Kionon wrote:Please stay on topic, guys. Thanks.
It is ontopic. The Org is almost a dinosaur and IRC already is a dinosaur. If you want to do reviews you should make them in a way that is relevent to an audience beyond the ageing AMV diehards.
Try a Facebook group or something instead of IRC. It's 2012, not 1999; Get with the times.
Izumi, I debated whether to answer you, but I think you make a current (if not valid) point. I will address this once and once only, so please simply accept what I am about to say. If you don't wish to participate, that's fine, but please don't argue with me. If you would like to start your own facebook group, or skype chat, feel free to do so.
The suggestion of changing the protocol used is not on topic, because this is not the return of AMV Review, this is the return of #AMV-Review. In fact, it never went anywhere, but besides use for betas, it hasn't been used for a review session in a while. There also is no "you guys," and #AMV-Review has always been independent of the Org administration.
However, I'll address your points. IRC is best because:
1) IRC can handle massive amounts of people in an instantaneous format.
2) IRC can easily be moderated.
3) IRC is clean, simple, and efficient.
4) IRC has no advertisements.
5) IRC can be easily logged.
Ultimately, it is my opinion that IRC is no more antiquated for our purposes than chairs are for sitting or plates are for eating food from. In fact, quite the opposite, it is much better suited to the current -Review format that any of the alternatives already suggested, especially Facebook. IRC is one of the oldest continuously in use internet protocols, having been created in 1988. It is still much, much more popular than you give it credit for. Right now the #amv chatroom has 30 individuals in it, and that's about the norm. I'm part of other IRC communities, some of which have been in constant operation for 15 years. IRC will easily last another twenty years, as long as there is a need for a low-impact text based protocol with established and moderated channels for large groups of individuals.
What is on topic is discussions of time, or selection process, or moderating crew, frequency of review, those sorts of things. If you have constructive input on those fronts, please feel free to share.
Rider4Z wrote:Might i suggest setting up reviews for those who request them? Perhaps starting by selecting a video in the opinion exchange forum, then leaving it open for sign ups? reason being, i think leaving reviews for those who genuinely ask for them and want to learn would be more productive and meaningful than a random selection.
Anyone can nominate any recently released video. This includes their own. I'm open to discussion of a change in the format or the rules, but...
If it's set up that way, then I'd be willing to take part. I'd feel uncomfortable critiquing something when i wasn't invited to do so by the creator.
I admit I don't understand this. The underlying implication of putting a video on the Org is that you are welcoming opinions (and stars, and quick comments) from any viewers who come across your video. So, it logically follows that all of us have indeed been invited to do so by the creator.