On 14/08/2013 10:56 PM, Shay wrote:
> When Steve started the tc-rtc, I suggested he go to a single-score system.
> Steve chose to keep the three-score system, and, with apologies to my dear,
> departed friend, THAT SUCKS. Why does it suck?

I had a few discussions with him too, a few over pints. :-) I thought 
that a weighting system might be more fair. Possibly because I too like 
to push the boundaries and not be obvious. But he wanted to keep it as 
similar to the IRTC competitions as possible. But now that Thomas and I 
have the site developer's attention. The scoring is up for discussion.
Personally, I think that Technical is suspect too. I mean how can you 
tell and why is it important?

> Well, back when this round

[snip]

> We won't see them because people have learned that "stressed topics" are instantly
> dismissed.
>

Shame that. :-(

> I can't change how people vote--I'm certain I'll be "dinged" for
> concept--but I can enter a "losing" entry anyway and at least take part.

My thoughts on all my entries.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

My comment about hitting the topic was more intended as an observation and not
really as criticism.

As for the "golf" topic, my first thought was a car, and not Tiger Woods;-) But
this may be biased being German.

And for the voting. You have only small influence with your work. People does
not ever look at the pictures and try a fair vote. Sometimes they like you,
sometimes they dislike you and vote you down. My lowest voting for my "Ariadnes
Garden" picture was 5,5,5. I didn't missed the topic but I used an image
designed for an earlier round (and admited that), which seems to be an
unforgivable thing to some persons.
In this case I can accept the artistic and concept vote, but not the technical
one, having used occlusion map baking, splines to create the general shape of
the creatian labyrinth and to have the grass down where the ball was moved. And
a lot of other things. More work in this one than in other ones I did. But
technically only 5 for one voter. One has to accept that.

Best regards,
Michael

Post a reply to this message

On 15/08/2013 8:07 PM, MichaelJF wrote:
> My comment about hitting the topic was more intended as an observation and not
> really as criticism.
>


I know but it is one of the things that niggle me. I think that the 
voting categories are outdated fine for when the IRTC started but the 
technical one does not make sense to me nowadays.

> As for the "golf" topic, my first thought was a car, and not Tiger Woods;-) But
> this may be biased being German.
>

For me golf is a good walk ruined. ;-)

> And for the voting. You have only small influence with your work. People does
> not ever look at the pictures and try a fair vote. Sometimes they like you,
> sometimes they dislike you and vote you down. My lowest voting for my "Ariadnes
> Garden" picture was 5,5,5. I didn't missed the topic but I used an image
> designed for an earlier round (and admited that), which seems to be an
> unforgivable thing to some persons.

Well you are not alone, I once got 3-3-3.  There is one member, who 
entered the IRTC as well. Often gave those sort of scores to images he 
found displeasing.

> In this case I can accept the artistic and concept vote, but not the technical
> one, having used occlusion map baking, splines to create the general shape of
> the creatian labyrinth and to have the grass down where the ball was moved. And
> a lot of other things.

That is what I mean. Other than detailing what you have done and leaving 
it up to the voter to understand the difficulty. It won't be credited. 
As far as I know, occlusion map baking may be easy to do and a bit of a 
cheat. I've never tried to use it. So how can I, or anyone like me, give 
an informed vote?

> More work in this one than in other ones I did. But
> technically only 5 for one voter. One has to accept that.


Accept what? That he is an idiot or a spoiler?
Long ago I realised that when someone disagreed with me on artistic 
matters. It did not mean that I was wrong and generally meant that they 
only had a superficial understanding of the subject or they were just a 
blowhard. ;-)


-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> On 15/08/2013 8:07 PM, MichaelJF wrote:
> > My comment about hitting the topic was more intended as an observation and not
> > really as criticism.
> >
>
>
> I know but it is one of the things that niggle me. I think that the
> voting categories are outdated fine for when the IRTC started but the
> technical one does not make sense to me nowadays.
>
> > As for the "golf" topic, my first thought was a car, and not Tiger Woods;-) But
> > this may be biased being German.
> >
>
> For me golf is a good walk ruined. ;-)
>
> > And for the voting. You have only small influence with your work. People does
> > not ever look at the pictures and try a fair vote. Sometimes they like you,
> > sometimes they dislike you and vote you down. My lowest voting for my "Ariadnes
> > Garden" picture was 5,5,5. I didn't missed the topic but I used an image
> > designed for an earlier round (and admited that), which seems to be an
> > unforgivable thing to some persons.
>
> Well you are not alone, I once got 3-3-3.  There is one member, who
> entered the IRTC as well. Often gave those sort of scores to images he
> found displeasing.
>
> > In this case I can accept the artistic and concept vote, but not the technical
> > one, having used occlusion map baking, splines to create the general shape of
> > the creatian labyrinth and to have the grass down where the ball was moved. And
> > a lot of other things.
>
> That is what I mean. Other than detailing what you have done and leaving
> it up to the voter to understand the difficulty. It won't be credited.
> As far as I know, occlusion map baking may be easy to do and a bit of a
> cheat. I've never tried to use it. So how can I, or anyone like me, give
> an informed vote?
>
> > More work in this one than in other ones I did. But
> > technically only 5 for one voter. One has to accept that.
>
>
> Accept what? That he is an idiot or a spoiler?
> Long ago I realised that when someone disagreed with me on artistic
> matters. It did not mean that I was wrong and generally meant that they
> only had a superficial understanding of the subject or they were just a
> blowhard. ;-)
>
>
> --
> Regards
>      Stephen

Yes, I know. We had a discussion about the technical score at the TC forum
resulting in that it should not be deleted. My personal opion has not changed.
With TC RTC all other systems to generate CG are accepted and a comparison of
technical difficulties is not possible. Ives uses Autodesk software, Normand has
it's own Java Open GL software and you cannot judge their technical
difficulties. So the technical score should go IMO.

To address the "not meeting the topic" issuue: my rubber duck image contains a
certain element of geologe called "water" ;-) No, I will not have it into the
contest. But my wife will have a cup with the inscription of "Mom is the best"
or something like that. So I may open an account at Zazzle next days.

Best regards,
Michael

Post a reply to this message

On 16/08/2013 6:45 PM, MichaelJF wrote:
> Yes, I know. We had a discussion about the technical score at the TC forum
> resulting in that it should not be deleted. My personal opion has not changed.
> With TC RTC all other systems to generate CG are accepted and a comparison of
> technical difficulties is not possible. Ives uses Autodesk software, Normand has
> it's own Java Open GL software and you cannot judge their technical
> difficulties. So the technical score should go IMO.
>

Let's leave that discussion for later. We are testing some changes to 
the site, just now. It looks like we will be able to run two Challenges 
at the same time. And we will be able to set our own start and end 
dates. Nor will we be limited to the list of book titles in the "vote 
for the next topic". Once we have the mechanics sorted out we can look 
t0wards fixing some other things.

> To address the "not meeting the topic" issuue: my rubber duck image contains a
> certain element of geologe called "water";-)  No, I will not have it into the
> contest.

You could upload it to the Animation section to help test. The Animation 
section will soon be the new Challenge 2 Stills section.
Be aware that the section is being tested and may close and reopen as 
another contest.

> But my wife will have a cup with the inscription of "Mom is the best"
> or something like that. So I may open an account at Zazzle next days

It is a great image, a happy image.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> You could upload it to the Animation section to help test. The Animation
> section will soon be the new Challenge 2 Stills section.
> Be aware that the section is being tested and may close and reopen as
> another contest.

What is the deadline for that? I just started a new rendering of my rubber ducks
with focal blur which will take a bit longer I fear. I noticed that only you has
uploaded a test image so far.

Best regards,
Michael

Post a reply to this message

On 17/08/2013 6:32 PM, MichaelJF wrote:
> What is the deadline for that? I just started a new rendering of my rubber ducks
> with focal blur which will take a bit longer I fear.

When would you like it to be? I've set the "End of upload" for the end 
of this month.

>I noticed that only you has uploaded a test image so far.

No one else knows about it, that is why. ;-)

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
> On 17/08/2013 6:32 PM, MichaelJF wrote:
> > What is the deadline for that? I just started a new rendering of my rubber ducks
> > with focal blur which will take a bit longer I fear.
>
> When would you like it to be? I've set the "End of upload" for the end
> of this month.
>
That should prove no problem.

Thanks,
Michael

Post a reply to this message

Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:

> Well you are not alone, I once got 3-3-3.  There is one member, who
> entered the IRTC as well. Often gave those sort of scores to images he
> found displeasing.
>

Care to give a hint who that member is?

I went back and looked at the scores of the past few rounds to get a good idea
of an average score (for what it's worth, 12-12.5). The worst I saw was a Topic
score of 2 for Iron Lady in the Woman round. I assume this was a political
remark.

Maybe you should give every voter an average of what he gave the other images.
Might slow some of that down. Heck, you might be better off just giving the win
to whoever posts the most comments.

As far as Technical, you're right, I don't understand what TDG does with his
many programs, and most current POVvers don't understand what goes in to
hand-coding.

Quickie image creators want to see quickie-image posts, masochists want to see
other masochists' posts, and either group will find justifications for
dismissing the other. No changing that. I expect a 5 or worse for Topic and
(even after >100 hours of work) wouldn't be surprised to receive the same for
Technical.

Post a reply to this message

On 18/08/2013 11:26 PM, Shay wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>
>> Well you are not alone, I once got 3-3-3.  There is one member, who
>> entered the IRTC as well. Often gave those sort of scores to images he
>> found displeasing.
>>
>
> Care to give a hint who that member is?

No, not really. ;-)

It is not, IMO, the right thing to do.

>
> I went back and looked at the scores of the past few rounds to get a good idea
> of an average score (for what it's worth, 12-12.5). The worst I saw was a Topic
> score of 2 for Iron Lady in the Woman round. I assume this was a political
> remark.
>

Well, I started to mirror his scoring to me, to him and I think that 
worked. Especially after I became Admin of the site. :-)

> Maybe you should give every voter an average of what he gave the other images.
> Might slow some of that down. Heck, you might be better off just giving the win
> to whoever posts the most comments.
>

Now that is a very good idea but would be hard to implement, fairly.

> As far as Technical, you're right, I don't understand what TDG does with his
> many programs, and most current POVvers don't understand what goes in to
> hand-coding.
>

Yeah, both Thomas and I agree that a "one score for all" would be 
better. That, I hope, will come soon. First we want to get the second 
Challenge up and running then we can fine tune everything.

> Quickie image creators want to see quickie-image posts, masochists want to see
> other masochists' posts, and either group will find justifications for
> dismissing the other. No changing that.

How true but when we get a second Challenge up and running (which should 
be very soon) we can cater for both.

> I expect a 5 or worse for Topic and
> (even after >100 hours of work) wouldn't be surprised to receive the same for
> Technical.
>
There is no pleasing some folk. I promise that I will give you a bit 
more than 5 for both. Although I'm not sure about "on topic". :-P

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message