The Movie Club 2.0

[Kareem]

Welcome to the new edition of The Movie Club.

This time around we're changing some of the rules in order to increase participation which had floundered a bit during the past few weeks.

First off, I apologize for my own drop-off in updating the Club to begin with. I hate to give excuses, but one of the reasons was the fact that I had to attend and write about a conference of some sort on every single day this last week. However, I did have the majority of this post formulated before then, and I wanted to see if an increased window of participation for each movie would give it considerably more posts, because that was one of the ideas I was toying with to boost participation. Unfortunately, that didn't work out. I was planning to wait till Monday but obviously the increase wasn't going to be substantial. I didn't think at the time of the implications of this reduced participation.

At any rate, I promise to update the rules and selections a lot more proactively and on time, and in general be more engaged with the Club. The drop-off in discussions is, to a great extent, my fault.

Let's go over the revised ground rules:

How to play:

1) We've eliminated the Ground Floor system. In some ways, it promotes complacency in participation because the Ground Floor members were guaranteed a pick at some point, and those who missed that arbitrary deadline were outside the selection roster irrespective of their participation. So we've replaced this with a different selection system.

2) The members who will be selected for The Movie Club picks will be the ones who participated in the second-to-last movie pick made. So for instance, the members who will be in the draw for who picks The Movie Club # 9 selection will be those who participated in the thread on The Movie Club # 7 pick, which in this case was the movie Wonder Boys.

3) There are no weighted rules for who gets picked every 2 weeks. In other words, you might end up getting picked twice in a row to make a movie selection if that is the result of the draw. As long as you participate in the discussion, you have an equal chance as any other participant in getting picked. If you've been picked more than once in a row, you have the option of passing the movie choice responsibility to another person who was in the draw for that week.

4) Each person will pick a movie for the rest of us to watch when it is his/her turn to choose a film for the group.

5) The process of member and movie selection will follow the same pattern as before - a member will be picked in a draw on Monday, and he or she will announce the pick on the following Monday, allowing each movie discussion to continue for 2 weeks, and further if people want to continue the discussion.

6) Once that person picks the movie, he/she will start a new thread on the relevant Monday titled "The Movie Club #X: Movie Name" or "Movie Club #X: Movie Name".

7) Please watch the film first before commenting in the thread. This does NOT mean you have to rewatch a movie you've seen before and then participating in the thread. Prior to this, the rule was that you had to watch the movie again when the pick is made, but this is no longer the case. This is in order to accomodate people who might not want to rewatch the movie, to further foster participation.

8) There's no guilt for skipping a movie because you couldn't find it or whatever, we're doing this to have fun and to have an intelligent discussion on movies.

9) Please don't whine about some picks. Skip that week's movie if you aren't up for it.

10) I'm open to trying out new rules based on popular suggestions. If you feel some aspect of the Club ought to be changed, start a discussion in this very thread and if more people are willing to try it, we'll give it a shot.

I hope I didn't miss anything, let me know in the thread if I did.


In the next post, I will include the selection roster for the week as well as the pick. I will announce the winner of the draw in a separate post in this thread, and I will also edit the next post to include the current week's selection roster, draw winner, and movie pick.

I will do the draw now, and I hope the pick will be able to make the first Movie Club 2.0 pick by this Monday so we can get it started again with increased zest. If you are the pick, and you can't make it by this Monday, please let me know ASAP.

Below is a list of the movies that have been picked and discussed so far:

1. Sorcerer (1977).
2. A Midnight Clear (1992).
3. After Life (1998).
4. The Quiet Man (1952).
5. Amistad (1997).
6. Swing Kids (1993).
7. Wonder Boys (2000).
8. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969).
9. The Three Musketeers (1973).
10. Becket (1964).
11. Night of the Hunter (1955).
12. Jaws (1975).
13. Out of the Past (1947).
14. Whisper of the Heart (1995).

Now on to the picks.

[Kareem]

One thing of note here: I'm not a judge of post quality. If you do reply to a thread, you will be included in the selection roster regardless of what you said. So please try to make your posts in the movie threads substantive.

If I do miss someone by mistake, please inform me in the thread and I will add you to the next roster even if you did not participate in the relevant discussion. If you did, your name will be entered twice in the roster.

The selection roster for the week featuring the Out of the Past discussion:

1) Andrew Mayer
2) BlueJackalope
3) madkevin
4) snowcrash22
5) malkav11
6) Scourge
7) Kyle Wilson
8) Talisker
9) russelmz00
10) Jeff Fries
11) Drastic
12) Malathor
13) Jasper
14) Rimbo

And the winner of this week's draw is: BlueJackalope!

[Tman]

One thing of note here: I'm not a judge of post quality. If you do reply to a thread, you will be included in the selection roster regardless of what you said. So please try to make your posts in the movie threads substantive.

sigh.

[Kareem]

Would you care to make an alternative suggestion for the criteria you'd like to be used for judging whether the post is worthy of being taken into consideration, Tmanpdx?

[TimElhajj]

I'm grateful for rule #9, creating the no whine zone around picks. That takes the pressure off.

[TimElhajj]

sigh.

I like the idea of putting the responsibility on posters to keep posts relevant. The administrator has enough work to do. Maybe we should look at it as if it's the community's responsibility to encourage people to keep their posts relevant. Between the community's encouragement and people's individual sense of propriety, it ought to work out, even if there is an occasional one line zinger or post with a simple sigh. After all, sometimes those type posts are just what the discussion needs.

[Tman]

Would you care to make an alternative suggestion for the criteria you'd like to be used for judging whether the post is worthy of being taken into consideration, Tmanpdx?

Just something that somehow confirms they watched it? Posts such as "I've always wanted to watch it", or "Thanks this will be great" don't indicate they've watched it. Just trying to confirm a little of rule #7.

It's not the length of the post. Eg, a recent post in Wonder Boys said "I am a Writer" which a) indicated they watched it and b) evoked further response.

[russellmz00]

Just something that somehow confirms they watched it? Posts such as "I've always wanted to watch it", or "Thanks this will be great" don't indicate they've watched it. Just trying to confirm a little of rule #7.

It's not the length of the post. Eg, a recent post in Wonder Boys said "I am a Writer" which a) indicated they watched it and b) evoked further response.

i'm going to assume that most people here aren't going to put up a fake post just so they get a chance to pick the next movie. and they can still fake it by watching the trailer, googling a summary, etc.

[The Other Guy]

I'm excited by Movie Club 2.0, and my thanks to Kareem for continuing it and revamping it. Although my viewing time is tight, I'd really like to participate in this, and the possibility of forcing my own tastes on other people is always alluring.

Looking forward to Rimbo's pick, too.

[Andrew Mayer]

I know from personal experience that running these things can be a rough job considering the pay, but I'd like to see a gaming focused board come up with a system that's a little more fun than "random".

Here's my suggestion:

1) Every thread you post in adds a weight of one more "ticket" to your potential win. Post long enough and consistently enough and eventually you will get to pick.
2) If you don't post in a given thread you lose one point. (Subtract one from everyone on the list who doesn't add one in a given week.) This keeps you from winning unless you show up every so often and/or stop posting entirely.
3)Winning reduces your score by five. So if you're a loyal member, but don't win for a while, you hold onto some of that love.
4) Minions only have one hit point, but are never hit on a miss. No, wait. Sorry. Wrong game.

It's a little more management, but should work with some elegance.

[Rimbo]

I know from personal experience that running these things can be a rough job considering the pay, but I'd like to see a gaming focused board come up with a system that's a little more fun than "random".

Here's my suggestion:

1) Every thread you post in adds a weight of one more "ticket" to your potential win. Post long enough and consistently enough and eventually you will get to pick.
2) If you don't post in a given thread you lose one point. (Subtract one from everyone on the list who doesn't add one in a given week.) This keeps you from winning unless you show up every so often and/or stop posting entirely.
3)Winning reduces your score by five. So if you're a loyal member, but don't win for a while, you hold onto some of that love.
4) Minions only have one hit point, but are never hit on a miss. No, wait. Sorry. Wrong game.

It's a little more management, but should work with some elegance.

Interesting idea!

[TimElhajj]

I know from personal experience that running these things can be a rough job considering the pay, but I'd like to see a gaming focused board come up with a system that's a little more fun than "random".

That's all well and good, but can you come up with a programmatic implementation of this? Pretty sure Kareem has already said he'd be willing to try something more interesting than random, if someone can automate it.

[Andrew Mayer]

That's all well and good, but can you come up with a programmatic implementation of this? Pretty sure Kareem has already said he'd be willing to try something more interesting than random, if someone can automate it.

Personally I'd do it in Excel. Since we're talking about 20 or so people it should be fairly easy to track.

[Kareem]

Yeah, I can do that in Excel, it sounds simple enough.

My concern though is that this would bring back the same kind of problem we had before, which is that it might limit participation. The cool thing about the random system is, well, how random it is, in that it allows anyone who jumps into the movie club to potentially make a pick. It would limit the system in much the same way having a ground floor system did. Plus the thing with participating regularly is you enter into the draw so often that you'll likely win soon enough. But, as always, let's see what others think and we'll make a decision based on that.

Personally, the first thing that comes to mind with a weighted participation system, ironically, is DKP. Rules that make the club more cliquey would, I think, harm it in the long run.

[Jon Rowe]

I just think that maybe if you get picked multiple times, you should do the right thing and bow out, deferring the pick to someone else.

[madkevin]

I think setting up a bunch of gamey rules is pretty meaningless. The idea for Movie Club is to watch a bunch of movies you wouldn't normally have thought to watch, and a random draw services that quite nicely without any extra work. The focus should be on the movie, and not the person that picks it.

[Andrew Mayer]

My concern though is that this would bring back the same kind of problem we had before, which is that it might limit participation. The cool thing about the random system is, well, how random it is, in that it allows anyone who jumps into the movie club to potentially make a pick.

That's still true though. You just get some possible benefit for being a regular.

Plus the thing with participating regularly is you enter into the draw so often that you'll likely win soon enough.

You could cap the upper end at three to five votes.

Personally, the first thing that comes to mind with a weighted participation system, ironically, is DKP. Rules that make the club more cliquey would, I think, harm it in the long run.

Limited exclusivity should actually help. If you don't have a core group it won't last long.

I think setting up a bunch of gamey rules is pretty meaningless. The idea for Movie Club is to watch a bunch of movies you wouldn't normally have thought to watch, and a random draw services that quite nicely without any extra work. The focus should be on the movie, and not the person that picks it.

I thought it was to have fun and discuss films with some like-minded folks.

My concern with total randomness is that they quality of the discussion and/or the films could end up being pretty bad if the people selected don't really give a toss.

[madkevin]

I thought it was to have fun and discuss films with some like-minded folks.

Good point.

My concern with total randomness is that they quality of the discussion and/or the films could end up being pretty bad if the people selected don't really give a toss.

I don't see how one can guarantee quality, though. Everybody here has a different idea of what "quality" is. I could pick Pasolini's Salo, and I could make a tremendous argument for it's artistic and historic importance as a film, but I guarantee you that hardly anybody would watch it. Short of coming up with an accepted canonical list of movie for the Club, pretty much any film choice anybody makes is going to be a crapshoot.

EDIT: I should stipulate that I don't really care all that much, though. If Kareem wants to put extra work into the picks, that's fine with me.

[Jon Rowe]

I actually have wanted to so Salo for a while, but I have not gotten the courage to watch it.

[Andrew Mayer]

I don't see how one can guarantee quality, though. Everybody here has a different idea of what "quality" is. I could pick Pasolini's Salo, and I could make a tremendous argument for it's artistic and historic importance as a film, but I guarantee you that hardly anybody would watch it. Short of coming up with an accepted canonical list of movie for the Club, pretty much any film choice anybody makes is going to be a crapshoot.

It's a valid point, but book clubs have the same potential issues, and seem to get around them. If you're determined to be the outlier guy, go for it man. I mean, a discussion of why most people won't watch a film could be interesting...

[Charles]

Man, I didn't know there were rules. I was gearing up to just throw up the next numbered one at some point.

Not my fault it's a pain in the ass to actually see these movies that people pick.

[Kareem]

Yeah that's actually another one of the reasons making me wary of participation rules - the fact that some folks might want to participate but can't because they don't have Netflix available and are waiting for a more mainstream movie that they can pick up, or through the convenience of them possibly getting to make the actual pick in the rare occasions they get to participate.

[Moggraider]

Mayer's rules are cool, but too much work. Just being chosen by chance should be fine.

[Kareem]

I don't want people to feel like it'd be too much work, so don't do it. I certainly don't mind doing it that way if most people participating are up for that. If there's a consensus for it I don't mind going ahead with it, but I do think limiting the pool of players who get to pick is harmful in the long run. Though I think we'll need more folks to chime in before we make a decision about this.

[Talisker]

I'd go with making the choices happen by "chance" -- random is fine, and if Kareem feels like giving it a little nudge towards people who've contributed above and beyond the norm from time to time, he can just quietly do so :)

[russellmz00]

everyone should be assigned 14 points to assign to their Strength, Perception, Endurance, Charisma, Intelligence, Agility, and Luck. we get another 2 points to assign every time we participate. then kareem sets up scenarios and the person with the best combination to succeed in that scenario wins the chance to get to pick the next movie.

[Kareem]

Alright sooooooooooo... it doesn't seem there's a lot of momentum for a weighted draw yet, so I went ahead with the regular draw this week. The names in the draw included the folks who participated in the Butch Cassidy discussion.

The winner of the draw, who'll pick a movie for the coming Monday, is Gordon Cameron. I updated the second post in the thread already, and will send the PM soon.

[Kareem]

Got a question for you guys. What do you think of making the movie's availability on Netflix a requirement?

[Tman]

It's the only way I will watch a movie. My local library has slim pickings and I really don't buy a lot of movies.

[Drastic]

I don't really see the need to make it a requirement. It'd be nice if people try to make it a rule of thumb, though--but ultimately, not a big deal. Most likely, I'll just miss that round if they don't.