DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => General Music Discussion => Topic started by: Bolsters on September 16, 2015, 01:02:25 AM
-
TL;DR version: I had an idea that we could hold a roulette championship at the end of each year or the beginning of the next. This would consist of winners of roulettes in the appropriate year participating in a roulette judged by a panel in order to crown someone that year's Roulette Champion. We've been discussing it here (https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=43449.msg2009393#msg2009393), but I wanted to separate that discussion from the tracker thread. I also thought a new thread might get some more people chipping in and giving their two cents worth (or more) as people tend to ignore activity in stickied threads. ;)
Read the beginnings of the discussion there if you wish but here are a few of the major talking points so far.
Here's what I've got so far:
- Starting at the end of each year and running into the beginning of the next, there would be a Championship roulette for that year.
- Anyone who won a roulette that ended in the appropriate year (even if the roulette began in the previous year) would be eligible to participate in the Championship.
- Rather than being hosted by a particular person, the Championship roulette would have a panel of judges (of an undetermined number) to score the submitted songs.
- Each contestants' submission would be anonymous. Someone (such as myself) would receive the songs and pass them onto the judges without names. The judges would not know who submitted each song until the results were posted.
The judges could also potentially be anonymous, sending their results to me to post. The contestants would not know who the judges were until the end of the roulette.- Contestants would be eliminated every few rounds, and the last 2-3 would play in the finals (another 2-3 rounds) to determine that year's Roulette Champion.
- Contestants would not be allowed to send any of the songs they sent in roulettes that year.
This could also possibly extend to artists. - The banned artist list for the Championship would be collated from the personal banned lists of the judges. Any artist that appears on the banned list of at least half of the judges would be banned.
Theoretically, this would be cool. Given the variety of tastes here at DTF, getting a group of people to judge songs would result in a very wide and varied scoring. For instance, my tastes vs Parama; Shadow Ninja's vs Kingshmeglands.... varied indeed. While an interesting concept, I would liken this to a contest between the Super Bowl champs vs the NBA Champs vs UEFA League champs etc... While we're all playing the same kind of game here, roulettes (based on the tastes of the host) can be a very different sport.
I'd be in for it... structuring of it to make it meaningful and fun for all would be one of the biggest challenges I think.
This is more of a question. I completely agree with this way of making a banned list, but what is a judge to do if a song comes in that they know pretty well and the other judges don't? Would a judge who already knows a song be asked to recuse him/herself from the scoring, or just give the score that (s)he would ordinarily give that song? And what ramifications do we think that either of these options would have on the fairness of the scoring?
I think this is one of the more difficult questions.
On one hand, it's a problem because people could see gaps in the banned list and send things they know are favourites of the other judges who probably did ban it. For example if Chad were a judge he would undoubtedly ban Meat Loaf because Bat Out Of Hell is a top 10 album for him, but if less than half of the judges chose to ban Meat Loaf, someone could easily just send a song from Bat Out Of Hell just to get a high score from Chad. I certainly would not want to see this happen. On the other hand, we can't just add all the banned lists together, because it would be a gigantic list and it would be difficult/impossible for anyone to find anything to send.
Recusing is an interesting idea, but I fear it will skew the scoring.
An idea I had regarding tastes of the judges - each judge could "host" a certain number of rounds. All of the judges will still listen to and rate the songs sent for other judges' rounds, but the scoring would be weighted. For example if there are three judges and it is one of judge A's rounds, he would score the songs out of 15 while judges B and C scored out of 5, for a total of 25. This allows people to create a strategy where they aim songs at a particular judge and the bulk of their score will depend on that success, but also allows bonus points of sort for simultaneously impressing the other judges. The judges could even choose their own themes if they wish.
Perhaps during these rounds, the full banned list of that judge is in play (along with the combined list) so as to avoid people getting really high scores for sending songs the judges know? Though people could still get 5/5 from at least one other judge by sending something they love, so it doesn't completely remove the issue.
Or, we could give the judges a certain number of blackballs. So using my example above, if someone sent a Bat Out Of Hell song because Meat Loaf wasn't banned, Chad could blackball it because it's from one of his favourite albums.
So. Thoughts? Opinions? Or dare I ask...Complaints? :lol
-
Let me just preface with this: This won't happen unless we can figure out a system that firstly, works...and secondly, is fun - for the participants and judges alike.
We could potentially get this going for a 2015 Championship, as I don't think it's entirely necessary for this to start before the end of the year. Although I would not want to start any later than February, and I think even that is pushing it.
For what it's worth, these people are currently eligible for any 2015 Championship that may or may not happen:
lonestar
Evermind
TAC
senecadawg2
bl5150
Parama
Nihil-Morari
Zantera
Sacul
Scorpion
sneakyblueberry
wolfking
Nekov
-
I'm rooting for Nihil! #noprejudicewhatsoever
-
This sounds legit.
As reiterate what seems to have been brought up in the OP, finding a judgeing panel would be very difficult and A LOT of work.
The idea is quite fantastic though.
-
I am happy to be in charge of banning things if you like Kade.
-
eyyyyy! what a cool idea!
-
I am happy to be in charge of banning things if you like Kade.
I'm out.
-
I'm rooting for Nihil! #noprejudicewhatsoever
Don't be surprised if you aren't selected to be a judge, then. :P
finding a judgeing panel would be very difficult and A LOT of work.
I think that will be one of the easier things to do, actually. Making a fair scoring system and coordinating the actual competition when/if it starts will be far more work. But I already have ideas for both of those things, I just need some more time to think about and refine them.
I am happy to be in charge of banning things if you like Kade.
You'd be a participant, surely? You've won two roulettes so far this year.
-
You'd be a participant, surely? You've won two roulettes so far this year.
Just having some fun with the wolfman . I'm always up for roulettes when I have time and when I feel I can contribute , so I suppose that depends to some extent on the format/judges etc...... I'll follow how it develops.
-
This happened once before, Ariich ran it along with a mistery judge. They both agreed on the number of rounds and themes for each and then scored it between 1 and 5 each. I think something like that can work and be fun, I know that time it was. More than 2 or 3 judges would be a complication due to schedules so we probably need to keep it short.
The number of participants so far is low so this could go into 8 to 10 rounds and then have a final with the top 2 or 3. If we get more participants we should probably have an elimination at some point to keep it manageable.
I'm up for being one of the judges if needed
-
This happened once before, Ariich ran it along with a mistery judge. They both agreed on the number of rounds and themes for each and then scored it between 1 and 5 each.
Oh, I had no idea. It doesn't seem to have been archived though, I don't see it in the thread. :'(
I think something like that can work and be fun, I know that time it was. More than 2 or 3 judges would be a complication due to schedules so we probably need to keep it short.
The number of participants so far is low so this could go into 8 to 10 rounds and then have a final with the top 2 or 3. If we get more participants we should probably have an elimination at some point to keep it manageable.
I'm up for being one of the judges if needed
I'm thinking three judges at the moment, and I'm also thinking of starting it up in January after the holiday season so that hopefully everyone can participate. Eliminations are already on the table too, to help cut down the number of participants and because it makes things more exciting/intense when people can suddenly be removed from the competition.
-
I am happy to be in charge of banning things if you like Kade.
You've banned enough already thankyouverymuch.
-
This does seem like a fun idea!
-
This happened once before, Ariich ran it along with a mistery judge. They both agreed on the number of rounds and themes for each and then scored it between 1 and 5 each.
Oh, I had no idea. It doesn't seem to have been archived though, I don't see it in the thread. :'(
https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=34990. (https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=34990.)
There you go ;)
-
This happened once before, Ariich ran it along with a mistery judge. They both agreed on the number of rounds and themes for each and then scored it between 1 and 5 each.
Oh, I had no idea. It doesn't seem to have been archived though, I don't see it in the thread. :'(
https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=34990. (https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=34990.)
There you go ;)
Thanks, I will definitely give this a good read tomorrow. :tup
-
Some relevant quotes from that roulette:
I love this song, but again I’m already a big fan of it. You weren’t necessarily to know that, but that’s all part of the roulette. As I said, I’m capping songs I’m already a big fan of to a score of 3, so that’s what you get because this is one of my favourite Radiohead songs.
Scored 3.0/4
I was actually sent this song in my first roulette! I liked it but ranked it low because it came in a very strong round, and the song didn’t really go anywhere. My feelings haven’t changed much, in that it’s still a very bleak and melancholy song, and a very attractive one at that. It still doesn’t really go anywhere, but that doesn’t bother me so much in the context of this round.
Scored 3.0/4
Another song I know very well. Such a ridiculously catchy song, and album as a whole. Pretty much every song makes me want to sing along!
Scored 3.0/4
I actually owned this disc at one point, good stuff. Nothing else to say here. Good submission.
Scored 2.5/4.
Ok so I know BG very well already, and despite the cheesiness, I really like this album and the one that follows it. I think one thing I love about these albums (that put some people off) is how busy it is. Under the vocals there is loads going on in the guitars, and it’s very intricate. Definitely epic as well. But as with all submissions I’m very familiar with, score is limited to 3.
Scored 3.0/4
I'm thinking it might not be the worst thing to let judges score songs they already know. But I do like your idea of switching off what judge "hosts" each round, Bolsters. And using that judge's banned list plus the full banned list for that round.
-
I haven't thought about the possibility of having a different judge each round, that sounds like a good challenge for the participants
-
I do like what ariich did there, giving a penalty for songs he knew and liked. That could be a good incentive to prevent people intentionally doing that, as unknown songs the judge likes would suffer no such penalty.
This is Draft #1, though it is pretty rough. But I've got several months to refine it based on the ensuing discussion and my own ruminations.
Three judges, 11 rounds. The first 9 rounds will be split among the judges, which I will call Judge A, Judge B, and Judge C.
Each round all three judges will listen to and score the songs, but the scores will be weighted depending upon which judge the round belongs to. The host judge will score out of 15 and the other two will score out of 5, for a total of 25 each round.
There will be a banned list from each judge in effect during their rounds, but also a banned list which will be derived from the individual lists, which will also be in effect. For the sake of simplicity, I will make several banned list combinations so that each round, the participants need only reference one list to figure out what they can send - it will just be a different list for each judge. Songs that each participant sent in roulettes in the past calendar year may not be used again in this Championship, however they may send other songs from those artists.
There may at times be artists on a judge's personal banned list which do not make it into the two combined lists for the other judges' rounds. In the event a participant sends such an artist, their score will be penalised by that judge.
The first round of each judge will be open, but the other two may (or may not, at the judge's discretion) be themed. The judges will make up their own themes.
The roulette would then run like this:
1. Judge A first round (open)
2. Judge B first round (open)
3. Judge C first round (open)
--Eliminations--
4. Judge A second round (possibly themed)
5. Judge B second round (possibly themed)
6. Judge C second round (possibly themed)
--Eliminations--
7. Judge A third round (possibly themed)
8. Judge B third round (possibly themed)
9. Judge C third round (possibly themed)
--Eliminations--
10. Finals, round 1 (open)
11. Finals, round 2 (open)
The number of people eliminated at the first two elimination points will be determined when we know exactly how many people will be participating. Only three people will make it beyond the third elimination point, into the finals.
-
That actually doesn't look too bad Bolsters!
-
Yeah, that looks like a cool concept.
-
Yep, this draft looks pretty good! Of course there's time for it to be refined, but this would be a pretty fun format to use. And I'll reiterate my offer to be a judge assuming I don't win any roulettes, because this seems like quite a bit of fun.
Would the general banned list be a list of artists that two out of the three judges ban? So if judges A and B ban Anathema but judge C doesn't, Anathema is still banned, while if Judge A bans Symphony X but Judges B and C don't, Symphony X is legal except in Judge A's rounds (but if someone sends an Symphony X song that Judge A already knows, their score from Judge A is penalized)?
-
I like the general idea :tup
I do want to address the point below, I don't think this limitation should be there because
a) People send the same song for different roulettes already (except for jingle.boy)
b) There are people that participated in almost every roulette so it wouldn't be fair if someone has 50 or 60 songs they can't send when there might be people who only has 20 songs banned. It's also a little bit of a hassle to go into each roulette to see which songs have been sent or not.
Songs that each participant sent in roulettes in the past calendar year may not be used again in this Championship, however they may send other songs from those artists.
-
I'm all for participating in some way, as I like the concept overall. Just glad I'm not trying to structure or organize it. :D
a) People send the same song for different roulettes already (except for jingle.boy)
What did I do?? :-[
-
I'm just gonna go ahead and throw in that I wouldn't be biased towards any contestor as a judge, being fairly new here :blush.
-
I want to be a judge. This sounds fun.
-
I'm all for participating in some way, as I like the concept overall. Just glad I'm not trying to structure or organize it. :D
a) People send the same song for different roulettes already (except for jingle.boy)
What did I do?? :-[
I'm pretty sure you once told me that you don't send the same song twice in roulettes, or at least you try not to.
-
*coff* song for a dead friend *coff*
:angel:
-
I'm all for participating in some way, as I like the concept overall. Just glad I'm not trying to structure or organize it. :D
a) People send the same song for different roulettes already (except for jingle.boy)
What did I do?? :-[
I'm pretty sure you once told me that you don't send the same song twice in roulettes, or at least you try not to.
Ok, that's what I thought you were implying. Yeah... I try to mix it up and not reuse songs, because if anyone is like me, they're checking out a lot of the songs in the roulette's they follow but don't participate in. I am guilty of using some songs more than once.
*coff* song for a dead friend *coff*
:angel:
.... especially when presented with a very limiting theme like "Depressing" ;)
-
That structure up there looks pretty good.
-
Would the general banned list be a list of artists that two out of the three judges ban? So if judges A and B ban Anathema but judge C doesn't, Anathema is still banned, while if Judge A bans Symphony X but Judges B and C don't, Symphony X is legal except in Judge A's rounds (but if someone sends an Symphony X song that Judge A already knows, their score from Judge A is penalized)?
This is all correct. Although I'm starting to think that your idea of judges recusing might be a better idea than penalties. I dismissed it at first because at the time I was thinking that the score of each judge would be the same weight, but with the 15-5-5 format I don't think a 5 point penalty is too harsh...but it might be just harsh enough.
a) People send the same song for different roulettes already (except for jingle.boy)
b) There are people that participated in almost every roulette so it wouldn't be fair if someone has 50 or 60 songs they can't send when there might be people who only has 20 songs banned. It's also a little bit of a hassle to go into each roulette to see which songs have been sent or not.
It would only be a hassle for me, because I would go through all of the roulettes and make a list for each contestant outlining what they can't send. All they would have to do is reference that list when making a decision. Your point about people having 60 banned songs vs 20 is a good one, but unless most of those bands are one-hit-wonders I don't forsee it being that big of an issue. But if there's enough objections to it I'm happy to remove that rule.
I try to mix it up and not reuse songs, because if anyone is like me, they're checking out a lot of the songs in the roulette's they follow but don't participate in.
I do this myself usually, although I have my first reuse of a song lined up for one of your v3 rounds. :-\
-
This is all correct. Although I'm starting to think that your idea of judges recusing might be a better idea than penalties. I dismissed it at first because at the time I was thinking that the score of each judge would be the same weight, but with the 15-5-5 format I don't think a 5 point penalty is too harsh...but it might be just harsh enough.
I was thinking about recusal as working best in a situation where the score was the average of the judges' three scores. I think in this format the recusal and resulting five point penalty is certainly a harsh one. I'd be 100% fine with it if all three judges' lists were posted publicly, but I wonder if it's too harsh when people are sending blind. I think maybe if you're sending blind to what is on the banned lists for the other two judges, you could do a 2 point or so penalty off of whatever the judge's score is and that would be fair. But if at the outset of the roulette, the list of banned artists for each judge was posted publicly, then I think recusal would be the best option, yes.
-
All three banned lists would be posted before the roulette started, it would be easy for people to double check the other two lists before sending.
-
Then in that case, I'm 100% in favor of recusal in the event that a judge already knows the song.
-
Here to defend my title of grand champion.....
(https://33.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m14tmtEv061r92ldso1_400.gif)
-
a) People send the same song for different roulettes already (except for jingle.boy)
b) There are people that participated in almost every roulette so it wouldn't be fair if someone has 50 or 60 songs they can't send when there might be people who only has 20 songs banned. It's also a little bit of a hassle to go into each roulette to see which songs have been sent or not.
It would only be a hassle for me, because I would go through all of the roulettes and make a list for each contestant outlining what they can't send. All they would have to do is reference that list when making a decision. Your point about people having 60 banned songs vs 20 is a good one, but unless most of those bands are one-hit-wonders I don't forsee it being that big of an issue. But if there's enough objections to it I'm happy to remove that rule.
I'm not so crazy on that rule either... Some songs are better suited for introducing an artist, and since that's ultimately the point of the roulette it seems unnecessary to ban particular songs, even when the judges haven't heard any songs from said band.
With that being said, it's not that big of a deal. It wouldn't be hard to find alternate songs; it just might not tickle the fancy of the judges quite as much. Either way I'm happy, but I'd like to hear what other people think as well...
-
Here to defend my title of grand champion.....
(https://33.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m14tmtEv061r92ldso1_400.gif)
(https://i57.tinypic.com/919geq.jpg)
-
So I've not been giving this much thought at all really, so not much has changed since draft #1. The only difference is that the secondary judges will recuse when they get a song they know well, rather than there being a penalty as I originally wrote. But anyone who was actually following the thread already knows that. :lol
One thing I have chosen to do differently however is judge selection. Originally I was going to think of who I'd like to judge and invite, but it would probably be a very time-consuming process as I'm sure some of my picks would not be all that interested. There is also the chance I could accidentally overlook viable candidates. I think it will be easier if I had a list of interested parties to choose from - Therefore, if you are interested in being a judge, send me a PM.
Here is a list of things you should know before applying, and some requirements expected of you.
- The exact date that this roulette would begin is not set, but I would like it to begin some time in January. Most roulettes take about two months, but this one may go longer given the larger number of people involved (both participants and judges). Make sure you're going to be able to commit to this. If you are interested but have some special considerations during January (I.E. you wouldn't be able to start until after a specific date) let me know - it's my goal to start the roulette when it is convenient for all three judges. If you can't start until Feb but are still interested, throw me a PM and say so, I'm open to the possibility.
- Experience. I feel only people who have run their own roulettes will know precisely what is expected of them here and the time required, therefore I will only be accepting applications from people who have run at least one roulette of their own.
- Punctuality. Some people run slow roulettes. Really slow roulettes. If you often take several weeks between rounds, send me a PM if you like but be warned that you are far less likely to be chosen. I'll be going through the roulettes of any candidates and making note of this.
- You will need a banned list. I don't expect you to have it when you submit an application to me obviously, but you will need to provide one later for use in this roulette. How you choose to handle artists you are only partially familiar with is at your discretion. However if you would like to recuse from judging a submission that isn't on your banned list the sender will be informed and given the option to change their submission - so don't sweat too much about having to ban a lot of things outright, you won't have to.
If any applicants feel like elaborating in their PM why they would be a good selection for one of the three positions feel free to do so, I will read and consider anything you say. This is however not required.