Because we had a problem with team size last time. Too many people on a team equals too many opinions, ideas, and roles. That lead to indecision, extended brain-storming sessions, excessive amounts of time waiting for all team players to respond to ideas and questions, and sometimes . . . confusion.
-
You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.
Gauntlet Season 2 (SIGN UP HERE!!!)
- Thread starter Haight
- Start date
nightning
ish red no longer *sad*
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2007
- Messages
- 3,741
- MBTI Type
- INfj
Then shouldn't you specify how many people there should be per team? (e.g. 5-6) over wondering about how many teams you should have?
Doing it backwards sounds more sensible to me... let people form their own teams, then have the teams pick a leader.
Kasper
Diabolical
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 11,590
- MBTI Type
- ENTP
- Enneagram
- 9w8
- Instinctual Variant
- so/sx
Sure too many people can lead to inaction but the bigger problem is non-participation. Don’t sign up if you’re not gonna do anything people!
What sized teams are you thinking?
EffEmDoubleyou
Robot
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2007
- Messages
- 7,312
- MBTI Type
- INTJ
Just a few (many) suggestions based on my experience last time as a captain:
1. Keep team size small, as Haight suggested. More than five, maybe six is unwieldy and becomes excessively bureaucratic. If that means you have to have a lot of teams, so be it.
2. No adding of people or teams once the Gauntlet begins. Teams find a chemistry that gets blown up when a new member is added. Personally, I wouldn't even allow additions when a team member quits or becomes disinterested. I think keeping people involved and dealing with things like that should be part of the game.
3. I'd allow a two day break between challenges. It becomes very stressful to go from one to another immediately and causes people to not want to participate.
4. I think some challenges last time were decided based on who was on what team instead of the quality of the entries. Yeah, I know how that sounds, and I don't care. We had people voting for themselves (which was not against the rules but still sucks), campaigning for their friends to vote for them (ditto), and in a couple cases even having people join the forum just to vote. I know that's life and that's just the way it goes, and I won't pretend I know what the perfect voting system is, but I know that what we had last time isn't it.
5. I think ideally the teams would be chosen randomly because it's the fairest way, although I'm probably in the minority on that. The way we did it last time was pretty good. Each captain privately submits a ranked list of everyone who wants to play. A random picking order is determined and then when each captain's turn comes up he is assigned the highest ranked available player on his list.
1. Keep team size small, as Haight suggested. More than five, maybe six is unwieldy and becomes excessively bureaucratic. If that means you have to have a lot of teams, so be it.
2. No adding of people or teams once the Gauntlet begins. Teams find a chemistry that gets blown up when a new member is added. Personally, I wouldn't even allow additions when a team member quits or becomes disinterested. I think keeping people involved and dealing with things like that should be part of the game.
3. I'd allow a two day break between challenges. It becomes very stressful to go from one to another immediately and causes people to not want to participate.
4. I think some challenges last time were decided based on who was on what team instead of the quality of the entries. Yeah, I know how that sounds, and I don't care. We had people voting for themselves (which was not against the rules but still sucks), campaigning for their friends to vote for them (ditto), and in a couple cases even having people join the forum just to vote. I know that's life and that's just the way it goes, and I won't pretend I know what the perfect voting system is, but I know that what we had last time isn't it.
5. I think ideally the teams would be chosen randomly because it's the fairest way, although I'm probably in the minority on that. The way we did it last time was pretty good. Each captain privately submits a ranked list of everyone who wants to play. A random picking order is determined and then when each captain's turn comes up he is assigned the highest ranked available player on his list.
Kasper
Diabolical
- Joined
- May 30, 2008
- Messages
- 11,590
- MBTI Type
- ENTP
- Enneagram
- 9w8
- Instinctual Variant
- so/sx
OH HELL YES! Longer even but not shorter.
nightning
ish red no longer *sad*
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2007
- Messages
- 3,741
- MBTI Type
- INfj
Agree with FMW's point 3. The point is to make it fun... too much work aint no fun.
Solution to people joining just to vote. Limit access to the gauntlet subforum to members with at least xxx votes.
Voting for your own team/popularity vote... well those can't be help... it's bound to happen because for most things it's a subjective judgmental call.
Solution to people joining just to vote. Limit access to the gauntlet subforum to members with at least xxx votes.
Voting for your own team/popularity vote... well those can't be help... it's bound to happen because for most things it's a subjective judgmental call.
ThatsWhatHeSaid
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 11, 2007
- Messages
- 7,263
- MBTI Type
- INTP
- Enneagram
- 5w4
Some Ideas
Well, we could have random submissions. Submissions can go to one of the mods or one responsible member, and that member would post all the submissions in a thread. I don't want to participate this time, and I'd love to be a judge. Actually, it'd be cool to have an American Idol-like voting, where members get one vote and the judges each get one. Also, another idea, if we have a LOT of teams, we can eliminate one team each week. Winner can get extra points and some kind of advantage (maybe an extra day to work on the project).
Solution to the team picking is to randomize it. We can make a list of all the players in an excel file and just assign people numbers (1-5) and then pool all the 1s, all the 2s, etc.
If new players want to join, they have to wait till there are enough people to create a team, though they'll start with a handicap.
Well, we could have random submissions. Submissions can go to one of the mods or one responsible member, and that member would post all the submissions in a thread. I don't want to participate this time, and I'd love to be a judge. Actually, it'd be cool to have an American Idol-like voting, where members get one vote and the judges each get one. Also, another idea, if we have a LOT of teams, we can eliminate one team each week. Winner can get extra points and some kind of advantage (maybe an extra day to work on the project).
Solution to the team picking is to randomize it. We can make a list of all the players in an excel file and just assign people numbers (1-5) and then pool all the 1s, all the 2s, etc.
If new players want to join, they have to wait till there are enough people to create a team, though they'll start with a handicap.
Nocapszy
no clinkz 'til brooklyn
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2007
- Messages
- 4,517
- MBTI Type
- ENTP
disregard
mrs
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2007
- Messages
- 7,826
- MBTI Type
- INFP
Yeh, I'm not going to play this season, but I'll be a spectator.
observations from last season
-- way too many contestants. only a few should be selected to play.
-- ho-hum and often obscure round themes
-- the prize wasn't planned, and this time i think something special and interesting should be rewarded to the winners
observations from last season
-- way too many contestants. only a few should be selected to play.
-- ho-hum and often obscure round themes
-- the prize wasn't planned, and this time i think something special and interesting should be rewarded to the winners
Atomic Fiend
New member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2007
- Messages
- 7,275
^what she said.
You're supposed to play for the love of the game!
However, I was already planning on a "special" prize on this round. Although I have a few ideas, I really haven't narrowed it down to anything I'd feel comfortable announcing at this point.
Nocapszy
no clinkz 'til brooklyn
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2007
- Messages
- 4,517
- MBTI Type
- ENTP
Hmm . . . on second thought, maybe we don't even need captains. Maybe we just create the teams and let the leadership rise to the top.
One last note tonight from me: If you have challenge ideas, feel free to send them to me via PM.
One last note tonight from me: If you have challenge ideas, feel free to send them to me via PM.
disregard
mrs
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2007
- Messages
- 7,826
- MBTI Type
- INFP
I didn't give a damn about the prize personally but it adds more excitement and interest for everyone if it's a cool prize, and, since it's an interactive forum... if it's a prize where everyone can partake!
I have some vague ideas, but it should be secret (or should it...?!) so I won't post them here.
Well, I don't give a damn about prizes when I'm not in a position to win them. But of course, I understand the concept of incentives.
Again, I'm accepting all ideas via PM. However, I'm looking for this discussion to stay focused on setting up the teams. Then, we can move onto the next logical step.
Again, I'm accepting all ideas via PM. However, I'm looking for this discussion to stay focused on setting up the teams. Then, we can move onto the next logical step.
Similar threads
