Opposition to change in the face of logic suggests what it suggests.hackerzc wrote:We don't do that, but you made the accusation. I can't help but assume you believe that to be the case...BasharOfTheAges wrote:I don't know; you tell me.hackerzc wrote: Why would anyone choose to put a deadline at a time where it would intentionally cripple the number of contest entries that are received?
First off, stop putting words in my mouth. I never suggested sabotage - if anything it's ignorance and obstinance. You (plural - i.e. the coordinators and those others involved) have made a decision to have early deadlines and stuck by it dispite the problems it's caused for years, haven't you?hackerzc wrote:BasharOfTheAges wrote:Because the attitude of your responses have led me to believe as such. Lambasting those with critiques and making smug comments when someone comes in supposedly supporting being against any change kinda does that to perception.hackerzc wrote: Do you believe that is what we are doing, and if so why do you think that way?
The attitude of my responses lead you to believe staff intentionally sabotage the contest? So because I say what I think and don't baby everyone I'm there for sabotaging the contest by making a deadline at an inopportune time? A deadline I might add, that I in no way took part in choosing?
I'm curious to know how that rational works as it makes no sense to me.
Mayhaps it's the internets, but the tone of many of the posts you have made both this year and last year are very agressive and defensive when it comes to change, responsibility, etc.hackerzc wrote:Lambasting those with critiques and those against change? Perhaps you need to read back a bit... I've agreed with those who want change and those who do not. In fact that is the entire purpose of this thread, to see what people think about what should be the same and what should change.
People shoudln't refuse to enter because they want to be assholes, but refusing to enter because it puts undue stress on them is quite fair. I do wholeheartedly agree with the fact that if one is bothered by the bickering, the defensiveness, and the lack of change they should voice their displeasure with their feet.hackerzc wrote:There is also a difference between someone "critiquing" the contest with a comment such as "I did not like the deadline so early, I would like it later next time" and "OMG! The deadline is too early you need to change it NOW or I'm not entering... and I suggest no one else enter either!" which is just complaining and borderline blackmail.
let's see a number of them...hackerzc wrote:If you want to talk about lambasting, lets talk about some of the comments staff have had to deal with from a number of editors in the past.
Just me? I'm sure there's more than that... especially since i've gathered all my preceptions from reading all the threads on past contests and seeing the clusterfuck they turned out to be (the threads that is).hackerzc wrote:Again, this makes no sense. If we don't have prescreenings why would the deadline NOT be moved? The entire purpose of not doing prescreenings would be to have the deadline moved. To not do so would just be idiotic to say the least, and the implication is simply insulting.BasharOfTheAges wrote:Even if enough people come into this thread and say they think the prescreenings are pointless, i feel that they'll be canned but the deadline won't be increased.
For someone with no stake you sure take quite an interest in explaining how AMV staff is corrupt and somehow incapable of logical reasoning, as well as attempting to persuading others to not enter the contest as evident by your "talking to a wall" comment.BasharOfTheAges wrote: I personally have no stake in the issue - i'd prefer the early deadline because it means i could submit simulaniously to this and other major cons if i so choose. I won't though. If others think they're talking to a wall here I suggest they don't either.
I've yet to see any "evidence."hackerzc wrote: It's fairly evident that you have not given this much thought (as everything you have stated can be counter argued with actual evidence) and I can only surmise you are attempting to emit a negative response, or perhaps anger from me. Whatever floats your boat man.
Again with the misrepresentation of facts; I mentioned offhandly that having an early contest would benifit me personally... I'm far above thinking that any sort of personal gain is more important than the needs of a lot of other editors. I'd fully support moving the deadline back by getting rid of prescreenings.hackerzc wrote: Your preference to keep things as is has been noted (though you said the contrary earlier). Keep the opinions coming. Thank you very much, and have a nice day!
You're not going to listen to anything I say from now on anyways, so it's a moot point.
