DC17?

[Pytchblend]

Here's hoping...

[Pytchblend]

My fingers are turning blue because I'm crossing them so hard.

[DSmolken]

I've got a couple ideas I could do for a DC17, if it happens. So, yeah, hoping also!

[Ivan_C]

I have not finished to update my entry from DC 16

[EatMe]

Yes.

KVR Forum topic: You Are The Artist Here

New Game: You Are The Artist Here

A game about a career as online artist with 5 buttons.

Entering the KVR developer challenge 2017, accepting ideas.

[whyterabbyt]

Yes.

KVR Forum topic: You Are The Artist Here

New Game: You Are The Artist Here

A game about a career as online artist with 5 buttons.

Entering the KVR developer challenge 2017, accepting ideas.

If you're serious about entering this, youve already broken several rules of the competition, including those regarding making it new for the competition, not reusing existing work, and not making public testing possible.

[EatMe]

If you're serious about entering this

yes

, youve already broken several rules of the competition,

oh nooooo why?

including those regarding making it new for the competition,

this was developed by me for the KVR developer challenge 2017 with that intention

not reusing existing work

is it forbidden to use a javascript framework and a browser? oh noooo! I made this game with Notepad.

and not making public testing possible.

I'm rather not developing closed secret projects. This isn't a test version anymore.

[whyterabbyt]

, youve already broken several rules of the competition,

oh nooooo why?

Oddly enough, I dont know why you broke them. Presumably to give yourself an unfair advantage over people who wouldnt break them?

this was developed by me for the KVR developer challenge 2017 with that intention[/quote]

Ah, of course; something that predates the competition by at least 8 months is 'new'. and it isnt reusing a project that already existed, even though it already exists.

makes sense.

and not making public testing possible.

I'm rather not developing closed secret projects. This isn't a test version anymore.

[/quote]

Ah, that's okay then. What you'd rather do is clearly more important. Im sure everyone, including Ben, will agree to that. Carry on.

[Youlean]

I have not finished to update my entry from DC 16

Me too!

[dmbaer]

Oddly enough, I dont know why you broke them. Presumably to give yourself an unfair advantage over people who wouldnt break them?

Shouldn't whatever rules exist be enacted for the benefit of the community at large? No testing? Really? So developers are supposed to submit alpha code?

Also, be realistic. Quite a few of the entries clearly are free lite versions that shortly become commercial full versions. This behavior is clearly against the spirit of the competition, but incurs no demerits when it happens. In other words, the developer is not thereafter banned from future competitions.

A free piece very useful software is banned from the competition if it was written to support a published techniques article. Who is the loser in this case? Seems to me it's the community of users who might find it valuable but won't see it, even though the developer didn't make a dime from creating it.

Like I said, the rules should be shaped for the best benefit of the community. As such, don't you think the community should have some input on which rules are reasonable and which are not in their best interest?

I'm not trying to be adversarial here. But a) the rules are not always clear in the first place and b) the motivation behind some of them don't make much sense, IMO.

[whyterabbyt]

Oddly enough, I dont know why you broke them. Presumably to give yourself an unfair advantage over people who wouldnt break them?

Shouldn't whatever rules exist be enacted for the benefit of the community at large? No testing? Really? So developers are supposed to submit alpha code?

Reread. I didnt the rules say 'no testing'. I said they say 'no public testing'. That rule even explain why it is a rule.

Also, be realistic.

I am being reallistic. Im telling him what the rules are. How the rules have been enforced or will be enforced, what they should be instead, or who is responsible for deciding them, are all entirely separate issues, and my opinion on any of those things is entirely separate from what the rules themselves are.

So Im not sure what you're commenting on here. Are you arguing that I shouldnt have warned him at all, thus not giving him any opportunity to reconcile his expectations with the competition management? That seems unfair, even if his response did seem somewhat, erm, self-entitled.

[dmbaer]

Reread. I didnt the rules say 'no testing'. I said they say 'no public testing'. That rule even explain why it is a rule.

So, where are the rules posted? I know I read them once a while ago, but I can't find them now, and I certainly don't remember the specifics on testing. But really, unless it's clearly stated in the rules, how can anyone do beta testing without soliciting testers? If you ask for testers, you are doing something publicly.

Again, I'll state that the benefit of the community should be the primary goal here. You've got some generous folks who want to give some free stuff to the community (admittedly, some of those people have ulterior motives and may not be all that generous). But why doesn't the competition optimize how much free stuff is made available for distribution.

Let me cite one example. How does it benefit the community to limit when the software is made available? If the rule was that anything (conforming to the other rules) that was released since the last competition submission window closed would be eligible, then people would not need to wait for some arbitrary submission date in order to get their hands on some potentially useful items. If a developer created something for the competition and had to keep it private until the submission window opened, then the community looses out a bit.

Let me cite another example, one dear to my heart. If a developer provides a free utility that many would find useful in the process of writing an article for a free magazine in order to support a tutorial presentation, why should that not be eligible for submission to the competition. The developer isn't making a cent on it, and the community benefits. So, how is prohibiting this type of submission a good thing for anybody?

I have no idea who created the rules for the competition - was it just a single person or committee? Either way, I would hope the rule creator(s) would do a review, and for each rule ask themselves "How does this benefit the community?". I think it would also be good to ask the community for feedback, particularly on what may be ambiguous. I recall that when I did read the rules some time ago, I found some things that begged for clarification.

[whyterabbyt]

Reread. I didnt the rules say 'no testing'. I said they say 'no public testing'. That rule even explain why it is a rule.

So, where are the rules posted?
...
I can't find them now

Its that hard to google 'KVR DC rules?'

.

But really, unless it's clearly stated in the rules, how can anyone do beta testing without soliciting testers? If you ask for testers, you are doing something publicly.

Erm, no. Asking people to do something in private doesn't somehow make what they do public. And most developers will be familiar with what the difference is, even though you are not.

And it clearly states in the rules to do private testing, not to do public testing. Testing and design, in fact.

Again, I'll state that the benefit of the community should be the primary goal here.

So you're claiming it doesn't 'benefit the community' for the rules to ensure the developers have a level playing field?

That preventing people from getting an unfair advantage, in development, or at the point of voting, will put people off being involved?

If you have a problem with the rules, take it to Ben. But I suggest you actually check what the rules are first, and what the terms mean, arguing with them without actually knowing is pretty silly.

[slipstick]

Again, I'll state that the benefit of the community should be the primary goal here.

You do indeed keep saying that. But which "community" are you referring to? The community of developers who like rules which try to ensure a fair contest? The community of developers who want the glory but don't want any rules getting in the way of them doing whatever they feel like? Or perhaps the community of people who aren't putting any effort in at all but just want to get hold of some free stuff as soon as possible?

Bottom line - there is no single "community" to benefit. I'm a member of the community of people who have no ability to develop anything useful but I have benefited considerably from the last few DCs and I thank all the developers. But I can think of no reason why I should have any input at all to the rules. Contest rules are primarily for the benefit of the contest entrants and those running the contests.

Steve

[dmbaer]

Again, I'll state that the benefit of the community should be the primary goal here.

You do indeed keep saying that. But which "community" are you referring to? The community of developers who like rules which try to ensure a fair contest? The community of developers who want the glory but don't want any rules getting in the way of them doing whatever they feel like? Or perhaps the community of people who aren't putting any effort in at all but just want to get hold of some free stuff as soon as possible?

Bottom line - there is no single "community" to benefit. I'm a member of the community of people who have no ability to develop anything useful but I have benefited considerably from the last few DCs and I thank all the developers. But I can think of no reason why I should have any input at all to the rules. Contest rules are primarily for the benefit of the contest entrants and those running the contests.

Steve

The community of which I speak is the KVR community as a whole. Mostly community members are the people who are not developers but just consumers. As such, few members of that larger community are even going to notice this thread, so we won't get any feedback from them on this subject.

Here at KVR, we have a group of developers who, due to generosity or other motives, provide free and sometimes very useful software to this community. Whatever facilitates this process is a good thing, IMO. Whatever hampers this process is a bad thing.

Of course everyone wants to see a level playing field as far as this being a competition. But rules that don't promote that are not beneficial. Rules that de-motivate talented developers are not beneficial either - and I assert that this not a good thing for the community.

I am a retired software engineer who now has time to consider writing some music production software for free distribution. I have a few ideas I believe will be new and unique in the this space. But it seems the rules dictate that I am not allowed to solicit beta testers for anything I develop. I do not have a private email list of potential beta testers. I would have to solicit for them here - publically, of course. So, I'm hardly motivated to take this any further. Who loses? If I've actually got a useful idea, then everybody except the established developers who have a network of private beta testers already in place. Less competition will be good for them. Do the rules make for a level playing field in this case? I would argue that certainly do not.