JCA - Organisation and Judge Nomination

[LittleAtari]

The only qualification is that the person must have edited at least one complete video within 2009.

Are you willing to explain the logic behind this? Just curious that is all.

it's so that you wont be allowed to judge

[Niotex]

The only qualification is that the person must have edited at least one complete video within 2009.

Are you willing to explain the logic behind this? Just curious that is all.

it's so that you wont be allowed to judge

Seems that way =|

[Kionon]

The only qualification is that the person must have edited at least one complete video within 2009.

Are you willing to explain the logic behind this? Just curious that is all.

I have. Twice now.

As for Bashar's suggestion, the issue is that an Editors Choice awards would give every editor a vote and the top video with the most votes would win. There would be no judging panel. There is a judging panel, so the final choice is up to the judges. Therefore it IS JCAs not ECAs.

I'm on my iPhone, so I am not capable of a longwinded reply. Here's the deal: without me to, there'd be no one for anyone to bitch to. That is to say, there would be no JCAs at all. The meta discourse, if you guys really wanted it, should have been dealt with weeks ago. Now, with the timeframe set, it's too late. It's kind of like that old story about the hen who baked the cake: who wants to help? Not I said the little editor. Who wants to partake in the outcome? Oh, oh, I do, said the liitle editor. I'm not going to win and I am not going to judge. I am doing this because I care about it. At this point the meta discourse is kinda looking a gift horse in the mouth.

This isn't sensitivity, it's just me recognising that I stood up, I put in the work, so it's my rules.

EDIT: oh yeah, I was planning to pay for prizes. So, seriously guys. Just go with it.

[Niotex]

Wait.. so what is the deal exactly?

All you have to do is remove 1 little line of text. Because you're right now excluding an immense group of well capable JUDGES and not just strictly EDITORS. Right now you're just steering this thing to your own hand. Only reason being because you were the first to post. Just because you got to make the first call doesn't mean you're making the right calls. Nobody really cares about prizes, recognition is more then enough for most people. You have no reason to exclude such a large group of potential judges man.

And you whining about it just go's to show that this really should be called the Kionon's Choice Awards.

[EvaFan]

whining.

naw seriously though I don't care either way just thought it was funny.

[Kionon]

Here are the options:

1) Replace me.
2) Allow me to do my job.

Those are the only two options on the table here, Nio. I offered to hand it off to someone else who wanted to run it. I just believed no one else wanted to. I stand by the rules as I wrote them. I put a whole lot of effort into coming up with them. I believe they are the most fair based on the purposes of the JCAs as I understand them. If the JCAs are something else entirely, then I'm sorry for wasting everyone's time.

Just once it would be nice if I was recognised for trying to do a good thing for the org, rather than accused of pumping my own ego. Is it really so hard to believe that, why, yes, I do care about the community, and I am acting out of altruism? Because I do, and I am. And I'm awfully tired of having to deal with this from you and a few key others over and over and over when really, I just want to volunteer my time and effort.

You ARE looking a gift horse in the mouth, and that's not cool.

[Ileia]

Here are the options:

1) Replace me.
2) Allow me to do my job.

Those are the only two options on the table here, Nio. I offered to hand it off to someone else who wanted to run it. I just believed no one else wanted to. I stand by the rules as I wrote them. I put a whole lot of effort into coming up with them. I believe they are the most fair based on the purposes of the JCAs as I understand them. If the JCAs are something else entirely, then I'm sorry for wasting everyone's time.

Just once it would be nice if I was recognised for trying to do a good thing for the org, rather than accused of pumping my own ego. Is it really so hard to believe that, why, yes, I do care about the community, and I am acting out of altruism? Because I do, and I am. And I'm awfully tired of having to deal with this from you and a few key others over and over and over when really, I just want to volunteer my time and effort.

You ARE looking a gift horse in the mouth, and that's not cool.

It's not your job, it's something you chose to do. Your hand wasn't forced. And when something is so very, very simple to change and would appease many people you answer with "It's mine, it doesn't exist without me, I put in all this work, I'm not changing it, there are prizes if people just go along with it" then that's when you come off as pumping your own ego rather than doing a good thing for the org.

[Emotive]

Kionon all I'm seeing in all of your posts is you talking about it in a dictatorship fashion, as in "since I started it none of you may question my decisions on how the choice awards are distributed and this will be done my way even if some of my decisions are pointless". When you're even willing to pass the leadership to someone else if it comes to that, isn't this all completely self-contradicting?

And the irritating thing about it, of course, is that you notably always avoid justifying the decision every single person is questioning: what's the point of choosing "judges" that have edited a full video in 2009? Say you go to a film festival, Festival de Cannes for example. Do you believe the only ones who could be eligible to be judges there are the ones who've directed a movie in 2009? Because correct me if I'm wrong, but logic says quite the opposite..

[Kionon]

It's not your job, it's something you chose to do. Your hand wasn't forced. And when something is so very, very simple to change and would appease many people you answer with "It's mine, it doesn't exist without me, I put in all this work, I'm not changing it, there are prizes if people just go along with it" then that's when you come off as pumping your own ego rather than doing a good thing for the org.

I've typed and retyped a response to this five times. I'm not able to come up with a response I feel is adequate. Also the prizes were planned before these objections came up. I see how you could get the implication above, but that wasn't what I meant by my statement.

Kionon all I'm seeing in all of your posts is you talking about it in a dictatorship fashion, as in "since I started it none of you may question my decisions on how the choice awards are distributed and this will be done my way even if some of my decisions are pointless". When you're even willing to pass the leadership to someone else if it comes to that, isn't this all completely self-contradicting?

I believe all of my rules have a point. I have said this several times. I have repeatedly mentioned how hard I worked on the system, what my influences where, and why. I don't think it's very fair to devolve into meta discussion over something that would not have happened had I not stepped in. I didn't complain when Koop and godix made their JCA decisions. I don't call up contest coordinators and say, "Hey, I know you just decided to run this contest that is a week away, but I feel this fundamental rule needs to be changed." It seems that several people here do disagree, and think the metal discussion IS fair. I see their point, and I understand where they are coming from. I just do do not agree. I'm trying my best.

And the irritating thing about it, of course, is that you notably always avoid justifying the decision every single person is questioning: what's the point of choosing "judges" that have edited a full video in 2009? Say you go to a film festival, Festival de Cannes for example. Do you believe the only ones who could be eligible to be judges there are the ones who've directed a movie in 2009? Because correct me if I'm wrong, but logic says quite the opposite..

This isn't true. I don't understand why people keep asking, because I did answer it. Twice. I told Nio the same thing above. I have said this all before, but I will say it again:

The point is because this a peer reviewed system. I always understood it to be a peer reviewed system. I support peer reviewed systems used in convention contests. I think they differ markedly from viewer reviewed systems, and I believed that the JCAs were started to be just that type of system. Now Koop can tell me I am wrong. That I have misunderstood the purpose of the JCAs. If that is the case, I must admit, my interest in running the JCAs will have been based on a flawed perception. I was interested in preserving the JCAs based on a peer reviewed system. Viewers are not peers. Since we are limiting ourselves to a year of production, I do believe it is fair to limit ourselves to editors of that year. I have no idea how the Cannes system works. I only know that, yes, I would certainly give it more credence if it was peer reviewed. If the judges are drawn from the general population regardless of editing history, then what have is more akin to a representative VCAs, as opposed to what I really understood the JCAs to be, which is a representative ECAs. The only difference then between the VCAs and the JCAs would be how many viewers get to choose the best. That goes against the perception I had of the purpose of the JCAs, which was to be highly editorcentric.


EDIT: ...wait, wait.. wait is some of this over the issue of what I meant by complete? I explained that already: MEP tracks count.

[Kitsuner]

As for Bashar's suggestion, the issue is that an Editors Choice awards would give every editor a vote and the top video with the most votes would win. There would be no judging panel. There is a judging panel, so the final choice is up to the judges. Therefore it IS JCAs not ECAs.

How about Judges Who Were Active Editors This Past Year Choice Awards?

It seems that several people here do disagree, and think the metal discussion IS fair.

\m/ >_< \m/