Cyrix wrote:Would the Wedding Rings still be disqualified. That would be my question.
They originally defined Parody something like "a Suberunker-type video such as Wedding Rings" if I remember that correctly.
All I'm seeing here is a really silly strawman argument regarding how AMVs either are or aren't products depending on the definition in either a very narrow sense or very overbroad sense, to to try to refute the core of what was meant by "advertising for a product you refuse to deliver." Reductio is fun an all, but it doesn't really hit the point that is when X audience member sees Y AMV at Z contest and can't find it online it makes X audience member sadface and thats why some people will find that it is common courtesy to have it posted publicly after a public showing. Nitpicking over the exact language on how it was expressed is absurdly silly and misses the point.
Swans presented the issue as black and white, essentially the original point was 'creators are obligated to put their videos online immediately and have no right to withhold them because they have already advertised for them'
While it may be an editor's prerogative not to release an AMV shown at any contest ever, it doesn't change the fact that some people may find it rude or in the very least mildly inconvienent for one reason or another. That People have the prerogative to act in a way that some people might find rude isn't really telling us anything.
It's an attitude problem. Saying some people might find it rude doesn't tell us anything. Saying editors shouldn't be allowed to not release something is different.
Your closing statement is an ad hominem suggesting the possibility of an attitude problem, which is a bit of a stretch to infer, and doesn't strengthen the position of your own argument. The use of italics does make it look classy though.
That's your closing argument against my post which was in response to "*rolls eyes* look up the definition"? Swans acted like a child and I still wrote out a thought-out post. It also was directly in line with the point of my entire post which was 'people shouldn't behave as if editors have an obligation to release all their videos immediately. It was essentially a closing summary of the entire post, and the "you" can apply to anyone. Not very fitting of an ad hominem attack.
I have a new word for you to look up: projection.
Since this has escalated (or devolved, depending on perspective) to the point of insults, I will also add that your reading comprehension is poor, and you have no business trying to summarize the arguments of others. Have an eye-roll, you earned it:

--------------------------------------------
In regards to trying to preserve the freshness of videos that have already been posted online you could respectfully request that editors not include Anime Expo in their tags or descriptions until after the contest, that way people can't find the videos in advance merely by looking up "AX Finalist 2013" on Youtube or Google. (I doubt most contest goers are checking the .Org thread anyway.)
Though personally, I don't see the necessity for even that.
----Edit----
I didn't see this post initially among the others.
xstylus wrote:Warlike Swans wrote:I find it incredibly disrespectful of editors to enter contest with a video that they don't intend to release until after a bigger contest. It's advertising a product you refuse to deliver.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree, as I'm of the complete opposite opinion. I think it's harmful and disrespectful to the event and the at-con audience (and damaging to the reaction to your video) to post the video online in advance of an event you plan to show your video at (regardless of the event, be it ours or others).
And it's not as though it's a "product you refuse to deliver". It's a product that
will be delivered after its run is complete. It's no different than Hollywood releasing a movie after its theatrical run is completed. If a studio released the DVD the same day (or before) it was in the theater, why go to the theater?
Also, as an AMV event runner, I take insult to the notion that AMV exhibitions are just giant advertizements for the AMV download. That notion diminishes the hard work I (and those at other events) put into making these exhibitions something special.
I did not mean to indicate that contests are merely advertisements, and I certainly don't mean to devalue the work of contest coordinators.
I am looking at this from the point of view of the audience. The contest exists for the audience-- not for the glorification of the editors or the contest coordinators. ConS are very social experiences, and not everyone prioritizes the AMV contest. People want to be able to share their experiences, and with an AMV just talking about it really doesn't get the point across. Being able to share an AMV when one gets back to his/her hotel room only enhances the experience and raises the hype for next year's contest. It doesn't devalue the contest, it makes it more social.