[games_access] same proposal in multiple tracks

[Eelke Folmer]

Hey Michelle,

Thanks for your elaborate feedback.
I was just curious what would be the best approach for GDC.

If anyone wants me to go over their proposal let me know.

cheers Eelke


On 9/30/07, d. michelle hinn <hinn at uiuc.edu> wrote:
> Just a side -- I'm trying to share as much as I know about the GDC
> process after having done the proposals for 05, 06, and 07. It's nice
> to have more people working round the clock with me at the deadline
> -- I really, really appreciate it and it's so great to have the
> feeling that we're all one team working together for the same goal.
> The hardest thing for me has been that it takes a lot of time to
> advise all while I'm trying to do the other write ups. But that's how
> we learn as a group!
>
> Michelle
>
> >Ok, there's a history behind the two audio tracks. The advisory
> >board for this is the same as it was for Austin and they invited us.
> >What we found was enormous support from the audio people for the
> >auditory part. So I'm adding a note at the top of the expanded
> >abstract to explain why these are split and if they prefer, the two
> >talks can be put together as they were in Austin.
> >
> >Note: Notes are ok in your expanded outline if you are explaining
> >something weird. Yeah, I know this sounds risky but I don't think
> >that these two are. Remember -- it's an advisory board selection
> >rather than a formal review. The rules for this are not the same as
> >an academic conference. And if you are ax-ed by one track...that's
> >where it ends. They have too many submissions to bother suggesting
> >another track, which is why they get pretty specific about what they
> >are looking for. That's been my experience.
> >
> >As for the other two, these are trickier and I know what you are
> >saying. That's why they need to be as unique as possible. Reid is
> >proposing a technical talk for programming. The one you and he are
> >working on is a business track proposal (keep in mind that they will
> >want to grill you about numbers). But they aren't the same proposals.
> >
> >The double audio tracks are also not the same proposals as yours and
> >Reids -- these are design and "show off" sessions, appealing more to
> >designers. And they are aimed at some the biggest supporters of GA
> >-- the Audio People and they are audio design sessions. Believe me
> >(and Richard would agree) the the Audio talk is WAY different than
> >your proposals. We've given it already. :) And I think our reviews
> >from that session suggest that we should do this again at GDC San
> >Fran (Big GDC) to an audience of even more audio designers.
> >
> >So there's no trickery the way I see it by what has happened with
> >these proposals. I think that they do belong in multiple tracks and
> >that they AREN'T merely repeats of the same talk. And they shouldn't
> >be when planning for them if accepted. If in the end the proposals
> >look exactly the same, then we've done something wrong. Yes, my
> >experience is that we will probably get about 2-4 of these accepted
> >(out of 11) so we do need lots of proposals. But I don't think we
> >are unfairly stacking the deck here.
> >
> >Michelle
> >
> >>hi,
> >>
> >>I'm seeing the same proposal in multiple tracks:
> >>
> >>-When Audio IS the game experience: Gamers with Visual Disabilities
> >>(Richard/Michelle)
> >>-When Audio IS the game experience: Gamers with Auditory Disabilities
> >>(Reid/Michelle)
> >>
> >>- Selling more games by adding CC (Reid/ Eelke)
> >>- Creating Dynamic Closed Captioning Systems (Reid)
> >>
> >>Its good to be pervasive to increase our chances of acceptance but it
> >>might also bite us in the back. In my fields of research it is
> >>generally not a good idea to submit the same proposal to multiple
> >>tracks. Generally reviewers will review a proposal and if they deem it
> >>to be suitable for another track they will usually suggest that.
> >>Submitting the same proposal to multiple tracks is usually considered
> >>spamming. Michelle do you know for GDC whether proposals are reviewed
> >>on an individual basis or do they look at who is submitting what to
> >>which track? I do want us to get as much proposals accepted as
> >>possible but I suggest we play by the rules.
> >>
> >>Cheers Eelke
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>Eelke Folmer                           Assistant Professor
> >>Department of CS&E/171
> >>University of Nevada              Reno, Nevada 89557
> >>Game interaction design        www.helpyouplay.com
> >>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>games_access mailing list
> >>games_access at igda.org
> >>http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/games_access
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >games_access mailing list
> >games_access at igda.org
> >http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/games_access
>
> _______________________________________________
> games_access mailing list
> games_access at igda.org
> http://seven.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/games_access
>


-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eelke Folmer                           Assistant Professor
Department of CS&E/171
University of Nevada              Reno, Nevada 89557
Game interaction design        www.helpyouplay.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------