-
here's two takes on grant funding (prompted by that good @netgal_emi post, here it is: emreed.net/VGArtsFunding.html)Permalink Look on archive.org
♻️ 3 Retweets ❤️ 10 Favorites Mood +4 🙂
-
the skills & approach needed to successfully get funding and the skills & approach needed to do a good art can be quite different! & that that's often a shame?Look on archive.org
-
i often think about the balance of: number of applications * avg time spent on each application * reasonable day rate vs total money granted because i am not sure that the 2nd number is always largerPermalink Look on archive.org
-
neither of these are games specific, really. to be honest, they're mainly about designing good processes & thinking carefully about what the form looks like. maybe this is the game designer in me...Permalink Look on archive.org
-
what i am saying is that maybe a better way to give grants is: - quick form - panel filters out stuff that doesn't meet a baseline standard of competence - money is randomly allocated to projects beyond thatPermalink Look on archive.org
-
(& just think how nice it would be to be able to blame a RNG for not getting a grant approved!)Permalink Look on archive.org
-
here's a funding scheme run by people who have had to apply for a lot of funding schemes: @thewhitepube/1296377632691564545?s=20 - no deadline - v quick application process - mix of self-applications & them finding people - no reports or "outcomes", just trust & supportPermalink Look on archive.org
-
yes yes yes, more randomly distributed grant funding, i love to see it: @carolinefiennes/1567508657721548805Permalink Look on archive.org
-
incl, in the thread, a nice blog post on the evidence for randomized grants: giving-evidence.com/2015/07/24/random-grants/Permalink Look on archive.org