We’ve traditionally not disclosed which entries make it to the second round to keep voting fair and focused. We’re keeping the game files locked so that other entrants can continue to play each game as it was originally submitted for the jam. However, if you’d like to share an updated version you’re welcome to add a link to an external project file (e.g., Dropbox, Google Drive) on your game page.
Appreciate the feedback and we’ll definitely take this into consideration for future events!
How exactly does not communicating who goes to round two contribute to “fair and focused” voting? How are participants supposed to have trust in the process if none of the information is made available?
The way you are handling this feels very unprofessional. You’re basically keeping a whole bunch of projects that are ineligible for winning locked for no real reason, and also refusing to communicate who went to round two. People expected the voting period to be a month, since nowhere was it stated that voting period might be extended. The start of round two we also only find out through the words of a streamer.
I believe the absolute very least you can do is provide transparency into what everyone’s status is; that way they can decide for themselves to pull their project from the jam. Now you let everybody wait whether their submission will show up on a judge stream or not.
I think it’s important to consider that community voting is also still open, and disclosing the official judges’ decisions would certainly affect the results of community judging, which is not desirable.
I disagree. Community voting is inconsequential in this jam, so I fail to see how that would have anything to do with “fair and focused” voting. Besides, with no quotas (eg a rule like “everyone is assigned x number of random games they MUST vote on”) in place, the community voting is already super-skewed to begin with.
