Taking a Look at EurOlympics
Written by Culture Minister Pichtonia
EurOlympics - the second festival of this term. Since I was not involved in the Executive from the beginning, I was not involved when the EurOlympics ideas was first created, but I can imagine the timing was just too convenient to not make use of it. Taking it out of context, the idea of a EurOlympics festival is very good either way. It's just that in the Europeian reality, there are a number of factors that made the whole festival a little more difficult, and I want to talk about all of these, too, but first let me show you some of the data we have fortunately received from hyango as well as some that we collected on our own.
Results of the EurOlympics Poll
To further analyse the festival, I asked for participation in our EurOlympics Poll. 12 members took it. To have a better overview of individual demands, I created three categories. Those who said they joined the region between 2007 and 2013 were an own category, and I will refer to them as veterans. Another category was 2014/2015. The last category was 2016, who I will call newcomers for future reference. Another small note: There will be some German terms in the images below, because obviously my language settings for Google and my PC are all German. Sonstige means Other and Antworten means Answers, for those who wonder.
As we can see, 6 members joined in 2016, 4 in 2015 and 2 between 2007 and 2013. That means all three categories had someone as representative. It should be noted that this proportion is by no means representative of the region, which means the results will naturally come across as a little inaccurate, but they are interesting to look at either way.
On Pichtonia's work
"Great work on a short turn around after being confirmed!"
On the festival
"I've been swamped with life this week, so I haven't been able to participate as much as I'd like, but I've heard awesome things!"
"Great work on a short turn around after being confirmed!"
On the festival
"I've been swamped with life this week, so I haven't been able to participate as much as I'd like, but I've heard awesome things!"
On Pichtonia's work
"Nope"
On the festival
"Nope"
"Nope"
On the festival
"Nope"
On Pichtonia's work
"Well done!"
"I'm not sure if it's lack of adverisement or just lack of general interest from citizens, but it feels like only a few people were participating in the games."
"Pichtonia did very well from what I saw and have heard. The games could be improved in the future (have 1 different person run each activity if you can. The MinCult can also run everything in case someone else is not)."
On the festival
"Hope to see more things like this in the future!"
"Well done!"
"I'm not sure if it's lack of adverisement or just lack of general interest from citizens, but it feels like only a few people were participating in the games."
"Pichtonia did very well from what I saw and have heard. The games could be improved in the future (have 1 different person run each activity if you can. The MinCult can also run everything in case someone else is not)."
On the festival
"Hope to see more things like this in the future!"
What do we learn from hy's data?
According to hy's data, 14 out of 41 citizens that joined the festival were members of the forum for more than two years. The most veteran member joined on the 7th of March, 2007, while the most recent addition to our forums only joined four days before the festival began. The mode for attendance was 1. Our most veteran ten members had a mean attendance of 1.7, our newest ten a mean attendance of 2.6. In general, citizens who joined after 2014 generated around 90% or more of activity for EurOlympics. However, not everyone has a fair share of activity. Celtian, UV, PT, niccolo and me, so 5 citizens out of the 41 that we have data from, accounted for around 1200 out of 1500 posts. That's largely due to spam. The ten most veteran members did not participate in spam at all. In fact, none of the 14 who were here for more than two years participated in spam. Before the EurOlympics, our forum activity was rather low. During the festival, it rose to almost 700 a day, and then decreased with the last day of the festival returning to 100-200 again. This doesn't surprise me too much, since some of the games were closed or simply advanced over the course of the week - and at some point people just have enough anyways.
Rating the festival
The ratings for the festival are very interesting to look at. The newer two categories both very much thought alike when it came to what they would like to see, yet there was a significant difference in the rating of the festival. I believe newcomers still have higher expectations than those who have been here for a while. They rated the festival with a mean of 7.83 and my own work with 8.3. In comparison, the second category rated my work in the festival with a mean of 9.5 and the festival itself with a mean of 8.5. The worst rating was given by veterans; a mean of 6 for the festival and 7 for my work, but unfortunately there wasn't any comment to the negative rating. Overall, the festival was rated with 7.75 and my work with 8.5. Which is decent, although it should be noted that 12 answers are not enough for an accurate or differentiated look.
If we take a look at hy's data and the results of the EurOlympics Poll, there is no doubt that veterans have a far higher interest in discussions. Judging by their involvement and the lower ratings, does that mean they did not like the discussions? Most of it was discussed in real life at the same time, after all, and some of the issues are just bland. Maybe that would make it too easy. Certainly there are more controversial issues that would have probably sparked a more active and engaged debate, but we did see some high-quality arguments and a higher debate activity than usual. So maybe a general lack of innovation for festivals and this EurOlympics festival was another reason. Veterans have seen a great variety of regional events and festivals - one I can only dream of ever seeing right now. To many, it might just have seemed like another subforum festival following a more or less familiar structure with more or less familiar activities.
Newcomers criticised how games were run and that there could have been more advertisement. Personally, I think that both could be true. We had a number of new games such as High Jump and Soccer which I would consider innovative and fun, which might be why they had some of the highest attendances. Triathlon and Archery were among those who might have had a good start, but lost a lot of energy over time. I can see why - they're repetitive. In the end it might have been better to close them after a few days and introduce new ones, like Synchronized Swimming, which came in late but did okay nevertheless. Originally it was our intention to only start with some and extend the games later, but I'm not sure if that would have made a huge difference with the set of games we had. I can also confirm that it might have had a slowing effect that save for High Jump, all games were run by me. It's not good to be dependant on the energy levels of a single member.
One thing that wasn't mentioned anywhere was medals, but I think we can also say some things about them. Personally I don't know if they worked as an incentive, although I assume they did, and for most of the Olympics I wondered whether it would be worth the effort to actually create a set. (I ended up with three sets of medals and the Special Snowflake medal, of which only one set and the Special Snowflake medal were used) Now, close to a week after the EurOlympics festival ended, I can see that a number of citizens decided to involve the medals in their signatures. That is a success, and I see it as a positive gesture in favour of the medals or signature-related incentives in general.
My two cents
EurOlympics was an extensive festival. For me it is hard to judge the festival myself. In fact, I believe it is all about balance, and I don't think we found that balance yet. If we have high activity, that doesn't necessarily speak for the innovation of a festival. However, if we have innovation and activities that are of interest to our members, activity should follow automatically. We had some minor innovation, it was well-themed and had high activity. So I would indeed say it was a successful festival, but by no means was it extraordinary, and I'm not sure if it deserves the rating of 10, even if I greatly appreciate it.
Maybe it would have been more innovative had I been MinCult from the beginning and been involved in the discussions of this term's festival. It's easier to be innovative for your own ideas, although I will notice that I very much was in favour of EurOlympics when Trinnien first told me about it and still stand firmly behind the decision to hold that individual festival. Nevertheless, innovation always bears a certain risk. Europeia has become somewhat indifferent of festivals, from what I heard and saw. We can't fight that without trying something new, but what if nobody cares for the new ideas either? It is a lot easier to just go with something you know that works and could generate mediocre or even good reviews, especially if you are new to the Executive and still want or need to impress. You know about your own diligence and commitment, it's something you can control, but a bad idea is out of your hands, especially if there's nobody or an insufficient number to check on you. Even if I personally want more innovation or even a total reform of festivals, in hindsight I wouldn't have done it any different. I would rather do solid work and hopefully get a second chance one time than fail one term's Cultural highlight and have less chances to do better. And yet I wonder whether there is any reason for that thinking. Is the region that strict with failure? Is it a rational thought or should we always aim for more, no matter the risk?
But besides the risks of failure and the difficulty of innovation when you are not working on something that is initially yours, there is something else Culture and indeed the events suffer from: Low involvement behind the scenes. When there is criticism I should not have done everything myself or advertised more, I can see where it comes from, but I don't think I could have fixed it. Most of the festival was worked out by Mouse & Trinnien and the Cabinet; the moment we gave it into the hands of the Ministry, I was all on my own at times. It was very fortunate that Possibly this decided to join in on the organisation before it all started. The medals, running the games and working behind the scenes took me hours each day, and then there are also other Cabinet & Culture matters that need attention. Without an active team or 24/7 free time, you will have to limit your resources in a way, and for me that meant less advertisement.
I am happy that some new members joined in and others started to be more committed over time. If they stay active, they will surely be a huge aid for my successor. Our festival needs to be balanced better, or maybe we need to change the whole system of festivals that we have adapted to over time. We can only learn from this EurOlympics festival and I hope that this short analysis of it can help a little. Is there something you disagree with? Do you have different thoughts about the data and festival? Feel free to tune in and leave a comment, and I would be glad to reply to you. Stay cultured, Europeia!
