If we already have something like this, we should promote it to the community, in my opinion it’s a better option than change the CSR or make a light CSR as I suggested.
But again idk how much work it is for the moderation team to keep the CSR as it is actually, because as MrChips said, people are complaining a lot about it and I can’t talk for the moderators about the amount of work it is to moderate the CSR even if it’s not an official challenge.
I know I’ve said a lot, but…
Will Cake please get out of my head; or, why hosting cycles are created
I’ve run a decent amount of challenges by this point, and one thing is rather common: @cake_ape does well in my challenges. There are two potential explanations. The first is that Cake is just good at the game - and this is almost certainly true, I’m not trying to diminish Cake’s skills.
The second, however, is that we both have similar approaches to the game. The way I design and judge challenges happens to line up well with how Cake builds and designs cars. I value different aspects and stats in different ways - I’m not a fan of brake fade, I’m fine with liberal use of quality, and so on. Perhaps this is a deliberate play, tailoring cars to my desires - or perhaps Cake just makes cars I like. They’re both reasonable.
How does this carry over to CSR, then? Well, several people happen to host rather often. I believe that it’s possible for cycles to form - Alice likes the way Bob and Carol design cars, Bob likes the way Alice and Carol design cars, Carol likes the way Alice and Bob design cars. The same also applies for choice of rounds, if Alice, Bob and Carol all tend to be interested in themes the others can execute well (such as modern cars). When any of them hosts a CSR round, the likelihood that the others will do better - and hence host the next CSR - is raised.
This isn’t some cabal between the three, in the same way that I don’t deliberately favour Cake. It’s just people lining up in terms of interests, opinions and values.
How to fix it: I have two broad solutions on how to resolve the issue - one modest and one radical.
The modest solution is simple: Put more of your values there in the post. If you’re going to be suspicious of mixed quality, say it. If you don’t want to see quality below -3, say it. If you abhor brake fade or you want a ladder frame, say it. Putting it in the brief means that people know what you want, rather than stumbling upon it or trying to read through your previous judging posts.
The radical solution is simple too, but it has a lot of implications. Make previous hosts less able to host again. Maybe you ban them from hosting for 5 rounds. Maybe you push them 3 places down the order for hosting purposes for 10 rounds. The exact numbers and mechanism don’t matter and depend on round length too. What does matter is breaking the link between “doing well” and “hosting the next round”. It’s a big step to take. Would it improve the challenge? It might lead to a more diverse set of hosts, which might help. Can CSR afford to turn hosts away? Yes, it’s large enough. Does it have issues? Tons. It might be a bridge too far, but it’s food for thought.
9 Likes
I spit my popcorn out when I read this.
I fully support this measure. What one host doesnt care too much about(or mention at all), the next one fully does. And you dont know until you get binned.
As frustrating as it may be, you learn.
I’ve learned, and am still learning…its definitely a process.
Ive been here for almost 2yrs and can definitely say that to ME, CSR is a “big dog” , Newcomers need not enter type of challenge because you will simply get blown out of the water and possibly laughed at.
I say let CSR be what it has evolved to be. Things change. The new Civic is a far cry from the Og. Whats the solution to that?..policing CSR?
Just let it be, and like what was said earlier, there are plenty of other challenges that could be the successor to the original CSR.
Oh yea, and I’ll see you all at the next CSR 
.
Edit: Also, I’d say that going foward, if there are certain rules that are to be met with said challenge(hosting wise) then they should be met. Met in the same way entrants are expected to adhere to all the rules in challenges…
…just a thought.
6 Likes
…but, will you?
3 Likes
Honestly, I’d support implementing a version of both, just to keep hosts rotating. Disclaimer: I do have some salt as someone whose been competing off and on since CSR118 and never hosted. My handicap is as someone with ADHD (and possibly on the spectrum somewhere, but I’ll never know) is that it’s hard for me to understand subtlety. I’ve gotten better at it, but I still need it spelled out in neon at times.
16 days have passed. Im just curious what the result of the form was now.
3 Likes
Apologies for the delay, but yes, here are the results from the poll:
As for what happens next, let’s wait and see how the current CSR plays out first.
9 Likes
That’s a very interesting spread of responses. Would’ve thought the keep vote would have numbered more considering the responses I’d seen on discord about changing CSR.
Though I find it curious that 30% said to not even offer a serial replacement. as it was a bit ago, I don’t actually remember how I voted 
I do feel personally, even with the replacement option for more lore-heavy rounds, we may see a downturn in participation for those due to the standards needed, or we’ll see the same small groups of winners form once again. We might also see the sweeping lore hit the “new” csr anyway as time goes on.
Either way, I’m curious to see what approach is taken to “rectify” the views of the masses going forward.
4 Likes
And how do we “enforce” this?
If such a change/return were implemented, “enforcing/policing” said return would be (although it would virtually guarantee much objection):
If the result isn’t out in time-frame x, hosting gets pulled and passed on.
that actually was tried once with the three days +a day per 10 entries ruling
that didn’t end too well
8 Likes
I obviously didn’t tune in for that round.
I might not be a major member of the community, or a regular to CSR, but having helped with one (the “you are having my baby” one), and entering independently into the latest round I have to say that I much prefer the short-medium format of the latest round to the (no offense to the hosts, I have quite some respect for the sheer work it took) fanfic lookalike backstories of some that have happened in the past.
There’s no need to be extreme and say that it must be short rounds and simple rules, nor that it should be a round per 2 months each with a complex multi-layered story that leads you to knowing what you must make.
The fact there is variety in the complexity and length is one of the most unique parts of this challenge, and possibly why it became so big (allowing each host the freedom to make something to their, and hopefully the community’s, liking, and giving each participant more reason to compete than just for the sake of it).
So, my suggestion would be this: do limit round length, but leave enough time for those who want to express a greater creative vision to do so (max of 1 month or so, but for those who are more knowledgeable than me on the subject matter, please do correct me on the suggested lengths), and don’t let it get so short that people will miss it or not be able to build to their liking (so, say, a minimum of 10 days for submissions).
6 Likes