JCA - Organisation and Judge Nomination

[Kosmit]

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.

Since nobody really bothered to explain, I'll do it. Aggressor is an editor from Ukraine (a good one at that, some of his more famous AMV are Code:Ecchi, De:Light and Bakadance!), well known on amvnews.ru, one of the few russian speakers that are fairly active on the org and fluent in english.

[Kyssifur]

Since nobody really bothered to explain, I'll do it. Aggressor is an editor from Ukraine (a good one at that, some of his more famous AMV are Code:Ecchi, De:Light and Bakadance!), well known on amvnews.ru, one of the few russian speakers that are fairly active on the org and fluent in english.

Just say he's awesome

[Kionon]

You need to stop imagining drama where there is none. I haven't seen anyone question you taking over the JCAs.

I saw the potential for drama, and I wanted to slow us down before we got there. Face it, we're good at it, and I know that, but I'd rather keep the meta discussion down (not that I am practicing what I preach here, and for that, I am sorry).

My vote for Aggressor isn't aimed at your system, I'm not just name-dropping here, I'm only placing my vote and explaining why.

That was actually directed at the Kyssifur who said he didn't care about "policy." This implied that Agressor's nomination was against policy. And I was trying to clarify why that should be the case. By all accounts he has made several videos in 2009 and is eligible. I went in reverse order: first you, then Infinity Squared, then Kyssifur.

If you want it to be only editors who've edited a stand-alone video can judge then it is effectively an Editor's Choice Awards like I said and not a Judge's Choice Awards. Maybe you should change the name if you're going to restrict it to just editors, it does make quite a difference from past JCAs... All I'm asking is for you to explain why one and not the other? I'm not questioning your right to run the JCAs or causing drama, it's a question.

I thought I answered it by explaining how I view the JCAs and where the systems came from. I always understood the JCAs to be Editorcentric, where the VCS are (obviously) Viewercentric. Editors should be judged by their peers. As for in a given year, this also makes sense, as someone who ceases editing during the year of production is a viewer that year. The VCAs themselves have year by year restrictions. It just doesn't seem fair to me, being that fair is understandably subjective, to allow someone who has not edited in the production year to have a vote. The systems you bring up are either sufficiently different from my understanding, or a system I personally disagree with.

The Olympics are a different animal entirely, and each sport has its own rules for judges and scoring. The only sport I know a bit about, of course, is my own: figure skating. And in 2006 they changed the rules in a way I found patently absurd. And I still do. However, the issue relevant to this discussion is that sports occur in front of the judges as the performance is being created, and judging criteria are marked off as they occur. This is a very different process from what we have here, since judges are not watching videos as they are created, but rather looking only at the final product without giving marks based on process criteria.

I simply don't like the Academy Awards. I think they are very much the exact opposite of the system that should decide awards within a craft. A small group of people having nothing to do with the movies under review get to choose the best amongst them? That's not peer reviewed at all! It also tends to follow what the public wants to increase viewership for ratings. It's utterly predictable. And it doesn't seem like the actors, producers, screenwriters, techies, etc would actually follow the Academy if they were free to dissent.

A much better system, in my opinion, is the Screen Actors Guild Awards where actors are given awards by the very people they work with every day. It's peer driven. That's what I always thought the JCA were created to do: allow editors to be judged by their peers, as opposed to viewers who often (with notable exceptions, such as quadir) look at videos completely differently. I would take the SAG over the Academy any day of the week, and twice on Sundays.

[mirkosp]

with notable exceptions, such as quadir

It's for such notable exceptions that you should allow people that didn't edit in 2009 in the ballot, too. Eventually, we're going to vote who we think is worth as a judge, and hardly some random non-editor without technical knowledge would end up winning. There are non-editors (or at least, not this year, or not in AMVs) that have a lot of up-to-date knowledge (think of Brad), and a lot of amv editors that made vids in 2009 but still lack technical knowledge or wouldn't be suited for the judge role altogether. I say, instead of filter yourself in this phase, let the users filter in the final voting phase by themselves. In the end, if someone gets voted on to become a judge, it means there were enough people in the community that believe in his/her judging abilities, which is what really matters in a JUDGES choice awards. Judges aren't even supposed to be on the same level, but could (or even should) be at a higher level to be able to judge everyone else on a fair ground and equally.
That's my point of view on the matter. Basically, I'm with Ileia's point this time around.

[Kyssifur]

My nominaton was not against the policy. When I said "I don't care about the policy" I was meaning I'm not like people "general" here at .org. Respect to the exceptions! But do not worry about it, it was just some sarcastic words from me

Otherwise the reason why I chose him is very simple; I love his videos, he has great videos, more than great, I trust his judgment and like Ileia said, just transleted into my own words/language: AMV is not equal to a-m-v.org JCA should be open to other communities also.

[CodeZTM]

Judges aren't even supposed to be on the same level, but could (or even should) be at a higher level to be able to judge everyone else on a fair ground and equally.

I agree with pretty much everything the modkip says, but you don't necessarily have to be a great editor to know what's good and what's not. Think about people who've been around here for a several years, and seen thousands of AMV's and can form an opinion based on that knowledge. I mean, a basic knowledge of editing and how things work would always be necessary [otherwise, it would make AMV's like Time be less amazing than what it is], but I don't think an overly amazing knowledge would be necessary.

[BasharOfTheAges]

Why not just change the name of the contest to more accurately represent what the make-up of the judges is? If it's an "Editor's Choice Awards" in practice, make it that in title as well. That kind of key change to the qualifications really makes it a different contest and the two shouldn't be confused. Don't want either marring the reputation of the other, do we?

[Chiikaboom]

i spy drama wankfest hurr hurr

I nominate Code cause he's cool.

[Bakadeshi]

godix for me also

[Niotex]

The only qualification is that the person must have edited at least one complete video within 2009.

Are you willing to explain the logic behind this? Just curious that is all.