Regarding the whole idea of teams, I pretty much agree 100% with SoundChris. I don't think anyone should feel outnumbered when going against a group. In the end they're still submitting one piece, and it will be judged just as evenly as any other submission. I would argue that collaborating on a track can, in a lot of cases, be even harder than working on your own. You need to adapt to the other person's workflow and somehow get different ideas from different minds working together, and this is coming from someone with some experience collaborating in the past!

@TroisNyx, I definitely see your point of the pressure that's relieved when you're in a team of two. I agree that it's a lot less stressful and intense. There are two primary reasons why we introduced teams in the first place:
1.) We want to promote collaboration within the community.
2.) We want to give people with tighter schedules the option to take part too.

On the second point in particular: This is a very long contest, spanning nearly half a year, and so much can happen in a time period as long as that. Some people could genuinely wish to take part in the contest but have a schedule during that time period that forces them to step down. Allowing teams gives those people an opportunity to take part, making the contest overall more accessible, which I personally think is a better quality to have for a community contest than utmost equality.

And remember, even as a solo participant you still have some freedom to get outside help. You can ask for feedback, get advice on techniques that might help your track, get a singer or instrument player, etc. There's also nothing stopping anyone from joining the competition with a team member. If someone feels like they're at a disadvantage entering on their own, then there's a wealth of other musicians here on this site who would jump at the opportunity of teaming up.

I hope that clears things up!

That has certainly cleared it up for me, @Step. But I don't see why individuals who have tight schedules and don't choose to work in groups have to get sidetracked as a result.

But as I've mentioned to you before, this is my last ADM, and I sure as hell won't be missed. I don't see what bearing my concerns have, at the end of the day -- though I did try to voice something out.

So much drama... Can't we all just get along?

Everyone is so bent out of shape about the scoring, no one seems to care about the experience anymore.

It's sad to see.

At 11/10/14 02:41 AM, SkyeWint wrote: [regarding reseeding] +100. Hey @step plz consider. That said, some points against it: People who make consistently good tracks will have an easy ride without the challenge and drama that the manual seeding brings. There's also the fact that the way it is gives more of a chance for people with serious talent to improve - they can work against people that are about on their level, and that keeps people from being demoralized. There's the idea of "I can win this!"

That said, reseeding the people after each round is what the system was before. The brackets made it so that people knew who they were going to be up against each round. ...though that does make it so the judges can't make cruelly ironic pairings, which can end up being quite entertaining sometimes.

I think reseeding every round will have its own share of drama. And they'll happen organically. There are the evenly matched middle brackets (e.g. the 8 vs 9 , 7 vs 10, etc). And of course once in a while an established musician may slip a little and squeak into the next round as an underseeded underdog, and get matched up against a buzzsaw.

You are right that a person who consistently put out great tracks will get to coast for a bit, but maybe that ends at top eight or at most top four. I mean, for instance, no matter how you pair up the final 8 this year, you really aren't getting a walkover battle, because we do have that much talent in this community. And I think that someone who consistently put out good tracks do deserve a place in top 8 :)

An even whackier idea (though much harder to implement) is to let people CHOOSE their opponent. Top scorer of last round get to pick any of the other winners as their opponent, then the highest scorer among the unmatched winners get to choose his/her opponent. So on and so forth, until everyone's been paired up. Again, this is just a very off-the-wall idea but I think it can lead to some great compeitition and/or USDA Prime personal beef.

At 11/10/14 05:44 AM, midimachine wrote: idea:

judges score using "standard deviations", with ±4 as a maximum for instance

so a song they think is just average is 0 (like a 7 in the current system), a song which is very bad (like a 2 or 3 currently) is -4 and a song which is absolutely amazing (9.9/10) is +4

advantages: no ceiling effect, better chance for normally distributed scores, strong positive and negative opinions weigh equally (in theory)

disadvantages: still subject to individual differences between how judges interpret the new metric. either that, or everyone needs to be briefed on how to "correctly" use the new scoring system which is a pain in the ass.

discuss.

I can see some pros with this... but then you'd get the ceiling effect anyway unless you rescale what the "0" means every round. I.e., if 0 means "an average submission among the round 1 entries" throughout, then as only the good people remain the scores will get pushed towards 3 and 4 at the end anyway. And if the judges rescale the 0 to make it an average submission THIS round every round, it's possible for a contestant to get a lower score in a subsequent round on a stronger submission, which could be discouraging/misleading.

p.s. strong opinions will always skew the average, especially if they disagree with the rest of the judges. tbh i don't know why people are complaining about weighting tho, like do you want all the judges to have the same opinion or something?

Reweighting doesn't punish judges with strong opinions. Every judge would just get the same TOTAL AMOUNT of influence -- he/she can choose to spread his/her influence over all tracks (e.g. scoring like a normal distribution), or place all his/her influence on one track (e.g. give n-1 great scores and one single crap score). These relative opinions will be preserved when their scores get reweighted, just that overall, no one judge will impact the outcome more than another after we align their deviations.

Finally, and again, it's the process that matters the most. No matter how the competition is structured, it'll ALWAYS skew towards some people more than others (heck, it's skewed towards good musicians for crying out loud XD). We can debate to death if these "bias" are justified and fair and what not, or we can try to be appreciative and get the most out of the process.

I'd like to weigh in a couple of thoughts on the contest. First, though, congrats to the winners. A lot of really awesome music and talent was presented and it was great to be a part of it this year. I hope to have the chance to try again next year!

Now on to some thoughts! I spent a lot of time thinking about how I do and how I should feel about being eliminated in the first round with the third highest score overall. The first place to put the blame is in the scoring, but in reality that wouldn't have changed the outcome very much. Even if my score had been .07 points higher and I moved on, then etherealwinds would have had the third highest score and been eliminated, and that's not fair either. This is a contest that draws out the highest caliber of musicians in the community, and eliminating so many competitors in one round runs a higher risk of upsetting outcomes. Of course, the same situation is still possible in one on one rounds, but it's much less likely. I do like the idea of the group round, because it requires more strategy and planning and listening to your opponents when there are three of them. I just think eliminating 3/4 of the musicians in one round was a bit much. And in the scope of the whole competition did it really shorten NGADM that much? It still ran 3+ months if you count the auditions.

To sum this whole spiel up: I think any changes made to the competition should be in the interest improving fairness to the participants, and, personally, I feel that running an elimination round out of the gate like that cost more in fairness than it saved in time.

Congratulations to the winners!

I must admit I was shocked at the final results.

But keep in mind, it's just Newgrounds, and the judgement process relies heavily on opinion.

And you know what they say about opinions.

Opinions are like NG user accounts. Everybody has one. (Who visits Newgrounds often).

This competition is like real life. Learn to lose even if you think you deserve to win, learn to win even if you think you are going to lose, don't act upset with either result or you look immature and unprofessional.
If you want to suggest improvements, start by being polite to the people who ran it (literally each organiser and judge spent days working behind the scenes to organise it, judge it, write up stuff), don't include personal complaints, "I feel it needs to change because this happened", this sounds like a complaint and not a suggestion.

Even then, you're lucky you get to. Step is a saint letting you criticise his and the other organiser's work after all they've put into this contest (saying "they" because I'm not including myself in this group despite being a judge in every round). You should recognise that too. While an improvement is always welcome, it also means you're criticising someone else's idea so be curteous and respectful in doing so.

This thread got a bit out of hand...

At 11/13/14 08:51 PM, MetalRenard wrote:

Even then, you're lucky you get to. Step is a saint letting you criticise his and the other organiser's work after all they've put into this contest (saying "they" because I'm not including myself in this group despite being a judge in every round). You should recognise that too. While an improvement is always welcome, it also means you're criticising someone else's idea so be curteous and respectful in doing so.

This thread got a bit out of hand...

Pretty sure that everyone is permitted to complain about whatever they please, and also, in whatever manner they please. Last time I checked Newgrounds is based out of the USA, where we have the freedom of speech. Everyone has the right to voice their opinion, just like you guys had the right to voice your opinions throughout the contest. Their opinion is no better/worse than that of the judges.

PS: Calling Step a Saint... Really... Talented, certainly. But easy there. I know that you are just kidding though.

Anyway, we all have the right to voice our opinions. Don't let em' scare you away. If you see discord, bring it to light. If things can be improved, then they can, and should be improved, provided that the messages are heard and can reach the individuals who can make it happen. Let it out!

Well.. a quick thought MetalRenard. When I went against Chris and Hito', I was pleased I lost due to the amount of work I had, that I respected both of their amazing talents, that I went up against two guys, not one, who produced a track much better than mine and most of all, Chris is a great guy that I was talking to while we competed. So I wasn't hurt in the slightest bit. In fact, I was a bit relieved and really pleased with the outcome. So please don't assume that peoples complaints on the structure are fueled due to not winning NGADM. They aren't. :)

Anyway, less complaining about people complaining.

My Idea:

I'm trying to think of ways to encourage equal judging and more fun overall. And my idea is a bit simpler than what we currently have.

My idea is you drop the scores entirely. Let me explain why. Because numbers are suggestive and calculative whereas music is subjective. The problem also with the current system is the judges individual weighting (which we've spoken about) and also the inner workings of scores. So a problem with working to a scoring sheet is when a track is weighted to a sound or type or composition and that overweighs a different part of the song. Subjectively you should be able to oversee composition over production or originality over production or vice versa, etc. But by clamping that to a percentage of your full score you can't. So the subjective nature is taken out of it.

So as I suggested drop the scores completely. You get an odd number of judges. All judges are given a sheet with suggestive criteria to listen to from the Lead judge. Like Sams sheet, maybe add overall impression to it, up to the lead judges (step/echo) imo. These are the areas which they may take into account when writing their review, but are not restricted by it. Judges then listen to the tracks without discussion amongst themselves (so they aren't influenced) and they make a simple decision on if they preferred Track A or Track B, give that to the lead judge. Simple as that. This takes the weighting right out of it as all judges have 1 vote, not a score. They are then tallied up. And the winner goes through. It's more in the spirit of a Death Match and maths is dropped apart from the final tally. People will see themselves up against another opponent instead of up against a mark out of 10 to see who gets a better mark. It could create some healthy competition and takes a lot of weight off the judges as they don't have to score people to justify their opinions. It also makes a bit of fun for the judges as they don't know what other judges are going to pick.

This comes to "how does the groups" work? Well, like the World Cup finals, at the start they have group stages. And they still have 1v1s. For us, you then get allocated 1 point, per judge vote. After all three rounds within the group the highest goes through. This gives people in the groups more of a chance to go into the quarter finals as they have three 1v1s to gain votes, not just one. With the no-maths judging procedure, judging these tracks are quicker too. If this becomes too long though, you can opt for a 64/32 person tournament.

This is a more true nature of a Death Match tournament, and you get a clear winner with nothing much to dispute. In addition It would be better if the judges didn't know who the tracks came from at all. That would epic! All those 1v1 tracks in a death match and no idea who you're scoring XD. Would make for good reason to try new things, and gives the participant more anonymity for impartiality. If they can't be uploaded anywhere else (dropbox, etc), or makes too much work for the lead judge then we can make do with NG's. Afterall the judges were fair, so even if it wasn't anonymous it would still work well.

Thoughts?

I always thought the scores are more for the musicians' benefit than the judges. Isn't it better for the competitors in the NGADM to know how they did in comparison to each other? The point of the competition is to grow and learn as musicians, and the specific scores let them know how well they did in relation to one another.

We've got these awesome people like etherealwinds, camoshark, gadogry, and more compiling these specific results into meticulous lists, which many have praised for being extremely helpful in understanding their position among other musicians. Scores are universal; you can compare yours with anyone else's to see what the judges thought of your piece compared to theirs. Dropping the scores would mean that you can only compare yours to your opponent's, and wouldn't have a good frame of reference if you wanted to see how you sized up with the rest of the competitors.

For example, if Contestant A and Contestant B were pit against each other and A would've scored 9.9 and B would've scored 9.8 in a regular round, the judges in a non-scoring scenario might all vote for A and leave B wondering what happened, even though B had a better song than everyone else in the competition. I just feel that any scoring system that the judges use should allow people to compare against all the other competitors, so that they won't be misinformed about their standings.

At 11/14/14 09:02 AM, LunacyEcho wrote: I always thought the scores are more for the musicians' benefit than the judges. Isn't it better for the competitors in the NGADM to know how they did in comparison to each other? The point of the competition is to grow and learn as musicians, and the specific scores let them know how well they did in relation to one another.

Not really, because you aren't scored compared to the other person. You're just scored. And then having that score isn't what will help you progress, the feedback, the information is.

We've got these awesome people like etherealwinds, camoshark, gadogry, and more compiling these specific results into meticulous lists, which many have praised for being extremely helpful in understanding their position among other musicians. Scores are universal; you can compare yours with anyone else's to see what the judges thought of your piece compared to theirs. Dropping the scores would mean that you can only compare yours to your opponent's, and wouldn't have a good frame of reference if you wanted to see how you sized up with the rest of the competitors.

But ultimately are they that helpful? you forget about scores, but you remember feedback more so. The point is to stop people thinking. Oh im only worth a 7/10 and start thinking these are my weak points. Let's fix 'em. Also, Midimachine said on my track "in retrospect, i was a little too harsh when i scored this a couple weeks ago." Which is completely fine. Because some days you would score something higher or lower, thats only natural. But it's an easier call to say I like A or B. Than think, what do I give this out of 100 (as they are giving percentages). So youre bound to get a better representation then.

For example, if Contestant A and Contestant B were pit against each other and A would've scored 9.9 and B would've scored 9.8 in a regular round, the judges in a non-scoring scenario might all vote for A and leave B wondering what happened, even though B had a better song than everyone else in the competition. I just feel that any scoring system that the judges use should allow people to compare against all the other competitors, so that they won't be misinformed about their standings.

That's because we're so used to the unbalanced scoring system currently. We have this mindset which we deserve a score when that doesn't equate an accurate death match approach. Even pro tracks you would never give 10/10, so why are we aiming for something we might never get? It's meant to be a versus not who can win the most points within criteria. I see what you mean, as people might get upset at the say 5 - 0 win. But it's very similar to how sports work, you win or lose. By how much doesnt make an impact. But the play and feedback is enough to improve the players. My point is, if they are going to win, do you want to squabble over by how much? Do you want to be categorized as number 40th good person in Newgrounds? These lists are nice to see from time to time but personally I don't remember my scores at all nor my ranks, and I doubt the people who lost do too. But I remember my feedback, and thats the point I'm trying to make. Having extras are always nice, and you could still have them for the group stages.

At 11/11/14 09:11 AM, Back-From-Purgatory wrote: So much drama... Can't we all just get along?

Everyone is so bent out of shape about the scoring, no one seems to care about the experience anymore.

It's sad to see.

This.

The NGADM offers such a wonderful experience. The advice the judges are willing to give for free is so beneficial. The challenges participants face only furthers the growth of all the participants. For those not participating, hundreds of brilliant new tracks are being created and the music portal becomes really active with some amazing songs.

Worrying and even arguing about things just takes away from all the good that this has to offer. The contest requires dedication which is in turn rewarded with self-improvement. It requires time which is rewarded with pride.

It's an injustice on the whole experience to let pettiness overshadow all the good that comes of this every year. It will bring the community together in a positive way - all we have to do is let it, not go against it.

Let this be an end to all the arguments and just be proud of one another for what we've all achieved. I know I'm proud of all of you! :)

Imo, and i will make myself more unpopular than i was already i suppose with this..

I have never seen any point in your music being judged here, i mean who really holds actual authority? Do all judges have absolute knowledge about musical theory and application? Even i with my thorough study of true classical masters, ratio physics and musical architecture, a life of extensive genre experience and a inner hearing since birth could not feel qualified enough to truly judge anyones music unless it was that of a complete amateur (but that would just be a thing of pointing out flaws), but we all know that hardly anyone of you people are.
Almost each and everyone of you in these ngadm's have in your own styles, genres and its work an expertise and grace to be proud of. How can you actually pit that against eachother and not expect to create tensions.
Maybe ngadm was never meant to be anything but lighthearted, but even the veign of judgement taunts us artists to disagree. Inherently everyone saying they dont care lies to keep the peace.

Maybe im rambling against the whole concept of a death match, i dont know.. its just how i feel about it and why i no longer compete in these. (beside having logical problems with deadlines) I just dont see any point in a war of (our individual) worlds.

edit:

Let me also add on here btw, i think a judgement based ordeal isnt right to begin with, perhaps it should change to a idea-sharing ordeal, where judges do not say what they feel could be better but simply what they feel it tells them, thats how i personally always review music, i emphasis on what i would feel or do, not how i think it should 'be. I know that would be hard to put into a 'score' like peter satera argues against, wich i also agree with. Yes, scoring should be abolished because its inconsistent but more importantly detached. We as composers are probably all sensitive people. You cant put a number on us or what we say with our music. Emphasis therefore should be on the music that has the most resonating story. And even then it would not bring any other's down.

Alright, gonna just sum up everything that's been said so far:

1. The scores you receive are objective measures of how good your song is, and how good of a person you are in general.
2. Teams are objectively better than single participants. That's why a team won this years' NGADM, after all. Also it's why the judges constantly put PirateCrab up against teams, he was just too good to go up against normal participants.
3. @SkyeWint is a pretty nice judge.

you guys are great

At 11/16/14 05:55 PM, johnfn wrote: Alright, gonna just sum up everything that's been said so far:

I was going to praise you for the witty commentary on what people were saying, AND THEN I SAW NUMBER THREE YOU ASS.

At 11/17/14 01:50 AM, SkyeWint wrote: YOU ASS.

oh uh. I think I forgot to say this. Don't worry. I still love you in a completely-not-homo-erotic way.

also I didn't get a birthday thread. sad days.

At 11/17/14 04:33 AM, SkyeWint wrote:

At 11/17/14 01:50 AM, SkyeWint wrote: YOU ASS.

oh uh. I think I forgot to say this. Don't worry. I still love you in a completely-not-homo-erotic way.

also I didn't get a birthday thread. sad days.

I would've made you a thread... but skype neglected to tell me it was your Bday.

I mean... You totally did get a thread... What are you crying about?

Huge Congrats to garlagan, SoundChris/Hitokirito, johnfn and PirateCrab.
Huge thanks to everyone that organized this. Been rather distracted lately, so I haven't posted much, but I followed the contest attentively.

Satera brings up a few good points. I particularly support a shift towards a smaller score range (most of those 10 points aren't used anyway). Don't think anyone should take the slightest offense to such observations, though, as their mere existence denotes good intent.

Cheers and once again, Bravo!

At 11/16/14 05:55 PM, johnfn wrote: 1. The scores you receive are objective measures of how good your song is, and how good of a person you are in general.

Wait what.

I hope you mean "how good of a composer you are in general," because if a number is going to be put against how good we are as persons in general (how we behave etc.), I think we might all be in for a nasty shock. Just sayin'. :P

2. Teams are objectively better than single participants. That's why a team won this years' NGADM, after all. Also it's why the judges constantly put PirateCrab up against teams, he was just too good to go up against normal participants.

That is precisely the trouble. What I was trying to convey all this while with my previous points was this:

Say A and B work in a team, as opposed to C who is a single participant. Both of them theoretically meet in the finals.

1) A and B are considered to be objectively better. This colours opinions already.

2.1) If A and B share the workload, then, even if they do not have as much of a workload as C, A and B are still sharing the entire contest together, putting themselves under the same constraints as an individual would, and showing themselves to be a team all throughout the contest. This, I can support.

2.2) If A and B worked in such a way that A did Round 1, B did Round 2 etc., we would have this unfair advantage -- C has only ONE WEEK OF RESPITE to the next round. A and B have THREE WEEKS EACH to wait for a round. A and B have conceivably more time to come up with a piece than C, which is a loophole that completely ignores the two-week rule. This is what I have noticed was happening.

This is what I have been trying to say all along. I respect people's opinions. However, what is turning me off the contest altogether is this: one response above has suggested that we're getting more people to participate, at the expense of fairness. This is not the way a competition is supposed to be.

Life's not fair, of course it isn't fair. But the phrase "life's not fair" is NEVER MEANT TO JUSTIFY ABUSE.

3. @SkyeWint is a pretty nice judge.

Agreed on all counts. Not only my experience with him in the 2012 ADM says this... but also the way he brings up points. I, on the other hand, am very impassioned, and in these matters, can't help myself.

you guys are great

Why thank you. <3

I do find the teams to be a bit unbalanced, you're taking potentially two individuals who are skilled and pitting them against a single. This also refers to the judges as they've pointed out that progression impacts on the way they vote. This then therefore allows teams to have more originality and everytime they submit. If your team balances from A to B to A again, then together AB in the final. That's a lot of varied sound. Whereas C will most likely have a niche.

It seems though this thread is drying up. Apart from a few comments, I didnt hear much opinion on my suggested change? Pointing out why you do, or why you dont think it's a good idea. There were a lot of new ideas in here. Are any going to be implemented?

At 11/18/14 08:39 AM, Troisnyx wrote:

I hope you mean "how good of a composer you are in general," because if a number is going to be put against how good we are as persons in general (how we behave etc.), I think we might all be in for a nasty shock. Just sayin'. :P

Say A and B work in a team, as opposed to C who is a single participant. Both of them theoretically meet in the finals.

2.2) If A and B worked in such a way that A did Round 1, B did Round 2 etc., we would have this unfair advantage

Ok ... i really waited quite a long time and were thinking a lot about all your comments until i finally react now. If you want to say my second round win was not justified then say it directly. I dont think you lost because you were up against a team. I was composing alone, i was composing within 2 days and i call that piece one of the best i have ever written...

You do forget that there are always 2 pieces of music which are compared. I would never have a problem composing against - does not matter how many composers since IMO that is not important. Like i said: Being a team also has got many disadvantages so i guess things are stil balanced. Also lots of "solo contestants" this year used a lot of help from other people who were not even part of any team. Some known guys sang for others productions, some guys played guitar / piano, others again reviewed and discussed their pieces with many others who have more experience to improve the composition before the deadline and again others also had non competing composers with them and composed together. And others again composed their pieces already a long time before the actual round. And you know what: I DONT CARE. I only try to become better with each piece and to have fun in the contest / getting new imput and inspiration. And as long as i feel i learned just anything new and evolved just a little bit i am content.

Life's not fair, of course it isn't fair. But the phrase "life's not fair" is NEVER MEANT TO JUSTIFY ABUSE.

Ok - i won because i am an abuser :( I would never have been able to beat just anyone on my own. But thank god i had the chance to be unfair.

Sorry, but "life is not fair" shows up a looser mentality and i dont think you are one. I just think it is finally time to accept things as they are. Sorry if i am quite nerved meanwhile but ... you know ... what do you expect me to say? You deserved the win since you were not supported by your fans enough / the judges treated you unfairly or were even biased / i would not have been able to compete without a teammate (shame upon m head) / my gear is stronger or whatever? If you wanted that forum signature so badly i stil can relinquish and aks for a new one to be created to your name...

I really dont know if the second place was deserved. There are lots of other great guys who did a good job or even would have had the chance to do in general. Kor-Rune, PeterSatera, etherealwinds, JacobCadmus, Phonometrologist, Zipper, Steam and some others... that i am second does not mean that i am better. All of those would have been able to win against me (IMO). I would have been totally fine with loosing against JacomCadmus´s first round submission since in my opinion its one of the strongest pieces of the whole contest. Others had not enough luck ... i had. I did my best and there also was the necessary amount of luck. Thats all. Participating in the contest was a great experience and it gave the oportunity to get in touch with many new talented people. But the most important thing: IT WAS FUN!

Peace!

At 11/18/14 10:23 AM, SoundChris wrote: Text dump

I appreciate your efforts to be concilliatory towards me.

Let me make it clear that I have nothing against you -- and I have long accepted my defeat. While I do feel your piece was bombastic, I accept the judges' decision, and I have never said the judges' decision was wrong or biased or influenced.

All I was making was a hypothetical situation, not a reference to the past. I have no grudges. I do fear, however, that if a similar situation to what I was mentioning above does lead to advantages for teams, where does that lead solo musicians who want to know what their own potential is?

All I'm looking for is a level playing field. If the situation was in reverse, I think I'd feel bad, myself -- and I don't doubt you'd want a level playing field for individuals were you in the same spot. We're all trying to make good music here, and I feel no grudge against you. The ADM will stress everyone, and I mean everyone, but here, everyone, myself included, is taking the time to point out possible flaws, and seek for redress.

I am not competing in an ADM ever again, so this is going to be of no relevance to me. But for everyone else's sake, will there be fairness seen in future competitions, or will everyone be shot down in one way or another for bringing up salient points?

If you want to say my second round win was not justified then say it directly. I dont think you lost because you were up against a team. I was composing alone, i was composing within 2 days and i call that piece one of the best i have ever written...

If you think I am saying my piece was misjudged or whatever, come out and say it. I never speak in a subtext, no matter how difficult I find it to put things in words. I ALWAYS said the judges did what was fit; I am not taking back that statement now.

ry, but "life is not fair" shows up a looser mentality and i dont think you are one. I just think it is finally time to accept things as they are. Sorry if i am quite nerved meanwhile but ... you know ... what do you expect me to say? You deserved the win since you were not supported by your fans enough / the judges treated you unfairly or were even biased / i would not have been able to compete without a teammate (shame upon m head) / my gear is stronger or whatever? If you wanted that forum signature so badly i stil can relinquish and aks for a new one to be created to your name...

And if you think revoking your 2nd place signature and prize just so that I could get it is some concilliatory measure, I find that an insult: I would rather hard-earned work, and not an empty prize. I won 3rd in 2012 in pretty much similar circumstances to you. But if future participants are going to raise similar suggestions to mine after nothing is done to my suggestion, then what's the point?

Once again, I EMPHASISE: We have had good relations previously. I have nothing against you. If I have given the impression that I was out to attack you, I apologise.

Peace.

At 11/18/14 08:39 AM, Troisnyx wrote:

At 11/16/14 05:55 PM, johnfn wrote: 1. The scores you receive are objective measures of how good your song is, and how good of a person you are in general.

Wait what.

I was just joking around with my post. Take nothing I say seriously. Except that part where I said you guys are great. I still think that.

At 11/18/14 07:30 PM, johnfn wrote: I was just joking around with my post. Take nothing I say seriously. Except that part where I said you guys are great. I still think that.

am i also great?

Hope you will host this next year too! Then I'll come back and not fail the audition like this year :(

Everyone's gone insane. It's like a zombie apocalypse. Anybody bring tea?

At 11/26/14 11:13 AM, etherealwinds wrote: Everyone's gone insane. It's like a zombie apocalypse. Anybody bring tea?

Yeah, but I've only got Earl Grey and peppermint. Any preference?

At 11/26/14 12:34 PM, Neon-Bard wrote:

At 11/26/14 11:13 AM, etherealwinds wrote: Everyone's gone insane. It's like a zombie apocalypse. Anybody bring tea?

Yeah, but I've only got Earl Grey and peppermint. Any preference?

Earl Grey with a dash of jamaica rum and rock candy. I drink it very often! Also a few scones would be cool, too.

At 11/20/14 01:04 PM, Calamaistr wrote:

At 11/18/14 07:30 PM, johnfn wrote: I was just joking around with my post. Take nothing I say seriously. Except that part where I said you guys are great. I still think that.

am i also great?

Even you! :D

At 11/26/14 04:57 PM, SoundChris wrote:

At 11/26/14 12:34 PM, Neon-Bard wrote:

At 11/26/14 11:13 AM, etherealwinds wrote: Everyone's gone insane. It's like a zombie apocalypse. Anybody bring tea?

Yeah, but I've only got Earl Grey and peppermint. Any preference?

Earl Grey with a dash of jamaica rum and rock candy. I drink it very often! Also a few scones would be cool, too.

NG cocktail bar, anyone? Because I'm in the mood for a right mix of whatever is there.