Consultation: should 5 or 6 entries be required for a full competition in the MAARC and MCWC?

[Alwyn]

In the MAARC and MCWC, we can run a reduced competition when we have three entries and a full competition when we have six. (If anyone is wondering what the MAARC and MCWC are, you can find them in General Competitions).

When we run a reduced competition, there are two winners. When we run a full competition, there are three winners and they win slightly more Writers' Study competition poiints. Until December 2016, five entries were needed to run a full competition. From the MAARC LXVIII onwards, the rules were changed to require six entries for a full competition.

This thread is a place for us to discuss whether five or six entries should be needed for a full competition.

An argument for keeping the number at six is that some writers might feel that Writers' Study competition medals could be obtained too easily. An argument for returning to five entries is that, when we have three or four entries, this encourages more writers to enter. If six entries are needed and we get five, then only two out of five will win. If five entries are needed and we already have four, then the fifth entrant has the satisfaction of improving the odds for everyone. Perhaps you'd like to comment on these arguments or to suggest others?

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

Six as the base adds 'weight' to the victories. It produces a more reserved economy of points and reflects the fact that since competition is reduced, your road is paved as easier. Such reservation I think is good if we want to promote balanced long term sustainability.

By returning it to five, you slightly reduce the standards, throw more points in the system, and simply make the job easier for people going for this. It certainly can be more satisfying to entrants in the short term, at the cost of the more detached benefits above.

I imagine the decision should hinge on the perceived activity of the section on a long as well as short term scale. On the short term scale it does indeed seem obvious that the activity for these has waned, and so it would be prudent to encourage people to join with higher chance of success and reward. If you can say the same for the longer term, that, barring some other idea, the section will not improve in traffic, it would be viable to do longer term as well. If it was a short stint there would be no point, but at this rate, might as well change and revert back when there is an audience to capitalize on those higher numbers.

[Cookiegod]

6.

[Alwyn]

Thanks for commenting! I wonder if it's helpful to have the numbers of people entering recent competitions:

MAARC LXXIII: 4
MAARC LXXIV: 7
MAARC LXXV: 8 (the 75th MAARC)
MAARC LXXVI: 8
MAARC LXXVII: 3
MAARC LXXVIII: 3
MAARC LXXIX: 6
MAARC LXXX: 4
MAARC LXXXI: 4
MAARC LXXXII: 6

MCWC XV: 4
MCWC XVI: 3
MCWC XVII: 4
MCWC XVIII: 4
MCWC XIX: 3

I'm not suggesting that these numbers resolve the question one way or the other, just that they might be useful.

[Cookiegod]

I think those two competitions should be combined.

[Swaeft]

I think those two competitions should be combined.

I'd be interested in some elaboration here if you have the time. It would also be good if some of the regulars of these competitions weighed in (no pressure!).

Personally I think it should be based on the current level of activity, so if we're finding it very hard to consistently get 6 participants maybe a drop to 5 would encourage the remaining eligible AARs/CWs to participate. I believe if there are already 3 participants after a lengthy waiting period and the rest of us try to wait for a full competition it's going to be quite difficult to achieve. If the cap was 5, a person deciding whether to participate or not would think 'hey, if I submit my work, only 1 other guy needs to participate to get a full competition'.

Just some stats: In a reduced competition with 3 participants there are 2 winners (66%). In a full competition with 6 participants there are 3 winners (50%). Bringing it down to 5 would make the percentage of people winning 66.

But hey, maybe I'm thinking too much here

[Cookiegod]

But hey, maybe I'm thinking too much here

Or not enough! 3/5=60%! I hate to be that guy... Wait, I don't hate to be that guy at all.

I think those doing CW vs AARs are mostly the same people. And it's not like there's a hard distinction between those two either. Only difference is that AAR manages to barely scratch the 6 participants together at times. So I don't get why there should be two competitions with very limited interest, when it could be just 1.

An additional solution to get more people to participate would be to give every participant one point regardless of placement.

[Swaeft]

Or not enough! 3/5=60%! I hate to be that guy... Wait, I don't hate to be that guy at all.

Apparently not I think its still more proportionate though. In any case it's more about activity in the WS for me.

I think those doing CW vs AARs are mostly the same people. And it's not like there's a hard distinction between those two either. Only difference is that AAR manages to barely scratch the 6 participants together at times. So I don't get why there should be two competitions with very limited interest, when it could be just 1.

Ehh, not really, or at least not at the same time. I can only think of NorseThing and Kilo11 at the moment. As for the distinction, I'd feel a little weird if something like Kilo11's whiskey reviews or some shorter stories with less than a couple thousand words were to be compared against the currently active AARs. It's apples and oranges, to me at least.

An additional solution to get more people to participate would be to give every participant one point regardless of placement.

I wouldn't recommend this either. Speaking for myself it would feel like a participation trophy, which I never really liked.

[Kilo11]

Ehh, not really, or at least not at the same time. I can only think of NorseThing and Kilo11 at the moment. As for the distinction, I'd feel a little weird if something like Kilo11's whiskey reviews or some shorter stories with less than a couple thousand words were to be compared against the currently active AARs. It's apples and oranges, to me at least.

I just spoke at length about this in the other consultation thread, so I won't rehash it all here. Short story, I also think the distinction is worth keeping, even at the cost of having MCWCs at much less frequency than the MAARCs.

Regarding the number of entries required, I think six is a nice amount. For any number that one chooses there will always be the argument "Well, if we require X entries for a full competition, then once we have X-1 entries people are really encouraged to join". To me, I currently think that way once we have 5 entries, but if the number was 5 for full competition, I'd think that at 4 entries, and at 6 if full competition was 7 entries (anyone confused yet ). What I think is deciding is the trend in how people hop into the competition. From the numbers above (and the general sense I've gotten over the last year participating in the WS fora), I feel like there are sometimes lulls in which it takes a bit of time and effort to even get to 3 entrants. However, it seems to often be the case that once we get 4 it's easy enough for that to bump up to 5, and then the thought "If just one more joins it's a full competition" helps get it up to 6. Given that I find more entries to be strictly better than less, I like that it's at 6. More generally, I think there is almost always enough new material for us to have 6 entries, and the problem is more just about getting the nominations in there. That is something that we as users can easily fix though, by simply pointing people in the direction of the competitions. I mean heck, you can even just ask if someone is okay being nominated. If I recall correctly, Skotos was on the fence about nominating himself at first (thinking his work wasn't good enough, if you can believe that!), and I got him to begrudgingly allow me to nominate him myself. I think that was an excellent decision (even if he has trounced me in some past MAARCs ), and it is a great way for us as readers to promote the things we like, which is arguably the way things should be anyway. So in short, I'd leave it at 6 and ask that readers and members do more work to promote things, including the AARs, CW pieces, and authors that we think are truly exceptional. After all, it's the only reward that authors get here and it doesn't cost us anything, so we may as well dole it out generously