Summer 2020 Competition Poll

I don't really know what happened to the steam of this idea, but since I moderate the competitions section, let's just start a poll so we can get everyone on board ASAP! I figured we should keep it theme based this time for participation.

Because the nature of these topics are so personal, it'd be great to have more judges this time around, since it's less technical! 

59 minutes ago, Monarcheon said:

I don't really know what happened to the steam of this idea, but since I moderate the competitions section, let's just start a poll so we can get everyone on board ASAP! I figured we should keep it theme based this time for participation.

 

Would an introspection piece be good if the "phobias" topic wins? Like show my dark psychological facet (depression, anxiety, aphaty, dichotomic thoughts, etc.). I guess it would work well because it is what I fear of myself.

Thanks for organizing this. I would be happy to judge if that is desired.

I'll judge, too.

Nice work, Monarcheon! (been unexpectedly busy)

I'm glad there's an interest in judges, I'd like to COMPETE

Most of the topics leave people vulnerable to derisive comment from some members. It would have been nice to include something impersonal.

Plus throwing judgement open to all members by vote.

3 hours ago, Quinn said:

Most of the topics leave people vulnerable to derisive comment from some members. It would have been nice to include something impersonal.

Plus throwing judgement open to all members by vote.

Oh, I do agree with this. Let's pick a topic, work out a deadline for submission, then let the audience vote on our anonymous compositions.

Interesting @Quinn, @Tónskáld. How might we feel about a 50/50 weight (or some other ratio) of member judgment and judge criteria, just so members keep the ability to get feedback?

2 hours ago, Monarcheon said:

Interesting @Quinn, @Tónskáld. How might we feel about a 50/50 weight (or some other ratio) of member judgment and judge criteria, just so members keep the ability to get feedback?

That would be ideal!

3 hours ago, Monarcheon said:

Interesting @Quinn, @Tónskáld. How might we feel about a 50/50 weight (or some other ratio) of member judgment and judge criteria, just so members keep the ability to get feedback?

 

Yes, this is a great idea.

Would the entrants be free to vote on each other's works?

Edited May 30, 20205 yr by Noah Brode

I'm currently developing a system of several tiered rankings for all members (though this is heavily subject to change based on viability), to be converted into a point percentage. Don't worry, I'll definitely run it through the tester and get it reviewed.

I'm in for whatever role is most needed, judge or composer

TO ALL INTERESTED APPLICANTS: This is a proposed version of the quick grading system for entrants to rate other entrants. Competitors will be required to rate a piece out of 5, the results of which will be tallied. Your total member score will be divided by the maximum total points you could have received (in the below case, 25), to determine a percentage. That percentage would then be multiplied by 50 (the maximum judge score to make the total /100), and would be added to the average judge score to determine your total score. Thoughts or concerns?

I like it, seems simple.

Here's a suggestion: would it be easier if "voters" picked their top 5 and designated 5 points to their favorite, 4 to the next, and so forth? (It doesn't have to be 5 points, but you catch my drift.)

3 minutes ago, Tónskáld said:

I like it, seems simple.

Here's a suggestion: would it be easier if "voters" picked their top 5 and designated 5 points to their favorite, 4 to the next, and so forth? (It doesn't have to be 5 points, but you catch my drift.)

 

I tested this example. It does work, technically. However:

A. It relies on having a lot of participants to make the percentages mean something.

B. It's far easier to have disparities in score that don't accurately represent perceived quality if such a resource is limited.

Just now, Monarcheon said:

I tested this example. It does work, technically. However:

A. It relies on having a lot of participants to make the percentages mean something.

B. It's far easier to have disparities in score that don't accurately represent perceived quality if such a resource is limited.

Yes, that's true.

What if we opened up the voting to the entire forum and separated the voters' points from the judges'? I'm fine with having a "people's choice" award in addition to a "critic's award."

I suppose it's possible. I would personally prefer it to be unified, but will keep the conversation open for a bit while I write up the rules.

Just now, Monarcheon said:

I suppose it's possible. I would personally prefer it to be unified, but will keep the conversation open for a bit while I write up the rules.

Yeah, it does seem silly to have both. We could, though, just have the judges provide comments and not evaluate it for points. In any case, I'd definitely keep the convo open to hear others' opinions.

Why not just ask members to vote if they want to, then tally the vote. Make sure they give some kind of feedback on the piece they vote for so some kind of text more than say 15 characters is necessary to get the vote through. Giving feedback on all works might be a big ask if, say, 30 people compete.

Judge? What is there to judge - aside from whether the listener thinks a given work is the winner?

(With my own work, on the rather too few (!) occasions it's been put before the public, I take the selection as judgement 1, then what the audience think or if they say nothing, that's judgement 2. I don't prompt a response!)

What if we made it a straight-up vote between the submitted pieces among all members -- but then just awarded something like 15 bonus points (or whatever amount we see fit) to the winner's judged score, 10 to second place, 5 to third, etc.? Or some variation on this idea, where the popular vote is more of an addendum to the judged score.

If you want to have it be mostly or purely participant based voting on each other, I get that. That being the case, though, I'm not going to require judges give the lengthy feedback since it's not going to be worth the time to go that in depth with the piece if it's not at least somewhat affective. It'll just basically be having participants give a comment's worth on 8+ pieces. Which definitely can work, I'll stress. But it's different depending on your value through all this.

I am personally leaning toward wanting the judges having a greater weight in the final scores, and the popular vote have having a smaller weight (but still counting for something). If people want the scoring system to be purely based on the popular vote, though, then I'd say there's not really any need to have judges at all -- maybe just an organizer? -- since their fellow contestants and other members would be, in effect, their judges. It would be a shame to ask anyone to go through all the work of being a judge for so many pieces if their detailed feedback would have little or no impact on the outcome of the competition as a whole. 

In other words, I'd like to be a judge (I've got a lot of other stuff I'm composing right now), but I think it would be kind of crazy to have a panel of judges who don't have any effect on the actual competition at all. I would also be happy to be the "organizer" if that is the direction we'd like to go. 

Ah, a clash of values. I don't think we can reasonably reconcile these with this competition. Perhaps we do this competition the old-fashioned way (scored by a judge), and we do another "peoples' choice" competition later. Or vice versa—do the PC competition this time and the judged one next time.

14 minutes ago, Noah Brode said:

I am personally leaning toward wanting the judges having a greater weight in the final scores, and the popular vote have having a smaller weight (but still counting for something). If people want the scoring system to be purely based on the popular vote, though, then I'd say there's not really any need to have judges at all -- maybe just an organizer? -- since their fellow contestants and other members would be, in effect, their judges. It would be a shame to ask anyone to go through all the work of being a judge for so many pieces if their detailed feedback would have little or no impact on the outcome of the competition as a whole. 

In other words, I'd like to be a judge (I've got a lot of other stuff I'm composing right now), but I think it would be kind of crazy to have a panel of judges who don't have any effect on the actual competition at all. I would also be happy to be the "organizer" if that is the direction we'd like to go. 

 

I can change the weight of the people's influence by just changing the number that I multiply the ratio by. I just don't know what to make it. 

12 minutes ago, Tónskáld said:

Ah, a clash of values. I don't think we can reasonably reconcile these with this competition. Perhaps we do this competition the old-fashioned way (scored by a judge), and we do another "peoples' choice" competition later. Or vice versa—do the PC competition this time and the judged one next time.

Agreed to the first point, which is why I suggested equal influence, but can see where a traditional means might serve better. 

Anyone else?