I'm a bit concerned about rule 19 (and the last phrase of rule 18). Rule 19 states that "Beta testers may not rate any game that they tested." I know this used to be a rule in IFComp prior to 2021, but this isn't IFComp and I think beta testers should be able to rate games. My rationale is:

• As an author, I need people to test my game, but this rule is a disincentive for me to get it tested, as there will be fewer people available to play and rate my game.
• As a potential tester, I like to help authors write the best game they can, but this rule is a disincentive for me to test games, as I won't be able to replay and rate the final version.

Given that the text adventure community is pretty small, I would have thought that we should be encouraging testing and trying to get as many judges as possible. Doesn't rule 19 thwart those goals?

There is no rule that says authors must declare their testers. Any adherence to rule 19 would therefore be based on an honour system. The authors must be honest about declaring their testers and the testers must be honest about not voting. There is nothing in the itch.io rating system to check who tested what game and to prevent those testers from voting. Similarly, if there was no rule 19, we must trust the testers to vote honestly and not to rate a game higher just because they tested it. I think we can trust them to do that.

Actually, I believe that IF Comp do still prohibit beta-testers from judging: the rule change was to allow participant of the competition to also vote on games (which they were not previously), but they're still not allowed to vote on the games they tested. But that's by the by. Ours is a different competition, but we have the same rule.

The intent here is really to have a level playing field by having everyone exposed to the games at around the same time.  A tester might have had months to get acquainted with a game and to explore all its ins and outs; that's likely to affect the way they judge it (consciously or not) compared to someone who hasn't had that sort of previous exposure. I don't think we should worry too much about disincentivizing people to get their games tested or reducing  the pool of judges - the IF (and wider gaming) community is, I think, engaged and buoyant enough to support the competition with that rule in place.

As for the honesty system - indeed, that's what it is. We can't force people to adhere to the rules or prove it if they're not, but we give the good people who have joined this jam the benefit of the doubt and assume that they'll follow them, as we expect they will.

Needless to say, if this does prove to be a huge problem then we'll review and revise for next year's competition.