On 21-6-2009 2:01, clipka wrote:
> Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote:
>>> I honestly don't give a pair
>>> of dingo's kidneys about what the rules will ultimately be
>> Don't beat about the bush, Christoph. What do you really think? :-)
> 
> Exactly what I already wrote: That this whole rules-details discussion is
> unsuited to obtain a common-sense driven atmosphere in the IRTC.
> 
> So I see not the slightest sense in me adding even more to that details
> discussion.
> 
> I'm sure there is a common consensus that we don't want the IRTC to be an
> absolute "purist" competition (*), nor do we want it to be a generic digital
> arts competition. We want it to be a 3D rendering competition (**).
> 
> Whatever actual wording is chosen, it will not be able to do this common
> consensus full justice. So just pick *some* wording, and instead of trying to
> make it airtight, allow some room for people to breathe, so they can *live*
> that "common-sense consensus".

Isn't it as simple as every entry having to explain exactly what 
programs and steps were used for creating the image and let the 
community take that into account when rating an entry?

I agree that it is impossible to define exact rules and that not only 
there will be different interpretations now but that in 5 years time 
people will not even agree with their current opinion. So in stead of 
trying to fix the rules now and inviting people to find examples of 
false positives and false negatives, formulate broad and let the 
community decide.

Post a reply to this message