|
|
Post by Croswynd on May 18, 2015 12:36:20 GMT -5
I've had no problems with the reviews, myself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sekot on May 18, 2015 12:59:05 GMT -5
I think it'd be interesting to revisit the stories in this competition and have a breakdown on how we review and what we review. Because I think what's really happening is not necessarily that the reviews being given are bad, but that we just disagree on what constitutes a good story. There's been a few times where I've read a review and gone "I totally disagree", and I guess not being able to say why I disagree without looking like I want my team to win is difficult. But I'm also the type who loves navel-gazing discussions that ultimately lead nowhere.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2015 14:00:09 GMT -5
Taed murdered my mother and raped my father. Idk why he did it like that
|
|
|
|
Post by James on May 18, 2015 14:22:48 GMT -5
Is the anonymity really a problem? I thought we traditionally have it so favouritism wasn't an issue. The favouritism thing irks me to no end. I'm never liked the implication it carried for the judges, whether I be the one judging or writing. First of all, I don't hate -anyone- here. So there's no one I'm deliberately picking on. Secondly, yes, I'm more friendly with some people than other. But I don't think that has ever coloured my judgment. During the final round of that big competition Zovo and I judged, I nearly took Matteo out first round and it was Zovo who really saved him to progress (joint judges, we had to discuss the rounds). I've voted against Pete before. I've given you losses on several occasions. Just because we're friends, doesn't mean I'm going to give them favourable treatment. It's the only thing that bugs me about any judging controversy, because I totally understand being angry at a judge if you think they're wrong. But, let me say thing this. Matteo and I are judging completely independently of each other. And while we have pretty similar tastes in entertainment, our approach to writing is actually considerably different. So the fact that we're in agreement 75% (and 100% of the results) of the time does suggest some force to what we're saying. Like I said, I'd really love to sit down and talk about our reviews because I don't think there's much to exception to in the -content-. It goes back to what I said earlier: you get angry, then you need to sit down and rebut the judge line-by-line, and if you can't do that, then you need to row back a step and realise we're not attacking you. ((I'm using 'you' in general, Dragon! Sorry it sounds like I'm talking directly to you!)) |
|
|
|
Post by ASGetty ((Zovo)) on May 18, 2015 14:36:32 GMT -5
So... Agro, Tead, does this mean we can stop sending you money donations?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Counter Cultist(Sawyer) on May 18, 2015 14:48:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Kaez on May 18, 2015 14:49:36 GMT -5
So... Agro, Tead, does this mean we can stop sending you money donations? Team Kaez, I've got a new theory about our complaints about the judging... |
|
|
|
Post by James on May 18, 2015 15:22:26 GMT -5
I think it'd be interesting to revisit the stories in this competition and have a breakdown on how we review and what we review. Because I think what's really happening is not necessarily that the reviews being given are bad, but that we just disagree on what constitutes a good story. There's been a few times where I've read a review and gone "I totally disagree", and I guess not being able to say why I disagree without looking like I want my team to win is difficult. But I'm also the type who loves navel-gazing discussions that ultimately lead nowhere. I'm up for that because there are two stories where apparently Team Kaez and the Judges completely disagree (I'm not going to name stories for now), and honestly, with one of them I'm so sure in my opinion I'm pretty comfortable throwing around the word 'objectively'. So yeah, I'm up for a de-brief at the end of this. |
|
|
|
Post by J.O.N ((Dragonwing)) on May 18, 2015 15:35:10 GMT -5
Is the anonymity really a problem? I thought we traditionally have it so favouritism wasn't an issue. The favouritism thing irks me to no end. I'm never liked the implication it carried for the judges, whether I be the one judging or writing. First of all, I don't hate -anyone- here. So there's no one I'm deliberately picking on. Secondly, yes, I'm more friendly with some people than other. But I don't think that has ever coloured my judgment. During the final round of that big competition Zovo and I judged, I nearly took Matteo out first round and it was Zovo who really saved him to progress (joint judges, we had to discuss the rounds). I've voted against Pete before. I've given you losses on several occasions. Just because we're friends, doesn't mean I'm going to give them favourable treatment. It's the only thing that bugs me about any judging controversy, because I totally understand being angry at a judge if you think they're wrong. But, let me say thing this. Matteo and I are judging completely independently of each other. And while we have pretty similar tastes in entertainment, our approach to writing is actually considerably different. So the fact that we're in agreement 75% (and 100% of the results) of the time does suggest some force to what we're saying. Like I said, I'd really love to sit down and talk about our reviews because I don't think there's much to exception to in the -content-. It goes back to what I said earlier: you get angry, then you need to sit down and rebut the judge line-by-line, and if you can't do that, then you need to row back a step and realise we're not attacking you. ((I'm using 'you' in general, Dragon! Sorry it sounds like I'm talking directly to you!)) I always thought the worry was that the favouritism was more how the judge read the story based on knowing who it was from, as if they would judge harder, easier or that knowing the author may change how they interpret it. Not so much plain cronyism. |
|
|
|
Post by James on May 18, 2015 15:44:11 GMT -5
Oh, I didn't even notice Kaez has posted Round 3 stories!
|
|
|
|
Post by James on May 18, 2015 19:56:55 GMT -5
So... Agro, Tead, does this mean we can stop sending you money donations? Team Kaez, I've got a new theory about our complaints about the judging... They paid good money for that noir topic. |
|
|
|
Post by Croswynd on May 18, 2015 19:58:46 GMT -5
I, for one, am enjoying this competition.
|
|
|
|
Post by ASGetty ((Zovo)) on May 18, 2015 19:58:48 GMT -5
Team Kaez, I've got a new theory about our complaints about the judging... They paid good money for that noir topic. "The Epic Brooding Adventures of Thorson Ragnarok, PI" (Working Title) |
|
|
|
Post by Ad Absurdum on May 18, 2015 20:07:09 GMT -5
This competition, I like it. Another!
|
|
|
|
Post by James on May 20, 2015 17:48:43 GMT -5
Hopefully people are writing away for the fourth round. Only one more round afterwards (and hopefully people will like the topics).
Depending on how Matteo is going, he may have to wait up for me because I probably won't get around to judging till the weekend.
|
|
