[Langley]

LotusNerf, on 12 May 2011 - 12:22 AM, said:

Ryan, something about your criteria bugs me a little.

So don't participate.

From what little I know about Ryan, I have a feeling that he's not going to change the criteria of his contest over a philosophical debate, so let's all just stick to questions about the contest, and keep the thread on topic.

[Ryan201821]

Taerkitty and Beaver hit it pretty much dead on. Lotusnerf, if you still have questions, you can PM me directly. You're missing the goal of this contest completely.

[c0rrupt10n]

This sounds great, I plan on building an airgun for the main competition anyway, so I'll submit it for both ryan and VACC.

[LotusNerf]

Sorry Ryan, but I don't have questions, and I didn't have questions to start. I just had comments and ideas to try to help make the contest better (in my opinion).

Daniel Beaver, on 12 May 2011 - 03:34 AM, said:

[What he said].

But you're making a write-up on how to make the blaster. The Abp5k, FAR, and all of the blasters of the like had no impact because they had no write-up. Nobody taught us exactly how to make them. I don't think that there would be nearly as many plusbows if Captain Slug did not create that awesome guide with parts lists and everything, we would've had to figure out how to build one on our own. I hope you see my argument here.

taerKitty, on 12 May 2011 - 06:57 AM, said:

[What he said].

That's why I think that the incentive should be scored on how you achieved your goal, so those who create uneasy to replicate blasters and others who create easy to replicate blasters will both have a fair chance at this contest.

If someone has created a generally more difficult to make and costly blaster, but has achieved war effectiveness and creativity beyond the charts, they should receive generally the same amount of points as someone who made a blaster that fit all the incentives decently enough, but not exceptional in them (so like a balanced blaster), who should also receive the same amount of points as . . . well the opposite of the first example. I think you get my point, just there should be a balance that will give all the different types of homemade builders a fair chance.




And on a side note, as Nerf is often considered a craft, and craft is considered an art, I think an Aesthetic/Cleanliness incentive should be added. Maybe not for actual points, but as bonus to make for any lost points that was failed to be achieved.

Also another note, In no way did I ever think about being able to change the incentives, I just wanted to share my opinion and for others to see where I am coming from.

This post has been edited by LotusNerf: 12 May 2011 - 08:20 PM

[taerKitty]

LotusNerf, on 12 May 2011 - 08:18 PM, said:

Also another note, In no way did I ever think about being able to change the incentives, I just wanted to share my opinion and for others to see where I am coming from.

Left field, got it. Look, you want to run a contest for the cleanest-looking, most-expensive-to-make blaster, I'm all for it.

This ain't it.

Bringing this back on track - I do have a hair to split with you, Ryan. If pumps are okay for airguns, are they allowed as plunger tubes? Do you see the paradox? Not trying to poke holes, but wanted to see what is allowed.

[Ryan201821]

LotusNerf, on 12 May 2011 - 08:18 PM, said:

That's why I think that the incentive should be scored on how you achieved your goal, so those who create uneasy to replicate blasters and others who create easy to replicate blasters will both have a fair chance at this contest.

If someone has created a generally more difficult to make and costly blaster, but has achieved war effectiveness and creativity beyond the charts, they should receive generally the same amount of points as someone who made a blaster that fit all the incentives decently enough, but not exceptional in them (so like a balanced blaster), who should also receive the same amount of points as . . . well the opposite of the first example. I think you get my point, just there should be a balance that will give all the different types of homemade builders a fair chance.

First of all, you should learn how to use the word "incentive". Second, I don't care what your goals are. For this contest your goals should be to fulfill each criteria to the best of your ability. Your point makes total sense and that's exactly how I would judge those two examples. Although, while it would be perfectly fine if you sacrifice build difficulty and cost to create outstanding results in other categories, it would be even more impressive if you did the same thing with a more simplistic design and/or a cheaper design. This is true innovation, and exactly what I'm looking for. I highly, highly doubt people are going to be getting perfect score here, so there will be certain aspects where you'll have to sacrifice points in one category to satisfy the others.


If you don't like the criteria, don't enter. Feel free to run your own contest and be flamed by everyone.


Taerkitty:

I wasn't so much concerned about people using pre-fab parts, as I am about people using nerf components. Things like bike pumps, valves, etc., are fine with me, but keeping in mind you won't score as many points for creativity (as opposed to making it from scratch), and cost (in most cases).

[shardbearer]

Damn. I gotta choose between finally finishing my springer that I started 9 months ago and then abandoned, or building my semi auto airgun. Don't think I'll have enough time to do both! And will my springer be legal? Do I need to start building or finish building within the timeframe?

Non HPA/CO2 airguns will not inherently lose points because they are banned at most wars, right?

Anyway, I think it would help the discussion with taerKitty and LotusNerf to state the intent of this contest. I think it is to inspire and induce more innovation throughout the homemade category, to make another plusbow, rather than another FAR.

On the judging, the last catergory should be just cost, not labor, because it is already covered in Difficulty/Repeatability, and cost and labor are very different. Some people have tons of time and no money, or vice versa.

This post has been edited by shardbearer: 12 May 2011 - 11:11 PM

[VACC]

LotusNerf, on 12 May 2011 - 08:18 PM, said:

all kinds of stuff.

I'm not going to argue with your reasoning, indefensible as I may find it. The reality of the matter is that it misses the point entirely.

This is a contest. In order for a winner to be declared in ANY contest, there needs to be a set of rules and/or objectives. Without them, it's not so much a contest as it is 'Nam. While, perhaps, you were unaware, Ryan has assured me that he's attempting to run a contest, and not fucking Vietnam.

By providing competitors and judges/officials/whomever with a metric by which to measure and evaluate the competition, these rules and/or objectives define the contest. Please note that this is in direct contrast with the role of arbitrary pontifications by some random onlooker...which define nothing. Are you starting to see the picture I'm painting here? This is a contest that you are not running, so you do not decide the objectives. Your philosophy is welcome elsewhere, but has no fucking bearing on this topic. Consider it a bottled universe under the magnanimous control of Ryan McNumbers. Trying to redefine the foundation of said universe will ultimately result in the cessation of your existence within it.

[Carbon]

shardbearer, on 12 May 2011 - 10:59 PM, said:

Anyway, I think it would help the discussion with taerKitty and LotusNerf to state the intent of this contest. I think it is to inspire and induce more innovation throughout the homemade category, to make another plusbow, rather than another FAR.

Summing it up: For the purposes of this contest, "best" is defined as a creative way to make a war-practical, durable, versatile blaster that is easy and cheap to build.

Quote

On the judging, the last catergory should be just cost, not labor, because it is already covered in Difficulty/Repeatability, and cost and labor are very different. Some people have tons of time and no money, or vice versa.

Time and money are both resources spent to make a blaster, so they go together (i.e. time is money). Labor isn't covered under difficulty, because labor is raw time spent, while difficulty speaks to the precision and skill needed to pull it off. Something can take a lot of time to do, but very little skill, or vice versa.

[Ryan201821]

shardbearer, on 12 May 2011 - 10:59 PM, said:

Damn. I gotta choose between finally finishing my springer that I started 9 months ago and then abandoned, or building my semi auto airgun. Don't think I'll have enough time to do both! And will my springer be legal? Do I need to start building or finish building within the timeframe?

Non HPA/CO2 airguns will not inherently lose points because they are banned at most wars, right?

Anyway, I think it would help the discussion with taerKitty and LotusNerf to state the intent of this contest. I think it is to inspire and induce more innovation throughout the homemade category, to make another plusbow, rather than another FAR.

On the judging, the last catergory should be just cost, not labor, because it is already covered in Difficulty/Repeatability, and cost and labor are very different. Some people have tons of time and no money, or vice versa.

You can build and submit both blasters if you want.

As long as you haven't posted your work in progress anywhere, then I don't know when you started building it, so it's fine for the contest. You do need to finish it before the contest is over, however.

If you're interested in HPA/CO₂, you will lose points for war effectivity, basically because it doesn't have any, because that stuff is pretty much indefinitely banned.

[LotusNerf]

Alright I completely understand now. I guess I was arguing because of my background of designing OP blasters. Although I won't enter, I would still like to see what everyone has to offer. If I do run my own contest it'll be on YouTube, as I'm pretty respected there and I won't get flamed.

[Draconis]

LotusNerf, on 13 May 2011 - 06:00 PM, said:

Alright I completely understand now. I guess I was arguing because of my background of designing OP blasters. Although I won't enter, I would still like to see what everyone has to offer. If I do run my own contest it'll be on YouTube, as I'm pretty respected there and I won't get flamed.

/me finds this difficult to believe.

Youtube is a cesspool of coagulated troll urine, created by the inane electronic babble of people with no better use of time than to comment on videos silly people post. You will be flamed regardless. Nobody there is respected.

On topic: I am so looking forward to this contest. I'll not likely complete an entry (modus operandi), but seeing whatever JLego comes up with will be a prize in itself.

[boltsniper]

I think this a great idea.

It is going to be tough to remain objective while judging the entries. The categories have the potential to be vary subjective and personal biases could creep in very easily. You have multiple judges which is great to reduce that effect. I'm slightly worried though because a lot of the comments to this thread have a lot of personal bias associated with them. I work in R&D and conept design for a living and you really have to distance your personal opinions from the facts when deciding on a superior design. It is hard sometimes. I would suggest developing as many quantitative ways to judge the categories as possible.

"War effectiveness" is almost purely subjective and will vary widely from person to person based on their style of play. The types of play can be so different and something that is effective in one is not in another.

I'm surprised to see no stand alone "performance" category. I see that you have rolled that into "war effectiveness" but to me they can be two independent entities. IT can surely be accomplished the way you have it setup though.

Daniel Beaver, on 12 May 2011 - 03:34 AM, said:

The FAR and Abp5k were awesome sights to behold. And they had about zero practical impact on the Nerf scene.

The +bow and SNAP were not nearly as "awesome" in comparison. But they revolutionized Nerf. Because they were simple enough that people could fucking replicate them.

If you remove the Difficulty/Repeatablity and Cost/Labor incentives of the contest, you effectively shit all over amateur homemade builders who don't have access to kickass tools and materials.

I built the FAR and GNS (and SCAR-N and NTS minus the SLA parts) on top of my dryer in my apartment with nothing more than a dremel and other extremely cheap, available, and [i]non-kickass tools. And I wouldn't call PVC and balsa kickass materials either. They are mechancically complex and not quickly reproducible, but they don't take anything more than skill and dedication to pull off.

LotusNerf, on 12 May 2011 - 03:34 AM, said:

But you're making a write-up on how to make the blaster. The Abp5k, FAR, and all of the blasters of the like had no impact because they had no write-up

I did some relatively extensive plans for the FAR, but no step-by-step instruction manual. Do people really need something so detailed that it tells them to pick up the knife with their right hand or to stop at certain points and take shits? Come on...

I personally don't see the desire in replicating someone else's work to a tee. To me it seems much more desirable to take the design elements of something and implement it in a way that you personally are able to and want to. Because I am using an SLA machine or a lathe to make parts doesn't mean they couldn't be accomplished to the same effect through different means. Too many people have the mindset that if they don't have access to those same tools so there is no way I could attempt that. I claim complete bullshit on that.

I look forward to seeing what comes of this. Should be interesting.

[shardbearer]

More judges would help with the biases, as each judge would have different biases that cancel each other out. Boltsniper, could you do this? You are a well respected member of our community. Or maybe CaptainSlug? If you cannot judge because you want to submit something, you could just not judge your own blaster, and if the average score is taken instead of the combined one, you would not be at a disadvantage.

This post has been edited by shardbearer: 14 May 2011 - 04:29 PM

[Buffdaddy]

On a different note than arguing how people should run their own contests (people, just make polite suggestions, it's not your contest to run, after all):

I have a couple individual components in the works, and have yet to combine them for a blaster. Judges wouldn't mind those going up, before I end up submitting an actual entry? Personally, I think making a contribution now would be more worthwhile than waiting for every little part to come together, especially when things (life, job, etc) might get in the way of having a complete blaster until farther down the line.

Feel free to say if I'm being absolutely stupid in my thought process, but I'm going on the whole thing of "Do I still get originality points for using something I've previously posted".