The Return of #AMV-Review

[Kionon]

#AMV-Review exists for the highlight of and discussion of recent videos which have not been well publicised. It is intended to offer constructive criticism and feedback to an editor who might not otherwise receive it, and do so on a massive scale. To that end, participants are expected to adhere to certain standards of academic discourse and general decency. It has been far too long since we have held one of these, largely because of godix's death. With the Org community moving towards constructing elements (such as Project Editor, Lip Flapper, the Twitter feed, etc) which differentiate us from other places where AMVs might be located, I feel it is time for the return of -Review.

Please see http://www.animemusicvideos.org/irc/ for information on how to join #AMV-Review.

There will be a video review this week on Monday at the normal time of 8:30PM EDT (that's -4UTC, so please convert), with the first thirty minutes being for writing or finishing opinions of the video. Discussion of altering the time for the next week or nominations for future weeks may be discussed in this thread. Furthermore, I will be looking into recruiting a rotating cast of moderators, since I am usually teaching during the normal -Review time and because this will only work if it has a broader range of support than it has had in the past. If you would like to serve as a moderator, either on a temporary or permanent basis, please let me know.

This week's video is by a veteran we haven't heard much from on the forums:



Also, the channel is open at all times for beta discussion, but Thursdays are the "recognised" beta day.

[DJ_Izumi]

If you guys want to make an effort to keep the Org from falling into irrelevency in the 21st century, IRC, in all of it's antiquatedness, is probably not the way to go about it...

[JudgeHolden]

If you guys want to make an effort to keep the Org from falling into irrelevency in the 21st century, IRC, in all of it's antiquatedness, is probably not the way to go about it...

However, in his defense, Kio is antiquated.

[Kionon]

Please stay on topic, guys. Thanks.

[Rider4Z]

Might i suggest setting up reviews for those who request them? Perhaps starting by selecting a video in the opinion exchange forum, then leaving it open for sign ups? reason being, i think leaving reviews for those who genuinely ask for them and want to learn would be more productive and meaningful than a random selection.

If it's set up that way, then i'd be willing to take part. I'd feel uncomfortable critiquing something when i wasn't invited to do so by the creator.

[DJ_Izumi]

Please stay on topic, guys. Thanks.

It is ontopic. The Org is almost a dinosaur and IRC already is a dinosaur. If you want to do reviews you should make them in a way that is relevent to an audience beyond the ageing AMV diehards.

Try a Facebook group or something instead of IRC. It's 2012, not 1999; Get with the times.

[Kionon]

Please stay on topic, guys. Thanks.

It is ontopic. The Org is almost a dinosaur and IRC already is a dinosaur. If you want to do reviews you should make them in a way that is relevent to an audience beyond the ageing AMV diehards.

Try a Facebook group or something instead of IRC. It's 2012, not 1999; Get with the times.

Izumi, I debated whether to answer you, but I think you make a current (if not valid) point. I will address this once and once only, so please simply accept what I am about to say. If you don't wish to participate, that's fine, but please don't argue with me. If you would like to start your own facebook group, or skype chat, feel free to do so.

The suggestion of changing the protocol used is not on topic, because this is not the return of AMV Review, this is the return of #AMV-Review. In fact, it never went anywhere, but besides use for betas, it hasn't been used for a review session in a while. There also is no "you guys," and #AMV-Review has always been independent of the Org administration.

However, I'll address your points. IRC is best because:

1) IRC can handle massive amounts of people in an instantaneous format.
2) IRC can easily be moderated.
3) IRC is clean, simple, and efficient.
4) IRC has no advertisements.
5) IRC can be easily logged.

Ultimately, it is my opinion that IRC is no more antiquated for our purposes than chairs are for sitting or plates are for eating food from. In fact, quite the opposite, it is much better suited to the current -Review format that any of the alternatives already suggested, especially Facebook. IRC is one of the oldest continuously in use internet protocols, having been created in 1988. It is still much, much more popular than you give it credit for. Right now the #amv chatroom has 30 individuals in it, and that's about the norm. I'm part of other IRC communities, some of which have been in constant operation for 15 years. IRC will easily last another twenty years, as long as there is a need for a low-impact text based protocol with established and moderated channels for large groups of individuals.

What is on topic is discussions of time, or selection process, or moderating crew, frequency of review, those sorts of things. If you have constructive input on those fronts, please feel free to share.

Might i suggest setting up reviews for those who request them? Perhaps starting by selecting a video in the opinion exchange forum, then leaving it open for sign ups? reason being, i think leaving reviews for those who genuinely ask for them and want to learn would be more productive and meaningful than a random selection.

Anyone can nominate any recently released video. This includes their own. I'm open to discussion of a change in the format or the rules, but...

If it's set up that way, then I'd be willing to take part. I'd feel uncomfortable critiquing something when i wasn't invited to do so by the creator.

I admit I don't understand this. The underlying implication of putting a video on the Org is that you are welcoming opinions (and stars, and quick comments) from any viewers who come across your video. So, it logically follows that all of us have indeed been invited to do so by the creator.

[Pwolf]

Pretty much every protocol we use on the internet today could be considered "antiquated".

[Rider4Z]

If it's set up that way, then I'd be willing to take part. I'd feel uncomfortable critiquing something when i wasn't invited to do so by the creator.

I admit I don't understand this. The underlying implication of putting a video on the Org is that you are welcoming opinions (and stars, and quick comments) from any viewers who come across your video. So, it logically follows that all of us have indeed been invited to do so by the creator.

i understand that's the general consensus, but i've never been one that fully agrees with it. i think having that mindset is what turned a lot of people here into elitists and gave the org a bad rep of being overly critical for quite a while. i think it would benefit us as a whole if we focus more so on enjoying others' work and being encouraging BEFORE we critique.

I don't mean to say that giving critiques is a bad thing at all, it's simply our state of mind that concerns me. my number one purpose for being here has always been to find and download AMVs i enjoy, not to grade them.

[Kionon]

i understand that's the general consensus, but i've never been one that fully agrees with it. i think having that mindset is what turned a lot of people here into elitists and gave the org a bad rep of being overly critical for quite a while. i think it would benefit us as a whole if we focus more so on enjoying others' work and being encouraging BEFORE we critique.

I've never bought into the idea of us "elitist." I think it's a false narrative which confuses a strong if not unerring commitment to quality with a desire to exclude. I think we can be less than sensitive to how our critiques may be viewed by newer members, whether they are new to editing or simply new to the Org. I also acknowledge some members have used #AMV-Review during previous review sessions to go past constructive criticism into inappropriately personal criticism, and that needs to stop. This is why I mentioned academic discourse and general decency. This is also why having a moderated environment is so important.

However, I strongly believe that while there is inevitable culture clash, there has always been an element of welcome at the Org, and that we want new members, provided they read the guides, study our customs and traditions, and show an eagerness to accept constructive criticism and show improvement. I think our "elitist" reputation is from strong reactions to new members not doing those things and then expecting older members to sing their praises anyway.

I don't mean to say that giving critiques is a bad thing at all, it's simply our state of mind that concerns me. my number one purpose for being here has always been to find and download AMVs i enjoy, not to grade them.

And there is nothing wrong with that. I view AMVs as the same as any other intertextual endeavour, and that means I am primarily heare not just to watch AMVs, but to analyse their contributions to the overarching intertextuality, and when I make my AMVs it is to add to that same overarching intertextuality. This is why when I do write opinions, they often so specific and so long. And this is why I enjoyed what quadir and I set up in #AMV-Review and godix helped to continue. I enjoy discussing literary criticism, and AMVs are, or at at least the ones I enjoy the most are, literary criticism in an audio-visual format.

My suggestion to you, given your qualms, is to nominate videos from creators you know desire the feedback. If everyone did that, I think that would go a long way towards soothing your reservations. I won't, however, require such nominations for the reasons already stipulated.