[games_access] GDC 2008 Guidelines

d. michelle hinn hinn at uiuc.edu
Sun Sep 30 16:05:41 EDT 2007


Ok...now that we are at the 11th hour for real...we have a wee bit of
a train wreak with the proposals. We have a lot of overlap that I can
see but can't show until I finish typing. Below are random issues and
thoughts jammed into one email rather than 10.

A huge issue is language -- we need to be STRONG. This doesn't mean
rude. But we need to stop doubting ourselves. It's coming through a
bit here and there. We know what we are talking about and people want
to get takeaway info that they can turn around and present to their
company. We need to stop suggesting. Really. We do. The thing with
GDC is that it is not an academic conference AT ALL so we don't have
to do the lack of strong language thing that academia prefers. Unless
we are suggesting something totally sci-fi 100 years in the future,
we need to say that "here's what's wrong" and "here's what to do." We
need to say this works because we've been doing this for a REALLY
long time and we know. WE are the EXPERTS. We have to believe in that.

So we have a post-mort panel and a post-mort single session on one
game in that panel. My worry is that they might see the overlap and
knock the single session out in favor of the "more examples" approach
with the panel. So we need to think this through a bit -- my
suggestion is that we remove "post mort" from one of them. It doesn't
matter to me which one. My gut is telling me to go with the panel and
call Eitan's proposal something close but not the same. Thoughts?

We also have a lot of work to be done on the titles -- I'll see what
I can do now. We just have a lot of titles that sound the same but
aren't. We have to make sure all the proposals look unique enough to
help the advisory board justify several instead of "well, let's just
take one of the talks because they look so alike."

After I tinker a bit more, I'm going to start entering these into the
system because once they are in I can still edit -- I just want to
make sure I get through all the annoying parts of the submission
process rather than cursing at them at 3am...I'd rather curse at
content at 3am. :)

Why am I putting my name on them all even if it's not my proposal?
Because we're using my login info to tag them all as SIG proposals.
This will make the politicking easier. That's all there is to it. All
names associated with any proposal can be changed, swaped out, etc
later.

A side issue -- as much as it is feasible, I'd like to serve as the
discussant/chair/whatever of every session we have so that I can
present a 1-2 minute "this is what else is going on at GDC related to
GA" and also to introduce the speakers. We had someone introduce
Richard and I at Austin (we didn't know this beforehand) and I think
it was really effective -- it kind of started things rolling in a
less awkward fashion. After last year I think we can all agree that
we need to push our own sessions much more strongly AT GDC (not to
mention before...). We also need to push the booth so that would also
be in that 1-2 minutes.

Michelle


More information about the games_access mailing list