AWA Professional Awards 2017 Category Selection

[ReggieSmalls]

I'm just here for my new avatar

[jingoro]

Jingoro currently has a VAT chat on discord set up for the time being, mostly for talking about category selection. but yea im glad others are willing to step up and help out with this i know ive really enjoyed using Discord for these sorts of things before.

The VAT Discord exists to foster community around The VAT. It currently does have a side-channel for Category Selection, but #General is #General.
Anyone is welcome: https://discord.gg/4QR364P

[jingoro]

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 politicking 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.

I could have written that myself.

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.
. . .
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 that 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.

You are correct, sir! This is absolutely allowed under the rules today!

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.

I agree. I continue to monitor, review, take notes, talk with people (anyone wants to talk to me, either face to face or online, let me know), but one thing that is off the table in all this is ending discussion of the technical or artistic merits of the videos under consideration. That's a non-starter for me. Expo is built off of discussion. Masters is built off of discussion (I consult with many people, though the decision is mine. And yes, I watch all the Masters videos many many times). Pro will also, as long as I'm around, encourage discussion. And that discussion is worthless if it is held until after voting closes.

Professionalism standards aren't clearly defined.

I think we might be onto something here. Perhaps I need to be a little more specific what behaviors I consider professional?

That said... this event is supposed to be fun. Don't overthink it. To borrow from Will Wheaton, if I could have only one rule for the contest it'd be "Don't be a dick." Not being a dick is very, very professional.

[AMV_4000]

Hypothetical question, and I personally didn't know that into the lingerie was a parody until I was told so I will use it as an example. Let's say that almost no one had seen into the labrinth, just for example sake.
If people are watching the stream and the editor explained after the video that it was a parody of "into the labrinth" yet no one knew it was, that video is now seen as a parody video by only the people who were told. The editor doesn't out their video but now some people vote it as best parody and others are questioning why it even belongs in that category. The editor has influenced the vote because they had to explain it.
Obviously that didn't happen but the example still stands, I'm curious if it's okay to influence people's votes like that. Had I not been told it was a parody I wouldn't have know it was an almost direct fx copy of the video, which then changed my vote from a good FX video to just a parody.

[PieandBeer]

I'm curious if it's okay to influence people's votes like that.

Sharing information isn't automatically influencing votes. Many videos contain references to other videos or inside jokes that only some people may understand. Pointing out these references may allow for better understanding of the video, but really it isn't intentionally influencing and really cannot be policed. It's like explaining that audio from a trailer vid is trailer audio or like that a video is combining two different footage sources. It's just prior knowledge being shared and you cannot predict what is common knowledge.

I think a centralized AWA chat/screening would solve this anyway. It'd allow for inside jokes to be explained and make the contest more inclusive. I get the after-voting argument and some people just wanting to repeat shin&co's opinions from the screenings. However, for the reason above, i think it'd be best to hold them prior to voting to allow for many of these "ah ha!" moments to happen before votes are in. I know some people are like vids should speak for themselves, but I personally believe that a little context behind a video can make it shine. Also, it's fun as hell and you get raw feedback when your vid comes up, not just comparing your vid to others in the categories.

Also you peeps arguing about rule wording/inclusion...i fear a lot of people do not read them judging by the multiple DQs every year for released vids Dx
Suggestion to Jingoro: make people agree with the rules by having them sign off WITH BLOOD \(*A*)/

[Mr Pilkington]

Had I not been told it was a parody I wouldn't have know it was an almost direct fax copy of the video, which then changed my vote from a good FX video to just a parody.

Ask yourself this:
Does knowing it's a parody make it any less technically astute or impressive? Or in other words: are the skills needed to mimic the original any less valid on the grounds that it a copy of someone else's style?

Also does you not recognizing that it is a parody mean that it could've been less or perhaps ineffective? Or is that just the inherent flaw in parodies?

[AMV_4000]

Had I not been told it was a parody I wouldn't have know it was an almost direct fax copy of the video, which then changed my vote from a good FX video to just a parody.

Ask yourself this:
Does knowing it's a parody make it any less technically astute or impressive? Or in other words: are the skills needed to mimic the original any less valid on the grounds that it a copy of someone else's style?

Also does you not recognizing that it is a parody mean that it could've been less or perhaps ineffective? Or is that just the inherent flaw in parodies?

Yes, I know its easy to copy fx, I do it often, but to come up with original fx and an original video takes much more effort. If you've seen someone do something once, it's not as impressive seeing someone just copy it. After being told it was a parody and after watching the original it ruined the parody for me because it was no longer an original work of art. If I were to copy the Mona Lisa and make some changes and pass it off as my own it wouldn't be as good as the original. Also the reason that Ithriller is better than crying angel.
Also I was only using it as an example, I'm not trying to bash the videos I thought it was very well done.
I personally like what pieandbeer said, good ideas.

[jingoro]

Pointing out that something is a parody is a good example why I encourage discussion about videos in advance. As are questions of "I'm not familiar with this source, was [fx] or [plot element] part of the show, or did the editor come up with that themselves?" As long as you are talking about the video and not the editor, you are in no danger of crossing any line with me. Comments such as "this looks like [xyz]'s work" are cutting it really close to the line. Comments like "this looks like [xyz]'s work and they can't edit for shit" are unprofessional at best and unsportsmanlike conduct at worst. Comments like "I beta tested this and know for a fact it is [xyz]'s work" are against the current rules of the contest (it's up to the creator themselves how blind they want to be, not their beta testers) and are unsportsmanlike. Comments like "I edited this, and you should vote for it," are completely legit within the bounds of our present rules, however might earn a pretty strong rebuke from the community.

As to people not being present, I will commit to sending notice of every opportunity to discuss the entries that I am made aware of, such as viewing parties, to all participants via email. In online forums anyone can share insights gleaned during viewing parties. Doing so will ensure all participants have a roughly equal chance to be "influenced" as you will. If someone avoids the forum or viewing parties after being informed about them that is their choice.

Hoping to get this thread back on track, I'm looking into past contests and the awards given, and descriptions I've used in the past, so that I can present a list of what appear to be "categorical categories" for y'all to consider, tweak, adjust, and advise upon. Hopefully this will reduce the vacuum present, and bring us back on topic.

[Rider4Z]

Yes, I know its easy to copy fx, I do it often, but to come up with original fx and an original video takes much more effort.

Yes.

[Mr Pilkington]

[

Sharing information isn't automatically influencing votes. Many videos contain references to other videos or inside jokes that only some people may understand. Pointing out these references may allow for better understanding of the video, but really it isn't intentionally influencing and really cannot be policed.

That's pretty much the side of the discussion I agree with. And this conversation as an example, we could labor this to death until one of us sways or gives in, but in the end feedback on the contest should be a brief exchange of personal takes. a back and forth then leave it. With this as a concrete example:

Yes, I know its easy to copy fx, I do it often, but to come up with original fx and an original video takes much more effort.

Effort maybe, but you're judging the execution of the video. Or so that's my take. Anyone can copy the mona lisa on a xerox, add mustache and lol. But is recreating the portrait flawlessly to portray john cena instead not have its own artistic merit? That's my point but totally your decision.

Then you can retort and I leave it.

That's very much the way we've done it for a long time and that's legit. It's an exchange of ideas but in the end the decision is yours. In that respect the review thread (for those that post serious reviews) has been a good example of this exchange for the most part. Ideas are posted and no one really gets in heated debates.

The reason this has become an issue is 2 fold:
1.) The scope of the discussion is way out of hand. If a discussion lasts longer than a few minutes then it's getting far to heated and needs to be called off. If there was ever any proof that this years debates got out of control, I, especially as someone on the outside of the chat, should never hear of someone's feelings getting hurt buy the reactions in said chat. This years review thread erupted at one person's responses but long before that was ever a thing there was backdraft from the joint viewing/discussion. So that is clearly a thing and needs to be addressed. I also understand that this was a multiple night affair for four hours of content. Our party, including food and drinks, took roughly 7 hours. Why? because the few times that the discussion went beyond the simple back and forth we put a self imposed stop to it.

2.) Some people are putting far too much value in the words of their peers. Again, I am not here to call anyone out or name names, but this year specifically it's become evident that several individuals are heavily influenced by the mere existence of some of their respected peers. No better evidence exists in the review thread where what I assume was a preestablished group troll was taken far too seriously by some involved. I'll also add that regard one very specific entry, the many technical faults were largely overlooked by people who know better. And all I ever heard in personal conversations is how great said editor is. So the bias is very much out there. Pretending it's not and bouldering onward into the fire is only going to hurt the integrity of the contest.

Backtracking a little bit:

Perhaps I need to be a little more specific what behaviors I consider professional?

There is no point in my professional career where any of the above was acceptable. Being that we're agreeing to partake in a "professional" manor policing at the like should be wholly unnecessary. That said you'll never get around the disqualification round, not everyone reads the rules, but is that acceptable? Can we as participants not speak on that directly in these limited discussions and say that entry number xyz is on youtube, then provide the link to the group and agree not no nominate it. It's a rather naive and utopian stance, but part of that call to act in a professional manor. Jingoro should be here as an administrator, not watch dog. That's is professionalism.
More to the point:

threatening to leave the contest because they don't get what they want is childish.

Hence unprofessional behavior. You cant filibuster a debate by saying "it's my way or I'm gone." Because... okay, bye! As a business owner myself, if an employee came up to me and told me to run my business his way or he'd gonna quit, I'd say "don't bother you'e fired." That is an example of unprofessional behavior that is toxic to the debate. If you don't agree with the rules you don't have to participate, it's not a requirement. But if a ruling comes about, as it did for us half a decade ago, that you are not in favor of then you have a decision. Most of us chose to stay and see this through, but its rapidly coming to the breaking point.

Comments like "I beta tested this and know for a fact it is [xyz]'s work" are against the current rules of the contest (it's up to the creator themselves how blind they want to be, not their beta testers) and are unsportsmanlike.

This HAS happened one at least one specific case that I am aware of. So as part of professionalism if you see this occurring stand up an bring it to a halt. Some of us, as Ileia said prior, go out of our way to make something different or try different styles in this contest. Respect that and respect the creators.

edit: I'll also add that as I did offer up the discussions on the chopping block and thoroughly enjoy our annual viewing party, if it came to it and the viewing parties were decided a threat I would with 110% reluctance close and disband ProPain but power onward. Because seeing the bigger picture and not undermining the contest are all part of compromise and professionalism. Agree or not rules are rules.

As a side note Jingoro, we spoke about privately but I suspect I'll receive a lot of agreement upon, you've been consistently feeding the loudest barking dogs. Understand that if you go back and pay attention to the numbers, the are 6 members of the loudest camp and 7 others saying just the opposite. Then a few null or undecided and that's of 40 or so total. I have my opinions as do others, but you may want to look at the bigger picture.