable contests would be great. Also, I think that it would be interesting to have (a choice of) specific goals for each challenge in order to prevent devs from spending a year or two on their entry. If anybody is curious, for this and the previous DC, it took me 2 months to develop a plugin, the plan that I tried to follow was 1 month for coming up with an idea, doing the research and coding the DSP part and another month for UI, integration and testing. This year I slipped with the DSP part and had only about 10 days for UI and the rest. It was fun, but unhealthy! :)


I was thinking about the same thing: announcing some kind of theme. There are a number of game developer contests out there, which always operate that way. Naturally, it's easy for something as open as games, but I can imagine some good brainstorming could lead to fantastic topics for audio related developments that could still be open enough to invite submissions from a broad spectrum of potential contributors.
I do believe 2 months should be plenty of time, while I only had a little less than month for this one from scratch. But I have plenty of power over my time, while others ordinarily don't...sadly.
I also think it would be fantastic to have such a contest twice a year, or something like a mini contest (ONE GUI INPUT ELEMENT (OGIE - sounds fun)) and a spotlight contest, half a year apart. Something like that. Prizes don't have to be big, but a standard main prize of AD headline on KVR for a month or so, would actually be quite attractive, I imagine.

Anyway, sorry for possibly derailing the thread... it happens so quickly! :oops:

Great stuff, though, thanks AXP! :tu:
Compyfox
KVRAF
 
14164 posts since 18 Oct, 2003, from Berlin, Germany

Postby Compyfox; Mon Dec 19, 2016 4:20 am Re: Developer Challenge 2016 Rules - Violations and Prize Distribution criticism

Thanks for the feedback, AXP.

Fun fact... We're beyond UTC-11 and the voting process is still running. So that is not timed/automated. That confirms AXP's concerns with the timeframes/deadlines



EDIT:
So it's 2:40pm at this point (14:40 / GMT+1/UTC+1/CET, yadda yadda). It must be about 5:40am in LA (west coast), on Monday the 19th December 2016.

The rules state
KVR Members will vote for their favourite entries between December 1st-18th, 2016. Depending on the amount of submissions, the voting period (and consequently the winner announcement date) may be extended for another week or so.


No announcement has been made

Additionally:
The winners will be announced on December 19th, 2016



We have the 19th, December at this point. No announcements have been made. I take it the voting period should have been over for about 14 hours.

Yet I still got mails post the deadline from developers still saying "vote for us". Which does have influence on the outcome of the challenge (especially if you're more known companies/communities use their popularity).




...alright then... :shrug:
[ Studio Page / Twitter ] | [ KVRmarks (see: metering tools) ] | [ Mix Challenge ] | [ Video Project (in the making) ]
DSmolken
KVRian
 
1203 posts since 20 Sep, 2013, from Poland

Postby DSmolken; Mon Dec 19, 2016 7:08 am Re: Developer Challenge 2016 Rules - Violations and Prize Distribution criticism

While we wait for the announcements, gonna throw in my two cents on two points.
AXP wrote:5. About the contest timeframe. I wholeheartedly agree that more regular and predictable contests would be great. Also, I think that it would be interesting to have (a choice of) specific goals for each challenge in order to prevent devs from spending a year or two on their entry. If anybody is curious, for this and the previous DC, it took me 2 months to develop a plugin, the plan that I tried to follow was 1 month for coming up with an idea, doing the research and coding the DSP part and another month for UI, integration and testing. This year I slipped with the DSP part and had only about 10 days for UI and the rest. It was fun, but unhealthy! :)

I dunno... Do we need to prevent people from spending a year or two? A lot of soundware takes repetitive, boring work that I definitely like to spread across a bigger time span. For me having a year would be - I have a vague idea of 3-4 freebies to release in a typical year, I'll see if I can plan to get the most interesting one done in time for the challenge.
AXP wrote:9. Overall, I think that they barely get enough submissions to keep the DC alive, so they're not in a position to make the rules more strict without also taking some steps to increase the interest of developers as well as the voting crowd.

Yeah... this would make themed contests tough to pull off, unfortunately, since not everyone would have an idea that would fit the theme. Which is too bad, because themed challenges could be a lot of fun.
PreviousNext

Moderator: Moderators (Main)

Return to KVR Developer Challenge Chat