JCA - Organisation and Judge Nomination

[Ileia]

I honestly don't see how calling it a version of JCAs is inaccurate.

But you're not calling it a version, you're calling it the JCAs. It does leave an impression that it is the same contest from the past two years and it is quite a bit different this year. There are members who were final judges from the past years that wouldn't make the cut because of restrictions and obviously if they got it that far, more than a few people wanted them to be a judge. I've already voted and the member I chose happened to fall under the requirements, but there have already been several instances in this thread of people not getting to vote for the member they felt deserving. It's not about any one editor or non-editor, I just don't think anyone should be forced to a second choice when they feel their first choice would make a better judge.

If you want to look at it from another angle, removing the rule would open the floor for more choices. If the currently nominated editors in the first post are any indication, there won't be much of a second round, it looks like they'd all make final cut (counting out the ones with only one vote). It feels to me that the judge nomination round is rather sparse compared to previous years (though that might just be the dwindling active org-ites) and I don't think the restriction is helping much in that aspect.

[EvaFan]

In all honesty kio if you don't care about your ego then just give into them, it's better then having to put up with the arguements anyway unless your enjoying it. Some of the people may have been late to the thread and didn't get a chance to object to the rules earlier who knows.

[mirkosp]

The different amount of nominated judges is due to the fact that nomination works a lot differently this year than in past years. Previously the amount of judges to suggest was 2, and you were encouraged to pick judges that had not been suggested yet, making them all go to the judges voting. Now you get to pick one and one only, and only the most voted judges will get to the second voting round. It was bound to have less nominated judges anyway, which is not a bad thing per se.
Either way, I personally believe the discussion over the naming/rule is closed. Both godix and koop appear to be fine with Kio's version of the rules, so I guess it's fine. I see where Kio is coming from with his idea, and I think it is a fair reason, although the fact of not being able to pick anyone you'd wish to vote as a judge kinda bugs me. But well, I say let it be for this year. Next year, we'll get organized sooner and decide which rules to adopt together, and just stick to them, mmmkay?
One thing I would do however, is just stick to the VCAs categories and semifinalists. The real intention of the JCAs was to give alternative results to the VCAs, so just having the VCAs categories and semifinalists (+ eventual extra video nominations in those categories from the judges) seems like a core point to me. Honestly who gets to be judge sort of is more on a trivial level, especially since all considered, those who'd get nominated as judges if everybody could get nominated would mostly have edited something in 2k9 anyway, I believe.

[Ileia]

The different amount of nominated judges is due to the fact that nomination works a lot differently this year than in past years. Previously the amount of judges to suggest was 2, and you were encouraged to pick judges that had not been suggested yet, making them all go to the judges voting. Now you get to pick one and one only, and only the most voted judges will get to the second voting round. It was bound to have less nominated judges anyway, which is not a bad thing per se.

Even doubled, it's still quiiiite a bit less, I don't think that really accounts for the lack of interest/nominations. It's probably a combination of reasons, including (but not limited to) that one.

Next year, we'll get organized sooner and decide which rules to adopt together

Yeah, this is a good idea. I don't think that one person should be the be-all and end-all of the rules (unless it was Koopiskeva, since he did start them, afterall).

[Niotex]

Some of the people may have been late to the thread and didn't get a chance to object to the rules earlier who knows.

Came back from vacation the 11th. So true that.

[CodeZTM]

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.

[Ileia]

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.

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

[CodeZTM]

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.

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.

[Niotex]

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

[CodeZTM]

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

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.