Hi all. In this post, I'll address the topic of event rules, specifically the recurring feedback we've received regarding inconsistent enforcement of effort rules. This concern started during one of the creative tasks in our recent Valentine's Day event when a participant's submission was rejected and they were asked to resubmit.
Since then, some members have expressed frustration about how this was/wasn't addressed during and after the event and have recently pressured Chris, the task's host, to make a statement. While it's too late to make any changes to the event after its conclusion, I'll do my best to explain rule enforcement in events from a staff member's point of view and address aspects of it that we hope to improve.
Effort Rules
Our creative events typically include a rule that asks for each entry to be made with a "reasonable amount of effort." We added this rule a long time ago after we had to ask some participants to resubmit their entries. The idea is to require some standard of participation so that events aren't used as easy ways to earn prizes, especially because other members spend a lot of time on their entries.
To provide some context for this rule's original intention, consider the following example for an event to "create a creature":
A staff member drew this image, but there have been submissions in the past that were similar in perceived effort, so this rule was designed to help prevent them. Over time, however, our bar for reasonable effort has likely shifted as these kinds of submissions have become rare. This is possibly a result of the overall increase in quality in submissions as well!
During the recent event, some members disagreed about an entry's rejection for not using enough effort. We've reviewed the event, and while the entry used a different medium than we typically see for art submissions, we agree that it displayed sufficient effort to qualify for participation rewards. Going forward, we'll reframe the effort rule so that it more specifically addresses the amount of "detail" included in creative entries instead of the perceived amount of "effort" it takes to create them. We'd also like to clarify that the medium used will not be considered when making this judgment but, if applicable, would be covered by separate rules depending on the task.
Furthermore, while we would like to keep some form of this rule in place to keep things fair, we believe that event participation is, first and foremost, just for fun. Other participants who go above and beyond have the chance to earn extra prizes by winning contests or staff favorite selections. At the same time, other members may not be confident in their artistic abilities, which could cause them to be unsure about participating in creative events altogether. We want to stress that effort does not necessarily correlate with skill, and we design events to be as inclusive as possible so that everyone feels comfortable participating regardless of their perceived skill level.
Another reason we're changing the way this rule is worded is that we acknowledge how implying your entry is "low effort" may come across as insulting. While rules will always need to be enforced in events, we certainly don't intend to hurt anyone's feelings! Another concern that came up about this specific incident was the fact that it was rejected publicly. Sometimes we handle issues with submissions within a reply, while other times they are handled privately. This is usually at the host's discretion. Replying directly in the event thread is often easier, or there is additional context wherein a public response seems necessary. However, we can see that this may be embarrassing. Going forward, we'll consider the types of issues with event submissions that would merit a private message and try to handle similar cases privately.
Consistency in Event Rules
As you've seen when we host events, each task is run by one or two staff members, which is one of the ways we distribute event work to the team. Having staff members take the lead on their part of the event helps everything run smoothly, but it means we are generally less focused on the other parts. However, event rules are ideally enforced as consistently as possible, which was one of the concerns brought up about the effort rule. Judging art is subjective, which is also true regarding the perceived effort used to create it. It can be challenging to maintain a consistent standard while considering different skill levels, mediums, and circumstances. To help address this in the future, we'll aim to have more staff members give feedback before a submission is declined. Of course, this can also be challenging due to schedules and commitments in other areas of the event.
Problems With Some Feedback
Finally, I'd like to talk about the feedback that was given about this issue and our response up until now. In my previous posts, I listed some guidelines about leaving feedback and asked that it be cooperative and constructive, not accusatory. Unfortunately, some members who weren't involved made extremely accusatory, demanding, targeted, and sometimes even insulting posts directed at Chris. This is why LadyDestani made another
statement about giving feedback and the site's rules regarding being respectful. The situation that resulted would make any staff member feel uncomfortable, which is why he's not addressing this himself. Making demands is not a helpful way to leave feedback, as shown by this example. That being said, we do appreciate all of the constructive and friendly feedback given about any topic, including this one, and we hope to use it to help improve TBT.
Conclusion
In summary, we plan to:
- Reframe our effort rules
- If applicable, clarify the allowed medium with separate rules
- Reach out to participants privately in certain situations
- Have more team members give feedback before rejecting a submission
We also agree that effort should not be judged too harshly and regret that the enforcement of this rule caused feelings to be hurt. In one of our upcoming responses, we'll touch on more event-related topics, such as repeat winners and competitiveness. Thank you!
