The Return of #AMV-Review

[Rider4Z]

well i think you and i are just on different pages. oh well, thanks for considering my thoughts anyway. i wish you luck

[Kionon]

well i think you and i are just on different pages. oh well, thanks for considering my thoughts anyway. i wish you luck

I encourage you to nominate videos which fit your views, and I welcome your participation at any time.

[Rider4Z]

i'll keep that in mind, thanks.

[lloyd9988]

. . .

[Melanchthon]

Yeah, I bodged together a fake Facebook account for the sole purpose of being able to use stuff that uses the site without having to have my real name and also the real names of everyone around me on display.

[Kionon]

There seems to be some confusion as to what this thread is and what this thread is not.

What this thread is for is discussion of specific details of the already established #AMV-Review review sessions. This includes video nomination, moderating crew, time, and frequency.

What this thread is not for is discussion of the purpose of amv reviews, whether they serve any value, various formats that may be used for reviews, or whether reviews should be or may be anonymous. I'll be happy to discuss these issues in a general amv review theory thread, but that's not what this thread is about.

[Kionon]

A reminder that -Review will commence in two hours. Please feel free to join us and apply what is being discussed in the AMV Critical Metatheory thread.

There might be a bonus video, depending on interest.

[Kionon]

Review commences now. There will be the usual thirty minute opinion writing period, but please try to arrive fairly promptly so I can have an idea of how many people have chosen to participate.

[Melanchthon]

Needs more people next time to bounce opinions off, but I think it went okay.

[Kionon]

Relevant rules for those who need a refresh:

- If the editor being reviewed chooses to post the logs then they're more than welcome to. Otherwise, logs will not be posted. Note that logs not being posted should not be viewed as the editor actively decided against it; they may not have thought about it or known they were reviewed. If logs are posted, they will not be edited at all - which means any cursing/comments not about the video/etc will be included as well. Mostly this is because I'm a lazy bastard who doesn't feel like filtering off topic comments out of logs.

- If the editor being reviewed wants to be present during the review they can. However, they should keep quiet unless asked a direct question. If need be, this can be enforced by an op putting the channel on +m and voicing everyone but the editor, but hopefully there will be no need. After the final thoughts part of the review, the editor is free to respond in whatever way they want up to and including cursing us all out. Which would actually be kinda amusing, although perhaps not exactly in the spirit of things...

- Review shouldn't be a dictorial thing where it must be Kio or I running things. I rather like that when neither of us were there this week then others stepped up and did it. For future reference, if one of us hasn't announced a video by Thursday then whoever wants to run things that week should feel free. Let me know and I'll give you op power so you can deal with whatever needs to be done. If Kionon doesn't like that, he can damned well make sure things are decided before Thursday...

- I also like the rather informal way bonus vids have been dealt with recently. For the most part, it seems that if someone wants to toss out a good video they've seen recently then they do so. That type of thing for the bonus should be encouraged, don't take these attempts to solidify the rules a bit as meaning you shouldn't toss out stuff like that.

- On the subject of opinions, I really prefer people actually write them. However, they are not mandatory for editors who are active on IRC or on the forums. For those who are not, and may not even realise they are being reviewed, I think opinions are nice gesture and I strongly encourage them.