AWA Professional Awards 2017 Category Selection

[BasharOfTheAges]

The blind thing was never about needing to police. It was about ethics. Some people aren't ethical, though. what'cha gonna do?

[SeanPNG]

Sorry, I am having trouble understanding your post. Why would an editor specifically need other entrants to be their beta testers? Why is that necessary to get good feedback?

Sorry i should have clarified. My concern was whether someone would have to decide between beta testing (ie: being a moderator) or entering the contest themselves.

The blind thing was never about needing to police. It was about ethics. Some people aren't ethical, though. what'cha gonna do?

I also agree, I think alot of this contest is going to rely on some sort of ethics or honor system no matter what ends up being changed.

[Ileia]

Well, yes. The idea is to remain impartial throughout the whole process. If someone isn't sure if they want to enter, it would be best not to volunteer to be a moderator.

Also, too, it's important to remember that all of the reviews themselves are feedback, so it's not like you won't be able to provide it at all. Like we see in the review thread, editors often use those to make changes and adjustments before releasing the videos online. That discussion is still very helpful.

[Warlike Swans]

In regard to moderators:

I like the idea. I have made a number of last minute videos for Pro because I wanted to participate, and just didn't have time to make a full-effort video. I suspect similar motivations drove some of the very short videos as well.

I also think that getting decent beta testing is one of the most important factors in getting better at editing, and giving newer editors experienced beta testers they don't need to feel shy approaching is a good thing. (As difficult as is to give constructive tips on a video that is really-really-really rough.)

I feel like I had and lost a 3rd point, so I'm just going to leave a wall of emojis here til I remember.

[Shin-AMV]

I guess to the topic on discussions and influence and stuff, generally I think strong videos are going to rise above whatever gets said. Sure a vote might change between two average videos cause the discussion might have shifted something in favor of one from the other, but whats the point of winning a borderline example because we had to stay quiet about something like the aspect ratio, rough masking, or other valid criticisms? Or even the reverse where we can't mention praiseworthy things a video did that just might have been missed (a good example from this year was that a lot of people didn't even realize Into the Labyrinth was a thing and that Into the Lingerie was a parody of it and not knowing that you lose a whole lot of the video's purpose and some of the lengths it went to achieve what it did)

This will probably rub people the wrong way, but in my opinion no discussion only helps weaker videos out. Most of the winners, if not all of them, had legitimate or valid criticisms with some more glaring than others, but at the end of the day they still had strong qualities that offset those issues. The stronger videos rose above the criticisms or perceived biases. People in this contest should be prepared for criticism of not only their videos but others as well and we should all be challenging our ideas and perceptions on what makes a quality video.

Part of why I feel discussion is so valuable is that we're not just picking winners. All of us as editors are picking videos to present to an audience that we feel is representative of what it means to be 'Pro' or top tier. The videos we pick define us and make a statement to the audience. We should be discussing, we should be debating, we should be nitpicking, its all part of process that makes us aware of the art and craft of editing and helps us identify quality standards that we should be taking into consideration even if we end up weighing each of those standards differently and have exceptions to them. It makes us aware of the different styles, the different techniques, the different perspectives, and the different interpretations of videos.

These discussions help to give us the tools to critically evaluate videos and grow and be better. The final result should reveal to laypersons an idea of what we consider in shaping our own videos as well as expectations of others in the craft, hobby, or art. If you're going to participate and vote you have an obligation to be as diligent and as well-informed as possible as to what you're voting for. Some of us don't need to discuss things and thats fine, but there's a lot that do and get a lot out of the conversations that happen within the relevant time frames. A lot of us are passionate for this hobby and part of the whole discussion process is to feel like we played at least a small role in shaping new trends or reinforcing tried and true traditions and can be part of the ongoing evolution of the art of editing and that we can be proud that we offered an audience a small snapshot of the here and now of AMVs as a collaborative effort to say 'this is who we are, this is what we represent.'

That being said, I'm guessing a lot of the fear of influence/bias/outing-who-did-what comes from a place of legitimate concern. Some people's personality's can be dominating and they can be pretty pushy with their opinions, but I think its a little much to suggest the way to combat this is to place everything in a literal veil of ignorance where we don't talk about the videos at all and pretend that no discussion is healthier. We shouldn't offer participants a safe space because their views or opinions might be challenged. If we hold back the streams/discussion from happening until after voting is finished, we're only going to be talking about the videos that made finalists for the most part and non-finalists would really lose out on a lot of that critical evaluation process or feel less inclined to be part of the process at all at that point. We don't grow as a community or as individuals when we sit in artificial confirmation bias bubbles and we all end up stagnating as a result of that.

If you want to offset the issue of potential campaigning/bias/influence its probably better to suggest for more openness or transparency, which I don't think anyone is at all opposed. With a venue to provide more transparent discussions it helps us set up guidelines to prevent the type of nebulously nefarious actions of one or more individuals from corrupting the pool of thought.(see more below regarding moderators and what not facilitating this)

I'll also address another issue that may or may not be an elephant in the room but there is a perception that some editors just have more sway in what they say with regards to the videos even if they aren't pushy and don't dominate the conversations. And yes, I'm aware I fall into this category to some degree and am sometimes spooked by the level of fanaticism which ends up being a mix of flattering, awkward, and surreal. I don't know how much I can actually comment regarding this since I think any more meta analysis of the particulars of the phenomenon make me seem like a narcissistic/entitled asshole.

Regardless, I think this plays into the jump to the 'no discussion' ideas, because someone could pretty easily abuse or misuse a privilege like that for selfish purposes and reap ill-gotten gains. To this, I don't know what to tell you, there's already a level of assuming that participants will generally act in good faith with regards to the contest as a whole and this is just another one of them. I feel like prohibiting discussion wouldn't stop chicanery from happening if its happening already. People who listen to senpai will probably still listen to senpai but its all a lot less transparent since its being forced into back alleys and earnest participants have no means to counter or rebuttle those opinions, assuming there are opinions to be countered or rebuttled to begin with, if they're required to be silent.

All restrictions in this instance does is shift where we draw the line for good faith as fanciful security theatre but doesn't actual address the perpetuation of the issue and just further enables the conspiracy theory regarding whether or not there is a shadowy secret senpai out there manipulating his cabal to affect the final outcomes. I remember reading through old threads and logs for past AWAs and this is a thing that always gets brought up by someone or at least hinted at that the free masons are in charge of CDVV who are actually lizard people who formed PixelBlended to covertly convince weeby young adults to up vote their videos. I may be making light of a legitimate issue, but we don't fix it by giving more shadows and crevices to hide in, we deal with it by attempting to make things more transparent and open and by being vigilante about it.

I think the end result we all want is to ensure honest and fair competition. We should want to build up community and encourage consensus but to discourage collusion. To this end we all have an inclination to go on witch hunts but don't have the tools to actually find or get rid of them if they exist, and the remedies proposed from extra harsh rules so that the 'blinds are actually blind' to zero discussion or other restrictions don't actual do anything more to stop them currently. We don't get anything of actual value for what we have to give up and seems like an undue burden for purely the hope that it might be a deterrant to at least one Ne'er-do-well for a problem thats largely only perceived and rarely, if ever actually, manifested and demonstrably felt.

Unless we're willing to either shame editors for the smallest of rule transgressions even for honest insignificant mistakes, or at worst tarnish the reputation of an editor or group of editors based on no actual evidence, and just purely on hearsay, rumors, and conjecture the specificity and harshness of the rules won't make much of a difference under the proposed changes as compared to what we generally know them as now and the current standards of evidence for pursuing and unearthing foul play remains the same (for the most part all we have is hearsay and conjecture every year even though people are generally satistified with the results so when and where this foulplay is taking place to begin with is unclear). If we're going to make the rules more authoritarian, we'll need enforcement that matches it to have any effect, otherwise its just lipstick on a pig afterall.

The blinds and rules as they are now aren't perfect by any means, but from my experience with Pro, the current level of enforcement regarding it and the good faith we place in our fellow participants seem to be doing an adequate job of balancing fairness and fun.

• LiveStreaming •
Here I’m suggesting that AWA Pro actually have an official livestream going, advertised on the VAT page and applicable social media. One of the current complaints about livestreaming is, though a definite effort is made to be inclusive, it’s impossible to do so without knowledge of every entrant. In this case, moderators would have access to entrant names so they can all be included (and also be able to ensure that only entrants are permitted to join). Anyone who is outing other entrants’ videos, trolling, etc, can be kicked/removed/muted/whatever. There should be multiple showings to accommodate every sort of schedule.

I'm pretty with most of what you wrote. I helped coordinate some of the stream stuff this year, and its pretty hard to invite everyone if you don't know who entered and can't just throw up a public link because its just supposed to be open only to the actual participants, so I was thinking of just sending Jingoro a discord link to distribute to the entire contest when he mails out the videos next year, so its less a guessing game of who might have entered pro and makes it easy for those interested in joining to join without anyone having to wonder if you're just saying you're in pro to sneak in to the viewings. The streams/viewings/chat were never meant to be a closed thing, its literally open to all entrants, we just don't want to spam everyone a million times to find out if they're in the contest or if they want to be 100% anonymous or whatever other reason. Moderators could help ensure that no one dominates the discussions or effectively browbeat people into agreeing with them as well. So yeah I like the above suggestions.

TL;DR

Spoiler :

Holy shit I wrote more than what I thought I was going to, I just wanted to say I think discussion is an integral part of the Pro experience for various reasons. Sorry for the long-windedness and if I came off condescending or like I'm on some sort of high horse. Here's an image you guys can read into more than you should and pretend is relevant to what I said:

[MaboroshiStudio]

This will probably rub people the wrong way, but in my opinion no discussion only helps weaker videos out. Most of the winners, if not all of them, had legitimate or valid criticisms with some more glaring than others, but at the end of the day they still had strong qualities that offset those issues. The stronger videos rose above the criticisms or perceived biases. People in this contest should be prepared for criticism of not only their videos but others as well and we should all be challenging our ideas and perceptions on what makes a quality video.

Part of why I feel discussion is so valuable is that we're not just picking winners. All of us as editors are picking videos to present to an audience that we feel is representative of what it means to be 'Pro' or top tier. The videos we pick define us and make a statement to the audience. We should be discussing, we should be debating, we should be nitpicking, its all part of process that makes us aware of the art and craft of editing and helps us identify quality standards that we should be taking into consideration even if we end up weighing each of those standards differently and have exceptions to them. It makes us aware of the different styles, the different techniques, the different perspectives, and the different interpretations of videos.

Correct me if I misunderstood you, but you are saying Pro should essentially be a group debated / consensus in regards to voting. What you are proposing has to be agreed to by the majority and must be in the rules of the contest. Until then simply put... it is not in the rules which is why some people take issue with the streams / discussion currently and honestly rightfully so if you ask me. I get what you are saying and proposing which would be very interesting, but it is a massive / fundamental change to the nomination / voting process in pro. The issue with a group discussion / consensus is it must include everyone IMHO which is would be very difficult so it is an all or nothing proposal if you ask me...

All discussion / viewing / debate has to run thru AWA in an official manner where it is a part of the contest. The discussion aspect of helping editors I get and I really like this... but last I checked Oscar voting is not by committee or group consensus.

[Warlike Swans]

Correct me if I misunderstood you...

I think I can make this correction. I don't think Shin was proposing a change. Seemed like an idealogical statement of what voting means, and why discussion helps.

[Each] of us as editors [is] picking videos to present to an audience that we feel is representative of what it means to be 'Pro' or top tier. [Stuff about discussion raising awareness.]

[SeanPNG]

Correct me if I misunderstood you...
The issue with a group discussion / consensus is it must include everyone IMHO which is would be very difficult so it is an all or nothing proposal if you ask me...

All discussion / viewing / debate has to run thru AWA in an official manner where it is a part of the contest. The discussion aspect of helping editors I get and I really like this... but last I checked Oscar voting is not by committee or group consensus.

every voting process is a form of group consensus that is the definition of voting. Yes the Oscars fall under this definition and NO this is not the Oscars by far
This is a fan-made video contest done by editors for editors through peer review and the entire purpose of it is group discussion and debate. I helped moderate the chats this year for a brief period during the streams as well and i helped make sure everyone who had entered the contest had access to this discussion chat and the stream. We were willing to go so far as to stream multiple days per week to make sure everyone had an equal opportunity to watch the stream and provide their own commentary and feedback through the chat. I will be more than willing next year to make sure Jingoro is equipped with anything he needs to get the job done himself next year as well. I would be willing to do everything short of personally mailing you a discord link taped to the back of a VCR .
Personally i have no problem if other people dont want to be part of discussions thats fine but it shouldnt affect the rest of us that do. the links were open to everyone last year and i will be happy to help jingoro make sure they are still openly available next year as well

[MaboroshiStudio]

every voting process is a form of group consensus that is the definition of voting.

I said discussion / debate did I not? A group consensus via discussion and debate is very different if you ask me. Also if you could get the last contest on VHS that would be an amazing feat lol...

Personally i have no problem if other people dont want to be part of discussions thats fine but it shouldnt affect the rest of us that do

People fundamentally changing / impacting the nomination and voting process of the Pro contest is a problem if you ask me... it has to be incorporated into the contest or banned. If you don't see this as an issue that is fine, but I do and other people do as well.

[drewaconclusion]

I helped moderate the chats this year for a brief period during the streams as well and i helped make sure everyone who had entered the contest had access to this discussion chat and the stream.

Oh really now? I was never invited to this.