AWA Professional Awards 2017 Category Selection

[EnQuatre]

So this year was my first year entering Pro, so keep in mind that I am fairly new to all of this!

I have to say that Pro's community-driven traditions played a large part in convincing me to participate in the first place. As cool as a contest judged solely by one's peers is and as awesome as the idea of winning stuff based on the votes of fellow editors was, I was personally most motivated to enter because of the hype about how the contest would be an opportunity to meet and interact with peers and watch and talk and argue about a bunch of great AMVs together. Pro totally lived up to that hype, and I had a great time throughout the lead-up to the con. It was an experience that I would definitely recommend to other interested editors!

As a participant, I greatly enjoyed the live discussions. I also followed the review thread closely. In particular, it was a real thrill to hear live reactions to my contest entry, and to read "blind" feedback on my video on the Org review thread. Through the contest, I met a bunch of editors that I did not previously know, and I also feel that I got to know my fellow editors' work much more intimately! For my own part, I am absolutely confident that I was able to think independently and vote according to my own opinions without significant influence from others.

In fact, in the end, I'm not entirely sure that both sides do have legitimate arguments... In my view, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So far, despite all the accusations of bias, I've yet to see any evidence demonstrating that anyone's opinions was unfairly swayed based on the stream or the reviews.

Ultimately, no AMV contest is perfect, since AMVs are fundamentally subjective. I think we can agree that contests, including Pro, are not intended to be a perfect metric of editing prowess. In the end, what contests are about in my opinion is the celebration of creativity and talent.

Currently, we already practice an honor code in which we trust that the editors participate in Pro are really watching ALL the videos and voting honestly. It's a minimum commitment of four hours just to view all the videos once, yet we trust that participants will actually set the time aside to do it, ideally multiple times, while taking notes and thinking critically about which videos rise above the rest.

If that's the standard we hold participants to, surely then we ought to also trust editors, who are going above and beyond the call of duty to additionally participate in the live stream and read the review thread, to stick to their own opinions after hearing and reading those of others?

I favor the path that some others have suggested, which is to simply make the stream "official", inviting all participating editors to join by default. This would keep the stream open and make the conversation completely transparent.

[Rider4Z]

In fact, in the end, I'm not entirely sure that both sides do have legitimate arguments... In my view, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So far, despite all the accusations of bias, I've yet to see any evidence demonstrating that anyone's opinions was unfairly swayed based on the stream or the reviews.

"Inadvertently creating bias" isn't an extraordinary claim, though. It's common sense. Granted I, myself, don't have any non-disputable evidence confirming it. Can it be proven that bias does not take place? No of course not. That's the root of the whole problem. It can't be proven either way. Or can it? I dunno, does anyone have their own evidence supporting their side?

[Kireblue]

lets not confuse what bias means. Bias would be me saying that I know that editor ABC made video #XYZ, and he's a terrible person that nobody likes. Everyone voting against the video for that reason would be grounds for claims of bias. Me saying that I don't like video #XYZ because it has the wrong aspect ratio and bad audio quality is just me expressing my opinion on the video. People can either disagree or agree. People can argue with me, tell me that my speakers are bad, and saythat the video sounds fine to them. People that were unsure if it was their speakers can can say, "yeah, I hear the bad audio as well". Whether people change their opinions in a open discussion or not doesn't necessarily equal bias.

[Rider4Z]

lets not confuse what bias means. Bias would be me saying that I know that editor ABC made video #XYZ, and he's a terrible person that nobody likes. Everyone voting against the video for that reason would be grounds for claims of bias. Me saying that I don't like video #XYZ because it has the wrong aspect ratio and bad audio quality is just me expressing my opinion on the video. People can either disagree or agree. People can argue with me, tell me that my speakers are bad, and saythat the video sounds fine to them. People that were unsure if it was their speakers can can say, "yeah, I hear the bad audio as well". Whether people change their opinions in a open discussion or not doesn't necessarily equal bias.

Ok replace "bias" with the word "influence" then.

[Xophilarus]

I have some opinions about categories as well, but I have been too sick to articulate my opinions of things properly, but I do feel like on this subject I can't really wait because I am one of the main organizers of the stream. Honestly, to me it comes down if you think the risk of the unintentional influence outweighs the benefits people get as a whole with the enjoyment of the experience they get having it be with others, and what they learn from it. Honestly, I think the risk is worth it, especially since there's NOTHING that even HINTS it is largely influencing the contest at all honestly.. I have tried to understand why some people are pushing against it so hard. I really have... but I don't... Especially when Pro has many more issues. For a long time there was some huge participation issues. One of the strong benefits of the chat was we were constantly encouraging people to stay involved, and kept hyping people up and kept people CARING about the contest. When you feel apart of something, even if maybe your video didn't get nominated or something else of the sort, it is much easier to care. When people go off on their own for however many weeks, and they see their video doesn't do well, they lose that connection with the contest, and it will naturally be harder for them to stay invested.

To me, it almost feels like the argument that "your fun and enjoyment is wrong so you should do it this way." If the viewings were less transparent and inclusive, I could understand, but we have tried to make it as inclusive and as open for EVERYONE to be part of it if they wish to as possible, not that anyone needs to if they don't want to of course. It is why we have suggested having the link to the chat sent through the emails to everyone to make sure everyone gets properly asked. I honestly can't understand why it is such a terrible thing to some people when it is making so many more people get a lot out of the experience. I understand legitimately shady things have happened in the past in viewing parties and this contest, but this is not the past, this is now. I really have tried hard to understand because I am someone who tries to properly understand both sides of an argument, and to an extent, I can understand where they are coming from initially, but having to constantly defend this throughout Pro's process when all we are doing is trying to make the experience more fulfilling and community based is getting really draining, and honestly it just makes me feel kind of sad about it. I feel like it would be healthier for the contest to focus on the mechanical issues rather than making issues out of something we don't even know there is an issue with...

I will do a post on categories and stuff by the end of the weekend hopefully to, and sorry if this isn't worded the best. Like I said, I have been super sick so dealing with anything has been really hard honestly since serious con plague sucks. I know a lot of others got it to so I hope for a speedy recovery from you guys as well xP.

[Mr Pilkington]

lets not confuse what bias means. Bias would be me saying that I know that editor ABC made video #XYZ, and he's a terrible person that nobody likes. Everyone voting against the video for that reason would be grounds for claims of bias. Me saying that I don't like video #XYZ because it has the wrong aspect ratio and bad audio quality is just me expressing my opinion on the video. People can either disagree or agree. People can argue with me, tell me that my speakers are bad, and saythat the video sounds fine to them. People that were unsure if it was their speakers can can say, "yeah, I hear the bad audio as well". Whether people change their opinions in a open discussion or not doesn't necessarily equal bias.

Ok replace "bias" with the word "influence" then.

I spoke on this at closing and tend to agree to an extent. Saying video #XYZ has bad audio is one of the simple things that can be a positive influence, but it us just that: influence. If the video is flawlessly executed but there is a problem with unaltered audio, that in my opinion can be forgiven. But that is my opinion as this is an editing contest and song selection is only a small ingredient of the overall skill involved. Others may disagree, but that is an example of how these topics can change a vote negatively.
I will not name names but in contrast there was a specific situation in the past couple of years I am specifically aware if where a beta tester (and a long established editor) not involved in the contest was part of a viewing and outed video(s) that were knowingly intended to be blind. There is an, albeit small, level of toxicity that needs to be recognized. Eliminating that should be be the goal of everyone in this contest instead of being ignored and allowed to fester/grow, but I'll touch on that in a moment.

Younger editors and those new to the hobby can be easily influenced into modifying their opinion based on the actions and words of established editors. The peer review is broken once peoples votes are changed in any way whether felt positive or otherwise. What this is called is a jury. The difference being that the entrants are not on trial here, a unanimous decision is unnecessary. It's not matter of determining a video guilty or otherwise, it's the opinions of those involved that make up the contest. I am aware that the jury system has recently been proposed as the optimum procedure but I am telling you that, while I wholeheartedly believe not an issue at the moment based on the results from this contest, could be a problem going forward. This is not intended as a commentary on anyone involved at this moment so please no one take this personally. I have said forever and the reason I work so hard to put together community events like ProPain, the AWA Dinner, the roast, hotel blocks, etc, I love this community and feel like AMVing has brought many us together in ways not possible otherwise. I have made some of my most cherished friendships through AMVing and even honed a career. It's a beautiful thing and like I said a closing we are all just a big family of weebs. That said we cannot put our guard down and assume that everyone that will come into the community has the same intentions.

I'll speak regarding our viewing ProPain specifically. There seems to be the impression that that we sit in a room dead silent and that is far from the truth. We simply prevent heated discussions or video campaigning. To elaborate, each year I create a spreadsheet for the entrants including a space for notes and potential categories. A print out is provided to everyone and immediately following a video we take a moment to make notes followed then by a simple discussion. Nothing more than a simple "I (did/not) like that" and small technical commentary. Speaking to my entry and a few others this year, if the means used were not expressly transparent than from a technical stance it was not successfully and (in my case specifically) rightfully did not make finals. That is fine and why the nomination phase exists. Sure winning would be fun, but if I have to go to each person or group and campaign or explain my choices the video is not wining, I am merely filibustering for a trophy.

More to the point of the new structure, the category nomination being so far ahead of the even entry means that voting could be made earlier. That being the case it leaves room for a new phase of technical discussion and feedback following (emphasis there) the vote. I have learned so much over the years just via the feedback I have received in Pro. But that said it should always been hindsight feedback. And in the risk of deviating further from the topic at hand, I firmly believe that all of pro should be administered by the entrants. Jingoro has long said that he hates policing the contest and I can completely respect that. It does put an enormous negative tone on a contest that should be about fun and execution. If we're asked to do something, even if we don't agree with the policy, its our job as entrants to participate accordingly. If you're not in favor of a rule of the contest simply do not enter. But more on the positive side of participant administration, even in the event of a deliberate breach of the rules that is one person versus fifty-someodd of the rest of us. If a video is entered that does not meet the exclusive requirement than let other entrants know and as a whole we can simply opt to remove it part of the nomination process. In a way I am saying to improve the security of the contest we should remove all restrictions and put responsibility fully in the hands of us. I do fully believe in the integrity of the contest and it's participants. Making things more public and reliant on one another is a great way to improve the community aspect of the contest. In regards to my previous recommendation if the discussion and feedback stage is made official that puts the responsibility to halt any in-depth conversations to rest until said phase.

tl;dr

I want only to see this grow as more of a community contest and agree that discussion is a value part of this.
I do also believe that there is a time and a place: following the vote. Thus removing any potential threat
Put the contest coordinator out of the picture and take (each of us) personal responsibility for the contest. Greater transparency will help allot on all accounts.



I'll make a more topically orientated post in a bit

[EnQuatre]

I think we have to weigh the degree of any potential benefit and ask ourselves if it's worth changing the way things are. How much of an improvement in the quality of the voting are we realistically likely to see by restricting discussion to after voting is complete?

I agree with Rider a certain degree of influence manifesting as a result of discussion is common sense. What I'm not sure about is whether or not that hazy potential for influence warrants any action. After all, there are likely lesser degrees of influence that result from the order of videos in the list of files, the names of AMVs, or even the video thumbnails, while there are also likely greater degrees of influence resulting from, say, having to impartially evaluate videos that might directly compete against your own in a potential category. Obviously, not all of these can be controlled for, and arguably not all of them are worth controlling for.

There are already far larger factors that might influence participants that we are not controlling for. We're trusting editors to watch all the videos, we're trusting them not to close videos that they don't like fifteen or thirty seconds in, and we're trusting editors to do more than just vote for their own video in every category and submit the polls.

I think that if anything, the biggest wild card factor is contained in the title of this thread. In all likelihood, voting was likely far more influenced by voter turnout and by the results of the category selection than by any discussion coming out of the stream or reviews. These are factors that directly affect the vote counts and determine the labeled containers that we end up trying to fit the video entries into. If you ask me, those are the areas where real gains can be made.

The stream is already quite transparent, having been recorded for anyone who might be interested. Make the stream "official" with an official disclaimer that participants ought to vote based on their own best judgement, and I think that should be quite sufficient given the degree of trust that is already shown in us from the contest.

[Mr Pilkington]

I think we have to weigh the degree of any potential benefit and ask ourselves if it's worth changing the way things are.

The thing you're not accounting for is that things have already been drastically changed from the way pro used to be handled. Again having been at this contest alone 15 years, there is a distinct difference in the traditional approach of the contest. I'm not saying this is necessarily good or bad but the fact remains every year since about 2010 there has been the distinct modification to the interpretation of the rules. For many of us some of these changes have been incredibly hard to swallow and it has caused a few people specifically to leave the contest behind. I don't think that's right, we shouldn't be causing people to leave the contest we should come to some kind of compromise. Which is what I'm proposing. Not everyone has to like it and not everyone probably should like it, but let's not pretend like this is the way things have always been. We're bending far too much for one group of individuals who have one vision of the contest and those of us who have been doing this for a very long time are starting to be ignored. And that's a cycle that it continues we'll tear this apart from the inside. We need Fair dialogue and we need compromise.

[Xophilarus]

What if we could withhold discussions during the middle of the contest then? I have already expressed my issue with waiting until after the voting, and my opinion on that isn't going to change. We get excited when the videos first come out. If we waited until the end, the whole process honestly woulndt feel like a community event at all. So maybe we could hold viewings during the nomination phase, but then withhold discussion while the winners are actually being picked. I am sorry to hear the fact some older editors have left the contest because of the viewing, but the aggressive attitude towards the viewing as also made some of us newer and younger editors want to leave, myself included. Honestly, if the discussion comes only at the end, I probably wont participate anymore as well because that's the big part that makes it fun for me, and that makes me ok with waiting to release my videos until after the results come out, and I know a lot of people feel the same way. If the majority ends up wanting to go this route, obviously that's fine, but it will mean I will no longer participate as well most likely. Enjoying the contest with everyone is too important to me on a personal level for the contest, and watching the videos when they come out and having everyone be excited about talking about them is what makes it fun for me. When I see people excited about AMVs during this contest, that is where this contest is special and fun.

[Rider4Z]

I want to point out something I've seen on both sides of the argument and wave my finger at it cuz it needs to stop. Leaving the contest or threatening to leave the contest because they don't get what they want is childish. And I am not waving my finger at one person in particular, I've heard this from multiple people on both sides. We're adults and this is a professional contest. We should all be willing to accept what the majority prefers whether it's changing to a new system or going back to how it was before.

If you decide in time on your own "You know what, I'm just not really getting anything out of this contest anymore so I'll move onto something else" that's different. But don't quit out of spite. The only one who loses is you. Be willing to give it a try.