JCA - Organisation and Judge Nomination

This forum is for the announcement and discussion of anime music video contests.

Re: JCA - Organisation and Judge Nomination

Postby CodeZTM » Wed Jan 13, 2010 1:50 pm

godix wrote:It's kinda annoying to see people who aren't willing to do jack shit for the community constantly whine whenever someone else does. Not all that surprising since it seems to happen whenever someone tries to help the community instead of snipe it to death, but still kinda annoying.


Quoted for massive truth.

If people don't like the rules, then be on the organization committee next year, and have a thread PRIOR to nominations talking about rules.

Let's not argue after the fact, it's just wasteful of time and disrespectful to the contest coordinator.
User avatar
CodeZTM
Spin Me Round
 
Joined: 03 Mar 2006
Location: Arkansas
Status: Flapping Lips

Re: JCA - Organisation and Judge Nomination

Postby Ileia » Wed Jan 13, 2010 2:57 pm

Code wrote:Let's not argue after the fact, it's just wasteful of time and disrespectful to the contest coordinator.

It's not "after the fact" if there wasn't a "before". The nominations started right away (at least as far as I can tell, there seems to be only an end date not a starting date). It would be after the fact if someone brought it up during the culling round. :P

Additionally, I don't think anyone making their opinion known is a waste of time and disagreeing and disrespectful are not the same.
User avatar
Ileia
CornDog Whisperer
 
Joined: 09 Aug 2004
Location: On teh Z-drive, CornDog
Status: ....to completion

Re: JCA - Organisation and Judge Nomination

Postby CodeZTM » Wed Jan 13, 2010 3:38 pm

Ileia wrote:
Code wrote:Let's not argue after the fact, it's just wasteful of time and disrespectful to the contest coordinator.

It's not "after the fact" if there wasn't a "before". The nominations started right away (at least as far as I can tell, there seems to be only an end date not a starting date). It would be after the fact if someone brought it up during the culling round. :P

Additionally, I don't think anyone making their opinion known is a waste of time and disagreeing and disrespectful are not the same.


What I was more getting at is that it's already started for the year, Kionon's pretty adamant about this, so why bother argue about it and make drama? Opinions are fine, and I'm not saying you shouldn't state them, but I was thinking pm is a better way to talk to him about this rather than mob the thread with a bunch of angry comments.

Also, I realize disagreeing and being disrespectful aren't the same thing. But some people are on the thin line of it. :P
User avatar
CodeZTM
Spin Me Round
 
Joined: 03 Mar 2006
Location: Arkansas
Status: Flapping Lips

Re: JCA - Organisation and Judge Nomination

Postby Niotex » Wed Jan 13, 2010 3:51 pm

So just because someone is hard headed you're supposed to just ignore them? Good game Code.. Good fucking game :up:
Image
User avatar
Niotex
The Phantom Canine
 
Joined: 08 Jun 2003
Location: Netherlands
Status: Simply Insane

Re: JCA - Organisation and Judge Nomination

Postby CodeZTM » Wed Jan 13, 2010 4:19 pm

Niotex wrote:So just because someone is hard headed you're supposed to just ignore them? Good game Code.. Good fucking game :up:


but I was thinking pm is a better way to talk to him about this rather than mob the thread with a bunch of angry comments.
User avatar
CodeZTM
Spin Me Round
 
Joined: 03 Mar 2006
Location: Arkansas
Status: Flapping Lips

Re: JCA - Organisation and Judge Nomination

Postby Vivaldi » Wed Jan 13, 2010 4:52 pm

CHRIST STOP ARGUING OVER SEMANTICS FFS.


Judges describes the infrastructure of the contest.

Editors describes the nature of the judges.


"Judges" is correct, whether they are required to be editors or not, simply because it is more informative. "Editors" isn't so much opposed to the ideas as much as it doesn't say a damn thing about the contest.


As for my own 2 cents. I agree it should be peer reviewed, however I don't understand why people who released videos in 2009 constitutes a substantially different subsection of editors. If you have released a video—ever— that makes you an accredited editor and a peer.
Image
Image
<Kenzichu> HAHAHA!!
<Kenzichu> everyone died!
User avatar
Vivaldi
Polemic Apologist
 
Joined: 29 Sep 2007
Location: Petting mah cat..

Re: JCA - Organisation and Judge Nomination

Postby Athena » Wed Jan 13, 2010 5:34 pm

Vivaldi wrote:As for my own 2 cents. I agree it should be peer reviewed, however I don't understand why people who released videos in 2009 constitutes a substantially different subsection of editors. If you have released a video—ever— that makes you an accredited editor and a peer.


It's a different understanding of what is fair. I'm taking peer reviewed to more of an extreme than others, based on the influence of convention contests that draw voters from only the participating video submissions. The Judges are elected representatives of the editors who participated that year. I fully understand and acknowledge the opposing view. I don't think either contest is necessarily problematic, as long as everyone agrees and understands the ground rules, but they are fundamentally different contests if you change that rule.

I'm currently in a few PM discussions with people. I want to thank them for being courteous and respectful, and really, very helpful in those PMs. I would recommend that anyone who has issues they think seriously impact their ability to support the contest should contact me via PM and explain the issues.

As I see it, there are three seperate and distinct views of what the contest should be:

1) Anyone gets to judge.
2) Editors get to judge, no restrictions on editing history.
3) Editors get to judge, only editors active in production year should judge.

I went with three based on the above reasoning and the understanding that time is short and it would make people really think about their choices. I accept that two is still peer reviewed, even if it isn't to the point I would take it, and would be willing to compromise. One is not peer reviewed, and is a completely and totally different contest. If this is really what the community wants the JCAs to be, then so be it, but it's definitely not the JCAs I thought I was stepping in to save. In review of posted rules, and in discussions with others, it seems my perception was flawed. However, I lack enthusiasm to a run a non-peer reviewed contest. It is not sufficiently different from the VCAs to warrant a unique contest in my opinion.
Image
User avatar
Athena
I ♥ the 80's
 
Joined: 02 Mar 2001
Location: Japan
Status: Sad Girl on Mac

Re: JCA - Organisation and Judge Nomination

Postby BasharOfTheAges » Wed Jan 13, 2010 8:56 pm

Kionon wrote:As for Bashar's suggestion, the issue is that an Editors Choice awards would give every editor a vote and the top video with the most votes would win. There would be no judging panel. There is a judging panel, so the final choice is up to the judges. Therefore it IS JCAs not ECAs.

No it wouldn't. Remove head from ass. It would clarify that the only judges are editors and reinforce the fact that this key difference means this isn't the same contest.

Run it how you want. {i'm just walking away right now}
Another Anime Convention AMV Contest Coordinator 2008-2014 & Head of the AAC Fan-works Theater - follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/AACFanTheater
:sorcerer: :sorcerer: |RD: "Oh, Action!" (side-by-side) | |
User avatar
BasharOfTheAges
Just zis guy, you know?
 
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: Merrimack, NH
Status: Extreeeeeeeeeme

Re: JCA - Organisation and Judge Nomination

Postby Athena » Wed Jan 13, 2010 9:10 pm

BasharOfTheAges wrote:
Kionon wrote:As for Bashar's suggestion, the issue is that an Editors Choice awards would give every editor a vote and the top video with the most votes would win. There would be no judging panel. There is a judging panel, so the final choice is up to the judges. Therefore it IS JCAs not ECAs.

No it wouldn't. Remove head from ass. It would clarify that the only judges are editors and reinforce the fact that this key difference means this isn't the same contest.


I granted this above. No need to be gauche. There has been enough of an outcry for me to offer the three above options for this contest. I'm not sure I would have the personal willpower to run 1) but would be willing to run 2), with my preference being to keep it at 3). Looking over the objections, how they have been phrased, and who has offered them, I question if it is being driven by a fair sample. This being acknowledged, I recognise that the issues have no stopped the nomination process, and that the gridlock must be resolved. Thus, the compromise of 2) if that is the only way to keep it peer reviewed. If 1) is what a majority desires, I have no objection to working with others willing to help me revise deadlines for and administrate. We could even run 1) and 3) concurrently if someone would stand up and offer to administrate 1) with me so I could administrate 3) under the previously agreed RECAs.

I'm willing to revise and compromise, but I was definitely put on the defensive and overreacted to the initial tone of some of the objections. Let's all calm down and work together. Yes, I have contributed to it, and we shouldn't devolve into a kindergartenesque "but he staaaaarted it" war. We are all too adult for that.
Image
User avatar
Athena
I ♥ the 80's
 
Joined: 02 Mar 2001
Location: Japan
Status: Sad Girl on Mac

Re: JCA - Organisation and Judge Nomination

Postby Athena » Sun Jan 17, 2010 4:27 am

It's pretty obvious to me that no one was really interested in continuing nominations, most likely because of the meta discussion/rules.

As I see it, this is a perfect opportunity to reboot and go ahead and have that conversation since the initial deadline is already past. Starting from scratch, if you wanted me to rewrite the rules, how should they be written, and what deadlines would you set?
Image
User avatar
Athena
I ♥ the 80's
 
Joined: 02 Mar 2001
Location: Japan
Status: Sad Girl on Mac

Re: JCA - Organisation and Judge Nomination

Postby NS » Sun Jan 17, 2010 4:31 am

I nominate NS
ImageImage
User avatar
NS
I like pants
 
Joined: 08 Jul 2006
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Status: Pants

Re: JCA - Organisation and Judge Nomination

Postby mirkosp » Sun Jan 17, 2010 5:57 am

Kionon wrote:It's pretty obvious to me that no one was really interested in continuing nominations, most likely because of the meta discussion/rules.

As I see it, this is a perfect opportunity to reboot and go ahead and have that conversation since the initial deadline is already past. Starting from scratch, if you wanted me to rewrite the rules, how should they be written, and what deadlines would you set?


I say let's copypasta the rules of the 2008 JCAs and we're good. Basically, nominating 2 unique judges each to have a big judges pool and then voting 5 of them (1 pick per person). As for the categories, VCA semis+every judge is allowed to add 1 video/person per category besides the ones already present, if they wish. Video and person voting by the judges was selecting the top 5 for each judge and then combining the results. It was 5 points for 1st place, 4 2nd place, 3 3rd place... etc, then sum of the points to declare winners. A runner-up count would be nice too for this year.
Image
User avatar
mirkosp
MODkip
 
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Location: Gallarate (VA), Italy
Status: (」・ワ・)」(⊃・ワ・)⊃

Re: JCA - Organisation and Judge Nomination

Postby Ileia » Sun Jan 17, 2010 2:33 pm

mirkosp wrote:
Kionon wrote:It's pretty obvious to me that no one was really interested in continuing nominations, most likely because of the meta discussion/rules.

As I see it, this is a perfect opportunity to reboot and go ahead and have that conversation since the initial deadline is already past. Starting from scratch, if you wanted me to rewrite the rules, how should they be written, and what deadlines would you set?


I say let's copypasta the rules of the 2008 JCAs and we're good. Basically, nominating 2 unique judges each to have a big judges pool and then voting 5 of them (1 pick per person). As for the categories, VCA semis+every judge is allowed to add 1 video/person per category besides the ones already present, if they wish. Video and person voting by the judges was selecting the top 5 for each judge and then combining the results. It was 5 points for 1st place, 4 2nd place, 3 3rd place... etc, then sum of the points to declare winners. A runner-up count would be nice too for this year.



This sounds good, the VCA semis thing and the extra category makes for a lot less work in the end, I'd think. Maybe also it'd be good to send a PM to people who've already voted letting them know about the change. Also, I could be remembering it wrong, but wasn't there at one point a notice on the main page about the VCAs that also had a link to the JCAs? I know it's supposed to be kept separate, but I also know that the JCAs are supported by the org. Is that something that could be done to get the word out about the JCAs?
Last edited by Ileia on Sun Jan 17, 2010 2:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ileia
CornDog Whisperer
 
Joined: 09 Aug 2004
Location: On teh Z-drive, CornDog
Status: ....to completion

Re: JCA - Organisation and Judge Nomination

Postby Enigma » Sun Jan 17, 2010 2:36 pm

Godix Period.
User avatar
Enigma
That jolly ol' bastid
 
Joined: 07 Mar 2009
Location: California
Status: Free

Re: JCA - Organisation and Judge Nomination

Postby mirkosp » Sun Jan 17, 2010 3:10 pm

Ileia wrote:Also, I could be remembering it wrong, but wasn't there at one point a notice on the main page about the VCAs that also had a link to the JCAs? I know it's supposed to be kept separate, but I also know that the JCAs are supported by the org. Is that something that could be done to get the word out about the JCAs?

That is correct, last year there was a news about the JCAs on the main page. I think it could be done this year too, if an admin gets to it. :D
Image
User avatar
mirkosp
MODkip
 
Joined: 24 Apr 2006
Location: Gallarate (VA), Italy
Status: (」・ワ・)」(⊃・ワ・)⊃

PreviousNext

Return to AMV Contests

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BecauseImBored1, GloryQuestor, StephenMcC56 and 4 guests