1. Keep in mind that we do not simply aim for a program with talks that have highest possible merit in gamestudies. The aim of the conference series is primarily to develop a discussion of philosophical problems that arise in relation to the study of computer games and games more generally.

2. The primary task for the program committee is to provide a program with peer-reviewed speakers as well as a set of invited speakers. The organization of workshops in conjunction with the conference must also be supervised by the chair. Other tasks belong to the organizing committee, although in practice there may be a need for collaboration on various issues, such as the topics of surrounding events or the choice of keynote speakers to match funding requirements etc.

3. The organizing committee should be represented in the program committee.

4. The typical workflow of the program committee is as follows:

1. Constitution.
2. Creation and dissemination of the CfP at least 5 months prior to the conference.
3. Invitation of keynote speakers.
4. Review process of submissions (typically 4 weeks or more).
5. Acceptance of speakers for the program (typically 2 weeks or more).
6. Complete program – matching keynotes, themes and speakers.

5. Chair’s responsibilities include the following:

• Choosing members for the program committee.
• Writing of the CfP (including drafting the CfP and soliciting feedback on the draft from program-committees members and consolidating it into the CfP draft).
• Coordinating the dissemination of the finished CfP.
• Deciding on extensions to deadlines, after soliciting input from PC committee.
• Selecting the keynote speakers, after soliciting input from PC committee.
• Contacting the keynote speakers and communicating conference aims to them (note: logistics of keynote speakers’ travel is taken care of by the organizing committee).
• Assigning reviewers to submissions.
• Choosing speakers on the basis of the reviews.
• Opening of the conference in conjunction with the organizing committee.

5. The number of peer reviewed talks for the program should be around 21 for three days. In addition it is wise to overbook with around 3 talks in the acceptance process. Historically, though, we have often had more reviewed talks.

6. 3 keynote speakers are usually invited, one of which is a mainstream philosopher.

7. We aim to secure least 60 submissions to ensure sufficient quality for the program.

8. Rules for the review process

• Members of the PC other than the Chair may submit submissions, but the Chair must make sure that information about the evaluation process is kept hidden from the member.
• A submission must have at least 2 reviews.
• A submission should have reviewers with with backgrounds relevant to the abstract and a gamestudies scholar as well as a philosopher in the first assignment of reviewers.
• A reviewer should not receive a stack of evenly strong or weak submissions.
• A discrepancy of 2 or more in scores between reviewers for a submission automatically requires a third review. The split 1-3 may be disregarded.
• Obviously illegitimate reviews should be disregarded, i.e. if the Chair judges that the reviewer clearly does not know what they are talking about.
• By default, the selection of submissions for the program shall adhere to the ranking based on scores from the peer review. However:Where like main scores are given to a submission in the cut-off zone, preference should be given to a submission with the highest philosophical score.
• The Chair may add or subtract 0.5 points in scores to select submissions in order to adjust the program. This authority to deviate from peer review scores should be used sparingly and only with a view to have the selected talks fit the overall program.