CCSLC APPRENTICE: Challenge 6

[fiasco!]

Yep...its prodigy.

Although I still think both coins would look much much better with the single character inside them...aka the secondary/vertical logo.

And Pat should know, he designed the damn thing.

[Mac the Knife]

The unanimous vote of those judges casting ballots is for "Prodigy!", whom, as the "Acting Donald" I hereby declare the winner of Challenge 6.

Optimus, please designate two (I think it's two, right?) of your members to join your task manager in the board room and post those selected here.

[ShinyHubCaps]

Well, I suppose I was the pinch TM, so I'll take williamrhys and ColaCock.

In the interest of moving things along, I'll give my case right from the start. However, I will also be glad to answer any questions the judges may have.

Work, both outside and inside of the home, prevented me from posting any concepts in the first few days in the challenge. However, in the latter half of said challenge, I basically spearheaded the initiative to produce a concept from the few parts displayed already by the team. Things seemed to be lagging... in fact, I had nominated William for Task Manager, as I thought this would be a good challenge for him, and he never checked in whatsoever. Even under the circumstances that I could not produce a concept of my own during those first few days, I checked in as often as I could. I took it upon myself to make a concept out of limited pieces. Teammate gingerbreadmann was the only other Optimus member to even check in within the last six and a half days of competition.

I know William said that he'd rather lose when someone had a better concept and not when he didn't have the time, but he had neither for the second consecutive round. He's a good member of this team, but the great members are the productive ones. I, however, with a lack of time and ideas, tried my best to give input and help out when necessary.

ColaCock, I only picked him for his absenteeism. He had a good partial concept, and I did use some of its elements. However, he also did not check in since I nominated him for pinch TM.

[Mac the Knife]

Very well. Okay, from the point I need clue'd in because admittedly I don't follow the show, nor have I followed the elimination process here: do I make the decision solo on who's eliminated, does the board re-convene and make a collective decision? What't the process from here? I don't want to deviate from GFB's norms here.

[maz]

I believe the board re-convenes privately to make a decision. The other members on the chopping block get a chance to defend themselves first, though.

[mania]

I believe they only have 24 hours to defend themselves, though, as per the new rules as of last round, about speeding this round up.

There's also another can of worms that appears here.

Technically, the teams will be 5-3 after this round.

In the past a member was moved over, to even up the teams in this situation.

However, Prodigy has had a member who hasn't participated in the last two rounds, in SG30, and has given no indication she is still involved in this project in any way.

So my suggestion, for the board, would be to move SG30 over to Optimus. If she rejoins the competition, then it becomes 4-4. If she stays absent, then it's 4-3 (and she'd be an easy chopping block pick). But if anyone else was to be moved over, the winning team of the last two rounds would be shorthanded.

[ShinyHubCaps]

Actually, I believe that only "The Donald" makes the fire decision -- here and on the actual show.

[gingerbreadmann]

I think the board tells GFB who they each choose and GFB takes all that into consideration and ultimately decides who is fired.

Michael: That is a noble idea but I must disagree. I guess I'll give my opinion since I'm the only one who is sure to be here next round. No matter who gets eliminated from our team we will still have a 'question mark.' William hasn't been around lately and Cola hasn't either, more than William but he kind of disappeared last round. If Shiny gets eliminated, then we have two. If one of them does, then we still have one. Why should we get punished with another? The judges had no way of knowing but we were essentially left very shorthanded when you were moved over to Prodigy, as on the Oregon challenge I was basically the only one able to work on it and this past challenge only Shiny and I. If your idea was carried out, and I mean no disrespect to SG30 but no one frankly knows what will happen with her, we would either have 2 or 3 'question marks' and you would have 0, as all four of you besides SG30 have at least contributed as much as possible, despite the recent limitations of maz and chestnutz (if I recall correctly). So while I appreciate you thinking of the situation, speaking for Optimus (at the moment) I have to object to that, as it would unfairly dig us an even deeper hole than what happened after you left. Even though she might be an easy elimination pick if she were to stay absent, I would hope you understand that is absolutely no compensation for not being able to evenly compete, which would be the case if your idea happened. I believe the point of moving someone over is to make it more fair, not less.

[Mac the Knife]

Okay. Board members, please communicate your recommendations here by 11:59pm (ET) tonight (Sunday). Players, also please communicate whatever you feel the need to communicate here by 11:59pm (ET) tonight (Sunday).

From there I will make a removal decision; from there, it'll have to be up to GFB as to who moves where team-wise.

[Mac the Knife]

Well, I suppose I was the pinch TM, so I'll take williamrhys and ColaCock.

In the interest of moving things along, I'll give my case right from the start. However, I will also be glad to answer any questions the judges may have.

Work, both outside and inside of the home, prevented me from posting any concepts in the first few days in the challenge. However, in the latter half of said challenge, I basically spearheaded the initiative to produce a concept from the few parts displayed already by the team. Things seemed to be lagging... in fact, I had nominated William for Task Manager, as I thought this would be a good challenge for him, and he never checked in whatsoever. Even under the circumstances that I could not produce a concept of my own during those first few days, I checked in as often as I could. I took it upon myself to make a concept out of limited pieces. Teammate gingerbreadmann was the only other Optimus member to even check in within the last six and a half days of competition.

I know William said that he'd rather lose when someone had a better concept and not when he didn't have the time, but he had neither for the second consecutive round. He's a good member of this team, but the great members are the productive ones. I, however, with a lack of time and ideas, tried my best to give input and help out when necessary.

ColaCock, I only picked him for his absenteeism. He had a good partial concept, and I did use some of its elements. However, he also did not check in since I nominated him for pinch TM.

No responses from anyone? Okay, very well. Guess I'll fly solo here...

In looking at this challenge I saw a multitude of issues crop up on both sides that ultimately appear to have impacted the quality of the final product - quite honestly I found neither team's finished product to be worthy of use, let alone equal to the high standard that Prodigy! and Optimus had set in previous challenges. Simply put, for whatever reason the creative well seemed to have run dry with this challenge, and it shows.

In this particular challenge, the failure to ignite the creative spark was evident - days of posts between members in their respective threads with no really substantive ideas, periods of complete inactivity on the part of the entire team, and a failure to really properly research the concept behind challenge coins in a fashion that produced a conversion-worthy design were just a few of the things I saw unfold, and in the end I was profoundly disappointed in the finished product from both teams. To put it bluntly and simply, you're both better than that.

As with each challenge a 'winner' had to be chosen, and those judges who voted chose your opponents, leaving the three of you on the proverbial chopping block. Williamrhys, your TM singled you out for essentially failing to 'show up' for this challenge, but praises you as a good member of the team. ColaCock, you were singled out due to absenteeism, but ultimately you made contributions that, for better or worse, were made part of the final submission. ShinyHubCaps, as TM you had the responsibility of leading these people toward a shared, unifying goal of putting forth a high quality finished product, and while the end result was something of a shared effort, it was apparent that throughout this exercise there was a lack of leadership.

In going through the posts of the team thread as well as the statements made here, I can come to only one conclusion. In the world I live in, the responsibility for the proper completion of any project, along with the quality of the work involved, rests with that person who is perched at the top of the organizational pyramid - the fault may in fact lie elsewhere, but nonetheless if the job isn't being done adequately by subordinates, their superior either takes the reins and does whatever is necessary to complete the project, or the project fails. In this case there appeared to be multiple failures - in judgment, in timing, in creativity - which went uncorrected. Absenteeism and lack of participation could be considered legitimate reasons to find fault in someone's performance during this task, but taking into account the various means by which we can contact one another (e-mail, PM, YM/AIM, etc.), it seems to me as though keeping in contact with team members could have been readily achieved had the Task Manager only made sufficient effort to do so.

Consequently I cannot simply accept ShinyHubCap's excuse of "they weren't here." To me, it provides an excuse for mediocrity rather than an explanation as to the true failings behind the project, which may lie in absenteeism but ultimately lie within the failure of the Task Manager to rein in his people and drive them toward a high quality finished product. The lack of leadership and creativity here was evident, and in this case, too costly to allow the possibility of it happening again in another challenge. So as much as it pains me to do it, ShinyHubCaps, you're fired.

[ShinyHubCaps]

Ah, well. I guess it's for the better.

However, I disagree with this decision. It was hard for everyone; only 4 of your 7 judges even showed up, and those who did had less than thrilling insight. Furthermore, of the contest's 9 challengers, only 6 were active in the past week, and of those 6, the majority of the work was done by the same 3 or 4. A player went the entire period without even checking in; naturally I'm going to give him a few days to show up and take the TM nomination I had given, and I doubt it was my fault for not contacting him as most of our communication was said to be done on the forums, but tell me, how are people not doing work for multiple weeks and still passing through to the next round? The ultimate goal of this competition is to select one contestant out of 14 to be the winner. Now we have a few people who haven't done anything of late come closer to that goal than someone who has showed up, posted, and worked to produce a concept.

I'm just saying, we're not even half-way home. I figured the first half would at least be filled with the people who fail to find the time. I've been working essentially two jobs and picked my spots to post, but another competitor goes missing for the whole challenge, while another yet goes missing for the latter half of the challenge with no explanation? Assuming the contest ever reaches its finale, I'd be amazed if all four (or however many) competitors are able to produce original works.

I understand in your last paragraph why you chose me to be fired, but keep in mind that I took over Task Manager with only two days remaining; I nominated two others, who happened to be people who I figured had a better understanding of the task, and one of them was actively posting until I nominated him for TM. So if lack of creativity and leadership is too costly to allow its occurrence in future tasks, why advance two players who only passively participated?

Having said that, I'd like to thank everyone for the opportunity. Though it seems increasingly unlikely with passed time and busying schedules, I hope that this contest is able to reach its conclusion. I didn't really have a great shot at winning the whole thing anyway, so I'm glad it happened eventually. I just hoped that putting in work and giving of myself would advance me a bit further, but I guess it wasn't in the cards. Best of luck to everyone who made it this far; things are evidently tightening up.

[fiasco!]

I apologize, I wasn't around for most of Labor Day weekend, but I believe the wrong decision was made. SHC was clearly one of the better leaders in these challenges.

[pcgd]

All...the next challenge will be posted by myself tonight.

Sorry for the delay...I was on Labor Day Vacation and away from a computer until yesterday.

[chestnutz]

Not that I have any say in it, but I agree the wrong person was fired.

[RichardWitham]

as an outsider, i totally agree with everyone else, mac you made the wrong call in my view.

[TurnTwo]

SHC was one of the very few members who actually participated in every competition.

As GFB stated in the original contest thread, a member would not be fired for poor performance in one round. Guess not.

[Shmee]

Having watched this contest develop, I agree that Mac made a weak decision here. The argument that the inability to get people interested in the contest is a terrible one. If you're truly acting in the best interests of all competitors, you should reward those who actually show up and participate rather than those whose absence ultimately led to the lack of creativity and building upon of ideas.

As for your crying that you don't think either team gave you a usable design, I believe you are wrong again. Both teams did excellent work fitting in your parameters while giving you classy, simple designs. Normally I'd say you get what you pay for, but you got a lot better than you paid for.

It will be interesting to see how many people actually put effort into the next and future challenges, now that they know it's better not to participate than to contribute and lose.

[Cola]

Just wanted to chime in here since I have been MIA for a few days. First off, I was on vacation for the past week. In attempt to defend myself, I felt like my team's participation was very low in the first days of the challenge. You can look back and see that everyone was missing for a good 2 days except for myself. I was leaving a day or so after my last post and just figured since the contest was dragging out...my team members had lost interest. I was able to make a few posts a day or so later from my phone, but didn't have service 90% of the time (Appalachian Mountains). However, I felt like I made it obvious that I was looking for my teammates to respond AND comment on the concept I worked on.

Looking back on the thread, it seems two of the teammates finally showed up and begin work on the challenge as it quickly came to the end and things needed to be thrown together. My absence towards the end of the challenge is no better than their absence at the beginning (although I don't know where anyone was then), but I just wanted to speak up for myself. I feel like I have been pretty darn active in this competition so I feel my participation level should not be questioned along with the actual design input that has gone in as well.

I know a decision has already been made, but I just thought the challenge deserved me reporting in with an explanation.

[ShinyHubCaps]

I didn't have a problem with you going on vacation, but at least tell someone. In Challenge 2, you told us before going on vacation. You were then kept out of the boardroom. I doubt this vacation came as a surprise, and in taking care of outstanding obligations, you should have told someone.

My absence towards the end of the challenge is no better than their absence at the beginning (although I don't know where anyone was then)

This baffles me, because it is worse, and we told you where we were. It's worse because you never said where you'd be, and GBM had stated that he'd be on vacation to Washington, I believe, and I mentioned the two jobs I had to work.

[Cola]

This baffles me, because it is worse, and we told you where we were. It's worse because you never said where you'd be, and GBM had stated that he'd be on vacation to Washington, I believe, and I mentioned the two jobs I had to work.

I'm not going to play the blame game here. Yes, I should have mentioned I was going on vacation- but at the same time, how hard is it to check in for 30 seconds and say "I'm here guys, just really busy- I'll comment later"? I posted a concept and some ideas and heard nothing...then asked...and waited...and nothing. I don't remember anything in that thread stating of any absences and if work is a reason for one, then we are both in that boat. I think I have contributed a great amount to the progress and success of this team so far, I didn't intend to leave the team hanging- and at the most, I would have been able to log on wi-fi with my laptop, but that didn't work out.