Beat Battle Discussion


OK, so I’m opening discussion on adding a rule to limit entries from participants to one official track, namely, that participants are free to make as many tracks as they like for a particular BB, but that they must choose only one to be voted upon, and to be included in the voting phase, unless expressly permitted by the host.

Below is the discussion so far from the BB118 thread:

BB118 - Beat the Clock

Responses to your questions, @Unk_Nown:

Yes, because they are pretending to be more than one person in order to get more entries. In any case, dup profiles are discouraged anyhow.

I’m by no means coming after Mfxxx, but submitting multiple entries does offer you a “blanket” vote entry, by being able to cover more than one listener, and I do think he gained an unfair advantage by submitting more than one. I don’t believe he’s the only one, and this isn’t about singling anyone out. This is merely a clarification of the rules.

It’s easy to make three tracks in different styles and win by the broad spread of voters’ tastes that three entries will cover, but not as easy to do that in one entry. Remember, we’re really not voting for tracks, there’s nothing really special that happens with any one track, it’s about WHO made the track, as they are the ones who become host.

I’m not quite following you here. There’s no talk of a BB comp at any point in the near future. That was BB100, which the boilerplate mentions but only because it’s out of date. Are you saying people are motivated by money? Are you saying you’d like better rewards for being the winner?

It’s been a while since we’ve had BB’s where people entered multiple subs, as usually it isn’t a problem, but when it does, when you’re looking at a list of 7 tracks, and four of them are by one person, it kinda eclipses the other’s work imo. I know MFXxx had a winning streak for a while way back in some of the BB’s before the Great IDMf Server Crash, which isn’t unusual as we don’t really have many entrants, but when someone is on a winning streak and they’re posting several subs, it does kinda feel like they’re blocking others by volume.

I’m really not concerned about Mfxxx and what has happened in the past. This isn’t an accusation. I’m not accusing anyone of anything. I’m not being emotional, I’m being rational. I’m simply managing how the Beat Battles are run.


@7asid We don’t often have more than one entry per person, so normally it hasn’t been an issue.


I think it’s awesome when folks make more than one track for a BB, but my preference would be to limit it to a single entry per person for the voting.


So right now, sub number is unlimited, bb host can change it.
You would like to set sub number to one, bb host can change it.
I do not see a practical issue here. But if in this bbattle sub number would be limited to one, and Faintbrush would raise the sub number, what would you think? Would that be ok?

Well, it is a fictional chance. But you can just replace “a chance to appear in bb comp album” with “being the host of next bb.”

Well, yes and no. Just remember how many subs we got when there was a some guitar pedal or effect for prize. Personally i am not primarily motivated for money that means if there would be a greater prize i really do not know if it would be benefiting my motivation except that more people were/would be doing the bb and more people would boost the motivation a bit.

The reward is fine as it is, being the next host of bb.

Yes, me neither. I put out mfxxx case just as a reference from you- i guess that is when things were most bothering you.

I can not imagine that really.
I bet it is as easy to make three track with three different styles as making one with everything. Completly sure.

If you just cut the best parts of those 3 tracks and glue them together into one its the same. Anyone could do that probably.
Or just pretend you are making 3 tracks but do it in one project file. A lot faster. And you are there. Do you think that is valid?
If it is, that is the reason why i think covering larger audience with more tracks does not work. And because it does not work there is no practical need for making more subs.

Ok i get you on this point. But i would like to read what other people write about this. Personally i would not care if the subs were limited. I did not submit more than one or said that i will submit more than one. I mean i always thought what one can do in two tracks one can do in one and there was no need for multiple subs opposed to currently when the prod.time is limited, short and the bb idea seemed to have such unpredictable results it was fun to print out stuff.


Same, I love when people make lots of tracks, but the official entry should be limited to one.


Bottom line, “technically” I’m the most senior member of the BB’s, and have done more to help keep the BB’s going as long as they have, and may have been around for more BB’s than most here, and thus, I’m saying we limit it to one entry per BB.


In case it was not noticed i was leaning towars yes for limiting subs.
Well thank you for doing more of help keeping the bb’s going.
How about disqualifying submissions that do not follow the rules?


I see both points. For me one main submission is cleaner and simpler and I think that makes the BB’s a more welcoming experience for newcomers. I remember when there used to be multiple subs, it was still before people were doing polls for voting and voting would happen by making a post with the artist+track and it was always confusing to me if we are voting for the person or the track and what that entails for multiple subs. People were ok with occasional multiple subs but things were never very clear and that’s what I disliked about it. Whatever the rule ends up being, I just care that things aren’t unclear.


I don’t mind enforcing the battle rules more closely, but the main issue with the BB’s is we have low participation. We’ve often struggled to get at least 5 entries in any battle. While there’s so few people participating, we’ve been lax on disqualifying tracks for not following the rules. It does kinda make sense, because with low participation, disqualifying tracks can leave us with like two or three tracks remaining.

Also, people get butthurt, and some things can be difficult to enforce, like, maybe you’re supposed to use this group of samples in a track, but you don’t know if people have just warped the sounds beyond recognition.

I’m all for being more strict about the BB rules, cuz personally, I think the rules make it more competitive, which ultimately makes for better tracks, but as we just don’t hav many people participating, it’s better to have participants not following rules but submitting, rather than enforcing rules and having like two tracks.


As i see it according to this logic it is better to make one track that does not follow rules than making two that follow the rules.

And that is also why multiple entries were “allowed”

So to raise the submission number you would kind of ditch the rules but make entry number limited to one… Hm

I see that you are concerned about too few subs.

  • List item

Disqualification should be bb host decision, as limiting entry number.

Currently you are the host and i did not see a sub number limit in the beat battle rules description section of your post. Technically you can add this rule too for your concern.


You seem to be confusing the general rules with host rules. These are two different sets of rules. The general rules are in place to ensure a consistent, orderly, and fair competition.

The host rules are in place to let the host do whatever they want, because that’s the incentive, making up your own rules and making your own samples. But the Beat Battles have to be run by someone other than just whoever happens to be a host once in the entire history of the BB’s, because you’re only host for ONE battle, and so the host isn’t in the position to administrate the BB’s in the long term.

I have chosen to take the wheel on it, because without that person, the BB’s can devolve into… whatever. They would happen irregularly, they would not stay consistent, that’s why I took on the role of administering the BB’s.

The hosts have certain rights in the battle that they run, but ultimately the rules need to follow a consistent framework in order to ensure the battles continue to happen every two weeks, and remain a competitive competition that is fair to all participants. Which is why we have the general rules, which are decided BEFORE battles have started.

Why are you so hung up on this? How often do you post more than one track, @Unk_Nown?


Hmm… I think what he’s saying is that in that in the Beat Battles General Rules, there is nothing that says anything about limiting the number of submissions (as far as I can tell, am I missing something?).

That being said, I think that we should append those rules with a couple of things.

1: Only one submission per participant.

2: Any submissions that come in past the deadline are disqualified.

These are strict enough to provide good structure and also leave some wiggle room for hosts ( for instance, although this is usually discouraged, a host could extend the deadline if need be before it is up, allowing for additional submissions to be counted that may not have been). It also does indeed make things simple, and I would say fair, especially in regards to the single submission rule.

Regarding “rules” set by the host, I think that these by nature are going to be hard to enforce strictly so as to disqualify someone. An example scenario would be the BB117 that I hosted where I asked people to make a track that had multiple movements. Some things to consider in this scenario may be:

1: Who decides what is considered to be a “movement”? if this is the hosts job, does he or she go through all of the submissions one by one first before adding them to the poll? What if someone thinks they have a movement but it is not movement enough for the host and so the host disqualifies them? Who is right?

2: If all of the submissions are added to the poll without a check like this, how do we expect everyone that may vote to know and understand the rules well enough and in the same way that voting is consistent? We sometimes have people who did not participate in the BB come in and vote for the track they like the best. How are we to enforce how they vote if they are not considering the hosts rules? (Hint, the answer is we cannot).

These are specific examples I know, but the point I’m trying to make is that trying to strictly enforce host rules can become a nightmare for everyone involved. You could go through the same motions above with any rule and end up with a bunch of confusing discourse that would only serve to discourage current and would-be participants from continuing to participate.

If we’re looking for rules to strictly enforce, I think the two I mentions above are our best bets for implementing easily managed and simple structure to the battles. Fuck trying to strictly enforce host rules. If someone wants to be a nit-picky asshole about their random ass shitty rules and tell someone that their submission is disqualified because their snare drum isn’t peaking in the right frequency, they can go for it. We will just think that they’re a simp asshole killing everyone’s vibe and ruining the fun, which as far as I understand is the whole point of doing this. (My composure is beginning to deteriorate at this point, as I’m getting pissed off at this imaginary asshole, I better wrap this up quick)

In the end this is arbitrary, and you could make an argument either way, so I think we should just make it easy on ourselves and put these rules in place, or at least the rule about number of subs.



OK, right, so I know I want to avoid an ongoing debate, and I’m sure everyone else does too. I welcome @makeuswhole’s input here too. We’ll move forward with a vote to append the following rules to the Beat Battle General Rules

Number one is of course the reason why we brought all this up.

Number two, I actually have wanted to address in the past, HOWEVER, I would like to amend it as such:

Whereas we want to encourage participation in the beat battles and;
Whereas Beat Battle participation has been low;
Whereas the Beat Battles should keep to a reasonable timeline in order to ensure the timely, regular occurrence of the BB’s:

We should offer a two day extension option, to be used at the discretion of the host in order to encourage participation from late voting.
We STRONGLY recommend keeping to the original two week timeline, but if the host feels it may boost entries, a two day extension may be put on the submission period. The other times will remain the same, and it will be used as the full two day extension, as a “take it or leave it” option. After this is used, no more extensions shall be granted.

Any thoughts, discussion?


I don’t really have anything to add, I think what you posted sounds good. I have no issues.


In for the bounce. :slight_smile:


I would also like to address that at times, changes to the BB general rules may be necessary from an administrative standpoint, and that these changes may be necessarily urgent or otherwise required for the long term success of the BB’s, and thus may need to be pushed through without a vote.

As such, a new role of “Beat Battle Administrator(s)” should be created to help guarantee the long term success of the BB’s and to expedite these changes. These Beat Battle Administrators shall be granted certain privileges and powers appropriate to make such changes required for the long term running of the Beat Battles. These powers shall include making changes to the Beat Battle General rules, the overall Beat Battle format, and other factors concerning the Beat Battles at large, when the changes are deemed necessary and crucial, so long as a clear statement and explanation as to why the changes are being made is provided here in the Beat Battle Discussion, and the opportunity to hear complaints or any other discussion is given. A veto to the decision may be sought with a vote plurality of BB community members equal to that highest number of participants in the last five (5) Beat Battles community members, along with a plan submitted by the community as an alternative to address the issues brought up by the Beat Battle Administrator(s).

  1. Pass
  2. Pass

Contradicting. Can pass without a vote if it is practically almost voted upon.
I think voting would be easier than submitting alternative plan and that changes should not be pushed through without voting.

It is nice to have specific person(s) doing this task so the changes can be faster. And there should be a role like this because admins ain’t doing it. So if anyone or you would like to do it i will vote yes.

Do you personally plan any changes? the rules are not going to change so much unless you have some ideas deemed necessary and crucial with rules, format and other factors concerning Beat Battles at large so at the same time i do not think this is needed in long run, (or at least pushing changes through without voting) just to speed up the practice of things voted and agreed upon, the administrative issue.


Are these “pass”'s as in, yeah? Or, neigh? Or abstain?

It’s not contradictory at all. It’s not voted upon, unless there is dissent. But really the big thing is transparency, so that if the admin decides to do something they have to announce it, rather than just make changes without hearing people’s reactions about it. And, to block the admin’s changes, they have to have enough votes, equal to the most participants in the last five battles, which I figure is a big enough number as far as how many people we normally have participating to make it difficult to change, but not impossible. We could just scrap that rule, but I threw it in because you seem to think it’s important for members to voice their concerns.

What do you think I’m doing here? Playing patty cake?

I’ve been the most vocal person here on the forum about the BB’s about having them run appropriately, despite your objections, I’ve participated or followed most of the BB’s since BB46 when I found out someone had rebooted them (those people are gone), and I was around when the original BB’s were here when it was based on Soundcloud groups. I also hosted BB100 which was our compilation album battle, and assembled the samples from historic BB sample packs which I regularly backup and archive. I arranged a donation drive to fund the prize for BB100, and additionally I’ve consistently spread the word on it and gotten new members to join this competition.

So yeah, I’ve been TRYING to fill this role, but you seem to object to it whenever ideas are brought up.

I don’t plan on any changes in the near future, besides this rule about entries.


Ugh sorry to be unclear.

I vote yes for 1 and 2.
And i vote yes for this administrative role.

Sorry to object to everything i see why it could be annoying i guess i will do other things where that could be put in use more.