Weekly Flag Challenge: Constitutional Convention

[Transparent Blue]

Apologies for the pompous title.

Intro

I think it is safe to say that the Weekly Flag Challenge is now a big part of alternatehistory.com’s Alternate History Maps and Graphics subforum, bringing together many members in friendly competition. The fact that it is still going strong six years after its inception is a testament to its popularity and appeal.

However, over such a long time it is inevitable that problems and concerns arise. While most have been resolved with minimal impact to the challenge, a few pertinent issues have persisted and it is clear that they need addressing.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss these issues that have not been fixed by previous efforts and may require some degree of fundamental overhaul. I will begin by listing some issues and tentative proposals for solutions.

Issues

First post cannot be edited

In both threads, the first post contains the set of official rules and procedures. The time limit for me to edit these posts has long passed and the moderators no longer wish to edit it on my behalf, nor to give me eternal editing privileges for those posts. This makes it impossible to amend any of the rules in this official list, which has become a problem since new rules are now just haphazardly enforced as community reminders.

Proposal: Write the updated rule list on the wiki page. Ask mod to close the WFC threads. Make new WFC threads and link to the wiki rule page on first post. Ban anyone who edits the rules without permission.

Size limit

The most commonly questioned rule is the size limit for entries. 1) Why does it exist? 2) Why does everyone quote it if it is not in the official rule list? 3) Why is it 300 pixels high? To put it simply: 1) To stop people from entering massive images which “stretches” screens (especially on mobile devices) and makes it impossible to compare entries; 2) It should be in the first post but I cannot edit it anymore to add it; 3) Because that’s what everybody agreed on and it divides into all the usual aspect ratios. Every time it is discussed, most people come to accept the status quo. A minority agree on the need for a size limit but insist that 300 pixels is too small. While this group is small, it is persistent and growing, so I am willing to compromise to raise the limit slightly in a way that keeps the original spirit of the rule and makes it easier for non-technical members.

Proposal: Enforcement can be ensured with the wiki page idea above, allowing new rules like the size limit to actually be added to the official list.

Proposal: Codify the rule as a range. If the challenge asks for a single flag, the height of the flag image must be between 300 to 400 pixels (inclusive). If the challenge asks for multiple flags, the height of each flag image must be between 150 and 200 pixels (inclusive).

Eurovision-style administration

By this I mean the process in which the winner of a round administers the next round. It was intentionally adopted as a counterpoint to the Map of the Fortnight contest, which I felt was overly centralised when it suddenly froze in time when Krall became sick. I also wanted it to feel like the community’s flag contest, not just Transparent Blue’s flag contest that the community may enter.

Does this prospect of administration act as a burden and discourage people from entering? I have not encountered anything to suggest this. Those that win a round and find out about the rule afterwards don’t seem to mind. Those that did not want to administer the next challenge were always given the option of deferring the responsibility to a volunteering member, so there was no compulsion and the problem was resolved quickly.

What I do think is a consequence of this system is the minor slip-ups in administration, e.g. not stating the time zone for the deadline, not making entries anonymous in the voting threads, posting in the wrong thread or forgetting to post a new challenge. Again, I am not blaming people, just acknowledging that it happens. It would be good to find a way to avoid these.

Proposal: One idea was to have a set pool of volunteers that deal with administration. Rarayn and OAM47 have offered their services.

Proposal: Another idea is to leave the running up to the winners, but write a clear “how-to” guide for them.

Outro

These are only tentative proposals for concerns raised about the Weekly Flag Challenge, and I encourage others to engage in further discussion.

To get a better understanding of the administration issue, I would like to put out some specific questions:
· Would anyone else be willing to volunteer for the administration?
· Has anybody deliberately avoided entering the Weekly Flag Challenge to avoid the administration tasks?
· To previous winners: Have you found the administration process confusing? Would you have preferred not to do it? Would a guide have helped?

Feel free to discuss any aspect of this post, not just these questions.

Thanks to everyone for all the feedback across the years!

 

[OAM47]

First off, thanks for making a thread for it! I think a few of us were kind of leaning that way but didn't want to seem too bold about it. I'll briefly list where I stand on the issues again.

New threads: I think it's probably time for that. Overall I like the idea of having the rules posted in the threads more so than I do on the wiki, because it feels a bit removed to have them in that format. That is not to say the rules can't be *both* places, I just feel like having to follow a link might deter some people. However, perhaps we can compromise. The "master" rule set is hosted at the wiki, but the rules are also posted with each "theme announcement" post too, or posted as a reminder in the discussion thread with the announcement a new challenge is up, seeing as the thread for posting new challenges sees limited posting anyway (these considerations made in a vacuum)

Size: I would be agreeable with the proposal. My first and foremost concern was the establishment of a size rule as an actual rule off course, but as we all probably know by now I was also secondarily wishing for it to be larger I think establishing a range is a good idea too, though, so I'll second the 300-400 standard range. As a side note, I'm hoping this discussion also prompts perhaps some "nonstandard" shapes moving forward, like the Swiss or Nepal.

Admin Rotation: I see either proposal being fine. I certainly don't want to exclude anyone, as I hope I've made it clear. It's nice to spread it around. At the very least, I think the winner should always have first dibs on picking the next challenge, even if we have set administration. At this time I think we need to first form a majority opinion on the issue though. I might also suggest an alternative, too, where we have someone in charge of keeping track of the rules/post template but that person just works with the current winner, perhaps PMing them the form if they're new, etc.

I think it's an issue that really quickly can become just too convoluted, but the real problem we're having is that the rules don't really hold much weight because not only are we not 100% clear on them, the rotation makes it kind of hard for anyone to ever "enforce" something if they ever wanted to. I mean theoretically, let's say I won three or four contests ago, everything went well, and I made the poll. Then someone complains about one of the flags being too big and wants it disqualified. If I was in the admin spot at that time I would have been completely baffled, as the rule would have been news to me too. Arguing about rules is one things, but when people with different opinions can just get in positions to make actual differences in decisions, then we're a government, not a flag contest I think we all know which we should be aiming for

 

[Mirror]

Relatively new here, but here are my thoughts:

1) First post cannot be edited - separate threads as a solution

I oppose. The fact that WFC is a single megathread is kind of neat. Also, this currently sets it apart from MotF.

2) Size limit

I support, having a set criteria really helps to compare entries. Just add the rules straight to the new challenge announcement for clarity.

3) Eurovision-style vs single administrator

I really like the Eurovision-style setup so I oppose moving away from it. Choosing the next challenge is sort of like a neat trophy for the winner. Still, having volunteers to help with the setup and administration is fine.

 

[Chris S]

Suggestion: Keep the eurovision style administration (it encourages participation) but have the runners-up (in order) be the alternative administrators in case the winner (and admin for the next round) cannot do it. If that fails (and thus 3 people cannot perform admin duties) then administration falls back on the "central admin" (i.e. you).

 

[OAM47]

Well I'd also just like to add that tradition for tradition's sake is an argument I don't find very appealing I mean, I can see why a big thread would be nice, but at the same time when it starts to get in the way that's a "problem".

Also I think we could indeed defer the challenge suggestion and what not down the runners up if the true winner has no idea what to suggest or wants to bow out.

 

[Transparent Blue]

Good thoughts so far. It seems that the Eurovision style administration is popular despite any drawbacks, but I'll wait for more responses.

I oppose. The fact that WFC is a single megathread is kind of neat. Also, this currently sets it apart from MotF.

I mean, I can see why a big thread would be nice, but at the same time when it starts to get in the way that's a "problem".

I'm afraid I don't understand. The Weekly Flag Challenge is already split over two threads. The proposal is to move the rule list to the wiki page so it can be amended when needed.

 

[OAM47]

I'm afraid I don't understand. The Weekly Flag Challenge is already split over two threads. The proposal is to move the rule list to the wiki page so it can be amended when needed.

I was specifically more referring to the fact that how we can't edit the first post is a problem, which outweighs the benefit of keeping the old threads around for tradition.

 

[xt828]

I would strongly support putting the rules of the competition onto the wiki. I'd like to keep the past winners/new challenges thread, but would be open to a new discussion and entries thread in order to put the rules link into the first post.

I'd really like if each round the challenge included the flag size, and if one was not specified we had a single size to fall back on. I remember the couple of rounds that led to the standardised size rule, and we really don't want to have flags at different sizes because it does have a noticable impact on voting. I'm not sure that anonymising the entries is necessary, as the prospective voter can very easily pop over to the other thread and see who posted what.

I do like the Eurovision-style admin, but it has falled over previously and so having a backup to keep an eye on it and ready to step in would be very useful.

One rule I would like to see revisited is that of not repeating earlier contest prompts. We've had a lot of good ideas and I feel we ought to have the freedom to revisit them after an appropriate grace period. I also wouldn't mind if there was some facility for people to submit prompts, and for those prompts to be kept (on the wiki, perhaps) as an aid for contest winners who are not struck by inspiration.

 

[OAM47]

I'd also agree with dropping the anonymous thing, especially as it's so easy to just look in the other thread. I only brought it up in the past to point out we had an issue with consistency heh. I would also be open to allowing the contest prompt itself to specify flag sizes, if relevant (IE a prompt where the specific purpose is to make a square flag, etc), and having the range previously suggested as the fallback. I'd just caution against the prompt setting different sizes just for the sake of including that provision though.

I also would guess the "no repeats" rule made a lot more sense when the contest was just starting. By this point I think it can be lifted, and say we make the new rule "no repeating a concept that occurred in the last 10 prompts" or something.

 

[Transparent Blue]

I think you misunderstand the purpose of anonymous entries. It was never intended to stop people from finding out who made which entry. It was intended to reduce any potential halo effect arising from contestants' fame or reputation from biasing the votes, by excluding any visible indicators of that information. It does rest on the assumption that in judging the flag entries, voters will be satisfied with viewing the flag entries alone and not go out of their way to go to another thread and search for the identity of each entry's artist (I have not heard of this ever happening, nor why anyone would feel this is necessary to make a decision).

I would prefer not to allow challenges to specify technical limitations like the size or ratio. It should be the idea that counts, and nothing else.

I am open to the idea of allowing revisits to previous challenges, though I would discourage it in favour of fresh ideas and drawing from a suggestion list.

 

[The Professor]

I think you misunderstand the purpose of anonymous entries. It was never intended to stop people from finding out who made which entry. It was intended to reduce any potential halo effect arising from contestants' fame or reputation from biasing the votes, by excluding any visible indicators of that information. It does rest on the assumption that in judging the flag entries, voters will be satisfied with viewing the flag entries alone and not go out of their way to go to another thread and search for the identity of each entry's artist (I have not heard of this ever happening, nor why anyone would feel this is necessary to make a decision).

Absolutely. This explains it quite clearly.


I agree with putting the rules on the Wiki and would suggest posting a link with each Challenge. I also thing that maintaining the separate Entries and Winners/Challenges threads is a good idea, even if we have to close one or the other when they fill up.

My concerns with the size limit have always been about having a consistent size to compare all entries and not having them take up the page too much.

The only issues I've seen with Eurovisionstyle admin have been where the rules were unclear so having a backup group of administrators who can be consulted before posting would be a good thing. Having them be the wikipage editors as well would be useful. I'm willing to add myself in to the pool.

With regards to revisiting challenges there is nothing wrong with it per se and considering the age of the thread it will become unavoidable eventually. Perhaps a time restriction? e.g. you cannot revisit any challenge set in the last 18months.
That should reduce copycat challenges for the sake of it.

 

[Larus Marinus]

Closing the old thread and opening a new one with a link to the rules on the wiki sounds like a good plan, as does the revision to the rule regarding the reuse of old prompts. I'd be fine with 18 months as the limit, though it might seem a bit excessive to some.

Keeping a list of prompt ideas on the wiki sounds like a good idea in theory, but it might be hard to keep up a consistent flow of suggestions to make it a viable thing to fall back on.

Centralization vs Eurovision: I can see the value of the Eurovision-style setup, and I understand that people like it, but it does tend to be woefully inefficient and inconsistent sometimes. Making templates and putting them on either the Wiki or a site like Pastebin, with a link in the first post, might alleviate some of the issues, but people forgetting or failing to notice that they won, or being too busy to think of a new challenge at all, remains an issue. It's really more of a biweekly flag challenge to begin with, but when there's a risk of it ending up as a triweekly or monthly flag challenge, I'm not sure if I can say I'm all that happy with the current system. That said, it works very well when it does work, so maybe a time limit of 3-7 days or so to post a new challenge would be in order.

Size limits: the only thing I'd like to say that hasn't already been discussed is that the current limit is also a royal pain to deal with when you're making vertical hanging banners. Maybe something along the lines of "If the height of the flag exceeds that of the width, the rules regarding height limits is applied to the width of the flag instead. However, the height of the flag can't exceed 500px, limiting it to a maximum of 300x500px" could be added to the rules. The phrasing and exact numbers can be changed, but about 500px seemed good to me.

A quick comparison to show that it's not too unreasonable:

 

[The Professor]

Good point Rarayn!
Perhaps adding a "must fit within these boxes" legend with the image on the wiki?

 

[xt828]

The last time (I think) we had a hanging flag challenge was the revanchist political party one, and for that 300px was the width rather than height

 

[OAM47]

Well, while I think it would likely be uncommon, I think if someone wants to take the hanging flag route it should be open to them. Same with non-standard shapes. I don't think it conflicts with keeping a standard size because the most compelling argument for the standard size is ease of comparison between contest entrants. In the case of non-standard shapes, the non-standard shape is supposed to be an explicit difference and thus a facet of creativity in and of itself.

 

[Marc Pasquin]

One tweak about the max size, 1:2 ratio is actually fairly common OTL so I would say that 300x600 px should be the max size.

 

[OAM47]

Yeah, with the shape conversation the ratio is kind of more important I suppose. Perhaps instead of setting both dimensions we have a limit of "don't exceed X on either dimension", so the people could sort out the ratios themselves if they wanted to incorporate that somehow.

 

[Petike]

I'm against closing the old threads, but I support most of the improvements mentioned in this thread. Especially backup-adminship and the height and width limitations.

 

[OAM47]

I kinda feel as if we don't start new threads that at least correctly lay out the rules or link to the wiki (and I'll again state I'm in favor of the former) that everything else we do is moot, because rules mean nothing unless people know of them in a reasonable manner. I don't consider random people in the thread causing a fuss post facto to be a reasonable manner

 

[Transparent Blue]

Thanks for the discussion. Here is the latest proposal:

- Move rules to wiki page.
-- Write clear guide for how to administer a round. Include a template for the posts.

- Codify rules about flag sizes:
-- If the challenge asks for a single flag, the height of the flag image must be between 300 to 400 pixels (inclusive).
-- If the challenge asks for multiple flags, the height of each flag image must be between 150 and 200 pixels (inclusive).
-- If the height of the flag exceeds that of the width, the rules regarding height limits is applied to the width of the flag instead.
-- Create an image to demonstrate these sizes.

- Administration will still be Eurovision-style, but there will also be a pool of official Volunteers (so far, Rarayn and OAM47)
-- They will oversee the administration and issue reminders if something is done incorrectly or late.
-- If the winner of a round does not want to administer the next round, they may ask the runner-up to do it. If that person does not want to do it either, they may ask an official Volunteer to do it.

- If the winner of a round cannot think of an idea, allow them to ask for suggestions. If they still can't think of one, allow them to reuse an old theme if it was used more than 10 rounds ago.

- Close and re-create both WFC threads. Link to the wiki rule page in the first post.

Any objections?