ADMIN: judging rules clarification

Sorry for my quietness on this subject - I've been busy elsewhere.

If you can't get a game to work, then consider a couple of guidelines:

  1. Does the author of the game indicate that it should run on your platform (either implicitly or explicitly)? If they do, and the game does not work because it is broken, then you may penalise them for it if you wish (that is, rate them very low and check disqualification).
  2. If you cannot get a game working because you can't make the dependencies work, then it's not really fair to penalise the authors of that game. Hassle the authors of the dependencies that are so hard to get to work.
I hope this helps clarify things.

I will revisit this area of the judging for the next challenge, most likely by including an explicit "did not work" indicator in the ratings. I will need to consider how that will affect ratings though.

richard on 2006/09/21 22:17 of Bouncy the Hungry Rabbit


Comments: (log in to comment)

I suggest adding a requirement for a both a .tgz source submission and a .zip py2exe submission for each game.

Having that will make it so most everyone can run all the games without having to install or haggle with any deps.

If not a requirement, a very strong recommendation.

How does having a .zip py2exe submission work for those of us that possess no Windows machine to generate said py2exe submission? There may not be many of us, but I would be sorely frustrated with any requirement to provide a py2exe solution.

That said, if the game has complex requirements, and I don't provide a py2exe version, I would fully expect for it not to work for Windows folks. I would make that explicit in the README.

I can't require that a py2exe'd executable be submitted (I'm not even set up to produce them). I do already recommend it.

Can't we more or less assume that some established/mature cross-platform libraries work well enough on Windows (eg. Pygame) that a .zip archive with just the sources (and images/sounds) would be sufficient? There's no way I could produce a .exe file, but it shouldn't be too much to ask people to run the Pygame installer before trying some of the entries. If they don't like that, perhaps there could be a category about installation convenience - then, those who do manage to produce an .exe (or a .deb, .rpm and so on) could be rewarded that way.

In my unfinished game, I even eschewed Numeric in order to keep the dependencies down to just one non-bundled library, and there's a fair argument for conservatism if you want other people to try out your game. By rating the installation effort, installfests could be reasonably penalised, however.

Richard wrote:

> Does the author of the game indicate that it should run on your platform (either implicitly or explicitly)? If they do, and the game does not work because it is broken, then you may penalise them for it if you wish (that is, rate them very low and check disqualification).

I don't agree with disqualification in this case, as the failure to run is clearly a bug. Are we to disqualify games just because they contain bugs? That seems too harsh.

Maybe there should be another check box for "I couldn't get it to work for some reason, so I couldn't give it a meaningful rating."

Phil wrote:

> How does having a .zip py2exe submission work for those of us that possess no Windows machine to generate said py2exe submission?

I'd be against compulsory .exe submission too, as a matter of principle. Windows is not the centre of the universe, despite what Mr. Gates would like to think. The PyWeek rules should remain platform-neutral.

Yes, there should be an explicit "it didn't work for me" option in ratings. There will be next time (assuming I can find the time to implement it and the other requested changes between now & next time).
Am I the only one who doesn't want a White Dress?
Am I the only one who doesn't want a White Dress?