Ileia wrote:It's not your job, it's something you chose to do. Your hand wasn't forced. And when something is so very, very simple to change and would appease many people you answer with "It's mine, it doesn't exist without me, I put in all this work, I'm not changing it, there are prizes if people just go along with it" then that's when you come off as pumping your own ego rather than doing a good thing for the org.
I've typed and retyped a response to this five times. I'm not able to come up with a response I feel is adequate. Also the prizes were planned before these objections came up. I see how you could get the implication above, but that wasn't what I meant by my statement.
Emotive wrote:Kionon all I'm seeing in all of your posts is you talking about it in a dictatorship fashion, as in "since I started it none of you may question my decisions on how the choice awards are distributed and this will be done my way even if some of my decisions are pointless". When you're even willing to pass the leadership to someone else if it comes to that, isn't this all completely self-contradicting?
I believe all of my rules have a point. I have said this several times. I have repeatedly mentioned how hard I worked on the system, what my influences where, and why. I don't think it's very fair to devolve into meta discussion over something that would not have happened had I not stepped in. I didn't complain when Koop and godix made their JCA decisions. I don't call up contest coordinators and say, "Hey, I know you just decided to run this contest that is a week away, but I feel this fundamental rule needs to be changed." It seems that several people here do disagree, and think the metal discussion IS fair. I see their point, and I understand where they are coming from. I just do do not agree. I'm trying my best.
And the irritating thing about it, of course, is that you notably always avoid justifying the decision every single person is questioning: what's the point of choosing "judges" that have edited a full video in 2009? Say you go to a film festival, Festival de Cannes for example. Do you believe the only ones who could be eligible to be judges there are the ones who've directed a movie in 2009? Because correct me if I'm wrong, but logic says quite the opposite..
This isn't true. I don't understand why people keep asking, because I did answer it. Twice. I told Nio the same thing above. I have said this all before, but I will say it again:
The point is because this a peer reviewed system. I always understood it to be a peer reviewed system. I support peer reviewed systems used in convention contests. I think they differ markedly from viewer reviewed systems, and I believed that the JCAs were started to be just that type of system. Now Koop can tell me I am wrong. That I have misunderstood the purpose of the JCAs. If that is the case, I must admit, my interest in running the JCAs will have been based on a flawed perception. I was interested in preserving the JCAs based on a peer reviewed system. Viewers are not peers. Since we are limiting ourselves to a year of production, I do believe it is fair to limit ourselves to editors of that year. I have no idea how the Cannes system works. I only know that, yes, I would certainly give it more credence if it was peer reviewed. If the judges are drawn from the general population regardless of editing history, then what have is more akin to a representative VCAs, as opposed to what I really understood the JCAs to be, which is a representative ECAs. The only difference then between the VCAs and the JCAs would be how many viewers get to choose the best. That goes against the perception I had of the purpose of the JCAs, which was to be highly editorcentric.
EDIT: ...wait, wait.. wait is some of this over the issue of what I meant by complete? I explained that already: MEP tracks count.