Project Editor Exit Survey

[pacotacoshell]

oh and the winners should become judges BTW.

Top 3 : Offer of being a future Project OrgEditor Judge or part of 2013 Theme Coordination Team

I just think none of the winners wanted to become judges.

[Shin-AMV]

Question #1: If you could have one major change in this contest (anything is fair game), what would it be?
Some way for either longer time for editing, or longer breaks, or a more flexible schedule or something. The whole duration of the contest as it was is more or less an endurance test which gets away from the editing just a little bit and by the end I was feeling a little burnt out, and I'm pretty crazy when it comes to editing and so if I was feeling the burnout I can only imagine what others were feeling.

Question #2: How can I improve upon the themes in future contests? Were there some that you liked/enjoyed more than others? Were there some that should just plain not exist? Is there a theme that you would like to see in a future contest?
Recreate rounds are cool, but keep it limited to one per contest. Or maybe let it be more flexible like recreate only the concept of an AMV with freedom to choose another song. Make sure the themes don't have too much overlap, round 2 felt like a broader version of round 1, and all the round 1 videos could have fit into round 2 really easily so it felt a little derivative to some degree.

Question #3: Did you enjoy the double blind judging (meaning not knowing who the judges were), or would you prefer open judging?
I don't know if a made much of a difference or not, I like how the videos were anon to the judges, but I dunno how the judges not being anon would have changed things or not. I think reveal who the judges are at the end of the contest though, I still wanna know who Judge B and Judge D are.

Question #4: Did you feel as though you had (a) enough time to edit (b) too much time to edit (c) not near enough time to edit.
I always like a lot of time so I would go with C, but then the point of the contest is to really force editors to work quickly and a limited time frame so its probably closer to A in terms of being able to get out something with decent quality.

Question #5: I would like for my deadlines to be at (a) midnight (b) noon (c) indifferent
I liked the noon deadlines, but thats cause I like doing all nighters and working all night until the deadline. Midnight deadlines are no fun <.<

Question #6: Were there too many threads this year to keep up with?
Seemed fine to me.

Question #7: Would you prefer to upload your videos via (a) FTP or (b) Online Media Hosting.
It wouldn't make too much of a difference to me.

Question #8: Any general comments you would like to make can go here.
Fun times overall. I'm looking forward to the Tag Team Trial thing, and will probably participate again next year in OrgEditor.

[PantherMarie1988]

Question #1: N/A - you guys did just fine =3

Question #2: I guess there isn't anything that can be done about this, but in the very first round I remember one judge gave me a score of 50-something and said that it was because my video quality sucked and then another gave me a score of 90-something and said it was a really good beta - and there is just too much of a score gap difference between that .__. I'm thinking maybe the points system should be reevaluated. Instead of giving an overall score out of 100, how about a score out of 10 in 10 different aspects of the beta entered (visuals, atmosphere, effects, concept, etc) and then add them together to determine the overall score ... might help with the thing that happened in round #2 with the problem with eliminations as well...

Question #3: yes - actually I think judging works better when you don't know who they are

Question #4: ((A))

Question #5: ((A))

Question #6: Nope

Question #7: ((B))

Question #8: N/A

[BasharOfTheAges]

The blind judging works very well so that the judges can be brutally honest (after all, that's what the Org's known for) in their evaluation. We didn't have the drama that happened in the Quickening but even so, I'd hate to have the judges pull their punches because their names were being attached to the comments.

Yue only posted the judge's comments once and those comments were blind (until after said "drama" when the judge in question outed himself), so whether or not you know who said what, there can still be drama.

Yea, but in PoE the judges all stuck to commenting on the videos even if the comments were harsh. Before they were deleted, the offending comments from the Quickening that got people going were making remarks about the editors. It's one thing to critique and make a harsh value judgment about a video, but to frame your comments as critiques on the person that made them instead of the thing they made was unnecessary. That's actually the core difference between critique and flaming.

[Ileia]

The blind judging works very well so that the judges can be brutally honest (after all, that's what the Org's known for) in their evaluation. We didn't have the drama that happened in the Quickening but even so, I'd hate to have the judges pull their punches because their names were being attached to the comments.

Yue only posted the judge's comments once and those comments were blind (until after said "drama" when the judge in question outed himself), so whether or not you know who said what, there can still be drama.

Yea, but in PoE the judges all stuck to commenting on the videos even if the comments were harsh. Before they were deleted, the offending comments from the Quickening that got people going were making remarks about the editors. It's one thing to critique and make a harsh value judgment about a video, but to frame your comments as critiques on the person that made them instead of the thing they made was unnecessary. That's actually the core difference between critique and flaming.

I have no idea what you're talking about. The offending comment was that the editor's video didn't have any redeeming qualities, not that the editor didn't. If there was another comment that sparked drama, I missed it. Anyway, my point in response to Rendakor was that even not knowing what judge said that, people took issue with it. The blind aspect doesn't stop drama, it only protects the identity of the judge. I wasn't commenting on the critique/flaming style of the Quickening judges.

[MimS]

Btw, basically, pointing video's issues = pointing editor's weaknesses

[Ileia]

This is a bad video != You are a bad editor

[Radical_Yue]

The "drama" from The Quickening was 1) a person who has never edited/joined a contest before taking idle criticism on their video way too far and 2) someone that didn't think he should be eliminated flipping his shit. Unless you believe the long time Org members that have been selected as judges to be such d-bags that they'd attack an editor as opposed to simply critique their video?

No one could have predicted either thing happening. Every other participant has deeply appreciated the judges comments and thanked them for their advice on how to do better next time.

As Ileia said, just because you have a bad run and make a crappy video, that doesn't mean you're a bad editor. Everyone has their own flop.


Now stop being jerks and derailing this thread. This is about POE. If you've got problems concerning The Quickening, bring them to me.

[BasharOfTheAges]

I actually wrote up a very detailed post replying when it happened, but deleted it as it outed me as a judge in PoE (or would have made strong insinuations that I was - hell, conversations I had with participants over it at the time made them suspicious as it is). The flaming wasn't blatant or severe at all, but several comments were made that strictly did not pass judgment on the videos themselves, but rather the creator, his/her process, etc. I obviously don't have the text at hand. I never saved it - didn't think there'd be an event that required the wayback machine to recreate it later on.