I plan to write about this soon, so I really should just save what I have to say, but I would like to push back against the idea of governing via surveys.
The gravity surrounding the IF Competition is tremendous. There is nothing else like it. People we don’t see all year turn up to play and rate these games. Creators who don’t follow IF sometimes do something comp-related. Games entered in the competition get more reviews and ratings than games that do not, and this phenomenon is on average quality-agnostic. It affects IFDB ratings long after the competition ends. Which affects the algorythm. And on and on.
The comp is not something that begins and ends, it acts upon us and our work all year long. I think this LLM question is important enough that it shouldn’t just be left up to whoever feels motivated to respond to a survey. ParserComp was affected by an LLM-affiliated brigade this year. I don’t think people who care about this subject should have to whip responses here and on other platforms. I have been told so many times that if I care, I should fill out the survey. OK, I’ll do that, and I hope that people who value human endeavor do, too. But. But.
Considering the impact and influence the event has, I would really like to see leadership here. I think it’s OK to look for a bit of leadership from the committee.
It’s easy—everywhere, not specifically here—to assume that valued institutions will always be around, that nothing can ever happen to diminish them, but that isn’t true. Things falter and go away all the time. Nothing is permanent by nature. This community is old enough to know this.
I’d also like to say that I find Penny Nichols, Troubleshooter depressing. It may be interesting, but—forgive me if I toot my own horn—most of my opinions regarding Dragon Quest are interesting, too. So are nature documentaries, and long-form video essays about Resident Evil.