How is this relevant at all?
Your original statement: "If someone is going to get worked up about them, however, they would have every right to regard it as an injustice (albeit a trivial one) if they make sacrifices to abide by all the rules, only to be treated as equal to someone who did not."
1. Person A makes sacrifices to abide by all the rules
2. Person B does not
3. Persons A and B get treated equally
4. Person A is unhappy
You view this as reasonable. Let's follow that general train of thought:
1. Person A makes sacrifices to make an amazing module
2. Person B makes a mediocre module
3. Persons A and B get treated equally
4. Person A is unhappy
Wouldn't that also be an equally reasonable reaction, according to your logic? That person A sees that their module is much better but got treated equally to player B and is thus upset, thinking they should get a better award?
Once more, you appear to be assuming (or assuming others will assume) some sort of connection between the points/awards given and the module itself....If the penalty for buggyness were removed (and though there may be other justifications it was in fact only included for the special reason stated above) there would be no connection whatsoever between the two.
As you yourself point out, one of the current criteria is bugginess.
Beyond that, which module would you assume is likely to be better quality?
1. Using three or more themes, within CC limits, and on time.
2. Using less or no themes, breaking CC limits, late.
Odds are #1, there's a correlation between the author's ability to follow rules and be disciplined and their quality of work. Sure, it's entirely possible that a module with #2's criteria will be better -- but it's much less likely.
To return to a more relevant example, X and Y each make an ABC module. It is irrelevant to the example which module is better. X submits on time, and in order to do so, makes some sort of sacrifice. Maybe his module is not as good as it could have been with a little more time, maybe he missed out on some sleep staying up late working on it, maybe something else. It does not matter for our purposes what the sacrifice was, just that he made one to abide by the rules. Y submits late instead, avoiding an equivalent sacrifice. We will assume no other rules are relevant in this case: both modules are in accord with the theme and abide by CC limitations. Both get the same award. How is this fair? How is this not a possible cause of resentment for anyone who chooses to take the awards very seriously?
It's fair for the same reason a person with 100% on every assignment/exam/lab/etc in a class gets the same grade as someone with an 89.5% average. Both get As.
X *knows* there is a margin of error built into the rules -- he decided his pride in getting it in on time was better than taking the extra time. That's perfectly fine and B is not getting a *better* award than A. B simply did well enough to earn the *highest* reward, regardless of how A did.
We could also bring in person Z who makes zero sacrifices and simply turns in a module half the size of X and still gets the same award of X. Shouldn't X be angry at Z as well, for taking the "easy" route of making a small module that was easy to finish in time with no sacrifice? By your logic he would be, no?
Which would amount to doing away with the ABC entirely since by definition it involves making a module in accord with certain rules. What am I missing here?
That the rules serve mainly as an inspiration and guide the work.
Which assignment would you have rather had in high school history?
1. Write a 10 page paper on an important historical event
2. Write a 10 page paper on religious conflict in Medieval England
#1 leaves a lot of people thinking "Uh...where do I even start?" whereas #2 leaves people thinking "Okay, I know what I need to write about."
In other words, we have rules, but they're not really important. All that's really important is "Did this player make a good effort toward creating something that fits in with the idea of the ABC?" Which mainly boils down to
1. Short time period
That's really it. Everything else is mainly inspiration for people who don't know what to build -- heck, the original ABC had a "wild card" theme which was "Do anything else you want" which is what Siege of the Heavens came under.
Or possibly it would mean that they simply chose to take advantage of the extra time that was in fact available, because it made sense to do so. In any case your proposed system would reduce the incentives to submit on time significantly, even if some incentives might still exist.
I think it's a fairly strong incentive considering people are only entering the ABC in the FIRST place to show they can make a module in a short time period. Failing to get it in on time is a big deal for people trying to demonstrate they're capable of doing precisely that. Serious question -- have you actually seen anything to indicate anyone specifically would TRY to take advantage of the system?
1. CaveGnome got his in on time
2. I went catatonic for a week upon realizing I couldn't have my module in *early* at the quality I wanted
3. No one else even submitted at all, let alone submitted late
The problem is that the theme/CC limitations are likely to be a problem only in a few special cases, while the time limitations and the need to avoid bugs are likely to be a problem for everyone, including those special cases. These also need to worry about time and thus labor under a double disadvantage. Not automatically a bad thing if the object is to discourage those violations in particular but it seems to work against the stated purpose of your alternative system of being yet more flexible.
I'll admit I'm not overly familiar with CC except for things like hak modifications for altering game mechanics. But presumably CC in this case is mainly going to be new creature models or new tilesets, no?
So in effect we're saying "If you REALLY want to invest the time into gazillions of custom models and tilesets then you have no excuse for being late -- you KNOW what you're getting into here."
Kind of a "violate the 10 MB limit at your own peril, it's largely there to protect you from yourself."
I come at it from that perspective because your proposed system creates incentives to do precisely that. Also because of your own experience with the original system, in which you chose to treat the deadline for an early submission as the real due date, becoming upset when you proved unable to complete your module by that time. Why, with that example in mind, would I not anticipate that at least some people would treat the effective deadline not as the stated due date but as the latest date they can submit without penalty? This is not a hypothetical problem, something of the kind actually happened.
Because I literally did the *reverse* of what you're worried about. I was completely obsessed about getting it in "on time" which to me meant "three days 'early.'" The shame of not meeting my self-imposed deadline threw me into a catatonic state.
I didn't say "Oh well, missed the initial deadline, I still have three days to get it in before I get a penalty," I said "Oh woe is me, all is lost, my shame is eternal, I am a failure for not getting it in on time (aka early)."
In conclusion, I'd be fine with a rule system that was "Completion" for
1. on time (four weeks to build, two weeks to refine)
2. close to CC limits
3. few bugs
Note the lack of the theme as well -- I'd be perfectly fine letting someone who has an idea in mind already participate in the cycle. And then "honorable mention" for anything else. We can play "violations" by ear in terms of CC limits and bugs, I think we'll all be able to agree on an egregious violation.
All in all, the ABC is about producing a module with reasonable quality in a short building cycle for people to enjoy. Anything else is just icing on the cake.
