What people have said

From The People Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Please dump (or add) any useful feedback you hear about here!

  • Eva made the point that the game process votes were boring, perhaps we need to separate those out from the game itself.
  • Josef, Tall Paul and many others asked the question of whether we should have more than three choices. However - this might make it more complicated than is necessary.
  • Ada, Steve and others said a 'history function' was necessary - a way of visualising the choices and decisions already made, Julie as Adjudicator was a good thing and should continue to be used.
  • Steve suggested edge detection for counting cards might be a good approach as calculating relative surface area of diffferent colours alone is not very accurate - and privileges decisions of those closest to the camera.
  • Tav, Josef and others said that the audience should be in the round, rather than all facing the same direction. We could have more distinct banks of seating.
  • We should keep the pace up, but not stifle debate - it's possible we could do with more debate, we shouldn't kill decisions with voting. Some people complained about that.
  • Several people said that interaction between presentation (mikey) and inscription (saul, in the case of game 1) needed to be more fluid. There has to be a more formulated interaction between the presenter/host and the way the queastions are then put to the audience.
  • Oli S-B reckons it needs context... and structure... ;) Starting from 'how shall we spend this cash?' without any kind of purpose and never getting to any real (presented) proposals was too random. The decision making was cool and could be applied to all sorts of things... if we worked out what the hell we were trying to do before we started! Lets have another event. SOOOOON. More practice = More fun, and it gives you a great excuse to write another mindblowing line about 'democracy' and 'smashing up cars'!!! :)
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Toolbox