At 11/11/06 11:18 AM, MaestroRage wrote: we debate now so we don't have to debate later

First of all, Thanks MaestroRage, (check your PM's) let's continue to work towards a better system.

And yes, I think that we need to do this now - it would be better to argue about how the judging will work and to try to establish an acceptable solution before we start the next MAC.

So far, MaestroRage has sent comments to me and if anyone else wants a say in how the MAC will work, then now would be a great time to be heard. If you sit back and say nothing now, then you shouldn't complain later on if things happen that you decide you don't agree
with.

hear hear

Did you read my post, LJ?

In fact, did anyone? I love a debate, and part of a debate is responding to posts that are at least meant to be profound - thanks.

At 11/11/06 12:02 PM, WinTang wrote: Did you read my post, LJ?

Are you talking about the one on this page?

At 11/10/06 08:26 PM, WinTang wrote: I wasn't sure how top-secret the system was supposed to be
Something seems odd about weighing in the Overall score,

^^^ That one??

Yes, I read it - and I think I might have started to respond - I know that I sent off a few PM's concerning a MAC judging rework...

Part of some of the new ideas are to completely rehash the attributes used during judging.

To be honest, I took the easy way out and based the whole thing on the familiar AP review attributes...

Obviously, we would need an overall score of some sort but I'm not really sure what else is needed, if anything else at all...

I like the idea you had about allowing judges to assign weight on their own - technically it's a great idea and would be pretty cool to do but in practice, I think it might only lead to even more variation in the scores...

Hmmm....

of course, I think we can all agree changes must be made, and i'm quite sure we're close to a breakthrough, and there is no doubt because of a system change there may be some turmoil initially. So the sooner we try it out, the better it will be.

I didn't bother reading most of this thread cuz that would be like... work

so stop me if this has been discussed already

Have you guys established what exactly yuo are jusdging audio on or are your votes just an overall vote?

I would think you would have set things you are all looking for like composition, technical skill, originality, overall feeling and relevance (to the current month's contest theme). Give it like a 1-10 score for each and take those score to get an average number that is used for the overall score

That would result in great songs getting decent scores, but if they aren't as relevant to the theme it would hurt their overall average, so you can speak to all the points and be a lot clearer on why you vote the way you do.

I noticed a lot of confusion from people when I DJ'd as to why songs that were pretty professional ranked as low as they did. It would be cool when presenting the winners to say... this guy got a 9.78 outta 10 on <insert category here>, but he only got a 2.33 on <some other category>. Being able to speak to that would definately kill some of the speculation, and give the overall votes more power rather than looking for individual judges to get pissed at.

At 11/11/06 02:44 PM, LJCoffee wrote: Are you talking about the one on this page?
^^^ That one??

That's the one!
But the post I made about my view on judging hasn't really got any responses either, not even when I specifically asked for them - that's annoying, because my scores were obviously a big factor in this whole controverse.

Yes, I read it - and I think I might have started to respond - I know that I sent off a few PM's concerning a MAC judging rework...

Nope, no such PM received - I would really like to be involved though.

Part of some of the new ideas are to completely rehash the attributes used during judging.

To be honest, I took the easy way out and based the whole thing on the familiar AP review attributes...

Obviously, we would need an overall score of some sort but I'm not really sure what else is needed, if anything else at all...

I would like to think along with that, so that we may come up with some categories that are all more or less important, "more or less" would then be defined by personal taste of the judges, as in my example of the diverse MIDI.

I like the idea you had about allowing judges to assign weight on their own - technically it's a great idea and would be pretty cool to do but in practice, I think it might only lead to even more variation in the scores...

That I doubt, because in order for that to work judges will have to be more strict. Which I think they should, and that's why I was a bit disappointed that no one was willing to share how strict they think the judging should be. Am I being silly or is the variation in this MAC's score mainly due to variation in lenience?
So if we come close enough to nullifying the variation in lenience, any other variation will be based on variation within the song.
I think that DavidOrr has managed to make a song that scores above average to high in every category I could come up with, so he would still have probably won or at least scored high "overall".
More opinions please!

Hmmm....

Hmmm indeed :)

T_T sex with men..?? T_T mispronouncing my name T_T I liked the review and the play though... T_T
(lol thanks ya’ll)

Hey, I didn't do too badly after all! Sorry if anyone missed my wacky yet imemorabe antics,my cable has been cut off which means no internets, boo! Seems the contest was a complete success, and special congrats to DavidOrr, you rock (well, jingle?)!

you mispronounced my name! >:(

its not skic-rod
its spyk-rodd

and mamberiences is mam-bur-ee-en-ces