AWA Professional Awards 2017 Category Selection

[Rider4Z]

I'm going to play devils advocate here with some of your definitions of what equals technical errors. Almost all of the items you suggest could be artfully added for a technical merrit of it's own by an editor in order to come up with something else interesting, I'd reference the video as an example of an editor who basically put all the gripes and editing errors popular at the time (similar to what you've listed, as many of these are now popular as being bad) and made a video that was considered technically sound and good. As it is your definition overall seems to merrit techniques and effects that are able to be seen and noticed as an effect. I would argue that the best effect is one that is not noticed at all. That is what should be strived for.

Keep in mind that I would also argue on the fade to black thing, any proper encode, playback system, projector included, worth it's salt should not have any issues with black frames, especially not eating them. Black and the absence of video can and should be used to highten the effect of certain types of scenes and ideas no matter how you get there, fade to or cut to.

A bit of a tangent here but I HIGHLY agree with nathan on this. Best Technical imo shouldn't go to the editor who took the most risk and edited together something really well. It should go to the video that is technically flawless. Example this year - I still believe it belonged to the Overwatch video (Pyrrhic by PieandBeer). Reason being is because as I watched I found it very difficult to pin point what was done to it. The scene selection and transitions were amazingly smooth and while on the surface it looks like a non-effects video there was still plenty of work (or simply a natural eye) in making the whole video seamless. While the Weeaboo video was ambitious, not to pick on Shin here, but while watching I could easily spot "oh there's a mask transition". They didn't look bad, but like nate said "The best effect is one that is not noticed at all". And as a seasoned editor with a sharp eye I say it should have gone to Pyrrhic.

Also, I'm noticing this 100% fade to black taboo thing parroted a lot lately. While to an extent yes I can see times where just going to 80% would look better, but flat out declaring it a sin is jumping the shark. If you told that to a professional trailer editor they'd probably laugh at you. And I've never seen a projector stutter on such a cut. 80% black is becoming an editing trope so don't take it for granted.

[Kionon]

Also, I'm noticing this 100% fade to black taboo thing parroted a lot lately. While to an extent yes I can see times where just going to 80% would look better, but flat out declaring it a sin is jumping the shark. If you told that to a professional trailer editor they'd probably laugh at you. And I've never seen a projector stutter on such a cut. 80% black is becoming an editing trope so don't take it for granted.

I had literally never heard of this until this thread. I got into editing through a vocational RTF program, I've done some professional editing. I use projectors every day with AMVs.

...I don't even get this.

[Rider4Z]

I like kireblue's suggestion for the category selection process. All except for one small flaw:

If you don't feel that there should be a XYZ category a particular year, you can vote "no" for it, and still nominate videos for it just in case.

You should own your decision. If you don't think a category belongs that year then you shouldn't nominate videos for it. Why not instead do it in reverse? Everyone nominate videos into the categories you suggested, and then the categories that took (with at least 5 or 6 solid entry nominations each) are kept.

[Kireblue]

I like kireblue's suggestion for the category selection process. All except for one small flaw:

If you don't feel that there should be a XYZ category a particular year, you can vote "no" for it, and still nominate videos for it just in case.

You should own your decision. If you don't think a category belongs that year then you shouldn't nominate videos for it. Why not instead do it in reverse? Everyone nominate videos into the categories you suggested, and then the categories that took (with at least 5 or 6 solid entry nominations each) are kept.

That's a possibility that I considered, but I went in the reverse way because people will often try to force themselves to nominate 5 videos for a category even if there only 3 or 4 that deserve to be finalists. And so its highly likely that every category will receive at lest 5 videos with nominations. To add on to your approach though, we could potentially say that for a category to be accepted, there must be at least 5 videos that received X% of votes from participants. X could be determined by jingoro based on past voting habits and statistics. X can also be adjusted from year to year as needed. So if you think that your approach is better, it might be worth testing out with a few of the stipulations that I mentioned. This could also be a phase where ileia's moderator suggestion can come into play. The moderators can help jingoro analyze the results and determine what categories are have competitive finalists, and which ones should be cut.

[Rider4Z]

A'ight... I think we're on the same page...

[jingoro]

If there was ever any proof that this years debates got out of control, I, especially as someone on the outside of the chat, should never hear of someone's feelings getting hurt buy the reactions in said chat. This years review thread erupted at one person's responses but long before that was ever a thing there was backdraft from the joint viewing/discussion. So that is clearly a thing and needs to be addressed.

I will treat this, at this time, as a formal protest. Kireblue has provided me with a recording of all four days and I'll be reviewing it as time permits. While I do not expect to issue any sanctions because of the laissez faire nature of the current rules, this may result in an adjusting of those rules going forward if I find the protest substantiated.

If a discussion lasts longer than a few minutes then it's getting far to heated and needs to be called off.

If a discussion becomes a personal attack, or if someone is being argumentative, then you may be right. But first, content is the judge of that, not duration. And second, these are private parties and it is up to the host to decide what behavior is appropriate. Although it has been suggested that I attend, or have a moderator attend, it has also been said that we need to be professional and that I don't need to be a babysitter:

It's a rather naive and utopian stance, but part of that call to act in a professional manor. Jingoro should be here as an administrator, not watch dog. That's is professionalism.

Some people are putting far too much value in the words of their peers.

You've shared your opinion, and others may find it valid and adopt it, but who you choose as your trusted advisors and how much trust you put into them is not something I have any right to dictate through contest rules.

As a side note Jingoro, we spoke about privately but I suspect I'll receive a lot of agreement upon, you've been consistently feeding the loudest barking dogs.

As a side note, Mr Pilkington, I also spoke to Kireblue in the same vein as my evening with you. If "Pixel Blended" are the "loudest barking dogs" to which your refer, I'm not hearing it. He was a civil and interested in sharing ideas as you were. I've seen nothing but sincere concern and discussion here on this forum. Well, nothing like such name-calling... until now.

[Mr Pilkington]

As a side note, Mr Pilkington, I also spoke to Kireblue in the same vein as my evening with you. If "Pixel Blended" are the "loudest barking dogs" to which your refer, I'm not hearing it. He was a civil and interested in sharing ideas as you were. I've seen nothing but sincere concern and discussion here on this forum. Well, nothing like such name-calling... until now.

Look, I never called out any specific group or pseudonym. For the record and so that there are no affiliations further I do not speak for my studio and did not ever intend to call out any other group. Anyone can go back through the thread and count the people to which I was referring with any kind of affiliations aside. But at this point in light of the fact that the flames have been fanned and my belief that there is (albeit probably unintentional) bias am going to bow out of this contest permanently.
Every year I am blamed for at least one entry in private and usually the assessment is wrong. So going forward any video even perceived as mine will be seen in contempt by some. I never wanted to do this publicly but I don't want someone else hard work reflected poorly because of this.

[Warlike Swans]

Every year I am blamed for at least one entry in private and usually the assessment is wrong. So going forward any video even perceived as mine will be seen in contempt by some. I never wanted to do this publicly but I don't want someone else hard work reflected poorly because of this.

I feel bad if you're quitting the contest because you feel like you, or editors of videos incorrectly ascribed to you, are being persecuted, but unless there was another online stream I am unaware of, it seems like an entirely separate issue.

[MaboroshiStudio]

I had to console multiple editors this year who were in the stream / discussion... just saying. Also when unobjective and undeserving criticism / discussion happens (it can happen) about a video... that then catches fire in a group setting it can pretty much eliminate it from the contest almost.

All things to consider moving forward... I almost would prefer the chat to be anonymous and text only. The discussion does not require knowing who is who. This IMHO would also resolve issues some people have with the stream / chat.

[Shin-AMV]

I almost would prefer the chat to be anonymous and text only.