Dan Connelly wrote:
> 
> Greg M. Johnson wrote:
> 
> > In my voting, I've also found myself thinking, "I don't care how good
> > this one is; I don't think it should win," or, "I don't want to lose to
> > THIS entry." Is this contrary to the spirit of the IRTC?  For example, I
> > thought I'd much rather lose to 'Pool Shark' than 'Canyon', and so gave
> > 'Pool Shark' near 20-20-20's. I suppose this philosophy could be taken
> > to an unethical extreme, in giving everyone else's entry a 1-1-1. I'm
> > certainly not doing that.
> 
> I find this very discouraging, as by so doing you are unfairly weighting your
> vote.  I will struggle on choosing a correct distribution of points,
> but by tossing around 20's, you thus make my votes, in which contestants
> differ by a few points, of trivial relative significance.
> 
> Votes need to justify themselves.  If A scores higher than B in
> category C, it is because A is better than B in C, not because one
> had a generally good feeling for A overall.  Was Pool Shark an all-
> time ground-breaking masterpiece in all three areas?  If so, the 20-
> 20-20 is justified.  But please don't "stuff the ballot box" to
> assert your own general preference, indepent of the point
> categorization system.

What I did on the last round was to rank the animations in each
category, which involves watching each of them a lot, one after the
other, to decided which of the ones was more technically precise,
artistic, better-conceived, etc, than the others.  There were 13 of
them in the last round (I think), so I ranked each of them from one to
13.  I then awarded points based directly on the ranking (last place
got four points, first place got 16).

The IRTC administrators might want to impose a kind of ranking scheme
in each category, so that someone won't give straight ones to every
animation but his own.

Your mileage may vary.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message