We need to nip the drama about my rules in the bud right here, right now.
I waited to take over until I was reasonably sure that no one else was going to run this. In fact, I asked around, read several posts on the forum, and came to the conclusion that the JCAs were just not going to happen. As far as I am aware, no one else was waiting in the wings to organise and administrate this. There were also no immediate objections like, "Hey, Kionon, you can't do this, X was gonna do it." If someone feels like I "stole" the JCAs from someone else who was reasonably going to organise and administrate it this year, I don't know what to say to them. Find me that person so I can hand it over to them? I'd be happy to.
Ileia wrote:Just because something is based on products from one year doesn't mean it can only be judged by people from that year. That would certainly make the Academy Awards more interesting. I see no reasoning behind it, it's just an arbitrary rule.
I thought very hard about how I would organise it in a way that best represented the reasoning that I felt the JCAs were valuable. I did not just randomly or arbitrarily create rules. I looked at existing systems and came up with one that made the most sense to me. As I said, fair is subjective, but I am doing the best I can, and the only one I am creating more work for is myself. I even explained where I got my ideas from and what systems I pulled from. You might disagree with the fairness of the rules, but they are not arbitrary at all.
Ileia wrote:If this were an Editor's Choice Awards, then maybe, but this isn't even really necessary.
I thought I was quite clear in the original organisation post that is exactly what it was:
Each editor on the org may nominate one editor, AND ONLY ONE EDITOR, as their choice for the JCAs.
The panel is made up of editors active in the year of production. This is a feature of many systems. You don't get to vote inside a party unless you vote inside that year's primary first. Being part of the party in previous years doesn't mean you get to be a delegate at the conventions in the future (we won't talk about superdelegates, they're stupid, and have been eliminated from my hybrid system). Or look at AWA Pro. I can't not send a video to 2010, but insist I should get to vote because I submitted in 2006 and 2008. The point here is that the VCAs are for Viewers. The JCAs are for Editors. Again, you may not agree to the fairness of my system, but the logic is there, and it is based on precedent. It's not arbitrary.
Anyway, question, what's with the category nominations? Isn't this causing extra work if you're not using the same categories as the VCA? As I recall, previous JCAs worked with using the semifinalists from the VCAs (with a voting in process for the videos that weren't included but probably should have). How will you determine what video will be included in what category if there wasn't an exact correlation between this and VCA?
I suppose it is causing more work. More work for the person tallying and organising. That is to say, more work for
me. I didn't want to follow the exact rules of previous JCAs, and I said so up front. It also does require participation from editors in the threads. I've asked for a temporary forum addition for video nominations inside of categories. If it is not accepted, then I will probably use the forums on orange-road.net to keep track. Editors will nominate videos inside of categories after Category Noms and Category Cull are completed. This should sufficiently shrink down the number of videos that the judges have to choose from:
Only one video nomination per category per editor. Videos who share the highest amount of highest garnered nomination votes and under shall be dropped from contention prior to Judges Choice. Any video with only one nomination is automatically dropped.
Now, I am not sure I follow the issue with
Aggressor. I never stated a judge had to be an Org denizen. Merely that a judge had to be an editor who edited in 2009. Are you telling me Aggressor did not edit in 2009? At all? Nothing published? I have no idea who Aggressor is, so merely using his name is not helping me here. When it comes to editors from different communities, I am relying on the honor system not to be lied to when it comes to qualifications. By all means, I welcome the nomination and election of judges from other communities. It would be refreshing to see what a Russian, French, or Japanese editor had to say.
