A VCA Partial Disqualification

[Phade]

Hey All,

An unfortunate set of circumstances has caused the partial elimination of a video from this year’s VCA. It has recently come to our attention that due to previously created videos, the user ScorpionsUtld is not eligible for the “Rookie of the Year” category. Similarly, the video “Whisper of the Beast” is not eligible for the “Best First Video” category. It is our belief that there was no purposeful deception in the creation of the account and entry of the video. Since VCA rule #5 has been deemed unenforceable for this year, the video will stay within the overall VCA competition.

The video and user are now removed from the respective VCA finals categories. Members who voted for these as their final choices for those categories are encouraged to re-cast their votes. No additional videos will be entered as VCA finalist replacements.

Good luck to all in the finals!

Phade.

[dwchang]

No additional videos will be entered as VCA finalist replacements.

Now I certainly understand the reason to not let any additional editor into the fray since it may disrupt the results and to be honest, a large % of the people probably casted their votes and thus this person is at a disadvantage, BUT I feel "honoring" that potential 5th creator/video would still be a nice gesture. Although they may not win, it would still probably be an honor for that person to be considered a finalist. Furthermore, these particular videos/people are rookies and it would be quite encouraging imo.

I recall last year having an incident where someone was kinda "screwed" out of a nomination for a similar reason and it'd certainly be unfortunate for the same thing to happen to another video/creator.

Again, I realize the reasoning behind this, but pretty please?

[Phade]

Hey dwchang,

Yeah, I thought about that for a long time. It came down to a "which is worse" decision: knowing that you made it to the finals but have nearly no chance of winning since you already know you are the one that got the least amount of nominations or knowing that you made it to the semi-finals but not knowing that you may have made it to the finals. It was my decision and I chose to keep the remaining finalists as is and not add a potential finalist. I figured it would be the most fair for all.

Phade.

[angelx03]

I wonder. Is it possible to e-mail all the voters who voted for ScorpionsUtld and his video saying that he's been disqualified. That way, they'll know this incident, and they'll vote again accordingly. I'm probably saying this because the whole no replacement thing sort of bothers me a bit.

[AbsoluteDestiny]

As it happens (looking at the votes so far) many people have already recast their votes, which is a good thing.

[hackerzc]

yeah there is also a problem with previous years videos containing "ambiguous music" that prevents 2004 vids from qualifying even though these newer vids have no problem....

Why does a video from 2 years ago effect qualification for a vid from last year?

[AbsoluteDestiny]

Why does a video from 2 years ago effect qualification for a vid from last year?

Because those are the entry requirements. You have to clean up your video entries in order to qualify for the VCAs (among other things).

[hackerzc]

So how do you do that.... lie about what music was used?

[Zarxrax]

Uh... no, you change it to correct and accurate information.

[hackerzc]

Uh... no, you change it to correct and accurate information.

Just 1 problem.... the information already is correct and accurate