JCA - Organisation and Judge Nomination

[Vivaldi]

CHRIST STOP ARGUING OVER SEMANTICS FFS.


Judges describes the infrastructure of the contest.

Editors describes the nature of the judges.


"Judges" is correct, whether they are required to be editors or not, simply because it is more informative. "Editors" isn't so much opposed to the ideas as much as it doesn't say a damn thing about the contest.


As for my own 2 cents. I agree it should be peer reviewed, however I don't understand why people who released videos in 2009 constitutes a substantially different subsection of editors. If you have released a video—ever— that makes you an accredited editor and a peer.

[Kionon]

As for my own 2 cents. I agree it should be peer reviewed, however I don't understand why people who released videos in 2009 constitutes a substantially different subsection of editors. If you have released a video—ever— that makes you an accredited editor and a peer.

It's a different understanding of what is fair. I'm taking peer reviewed to more of an extreme than others, based on the influence of convention contests that draw voters from only the participating video submissions. The Judges are elected representatives of the editors who participated that year. I fully understand and acknowledge the opposing view. I don't think either contest is necessarily problematic, as long as everyone agrees and understands the ground rules, but they are fundamentally different contests if you change that rule.

I'm currently in a few PM discussions with people. I want to thank them for being courteous and respectful, and really, very helpful in those PMs. I would recommend that anyone who has issues they think seriously impact their ability to support the contest should contact me via PM and explain the issues.

As I see it, there are three seperate and distinct views of what the contest should be:

1) Anyone gets to judge.
2) Editors get to judge, no restrictions on editing history.
3) Editors get to judge, only editors active in production year should judge.

I went with three based on the above reasoning and the understanding that time is short and it would make people really think about their choices. I accept that two is still peer reviewed, even if it isn't to the point I would take it, and would be willing to compromise. One is not peer reviewed, and is a completely and totally different contest. If this is really what the community wants the JCAs to be, then so be it, but it's definitely not the JCAs I thought I was stepping in to save. In review of posted rules, and in discussions with others, it seems my perception was flawed. However, I lack enthusiasm to a run a non-peer reviewed contest. It is not sufficiently different from the VCAs to warrant a unique contest in my opinion.

[BasharOfTheAges]

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.

No it wouldn't. Remove head from ass. It would clarify that the only judges are editors and reinforce the fact that this key difference means this isn't the same contest.

Run it how you want. {i'm just walking away right now}

[Kionon]

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.

No it wouldn't. Remove head from ass. It would clarify that the only judges are editors and reinforce the fact that this key difference means this isn't the same contest.

I granted this above. No need to be gauche. There has been enough of an outcry for me to offer the three above options for this contest. I'm not sure I would have the personal willpower to run 1) but would be willing to run 2), with my preference being to keep it at 3). Looking over the objections, how they have been phrased, and who has offered them, I question if it is being driven by a fair sample. This being acknowledged, I recognise that the issues have no stopped the nomination process, and that the gridlock must be resolved. Thus, the compromise of 2) if that is the only way to keep it peer reviewed. If 1) is what a majority desires, I have no objection to working with others willing to help me revise deadlines for and administrate. We could even run 1) and 3) concurrently if someone would stand up and offer to administrate 1) with me so I could administrate 3) under the previously agreed RECAs.

I'm willing to revise and compromise, but I was definitely put on the defensive and overreacted to the initial tone of some of the objections. Let's all calm down and work together. Yes, I have contributed to it, and we shouldn't devolve into a kindergartenesque "but he staaaaarted it" war. We are all too adult for that.

[Kionon]

It's pretty obvious to me that no one was really interested in continuing nominations, most likely because of the meta discussion/rules.

As I see it, this is a perfect opportunity to reboot and go ahead and have that conversation since the initial deadline is already past. Starting from scratch, if you wanted me to rewrite the rules, how should they be written, and what deadlines would you set?

[NS]

I nominate NS

[mirkosp]

It's pretty obvious to me that no one was really interested in continuing nominations, most likely because of the meta discussion/rules.

As I see it, this is a perfect opportunity to reboot and go ahead and have that conversation since the initial deadline is already past. Starting from scratch, if you wanted me to rewrite the rules, how should they be written, and what deadlines would you set?

I say let's copypasta the rules of the 2008 JCAs and we're good. Basically, nominating 2 unique judges each to have a big judges pool and then voting 5 of them (1 pick per person). As for the categories, VCA semis+every judge is allowed to add 1 video/person per category besides the ones already present, if they wish. Video and person voting by the judges was selecting the top 5 for each judge and then combining the results. It was 5 points for 1st place, 4 2nd place, 3 3rd place... etc, then sum of the points to declare winners. A runner-up count would be nice too for this year.

[Ileia]

It's pretty obvious to me that no one was really interested in continuing nominations, most likely because of the meta discussion/rules.

As I see it, this is a perfect opportunity to reboot and go ahead and have that conversation since the initial deadline is already past. Starting from scratch, if you wanted me to rewrite the rules, how should they be written, and what deadlines would you set?

I say let's copypasta the rules of the 2008 JCAs and we're good. Basically, nominating 2 unique judges each to have a big judges pool and then voting 5 of them (1 pick per person). As for the categories, VCA semis+every judge is allowed to add 1 video/person per category besides the ones already present, if they wish. Video and person voting by the judges was selecting the top 5 for each judge and then combining the results. It was 5 points for 1st place, 4 2nd place, 3 3rd place... etc, then sum of the points to declare winners. A runner-up count would be nice too for this year.

This sounds good, the VCA semis thing and the extra category makes for a lot less work in the end, I'd think. Maybe also it'd be good to send a PM to people who've already voted letting them know about the change. Also, I could be remembering it wrong, but wasn't there at one point a notice on the main page about the VCAs that also had a link to the JCAs? I know it's supposed to be kept separate, but I also know that the JCAs are supported by the org. Is that something that could be done to get the word out about the JCAs?

[Enigma]

Godix Period.

[mirkosp]

Also, I could be remembering it wrong, but wasn't there at one point a notice on the main page about the VCAs that also had a link to the JCAs? I know it's supposed to be kept separate, but I also know that the JCAs are supported by the org. Is that something that could be done to get the word out about the JCAs?

That is correct, last year there was a news about the JCAs on the main page. I think it could be done this year too, if an admin gets to it.