Is there a reason why the voting is not in the same manner as in the
stills? An "If you do not vote you lose" could be added. Why the
unidentified voters in the open competition?

Post a reply to this message

"simian" <sim### [at] localhostlocaldomain> wrote in message
news:3ec4b16e$1@news.povray.org...
> Is there a reason why the voting is not in the same manner as in the
> stills?

I'm not sure what you mean, the voting system is exactly the same as the stills.

> An "If you do not vote you lose" could be added.

I think that would be grossly unfair, particularly if there's a lot of entries
to the competition. I was up til 6am last night trying to complete my votes for
the last stills round, because I'd been too busy to vote until until then! I can
completely understand if people can't find the time to vote.

> Why the unidentified voters in the open competition?

The same reason most votes are anonymous: you shouldn't feel pressured to vote a
certain way by the fact that people will see how you voted, so anonymous votes
get a more honest opinion.

--
Tek
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 17 May 2003 13:20:06 -0400, Tek wrote:

>> Why the unidentified voters in the open competition?
> 
> The same reason most votes are anonymous: you shouldn't feel pressured
> to vote a certain way by the fact that people will see how you voted, so
> anonymous votes get a more honest opinion.

	I see those red things of an award winner running back and forth and I
read a comment on something not in the animation. I have seen that sort of
thing in canned reviews of scenes which did not appear in Hollywood
movies. That is an absolute indicators of a fake review if not
competition.

	Also the second worst is not the second worst by a long shot. It has
problems up the ying-yang but it is not the second worst.

	The winner of the "technical" award shows nothing new and far from
it in the running for it.

	The theme was journey described as the journey being something more than
just traveling but the 1st place winner is only traveling which is 0 on
exposition of the theme.

	If you got into the archives you find people were winning stills who
should not have and it was corrected by registered participants being the
only voters.

Post a reply to this message

So... you're saying I won through an elaborate conspiracy?

I think you're reading too much into this. Almost without exception I disagree
with most of the results in every round, certainly I usually disagree with who
won. But that's inevitable, if you ask 100 people what their favourite thing is
they'll all say different things, but if you ask them to all rate how much they
like things then the one that comes top is likely to be one that everybody
thinks is okay, but which nobody really feels passionate about.

I don't think it matters how we handle the voting system, you'd still disagree
with it quite often, unless you're very dull. Everybody likes different things,
that's what makes life interesting.

--
Tek
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com

"simian" <sim### [at] localhostlocaldomain> wrote in message
news:3ec75c3d$1@news.povray.org...
> On Sat, 17 May 2003 13:20:06 -0400, Tek wrote:
>
> >> Why the unidentified voters in the open competition?
> >
> > The same reason most votes are anonymous: you shouldn't feel pressured
> > to vote a certain way by the fact that people will see how you voted, so
> > anonymous votes get a more honest opinion.
>
> I see those red things of an award winner running back and forth and I
> read a comment on something not in the animation. I have seen that sort of
> thing in canned reviews of scenes which did not appear in Hollywood
> movies. That is an absolute indicators of a fake review if not
> competition.
>
> Also the second worst is not the second worst by a long shot. It has
> problems up the ying-yang but it is not the second worst.
>
> The winner of the "technical" award shows nothing new and far from
> it in the running for it.
>
> The theme was journey described as the journey being something more than
> just traveling but the 1st place winner is only traveling which is 0 on
> exposition of the theme.
>
> If you got into the archives you find people were winning stills who
> should not have and it was corrected by registered participants being the
> only voters.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 18 May 2003 08:22:02 -0400, Tek wrote:

> So... you're saying I won through an elaborate conspiracy?
> 

	I don't know from conspiracies. 

	I ran across some discussion on the website that prior to the
current system on stills that they current system was adopted because of
images that should not have won were winning.

	So I only note there has been a problem which can be construed as a
conspiracy.

Post a reply to this message

simian wrote:
> 
> I ran across some discussion on the website that prior to the
> current system on stills that they current system was adopted because
> of images that should not have won were winning.
> 
> So I only note there has been a problem which can be construed as a
> conspiracy.

The old voting system allowed anyone to vote.  The people who wanted
prizes for crap took the old Chicago slogan "Vote early--vote often."
They voted for themselves multiple times.  Crap won.  The administrators
instituted registration.  There was no conspiracy.

Regards,
John

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 19 May 2003 14:06:37 -0400, John VanSickle wrote:

> simian wrote:
>> 
>> I ran across some discussion on the website that prior to the current
>> system on stills that they current system was adopted because of images
>> that should not have won were winning.
>> 
>> So I only note there has been a problem which can be construed as a
>> conspiracy.
> 
> The old voting system allowed anyone to vote.  The people who wanted
> prizes for crap took the old Chicago slogan "Vote early--vote often."
> They voted for themselves multiple times.  Crap won.  The administrators
> instituted registration.  There was no conspiracy.

	I can live with that. 

	But I still can't understand who would consider something on the order
of an local electric company commercial better titled "Electricity and
Me" for school children to have merit as an animation. There was a winner
from a ways back doing the same as that but following a rolling ball down
a complex roller coaster. That was good. This one is nothing in
comparison. I don't see how it happened to win anything if it was judged
as an animation. It did not grow in the journey. It is a Reddy Kilowatt
commercial in a fancy setting. 

	The judging criteria is not apparent given the winners or the ranking
simply on the grounds of the theme, journey as a journey not just getting
there, and as animation. 

	C'est la Vie.

Post a reply to this message

I have to say I completely disagree with you. For example the entry in second
place shows a journey both literally and metaphorically. Besides which concept
is only 1/3rd of the judging criteria, technical merit seems to have been judged
fairly IMHO, and artistic merit is highly subjective so inevitably you may
disagree with the marks in that area.

I felt that electrical one was a very clever idea for an animation, executed
fairly well but with a few technical flaws. It's a good interpretation of the
topic because it's very different to what I usually would think of as a journey.

And finally, I'm fairly sure the phrase "something more than just traveling"
comes from the IRTC's suggested meaning of the topic. As I understand the rules
there's no need to stick to that, so long as it still fits the title of the
topic. Obviously an animation that shows no interpretation of the topic would
get a lower concept mark, but I think all of the winning entries portray
something other than a simple everyday passage from A to B.

--
Tek
http://www.evilsuperbrain.com


"simian" <sim### [at] localhostlocaldomain> wrote in message
news:3ecf1965@news.povray.org...
> On Mon, 19 May 2003 14:06:37 -0400, John VanSickle wrote:
>
> > simian wrote:
> >>
> >> I ran across some discussion on the website that prior to the current
> >> system on stills that they current system was adopted because of images
> >> that should not have won were winning.
> >>
> >> So I only note there has been a problem which can be construed as a
> >> conspiracy.
> >
> > The old voting system allowed anyone to vote.  The people who wanted
> > prizes for crap took the old Chicago slogan "Vote early--vote often."
> > They voted for themselves multiple times.  Crap won.  The administrators
> > instituted registration.  There was no conspiracy.
>
> I can live with that.
>
> But I still can't understand who would consider something on the order
> of an local electric company commercial better titled "Electricity and
> Me" for school children to have merit as an animation. There was a winner
> from a ways back doing the same as that but following a rolling ball down
> a complex roller coaster. That was good. This one is nothing in
> comparison. I don't see how it happened to win anything if it was judged
> as an animation. It did not grow in the journey. It is a Reddy Kilowatt
> commercial in a fancy setting.
>
> The judging criteria is not apparent given the winners or the ranking
> simply on the grounds of the theme, journey as a journey not just getting
> there, and as animation.
>
> C'est la Vie.

Post a reply to this message

Tek wrote:
> So... you're saying I won through an elaborate conspiracy?

Yes.  Being a junior IRTC admin wannabe in training, i will go completely
off the record and say that the votes are carefully collected, counted,
and then the Supreme Council installs the Republican entrant as the winner.

> I don't think it matters how we handle the voting system, you'd still disagree
> with it quite often, unless you're very dull. Everybody likes different things,
> that's what makes life interesting.

I'm always amazed when my votes line up with the results.
dik

Post a reply to this message