Warlike Swans wrote:MaboroshiStudio wrote:
Correct me if I misunderstood you...
I think I can make this correction. I don't think Shin was proposing a change. Seemed like an idealogical statement of what voting means, and why discussion helps.
Shin-AMV wrote: [Each] of us as editors [is] picking videos to present to an audience that we feel is representative of what it means to be 'Pro' or top tier. [Stuff about discussion raising awareness.]
^ This one. I wasn't suggesting we make any fundamental changes I was just defending the ability to discuss the videos at all junctures of the contest. Although, I suppose I may have gone a tad extra hard on the idealogical loftiness which may have led to some confusion because it might have seemed like I was advocating it should be mandatory, when I wanted to just stress the importance of it for those who take part and an essential element for those who do take part.
Anyways, discussion/debate may not be expressly codified in the rules, but its also never been expressly discouraged and discussion has long been an established part of the contest as a whole. Doing a quick search I found review threads from the early 2000s that are just as robust and rich as any of our discussions today regarding technical skills (Clean technical vs lots of technical), the trendy effects (piano keys and flashes), and in general various ways to approach viewing/interpreting the videos and elements to be considered while voting for them.
2005 seemed to be an interesting year with a lot of discussion revolving around the merits of a 26 minute long video and a lot of differing views to approach evaluating it, and its stuff like that when I say its important to challenge our expectations of what makes a quality video. People's opinions vastly differed on the video but it made people think on different aspects that usually get taken for granted. I also found it amusing that a lot of people back in the day would complain that everyone should be watching the videos on their TVs not their computer but the rebuttle was that people were doing both for the most part, which is fairly analagous to today with how people should be downloading the vids and not just watching on a stream and people claiming that they do both.
So there is plenty of precedent with regards to discussion being an integral part of the AWA Pro process. Overall though, the rules seem to be written in a way to give credence to tradition and allow flexibility for the participants to take advantage of new developments or new ideas for the presentation and sharing of ideas. The only real substantive rule with regard to voting is in two sentences.
"Voting in this contest is a privilege, not an obligation. We also ask that judges vote their own conscience, making their own decision."
And I think the way I outlined the importance of discussion falls easily in line with this and doesn't deviate from whats been happening for more than at least a decade in this contest. In order for me to make a decision and vote my conscience I need to feel fully informed, and that I've done my due diliigence. In order to do that I need to have discussions to make sure I'm not missing something or figuring out if I'm weighing different merits or issues properly, equitably, or fair. So in order to exercise my privilege or right to vote I need to be provided avenues to do this and having periods of no discussion or waiting until after voting for discussion to take place directly affects my voting privilege in a negative way.
Also, it seems like we're just literally rehashing an issue that just never gets put to bed regardless of the coordinator and specific ruleset.
http://www.animemusicvideos.org/forum/v ... 41#p738741
MCWagner wrote:The original intent of "blind judging" in pro was so that people could judge the video itself in isolation, that is, not comparing the video to previous work by the same editor, and not letting politicing between individuals get in and muddle things up. It lets y'all just judge the videos against one another, without any outside influence.
Y'all appear to be interpreting it as "everyone must come up with their votes in isolation from any discussion with other judges." I've no problem with people voting that way (as a way of being honest with their own impressions), but considering that some people get together with other judges for the first watch-through it's kind of unrealistic to expect everyone else to do the same.
In the final analysis, judges should definitely place votes according to how they really feel things should be judged, and not be bullied by other opinions into doing differently. Remember that judging is also by a hidden ballot, so no one's gonna find out that you preferred "A" over "B" unless you tell them. However, unless I'm missing some problem here, I don't think there's anything wrong with talking over your judgements online, so long as A) we all stay civil and fair and B) someone doesn't try to get around the video "blinding" by telling/figuring out who made what.
Its fine if people don't want to talk/discuss/debate if they feel like thats how they'll come up with the best vote, just don't force that unto others who feel the need to take a different approach. Nothing has fundamentally changed except for technology and the means we communicate.
Also with regards to the oscar/academy award stuff, if we were following that as the example we should strive for I eagerly await receiving someone's submission delivered on a new IPad as part of a 'for your consideration' campaign. I won't vote for it just because of that, but I can't lie since it would make me pause for a second before I realize that I have ever so slightly higher standards. Maybe. Well send me the IPad and we can figure it out from there.
I also realized that according to the current set of rules if someone was feeling really spicy, they could actually host a 'For Your Consideration' viewing event with booze and food explicitly campaigning for a particular video fully revealing if it was your video or not as well. It might be against the spirit of the rules, but its perfectly fine according to the letter/wording of the rules. (Participants choose how secret or blind they want to be, Privacy of own home is not a public venue. Professionalism standards aren't clearly defined, etc etc.)
But not to derail things too much, the Academy Awards has a lot more of marketing and campaign stuff which are things people are trying to avoid because that starts to cross the line of discussion into campaigning that ends up tainting things a bit because we aren't having honest discourse regarding those particular videos anymore.
Rider4Z wrote:I like to think we're a little more diligent and thorough compared to the Oscars. I assume we all actually WATCH everything.
Agreed.
kireblue wrote:Just so everyone is clear, there is no group judging taking place. And nobody tries to come to any kind of consensus during these things. People participate in the streams because it makes watching 4-5 hours of AMVs more enjoyable. Nobody talks while the videos are playing, and everyone even mutes their mic at the time. And when the videos end, everyone voices their likes and dislikes about the video. No video was spared of criticism, and no video was allowed to be trashed either. And to the best of my knowledge, everyone made a point to watch the videos by themselves afterwards.
People enjoy the streams simply because doing things with your friends is enjoyable. Its also enjoyable being able to talk to people that you may not have had the opportunity to interact with before. I honestly believe that if it wasn't for things like the viewing streams and parties, interest for the competition wouldn't be nearly as strong. The people that are tying to advocate stopping the streams remind me of when companies try to stop the fans from making derivative works of their IP. Its pretty close to impossible to stop them, and all that they are doing is stifling the ways that their fans express their interest and passion. The viewing parties like the one that CBR hosts in Atlanta every year, and the online streams are the ways that people are expressing their interest in the competition. There is no malicious intent or meta-gaming about it. If you can't understand that, then I just don't know what to say, and I don't really feel like typing up a novel to explain it to you.
Also very much this. x1000000
Rider4Z wrote:
Get over yourself Shin geez
haters gon' hate. Just can't handle this level of kawaii
