[MidnightLich]

Hello,

Our creative team has curated your titles and come back with the following seven (7) options for you to choose from! Here's the list:

Reenact Morality Demonstration
Conduct Morality Analysis
Examine Moral Compass
Review Ethical Differences
Exchange Sociological Ideals
Examine Morality
Demonstrate Sociological Values

Your job now is to vote on the final title you want for the Excalbia mission. You'll be able to vote for two (2) of the options above, and the vote will be open through Sunday, March 10th. You can change your vote at any time up until the poll closes.

Then, if we don't have a title that's a clear winner, there will be a runoff vote posted after this poll closes. A runoff will be triggered if the top two choices are tied, or if their combined total number of votes is less than half the total number of votes. Otherwise, there won't be a runoff vote and the winner will move on to the next step. If we do have a runoff vote, it will be a quick, 24-hour poll. So vote, then feel free to reply to this thread with your votes and try to sway others to your side!

Happy voting!

-crp

[Armus]

No Manage Rocky Relationship?

Why don't you guys like fun?

[BCSWowbagger]

No Manage Rocky Relationship?

Why don't you guys like fun?

I feel like we got a very narrow palette of choices back from this round of curation.

[Iron Prime]

No Manage Rocky Relationship?

Why don't you guys like fun?

Maybe we should do a Trek version of MTG Unglued/Unhinged? Since it wouldn't be official or need playtesting we could even do it as a small community event instead burdening design and playtesters?


Now I need to go find some blooper reels and goofy fan art...

[frakkingoff]

I feel like we got a very narrow palette of choices back from this round of curation.

Yeah, this is incredibly disappointing.

What was the point of nominating, if some behind-the-scenes shadow players were going to end up making the choices anyhow?

(Philosophically, is there a point to voting, or will the results be "curated" as well?)

I get that some suggestions were silly, but there were more than seven "legitimate" options nominated - some of which I think were stronger than the seven presented above. Sometimes rough edges need to be sanded down a bit, but this was a step too far.

[MattgomeryScott]

No Manage Rocky Relationship?

Why don't you guys like fun?

I'm also extremely disappointed to see this didn't make the cut. It stood out for me as a possible title that fit the story, fit all the requirements and didn't feel like I was trying to twist my tongue around variations of "Morality," "Ethics" or "Sociology" which just didn't feel like natural titles to me.

That said, congrats to creators of the 7 titles selected and good luck with getting picked.

All the Best,

Mattgomery Scott.

[Boffo97]

No Manage Rocky Relationship?

Why don't you guys like fun?

Maybe we should do a Trek version of MTG Unglued/Unhinged? Since it wouldn't be official or need playtesting we could even do it as a small community event instead burdening design and playtesters?


Now I need to go find some blooper reels and goofy fan art...

You could use TAS as well...

[karonofborg13]

My vote is for "Manage Rocky Relationship," not any of these boring, lame wannabe pieces of crap curated or otherwise.

[Tim]

I don't get it, alone "Manage Rocky Relationship" doesn't fit the mission at all? Is it referencing something?

The pun would fit a mission for "Heart of Stone" DS9 better --- that involved a potential romantic relationship.

[MidnightLich]

The Creative Team has the difficult task of finding stories to go on cards that don't often suggest obvious ones, and to give cards titles that maintain a consistent style and formatting. I don't envy them, because it's a tough job before you factor in designers asking for specific things. I regret that I didn't provide more details about how and why Creative would be curating lore and titles, because we were on a tight timeline.

It's clear that some of you are disappointed with the curation here, but I encourage you to vote anyway. You still get to pick which title ends up on the mission and your votes still matter. Your disappointment is noted and we'll factor that, along with any other debriefing feedback, into plans for any future Will of the Collectives.

Working together, you guys have made a fun and exciting pair of cards that Design would not have made. You've given us hooks to use to make more cards, like an objective that plays on the mission, using your ideas We'll make more personnel from this episode because it was one you chose. You have impacted the game in significant and positive ways. Even if the title selection here leaves you a little disappointed, be proud of what you've done.

-crp

[Armus]

I'm genuinely curious why my nomination was rejected.

I'm not going to rage quit the process or anything but I would like to know why Creative found it unworthy of making it to the Ballot, especially when I nominated it specifically with the already agreed on lore in mind.

[BCSWowbagger]

And it's not like there wasn't space. There were 15 slots available, and we got 7 choices.

I was also disappointed to lose

Unveil "Savage Curtain" (which I expected to actually vote for)
Unfold Drama
Test of Rocks

...none of which were obvious jokes, and all of which avoided the ham-fisted "morality / sociology" formulae that I was specifically planning to vote against.

As it is, I am chill with Charlie's explanation -- WotC is a wild ride, and you can't go back and redo stuff -- but the only real choice here is whether I want "sociology" or "morality" (or the near synonym "ethical") in my mission title, and my vote is still "neither". So no vote from me, despite the entreaty.

No hard feelings, either, since I know it will be addressed in the debrief. And WotC has still been a fun ride all the way down. But no vote this round.

EDIT:

I don't get it, alone "Manage Rocky Relationship" doesn't fit the mission at all? Is it referencing something?

This was my second choice, because it gives us a story about contacting the Excalbians in the 24th century that doesn't imply that the Excalbians have been re-enacting the same experiment for a hundred years. "Rocky Relationship" both gives us some insight into how that relationship has evolved... and, yes, is an obvious pun.

[frakkingoff]

The Creative Team has the difficult task of finding stories to go on cards that don't often suggest obvious ones, and to give cards titles that maintain a consistent style and formatting.

Fortunately, that wasn't the task for the Creative Team here, as this is not a Creative Team-designed card.

This was the task of the community (the "Collective"), as it is a Collectively-designed card. One that they performed admirably and successfully, and yet are having those successes quashed for no good reason.

I regret that I didn't provide more details about how and why Creative would be curating lore and titles, because we were on a tight timeline.

You regret it, but you're not rectifying it?

I don't understand this "timeline" issue. What is the rush for this card? Why does it NEED to be done quickly, come hell or high water?

Incidentally, how often has the CC failed to meet its initial design timeline goals? It's my understanding that deadlines slip because it's better to "do the job right" than to "do the job on time." Why should this card (or process) be any different?

Your disappointment is noted and we'll factor that, along with any other debriefing feedback, into plans for any future Will of the Collectives.

Why not factor it into the plans for this Will of the Collective?

Sorry man, but multiple people are telling you that you're doing this wrong. There's no good reason why you can't stop and do it right. The vagueness isn't helping things, either.

As it is, I am chill with Charlie's explanation

Let me know when you see an explanation.

WotC is a wild ride, and you can't go back and redo stuff

Nobody's talking about "going back and redoing" anything. I think the issue is the step we're currently on, which can still be done the right way.

[MidnightLich]

Will of the Collective is held to a tight timeline because, in the first several incarnations, the process dragged on months. Participation waned incredibly due to delays, volunteers had difficulty doing the required prep and posting work, etc. The only reason this process was brought back last year (WotC4) and this year was because we committed to keeping it fast, tight, and consistent. WotC is a massive amount of work, from the planning stages, to the writing of all of the posts, to curation, to data analysis on each step.

Is there a timeline because we have deadlines to meet? No. A printing date to make? No. Instead, it's on a tight and regimented schedule to make it so the amount of work required to run the process is manageable and keeps the volunteers doing so sane. However, that being said, there are good reasons to get these done soon. The plan is for these cards to go straight into Project Londo (3rd set of the block), which is actively being worked on. The sooner these cards go in, the sooner those designers can use them as part of their other designs.

I understand that several of you really don't like the choices offered. By my count, five (5) people out of a likely thirty (30) voters raised issues; that's about 17%. Now, the voting numbers are down for this step, which suggests that people have either lost interest (which happens naturally) or didn't want to vote. But is that enough to throw all of this away and do it over? And what kind of precedent does that set? After all, about 65% of people didn't vote for Yarnek as the character in the intial poll - do we go back and redo that vote too? To me, the answer is no.

As the administrator of this process, I trusted Paddy and the Creative Team to curate these choices. They did so. Does the dissatisfaction warrant my managerial meddling? Does it warrant my micromanaging Paddy? In my mind, no. I strive as a manager and leader to trust the people I lead/manage to do their jobs, even if they do them differently than I might. Otherwise, why have people empowered to do anything?

I hope that Paddy will come in here and answer your questions. I know that, in future versions of this process (if there are any), I (or whomever else hosts) need to do a better job of explaining when and how curation will happen, and what criteria will be used, before nominations. I'm not answering your questions about curation because I don't know the answers - I didn't curate these, as I did for the early design steps. I just want you all to know I'm not ignoring you, but that I don't have the answers you seek.

frakkingoff, I don't think you and I will ever see eye-to-eye on this. And you are quite correct that we should take time to make sure our work's quality is there rather than meet a deadline. But in this case, it's not a lack of quality that would be delaying things; instead, it's frustration on the part of some with a process that is complex, time consuming, and a lot of work. In my opinion, those are different ballparks. But, as I said before, it's important that we listen and adapt - so I'm listening, and making notes so that if we do this again (or anything like it), we can better meet your needs and expectations.

-crp

[MattgomeryScott]

While I am disappointed we won't be Managing a Rocky Relationship, I'd like to be clear that that isn't a criticism of those running WotC or the CC. Just from when I used to run Thematic I know that organising something like this is a surprisingly complicated and time consuming endeavour, so I'd like to thank you all for doing it.

One lesson I hope is learned from this incarnation of WotC is how important it is to have the rules that will be used for the entire contest spelled out in plain English before it begins, perhaps in an article post that is then linked at the start of each Step and Vote, and them implemented consistently.

I know there's been some confusion at a couple of steps as to what triggered a tie-breaker/runoff, and I know I didn't realise the significance of "curate them down to a list of no more than fifteen (15)" meaning it could be a lot less than 15 when suggesting Mission Titles for the previous Step. Perhaps by having a definite WotC Rules document that everyone can easily refer to this could be avoided in future contests.

Anyway, just my two strips of latinum on the subject.

All the Best,

Mattgomery Scott.