AWA 2016 The Video Art Track - Deadlines SEP 4 & SEP 13 [EXTENDED]

[jingoro]

DEADLINE EXTENDED
Due to issues with CloudFlare and JotForm, some people have been getting errors when submitting their videos. The Expo deadline is hereby extended 24 hours, until Tuesday at 11:59pm Eastern Time, and editors are advised to paste a link to download their video in the "additional comments" section of the submission form (as explained on the form itself).

Links to YouTube or other streaming sites CANNOT be accepted.

[ProjectTwinsAMV]

Sent one in. I hope I sent it in correctly

[Cyanna]

I don't have a hat in the Pro ring this year but regarding the subject of adult videos...what if the weight of the votes was adjusted? Like declare at the point of submission whether you are qualified/capable of judging adult content and agree that your vote may be worth slightly less if you don't/can't watch them all and slightly more if you do? By how much would have to depend on the number of entrants and the ratio of adult viewers to non-adult viewers.

I can't imagine how to actually enforce a "your vote is weighted based on how many of the nominees in this category you /claim/ to have actually watched". It'd be a disaster, IMO.

I thought about ways this could be abused too as it gives more power to one group of editors and weakens the other. But this contest is heavily reliant on the honor system. A lot of rules in the contest can't actually be enforced. Even now, what's stopping anyone from voting without watching any of the entries? What stops people from telling their friends which entry is theirs and voting for their friends? Nothing except the expectation that everyone is being honest and a fair player.

I accept that my suggestion may be a logistical difficulty with the additional data management required. Each entrant would have to have a numerical value assigned to them depending on whether they chose to be in viewing Group A or B and winners would have to be be calculated by the total value of their received votes instead of the total number of votes.

But I can't help but feel like objections based on grounds of being unenforceable is looking at it from the wrong angle.

[jingoro]

I don't have a hat in the Pro ring this year but regarding the subject of adult videos...what if the weight of the votes was adjusted? Like declare at the point of submission whether you are qualified/capable of judging adult content and agree that your vote may be worth slightly less if you don't/can't watch them all and slightly more if you do? By how much would have to depend on the number of entrants and the ratio of adult viewers to non-adult viewers.

I can't imagine how to actually enforce a "your vote is weighted based on how many of the nominees in this category you /claim/ to have actually watched". It'd be a disaster, IMO.

I thought about ways this could be abused too as it gives more power to one group of editors and weakens the other. But this contest is heavily reliant on the honor system. A lot of rules in the contest can't actually be enforced. Even now, what's stopping anyone from voting without watching any of the entries? What stops people from telling their friends which entry is theirs and voting for their friends? Nothing except the expectation that everyone is being honest and a fair player.

I accept that my suggestion may be a logistical difficulty with the additional data management required. Each entrant would have to have a numerical value assigned to them depending on whether they chose to be in viewing Group A or B and winners would have to be be calculated by the total value of their received votes instead of the total number of votes.

This is just a more complicated form of "If you don't certify that you've actually watched all the nominated videos, you don't get a vote in said category." People will simply lie so that their vote is counted. Most of the "unenforceable rules" have been re-written to be very very strong suggestions and pleas than actual rules. I don't like having unenforceable rules, like the old military adage "Don't give an order you know will be disobeyed."

[jingoro]

Now just to be fair, I did watch 003 because Daric disclaimed in advance it's "not that bad".

Well, by "not that bad" I did mean to say it didn't have actual nudity or sex in it... >.>; It's DQ now, so... <.<;

[Rider4Z]

Now just to be fair, I did watch 003 because Daric disclaimed in advance it's "not that bad".

Well, by "not that bad" I did mean to say it didn't have actual nudity or sex in it... >.>; It's DQ now, so... <.<;

I understood what you meant and I appreciate you mentioning it.

[Dext3r]

Personally I didn't include a parody category because given there was the trailer category I figured we were putting all the AMV trailers in that category.

Meanwhile the only parody I came across IMO was the parody of that pooping commercial. All the trailers I thought were meant to be taken seriously, whereas I personally would consider a parody something that wasn't as serious. If the intention is to include the trailers in the parody category, then there should just be a parody category, with no trailers.

But then a funny parody like the pooping commercial might just win out over all the trailers because it's funny and the trailer makers complain.

So you see my issue...

The trouble here is that a Parody category that excludes trailers has only one entry in it... thus a very good video has no category to compete in. We NEED very broadly applicable categories... where that one "true" parody amidst a bunch of trailers can say "I was nominated!" and be proud of it, rather than "I showed up and got a piece of glass because I was the only one".

Why doesn't that fall under comedy? Or are you saying that it doesn't have a secondary category, since parody isn't one of the big 5?

[Scintilla]

Personally I didn't include a parody category because given there was the trailer category I figured we were putting all the AMV trailers in that category.

Meanwhile the only parody I came across IMO was the parody of that pooping commercial. All the trailers I thought were meant to be taken seriously, whereas I personally would consider a parody something that wasn't as serious. If the intention is to include the trailers in the parody category, then there should just be a parody category, with no trailers.

But then a funny parody like the pooping commercial might just win out over all the trailers because it's funny and the trailer makers complain.

So you see my issue...

The trouble here is that a Parody category that excludes trailers has only one entry in it... thus a very good video has no category to compete in. We NEED very broadly applicable categories... where that one "true" parody amidst a bunch of trailers can say "I was nominated!" and be proud of it, rather than "I showed up and got a piece of glass because I was the only one".

Why doesn't that fall under comedy? Or are you saying that it doesn't have a secondary category, since parody isn't one of the big 5?

Because some parodies aren't meant to be funny. Last year I made an opening sequence parody that wasn't funny but nostalgic and WAFFy. This year I have another opening sequence parody that isn't meant to be appreciated so much for its humor as for the visual style.

(Since I'm not in Pro this year, I have no idea if the specific parody video in the contest is funny or not; just making a general observation.)

[jingoro]

Personally I didn't include a parody category because given there was the trailer category I figured we were putting all the AMV trailers in that category.

Meanwhile the only parody I came across IMO was the parody of that pooping commercial. All the trailers I thought were meant to be taken seriously, whereas I personally would consider a parody something that wasn't as serious. If the intention is to include the trailers in the parody category, then there should just be a parody category, with no trailers.

But then a funny parody like the pooping commercial might just win out over all the trailers because it's funny and the trailer makers complain.

So you see my issue...

The trouble here is that a Parody category that excludes trailers has only one entry in it... thus a very good video has no category to compete in. We NEED very broadly applicable categories... where that one "true" parody amidst a bunch of trailers can say "I was nominated!" and be proud of it, rather than "I showed up and got a piece of glass because I was the only one".

Why doesn't that fall under comedy? Or are you saying that it doesn't have a secondary category, since parody isn't one of the big 5?

Because some parodies aren't meant to be funny. Last year I made an opening sequence parody that wasn't funny but nostalgic and WAFFy. This year I have another opening sequence parody that isn't meant to be appreciated so much for its humor as for the visual style.

Yes, this. I've a broader definition of Parody than "exaggeration for comedic effect" because of things like this.

[The Wired Knight]

It gets a bit wordy but would it be better to rephrase it as "Parody or homage?"

This broadens the term so it is more understood that the category is not meant to strictly reward a comedic video.