On Wed,  7 May 2008 13:00:44 EDT, "Mike the Elder" <nomail@nomail>
wrote:

>I agree. Actually, I was going to post the same suggestion when I got
>sidetracked by the silly people I work for who expect me to leave my message
>boards at a moment's notice and work on their machines just because I'm at work
>and on the payroll... The nerve!  ;-)

What a cheek! 
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

David Buck wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> 
>> Arne Kleinophorst <Sir### [at] spamdebitelnet> wrote:
>>
>>> Couldn't we make a IRTC and a Gilles-IRTC? Just give him a price 
>>> every month and someone else also has a chance to win once in a 
>>> while? ;-)
>>
>>
>>   Isn't that what the second and third places were created for?
>>
> 
> I know that your answer was tongue in cheek, but it does bring up a 
> serious question.  Should one submitter be able to submit more than one 
> image for a round or should we limit it to only one?  If we allow every 
> artist several submissions per round, then the same artist could 
> conceivably win all the prizes.
> 
> Thoughts?



To me it seems artificial to impose limits.  You want to get the best 
possible submissions each time.  I think that the anonymity feature will 
help though.

Post a reply to this message

"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message 
news:4821b325@news.povray.org...
> In povray.general David Buck <dav### [at] simberoncom> wrote:
>>Should one submitter be able to submit more than one
>> image for a round or should we limit it to only one?
>
>  Another possibility is that people can submit several images but win
> only one prize. Even if another image of his gets enough votes to get
> a second prize, it's not counted in the top-3. (Instead, it could be
> mentioned in a separate list of honorable mentions or whatever.)
>
>  Just an idea.

Well, I think if someone was actually so good as to be able to make the 3 
best images, maybe they should win all 3.  What are the chances?

However, that could lead to a 'lock out' over a long period of time.  So I'd 
be tempted to say "sure" but then for every winning image, you have to take 
that round 'off', minus one.  Meaning, if you won with one image, you could 
submit the next round.  If you won with three images, you'd have to take off 
2 months in a row.  Someone else needs a chance!

Just brainstorming

         == John ==

Post a reply to this message

In povray.general John D. Gwinner <john punctuation gwinner punc cornell punc edu>
wrote:
> However, that could lead to a 'lock out' over a long period of time.  So I'd 
> be tempted to say "sure" but then for every winning image, you have to take 
> that round 'off', minus one.  Meaning, if you won with one image, you could 
> submit the next round.  If you won with three images, you'd have to take off 
> 2 months in a row.  Someone else needs a chance!

  That doesn't sound very fair to me. It's like you get banned, penalized
for being too good.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> In povray.general John D. Gwinner <john punctuation gwinner punc cornell punc edu>
wrote:
> > However, that could lead to a 'lock out' over a long period of time.  So I'd
> > be tempted to say "sure" but then for every winning image, you have to take
> > that round 'off', minus one.  Meaning, if you won with one image, you could
> > submit the next round.  If you won with three images, you'd have to take off
> > 2 months in a row.  Someone else needs a chance!
>
>   That doesn't sound very fair to me. It's like you get banned, penalized
> for being too good.
>
> --
>                                                           - Warp


I was browsing the IRTC thread to see if anything new had come up and came
across the above discussion that I had read before without any interesting
ideas popping into my head.  Upon revisiting it, however, I came up with a
notion that I would like to share for consideration.

Both John and Warp have good points.  On one hand, having the same person or
small group of people win again and again can make the event a lot less
compelling for new participants.  On the other hand, penalizing excellence
doesn't seem like a good thing either.  Sometimes, a problem can be better
addressed by making new opportunities than by making new rules.  How about
this: Anyone who wins more than a certain number of times (say three in a one
year period just for an example) receives an INVITATION to participate in a
special "Honor Gallery" for a period of time(specific period negotiable).
Honor Gallery members would have their images for new rounds prominently
displayed with the opportunity for viewers to comment and would have full
voting privileges, but their images would not be voted on.  No one would be
compelled to accept an Honor Gallery invitation, so any individual who finds
the competitive aspect of the event an essential part of his or her experience
would be free to participate as a normal entrant.

In this way, the message to highly talented participants would be "You've made
it to the top and have nothing more to prove," rather than "You're too good so
we don't want you."

It's just an idea.  Feedback is welcomed.

Best Regards,
Mike C.

Post a reply to this message

Mike the Elder napsal(a):
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>> In povray.general John D. Gwinner <john punctuation gwinner punc cornell punc edu>
wrote:
>>> However, that could lead to a 'lock out' over a long period of time.  So I'd
>>> be tempted to say "sure" but then for every winning image, you have to take
>>> that round 'off', minus one.  Meaning, if you won with one image, you could
>>> submit the next round.  If you won with three images, you'd have to take off
>>> 2 months in a row.  Someone else needs a chance!
>>   That doesn't sound very fair to me. It's like you get banned, penalized
>> for being too good.
>>
>> --
>>                                                           - Warp
> 
> 
> I was browsing the IRTC thread to see if anything new had come up and came
> across the above discussion that I had read before without any interesting
> ideas popping into my head.  Upon revisiting it, however, I came up with a
> notion that I would like to share for consideration.
> 
> Both John and Warp have good points.  On one hand, having the same person or
> small group of people win again and again can make the event a lot less
> compelling for new participants.  On the other hand, penalizing excellence
> doesn't seem like a good thing either.  Sometimes, a problem can be better
> addressed by making new opportunities than by making new rules.  How about
> this: Anyone who wins more than a certain number of times (say three in a one
> year period just for an example) receives an INVITATION to participate in a
> special "Honor Gallery" for a period of time(specific period negotiable).
> Honor Gallery members would have their images for new rounds prominently
> displayed with the opportunity for viewers to comment and would have full
> voting privileges, but their images would not be voted on.  No one would be
> compelled to accept an Honor Gallery invitation, so any individual who finds
> the competitive aspect of the event an essential part of his or her experience
> would be free to participate as a normal entrant.
> 
> In this way, the message to highly talented participants would be "You've made
> it to the top and have nothing more to prove," rather than "You're too good so
> we don't want you."
> 
> It's just an idea.  Feedback is welcomed.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Mike C.
> 
> 
> 
> 
great idea.
Something like:

Olivia Oyle:[]
Dan Swan:[]
first place:Wu Ami[]
second place:Thomas Eagle[]
third place:Sly Talker

Post a reply to this message

"Mike the Elder" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> > In povray.general John D. Gwinner <john punctuation gwinner punc cornell punc edu>
wrote:
> > > However, that could lead to a 'lock out' over a long period of time.  So I'd
> > > be tempted to say "sure" but then for every winning image, you have to take
> > > that round 'off', minus one.  Meaning, if you won with one image, you could
> > > submit the next round.  If you won with three images, you'd have to take off
> > > 2 months in a row.  Someone else needs a chance!
> >
> >   That doesn't sound very fair to me. It's like you get banned, penalized
> > for being too good.
> >
> > --
> >                                                           - Warp
>
>
> I was browsing the IRTC thread to see if anything new had come up and came
> across the above discussion that I had read before without any interesting
> ideas popping into my head.  Upon revisiting it, however, I came up with a
> notion that I would like to share for consideration.
>
> Both John and Warp have good points.  On one hand, having the same person or
> small group of people win again and again can make the event a lot less
> compelling for new participants.  On the other hand, penalizing excellence
> doesn't seem like a good thing either.  Sometimes, a problem can be better
> addressed by making new opportunities than by making new rules.  How about
> this: Anyone who wins more than a certain number of times (say three in a one
> year period just for an example) receives an INVITATION to participate in a
> special "Honor Gallery" for a period of time(specific period negotiable).
> Honor Gallery members would have their images for new rounds prominently
> displayed with the opportunity for viewers to comment and would have full
> voting privileges, but their images would not be voted on.  No one would be
> compelled to accept an Honor Gallery invitation, so any individual who finds
> the competitive aspect of the event an essential part of his or her experience
> would be free to participate as a normal entrant.
>
> In this way, the message to highly talented participants would be "You've made
> it to the top and have nothing more to prove," rather than "You're too good so
> we don't want you."
>
> It's just an idea.  Feedback is welcomed.
>
> Best Regards,
> Mike C.



Dunno about others ....

I have fun creating things, and have more fun showing it to others. Back then
when the competition was on, I did enter several time, never win anything.

But I ain't complaining since my aim was to share what I create to others,
that's all. Plus, I never use my real name, and with the use of disposable
email addresses, no one knows who I am. :)

Oh well ....

Post a reply to this message

Dunno about others ....
> 
> I have fun creating things, and have more fun showing it to others. Back then
> when the competition was on, I did enter several time, never win anything.
> 
> But I ain't complaining since my aim was to share what I create to others,
> that's all. Plus, I never use my real name, and with the use of disposable
> email addresses, no one knows who I am. :)
> 
> Oh well ....
> 

I did IRTC around 10 years ago.  It was fun, I agree.  However, these days where
every video game is putting up 20 images per second of stunning computer graphics,
while we have to slave for weeks to get something that doesn't look nearly as good.

Post a reply to this message

"Mike the Elder" <nomail@nomail> wrote:

> I was browsing the IRTC thread to see if anything new had come up and came
> across the above discussion that I had read before without any interesting
> ideas popping into my head.  Upon revisiting it, however, I came up with a
> notion that I would like to share for consideration.
>
> Both John and Warp have good points.  On one hand, having the same person or
> small group of people win again and again can make the event a lot less
> compelling for new participants.  On the other hand, penalizing excellence
> doesn't seem like a good thing either.  Sometimes, a problem can be better
> addressed by making new opportunities than by making new rules.  How about
> this: Anyone who wins more than a certain number of times (say three in a one
> year period just for an example) receives an INVITATION to participate in a
> special "Honor Gallery" for a period of time(specific period negotiable).

when I was looking at the IRTC, "ok great, where's the beef (code)?"

Call it "penalizing excellence":
Honor Gallery members would have the mandatory privilege of revealing their

Otherwise its just meaningless egomania - elitist crap - very similar to what's
killing world economy. A few with exclusionary mentality, spoiling it for
everyone else, not sharing the wealth; which is info/data in the Information
Age, as in examples for improvement and growth of all. Those on a superiority
trip only prove their inferiority. FOR ALL or #^(% *#@$. IMHO

regards,
aQ


> Honor Gallery members would have their images for new rounds prominently
> displayed with the opportunity for viewers to comment and would have full
> voting privileges, but their images would not be voted on.  No one would be
> compelled to accept an Honor Gallery invitation, so any individual who finds
> the competitive aspect of the event an essential part of his or her experience
> would be free to participate as a normal entrant.
>
> In this way, the message to highly talented participants would be "You've made
> it to the top and have nothing more to prove," rather than "You're too good so
> we don't want you."
>
> It's just an idea.  Feedback is welcomed.
>
> Best Regards,
> Mike C.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 03:08:25 EDT, "alphaQuad" <alp### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:


>when I was looking at the IRTC, "ok great, where's the beef (code)?"
>
>Call it "penalizing excellence":
>Honor Gallery members would have the mandatory privilege of revealing their

>Otherwise its just meaningless egomania - elitist crap - very similar to what's
>killing world economy. A few with exclusionary mentality, spoiling it for
>everyone else, not sharing the wealth; which is info/data in the Information
>Age, as in examples for improvement and growth of all. Those on a superiority
>trip only prove their inferiority. FOR ALL or #^(% *#@$. IMHO
>
>regards,
>aQ

Do you really think the code is what makes a good image?  If so, you're quite naive. 
Plus, I imagine that most would share with you if you asked politely.  Since when is
something that is mandated a
privilege?  Yeah right.

Take your off-topic ranting elsewhere.  It's really not wanted here.  Sorry.

Post a reply to this message