Feedback How Do You Feel About Invasion Judgements

[Tefka]

Last night, a few MFOs approached Staff unhappy about recent Invasion Judgements. To start us off, I just want to reiterate they’re perfectly in their right to express this unhappiness, and provide critique back to Staff. I’ve got years of being told I specifically don’t take criticism well, and maybe that’s valid at times, so we consistently have to have these threads to remind us all where we’re at.

And that satisfaction for parties can be troublesome to acquire through a Discord conversation, where a hundred opinions can flow in unfiltered and unpaced.

Context always matters. No Staff member judges the same, and only the specific Admin overseeing an individual invasion is privy to every decision being made. ie, if Valiens judges an Invasion, his decisions are private even from me.

Admins oversee RPJs, who provide the function of judging victory. Unless there’s a tie, or some other issue, the Admin does not provide judgement.

In this discussion, I confirmed a few beliefs that no - not even I read every post in the Invasion. We’ve never stated that we did. But every Admin is different. Some of them, I know, do excel spreadsheets and numerically break it down. My only real example I’ll provide, though, is my own - I use some pretty heavy RNG to find storylines in an Invasion, I follow those storylines, and I provide judgement based off of that.

So there’s some of the mystery revealed, as to how PVP gets judged. Some judgements will hit right on the money for you. You’ll feel they went right. Others leave you going “how in the fudge did they come up with that?”

That’s where we were at, last night, which is totally fine. We’ll have “good” judgements. We’ll have “bad” judgements. I have never promised one or the other, only that the SWRP Staff Team will continue providing them. To me, to assume otherwise, is entirely up to the individual and how they interpret what is given. To me, the mystery will always be better than the actuality - much like how I interpret the use of the Force.

Player recognition, and validation, is another subject that came up. Again, this is what I view as a misconception- I’ve never promised this. We just do it sometimes because it’s cool. My earnest belief is that it falls more on the writers to provide each other their own validation, rather than Staff to play the popularity game. I’m actually pretty against that.

So how do you feel, are invasions fun? Have some judgements you hate? How about those you like?

Critique below, let off some steam.

 

[Tefka]

Again, I’d ask Staff like I did last night, don’t weigh in. It’s the writer’s turn to speak.

 

[Subject 73 Red]

Okay I'm being completely serious when I say that I thought that they were judged by the two MFOs playing rock paper scissors and the winner wins the invasion. Like I'm not even joking, that is legitimately how I thought it worked. And I've been here for 2 years. So I mean clearly any method other than that is pretty good in my book.

Also I only do invasions for shits and giggles so I rarely care about the outcome.

 

[Danika Leventis]

As someone that actively takes part in invasions, I can say I immensely enjoy them and the stories that can be written and expanded on in them. I have made some good friends within them along the way and the stories keep going long after an invasion has ended. So to me, personally, they are super fun.

What I have noticed across numerous invasion judgements is, and I want to reiterate here that it is only on occasion, is that "how the fudge did they get that" or "how the fudge does that even make sense and is relevant to the category". I add here that this is not based on hearsay or some other influence - it is my own observations when reading a judgement as a mere member or someone who just allied in an invasion.

I, personally, feel that judgements must be at least sort of consistent between different staff members judging different invasions running parallel with one another or consecutively. Each person is their own and that is by all means respected. But I, personally, feel that a certain standard and language and process should at least be kept - let's call it a Standard Operating Procedure, if you will. Where one judgement was given professionally and flawlessly, another judgement was given on another invasion where one specific judgement was hardly relevant to the specific category, in my personal opinion.

Invasions overall are great. Especially if they are done amicably and without Salt Mountain being dragged along for the ride. For the most part, there is no issue. It's just those occasional, what almost seem like veiled jabs, at certain people that may bring about those "what the fudge" moments.

 

[Darth Daiara]

I think it's a matter of clarity in the results.

Some write ups simply say "x did better at this category, so they won", and there's no examples to support that statement.

Without examples to back up the results, results can feel... hollow? You are left to question how it was reached?

I think this is why people like the references to players and events. It's not validation so much as a way to understand the rpj's thought process. "I liked x and x and this is why faction won this category."


With essays you state an opinion, then back it up with examples.

I think if there was more of this inside the write ups, people would understand the results and even be more comfortable with them.

I think we all understand it's a matter of opinion. It's okay if we don't agree with them. We just want to understand how the opinion was reached so it doesn't feel out of the blue.

Appreciate what those rpjs do. Tough work folks xo

 

[Arlo Renard]

I would agree that the invasion writeups could benefit from having more detail and being clearer about how the conclusions were reached.

My only addition here is that, while I don't know if invasion summaries are still a thing, I question their purpose. Is it so that the judges won't have to wade through everyone's posts to find the juicier stories? Do they have to be verified so the judges know that what the summary claims actually happened? Were summaries being used to provide context to storylines that otherwise would've seemed flat to an outsider? How much influence do they have on the judges' perceptions?

Idk, I was involved in an invasion where the FOs all made an agreement beforehand that no one would write a summary afterwards. That tells me something, I just don't know what.

 

[Tefka]

I would agree that the invasion writeups could benefit from having more detail and being clearer about how the conclusions were reached.

My only addition here is that, while I don't know if invasion summaries are still a thing, I question their purpose. Is it so that the judges won't have to wade through everyone's posts to find the juicier stories? Do they have to be verified so the judges know that what the summary claims actually happened? Were summaries being used to provide context to storylines that otherwise would've seemed flat to an outsider? How much influence do they have on the judges' perceptions?

Idk, I was involved in an invasion where the FOs all made an agreement beforehand that no one would write a summary afterwards. That tells me something, I just don't know what.

Only like 5 posts in and a nail has hit the head of a subject I'm very interested in, so I'll need to weigh in.

Invasion summaries are optional, the MFOs involved in a recent invasion (NIO/MAW) felt they impacted judgement, and opted not to submit summaries. Submitting, or not submitting, is totally within their right and always has been - Invasion summaries are not an official function nor have they ever been required, it's just something the teams started asking for to help highlight members involved.

However, this past year, especially with an uptick in invasions after the last great galactic stalemate ended, some teams were holding up Judgements because FOs were telling us they needed more time for summaries, and more time was (imo) incorrectly being given. This isn't to say they were wrong to ask for summaries or wait for them - after the Staff teams switches so many times, with no set way of judging invasions, I can see it being easy to think Invasion Summaries were... just a part of how we did things. I've discussed this with Valiens, and not even he nor I knows how the hell summaries started. I believe we were asked to allow it and just said sure, why not, no harm in it. Then time and culture propagated it. Which slowed the processes. This year, I dropped the hammer on the whole situation and said stop treating them as a function, they're optional, they don't hold up Invasions, if they're not in by the end then they don't come in period.

Since then, I believe - and MFOs past and present, feel free to correct me - this was one of the things that has led to a relief of the pressure on that situation, and given way to the more patient and relaxed environment. MFOs are cooperating better and coming to decisions that lead to no summaries being provided - due to their belief that yes, it does adversely affect invasion judgements. A belief I don't want to share, but find myself agreeing with.

I think, what it tells you (and screams at me) is - should summaries be removed altogether? Banished to the shadow realm. It feels weird to me to exile something that never really existed in the first place, but I will say I'm currently leaning yes and my agenda is currently to put a magnifying glass on this situation, hear from the community, and allow that to inform my own thoughts.

I hope this provides context to the specific situation of Invasion Summaries, for any reading and want to further the discussion on that particular subject.

 

[TheScarletDastard]

I’m pretty new on this site, so here’s my barebones understanding and feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.

Most RP on Chaos is like a bunch of friends on a big field kicking a soccer ball around. We pass the story around from one to the other; sometimes we’ll hog the ball a bit, or style on everyone to show off, but we’re all having a great time and there’s no real winner or even an official end to the fun; things usually just kinda fade off when we get tired.

An Invasion is different because there’s going to be a winning team at the end of the game. So we get jerseys on so we know who’s who, and we start kicking the ball around. It’s like a real soccer game. From Tefka‘s comments here, and my observation of past Invasions, I’ve surmised that although we’re wearing uniforms and we all want to win, no one really knows where the goalposts are.

The objective is unclear. According to Tefka, different referees judge games differently. Because we never know the score until the game is over, we give ourselves our own objectives in the hopes of being judged favorably; control the ball well, pass cleanly, maybe shoot a shot at the fence and hope it counts as a goal.

But of course, we’ve never been promised that these objectives would amount to anything in the end. And when the game is over, the winning team might be just as confused as the losers with the outcome, because the criteria is unknown to us.

If competitive sports were like this, it’d be a mess and folks might get a little peeved. I’m newer to Chaos, so I don’t have a roadmap for how to fix this. Instead, I have questions I think everyone would like answered going forward.

1: If not every post in an invasion is being read by the judge, then which are? Are veteran writers being prioritized (which seems fair to me,) or is it a random sampling? I might assume the same number of posts by one side are being judged as on the other side, but I think a takeaway from this has been not to unfairly expect certain criteria from Judges who haven‘t promised it.

2: To what extent will the outcomes of Mission Objectives within the thread impact the final result? Does a sudden shift in the mission or story towards the end outweigh the general tone of the rest of the 4-7 pages of posts?

3: If all judges come to their decisions differently, are there any core criteria that factions can reliably count on being judged by, regardless of who their judge is? Would/Do these core criteria take precedence over the individual judges’ own scoring?

If I’m way off base or asking silly questions, my sincerest apologies, please let me know. I’m really grateful to all our judges and staff here on Chaos, and I look forward to a lot of fun and writing here.

 

[Tegan Starfall]

IMO I think they should almost go back to being old school like way back in the days they were called takeovers. Where the two or more factions involved have to hash it out and decide.

I get that can cause a lot of drama as did back in the day. However if implimented again I would put that the factions involved have a week to decide an outcome if they cant do it in that time fram or civil manner the rpjs step in and decide for them.

This would help alleviate a few issues that see with the current system.

1. RPJ bias as we all have Bias sometime we are good at putting those aside and other times we are just having bad days and cant move past them, rpjs are human after as all and wwe all have our issues. By lessening their role and leaving it to factions you can mitigate some of that bias because it doesn't put as much stress on the rpj.

2. You reduce the factions from screaming rpj bias because they all had a chance to decide on their own. If they couldn't come to a civil choice and rpj had to step in it lands on the factions themselves if the outcome they think should have happened did not.

3. If a faction wants an rpj judgement instead of deciding it themselves they can also request that much like having an admin watch the ooc thread.

4. Also if a faction or factions cause issues with drama they can be put in invasion time outs against a faction or invasions over all.

5. This gives factions a chance to show they can be adults and be reasonable working with other factions.

6. It could lesson negative opinions towards certain faction if they show how willing they are to write the story over playing the hex game.

But that's my opinion on this whole situation and their are probably more pros and cons I'm not thinking of that could benefit from allowing factions to decide the outcomes in a civil manner.

 

[Vesta]

Invasion summaries have created judgements that, at least in the past, seem like two faction owners doing a persuasive essay on why they won and not a supplement to invasions to help with brevity. Judgements seem to heavily align with whoever wrote the "better" summary rather than the contents of the invasion, and, as mentioned above, cause scenarios to arise where people question the decisions made in the judging process.

Obviously things have changed since way back when I was involved with this kind of stuff, but back then it was my responsibility as RPJ to read the invasion and write up my ruling with reasoning for each that was submitted to whichever admin was overseeing judgement. Whether or not it's the best way of doing things or not isn't really why I mentioned that, but at the time there was more general acceptance of rulings and confidence in the process than there is now.

Edit (now that I'm on my pc and not mobile-posting from work):
The general workflow was as follows:

1. RPJ(s) (sometimes 1, sometimes 2) assigned with an overseeing admin at the beginning of the invasion
2. RPJs periodically read and take notes for the invasion throughout
3. Near the end of the invasion the RPJs work together to write up their perspectives on how each category of the invasion went, coming to compromises on areas they don't agree with.
4. RPJs check with each faction owner on whether or not they concede, if yes then it ends at this stage and the faction that isn't conceding is given the W.
5. RPJs submit this to the overseeing Admin, who then checks for themselves and ensures that RPJs are not missing anything integral to the plot of the invasion
6. If approved, RPJs (or admin, sort of depended tbh) sent their #sparknotes edition results to the faction owners and declared the victor.

The actual process taken while reading did vary from RPJ to RPJ, which was fine, but the work put in was basically equivalent. For example key points in the invasion would be incorporated into the write-up for the results, specific moments of high tension with consequences that affected the entire flow of the thread were mentioned, etc.

Basically it was written out in such a way that it was, at the very least, clear how the result was arrived at, even if the process taken for judging was still as vague/variable as it is right now. Most of the judgments I've read in the last few invasions had results that I more or less could agree with.. but reading the actual contents of the results sort of read more like the conclusion was arrived at before the actual judgment was written. Like someone read the thread and got the right gist of things, but didn't put any of the stuff that contributed to their decision into writing until they had to write it to submit it for approval which inevitably leads to confusing fluff or entirely missed bits of the thread that were extremely integral to how the flow of the invasion itself went.

All of this was without summaries being provided by major factions, the only communication between factions and staff were as per above, and only so.

Edit again: Here's an example of the sort of thing one could expect from judgments back then (from 3 years ago between factions that no longer exist, so I hope I'm not breaking any rules/agreements by posting this here, feel free to remove the image below if I am and apologies in advance if so)

Spoiler

 

[Kiff Brayde]

Imo the idea of summaries and people wanting to use them stems from Major Factions trying to guess the criteria that staff is looking for and, unsure at what posts staff reads and takes into account (because apparently what posts are read = RNG) summaries are used to point RPJs in the direction of what major factions want to showcase.

I think that some sort of operating standard and criteria looked at needs to be established, as well as better result summaries from judging Staff so as to more clearly see “oh this is what Major Faction X did that Major Faction Y didn’t do, which won them tension” etc. I think the current freehand approach just isn’t justifying itself and if the process was more objective and standardized, there might be more satisfaction in the results — or at least the knowledge that said results were fairly judged, and not the result of subjectivity and RNG.

 

[Darth Metus]

old-man.exe has launched

At one point, when the CIS was but a wee bab, you'd have both MFOs in a single DM with staff. And there was an awkward waiting game to see who'd summarize first. And whoever went first, the second summary didn't highlight what actually happened in the thread, but rather was written specifically to discredit/debunk whoever posted first.

Then summaries went into separate DMs, and the Meta became "write what the RPJs want to read/what they think will be entertaining" versus what's actually fun or makes sense for the faction. Can't tell you how many times I've heard over the years "I'll kill off my character, that should win us tension."

I think summaries played a big part in this mindset developing. My two cents?

Nuke em.

They're not an official rule. They're not even Tef or Valiens sanctioned. Just nuke em.

In doing so, I think site staff will develop their own secret metric sauce for judging consistently upstairs, and you'll see more consistent judgments overall.

 

[Tefka]

and you'll see more consistent judgments overall.

 

[Darth Metus]

Tefka

Shhhh, I'm giving you an out foo

 

[Tefka]

Edit again: Here's an example of the sort of thing one could expect from judgments back then (from 3 years ago between factions that no longer exist, so I hope I'm not breaking any rules/agreements by posting this here, feel free to remove the image below if I am and apologies in advance if so)

It's not a big deal to post this, as it's from too far back to matter and it doesnt look inflammatory.. The formatting nor content hasn't really changed much in 3 years. Thanks for sharing!

 

[Sunfrog]

And whoever went first, the second summary didn't highlight what actually happened in the thread, but rather was written specifically to discredit/debunk whoever posted first.

This.

This is what I was warned of when I became FO of SJC.

In my first invasion I waited until the other FO had sent their summary before sending mine so they couldn't tailor a summary to mine and in my second invasion I was on LOA for the invasion but came back to help write the summary and make sure someone submitted it before disappearing again - point is: I don't like 'em.

If RPJs are reading the invasions anyway then the summaries are redundant.

As for invasion judgements as a whole, I've never had a personal issue with SJC judgements aside from one comment in the participation section of the Lao-Mon invasion judgement mentioning how many BotM writers were in another invasion at the same time. I was under the impression that invasions were judged in isolation from other invasions otherwise TSE would've had a lot more going for their participation when they were getting invaded every which direction.

There will always be the case of different perspectives which is difficult to avoid really as invasions are subjective but subjectivity shouldn't be an excuse for blatant biases. I haven't received any results I genuinely believe to be biased but I have read some questionable results from another faction's invasion.

 

[Tegan Starfall]

Just a question I thought this was about the invasion Judgemnts not the summaries that faction sometimes give to the judges or did as of being banned today?

 

[Tefka]

Just a question I thought this was about the invasion Judgemnts not the summaries that faction sometimes give to the judges or did as of being banned today?

I’d suggest reading post #7 in this thread.