You're just scared that if this experiment doesn't work this contest will be remembered as 'oh I remember that epicfail of an experiment, it was hosted by Rob' :kink: (Not saying it'd be your fault at all though!)

 

The only thing is that it WILL work.

It's alright, it's a lot fairer for all parties if it goes ahead for XXVII...

Perhaps, but I still see this a Rob making a scene because he doesn't want to change the contest, rather than it being difficult or unfair. I don't see why we can't just go with it as planned.

 

I previously even said that this would happen - and somebody (I didn't really mind who it was) would say that this was the plan - true, I don't agree with these new rules, and stuff, but you genuinely believe I'm a liar? I didn't see anyone complaining that Rich was throwing his toys out of the pram when he declined hosting? I'm sure he wanted to, but there's reason for stepping down, other than to be petty and annoying. Seemingly happy to add the second chance, I complained about that too, if you'd like to look back, and I hastily added those to the schedule, but in the midst of forthcoming exams that I'm taking, and a drama production, whether it was the second chance or the one final idea in the making - it was giving me a headache literally, and I was focusing more on an online contest, than I was on real-life events, which are obviously more important - trying to get my head round new point systems? I wasn't particularly prepared for Second Chance either, to be perfectly honest with you, but take whatever view you wish with this - I'm sure you're not the only one who thinks I'm throwing my toys out of the pram, but heyho, it's up to you.

 

I didn't say it was all one big rude plan, I just thought it was a little bit rude that an idea of Second Chance or 1 big final was thrust upon - and there was no chance that we were going to do a regular final, it was written in the Experiment topic, that we WILL, for sure, be doing the experiment thing this contest - without any choice. Feel free to find comments where I said stuff was done behind my back, and stuff was done to be intentionally to be evil (or whatever you call it) but I've never said this, I just said it was a bit rude that this whole plan was thrust upon me all of a sudden. As I've previously said, with the events that are coming up for me, getting my head round loads of new ideas, and rules, was just too much for me. I'm not gonna keep myself hosting something, that I thought was going to be a mess because I don't understand the rules and I've got other things on my plate. I apologise for having bigger priorities than BJSC?

But that's not the case here is it? You're declining to host unless you get your way and have a normal contest. Rich kinda stepped down as moderator and host when he did. Perhaps you weren't totally happy with taking on the second chance, but you still made room for it and it actually doesn't matter which variant we use, it all lasts the same amount. Second chance, one big final, normal final - it all interferes with your schedule the same amount. Really, being so busy, I thought you'd have been glad to host a big final as it means one less 'live show' for you to spend an evening on. I'm sure working out what will surely be such a difficult new points system is worth getting an extra evening to revise?

 

Why? I don't see how it's rude at all. You act as if it's all a vendetta against you and your contest. If that were the case I'd be in the same boat. I didn't really know how two semis finals was going to work and I wasn't exactly keen on implementing the banlist for my last contest, but I went for it. Don't be so resistant.

 

This is the comment that got me started:

 

I don't have a clue because the mods have told me nothing, and have just gone ahead with everything rather rudely, without even asking if I minded testing out these experiments. Maybe you shouldn't have to, but at least you'd come across less rude and controlling.

I don't see how it's rude or controlling. You were aware of the second chance thing, so you knew there'd be some form of change in this contest, it just happens to be a slightly different one to what was expected. Generally, hosts aren't asked if they mind testing out experiments. I don't recall being asked about the banlist or the semis, I just went with it.

 

I think you'd be a good host, and I'm not trying to be personal, I just feel you're being a little awkward in not letting the plans go ahead this month. :(

Actually, just to be picky, there's gonna be TWO 'live shows' less to host, including AC, if AC stage was added.

 

Aaron's being so Tyron atm. :o Beware Ty'!

Actually, just to be picky, there's gonna be TWO 'live shows' less to host, including AC, if AC stage was added.

 

Aaron's being so Tyron atm. :o Beware Ty'!

Yes, but it's looking as if Rob just wants to host a standard show and for the experiments to go on next month, hence it only being one less live show to host. I really don't see the logic in seeing this as *more* effort. One less live show and half of the votes, should be the perfect contest for a busy host.

 

I'm not really 'being Tyron', more pointing out flaws in arguments.

I would still let Rob decide the way he wants to host.

But that's not the case here is it? You're declining to host unless you get your way and have a normal contest. Rich kinda stepped down as moderator and host when he did. Perhaps you weren't totally happy with taking on the second chance, but you still made room for it and it actually doesn't matter which variant we use, it all lasts the same amount. Second chance, one big final, normal final - it all interferes with your schedule the same amount. Really, being so busy, I thought you'd have been glad to host a big final as it means one less 'live show' for you to spend an evening on. I'm sure working out what will surely be such a difficult new points system is worth getting an extra evening to revise?

 

Why? I don't see how it's rude at all. You act as if it's all a vendetta against you and your contest. If that were the case I'd be in the same boat. I didn't really know how two semis finals was going to work and I wasn't exactly keen on implementing the banlist for my last contest, but I went for it. Don't be so resistant.

 

This is the comment that got me started:

I don't see how it's rude or controlling. You were aware of the second chance thing, so you knew there'd be some form of change in this contest, it just happens to be a slightly different one to what was expected. Generally, hosts aren't asked if they mind testing out experiments. I don't recall being asked about the banlist or the semis, I just went with it.

 

I think you'd be a good host, and I'm not trying to be personal, I just feel you're being a little awkward in not letting the plans go ahead this month. :(

But that's exactly what I'm saying - it's not because I'm not getting my way that I was going to step down?! I keep saying that - I'm declining to host, because as of Sunday, I'm going to be doing revision - and I don't know if this applies for you, but I've got plenty more important things to be putting my focus onto - why when I've got other stuff on my plate, would I be happily wishing to add more?! I don't understand what you don't understand, and why it keeps getting put back to me as if I'm being really selfish, and won't do anything unless I get my own way. I'm actually starting to think the big final idea isn't that bad, but as I've repeated so many times now... it would be SO much easier, if there was nothing for me to get my head round, so that maybe I could try and get some good results? Or maybe getting good results for me shouldn't be important? For me, it is important...it's just a simple request for it just to be kept the same - and it's reflecting on me as if I'm acting like a spoilt kid who throws a tantrum when he doesn't get his own way. The word, 'life' springs to mind.

 

I know how it looks because I've been complaining about all this 'quitting' if it comes to use, which in hindsight, I still might... but I'm not purely quitting hosting because I'm not getting my own way ... speaking to other people they said they'd do the same if they were in this position ... and when there's other stuff going on, why is it such a problem to just step out, for my own good? I think you've got a few comments that I've made and put them together, to get the impression that I'm throwing a tantrum, and not hosting purely because of these brand new rules - which I have to say, is an absolute load of rubbish - what reason is that to step down from hosting, really?

 

Looking back ... that comment was pretty harsh, and, yes, unnecessary - but we all make comments that are rash when we're a bit pissed off, which I was? Because I didn't see the need for change, therefore for I was a bit annoyed that I hadn't been told. Not necessarily rude, no, but it would've been nice just to have had somebody at least say that we were definetly going to do something. Yeah, the second chance was a plan put in place - but it wasn't set in stone that it was going to be used in this contest - everything is done with a poll. For all I knew, there could've been a 'no changes' option - but it went from 2 ideas, to 2 ideas that were definetly going to be used no matter what - whether or not you should have to ask me, it would've been polite to, no?

 

I can see from your point of view in that I am being picky, but that's not the intentional to be selfish and to sound controlling myself. And, sure, maybe it should be less work with their being several rules in place - but it's not just as simple as cutting out the semis and making one semi ... there's still gonna be additions to rules, surely? If not, then clearly I'm unsure - which is part of my point too.

Edited April 11, 201015 yr by Robot

Sorry, Rob, but you talking about BJSC being time consuming, having revision at the time of it and still agreeing to host if there were no changes don't seem logical to me for the following reason.

 

Imagine the two-weeks time for voting in final. You could just post the thread and even never appear on BJ for the next 1.5 weeks to do revision and 'have life', then to do the adding of the votes in the last few days! after that only one 'live night show' to have compared to the variant having the whole semi stage which is ALONE probably more complicated than 'one big final' conception on the whole.

 

I believe people wouldn't have made such comments if you just said 'I won't host because of the change' WITHOUT any 'unless' condition.

Wait, I'm not sure what's going on now. Are you not hosting then? If so, I have no problem with you stepping down and passing it on to Harve (who seems happy to host one big final) at all. But, from what I can gather, you're not saying you're stepping down. You're stepping down only if we make any changes. (despite the changes taking up less revision time)

 

I'm not sure what additions to rules you're expecting from this one big final idea? But, as far as I'm aware, there wouldn't be any.

 

It'll go:

 

1) Banlist nominations

2) Banlist results

3) Reservation

4) Confirmation

5) Voting opens

6) Final results

 

No drawing of semi finals, no extra evening needed for you to reveal the qualifiers, simple. The only thing that will change is the points system which, once in front of you, should be pretty easy to get. (we're voting for either 2 or 5 more songs) Just put the new points system in big red letters and it'll be in the hands of the voters to make sure they read it. It really is just a simplified, albeit bigger, version of what we have at the moment.

I don't have a clue what's going on - so I think it's probably best if I don't host. :unsure:

I'll host :kink:

Sorry, Rob, but you talking about BJSC being time consuming, having revision at the time of it and still agreeing to host if there were no changes don't seem logical to me for the following reason.

 

Imagine the two-weeks time for voting in final. You could just post the thread and even never appear on BJ for the next 1.5 weeks to do revision and 'have life', then to do the adding of the votes in the last few days! after that only one 'live night show' to have compared to the variant having the whole semi stage which is ALONE probably more complicated than 'one big final' conception on the whole.

 

I believe people wouldn't have made such comments if you just said 'I won't host because of the change' WITHOUT any 'unless' condition.

Right, now this is the best where I do come across badly - and I completely 100% understand where you are coming from.

 

The thing that I just pointed out and wrongly, is that, I presumed that the big final wasn't going to be as simple as it is - I expected loads of different rules being changed to make the big final work - I've just been told by Aaron it isn't, and I jumped to the conclusion that if the Second Chance meant different rules changed, then the big final would mean different rules being changed. And this is partly what I'm saying when I was commenting on the mods, is that I don't understand at all what is going on anymore, and I don't even know what I'm supposed to be hosting, otherwise I would have a clear view on what this One Final thing was going to entail (is that the right word to use?)

 

Edit: My exams will finish on May 3rd, according to the timetable which I've just dug out, so would I be able to do it, do you think?

Edited April 11, 201015 yr by Robot

I'm of the opinion it's for the best if the experiment goes ahead in XXVII.

Quite frankly, all of this discussion seems to prove that the best thing to do for Bjsc (for the moment) would be to keep the changes out, and have everything stay the same. Both the discussion/arguments about wether we should choose AC or "just one big final" seems to really split most of the participants on two sides. There will be a lot of unhappy faces around if either would be implemented.

 

I fear that if we go with one big final, we're all going to realise that it's just the best practical contest option. Less time consuming, less stages.. and yes - there will be more (all) countries in one final, but that doesn't make it a bigger contest , just a larger amount of countries in one final to vote for/that are able to recieve votes. A bigger contest depends on both all of the stages, and all the activity 'available'. They way I see it, one big final makes everything easier, but this also gives the impression of getting the musical discoveries out of the way when there is obviously more it than that or otherwise we could've just opened a new thread were we could post unkown songs etc.

 

So, the contest would be smaller, less fun and exciting. The activity would drop, and already it seems someone has decided to drop out of we implement either of the formats. Surely this isn't better for the BJSC contest? And I'm usually not against changes in itself. But not all changes are for the better, and this new contest format change doesn't seem to be one of them.

Edited April 11, 201015 yr by Freeze

Quite frankly, all of this discussion seems to prove that the best thing to do for Bjsc (for the moment) would be to keep the changes out, and have everything stay the same. Both the discussion/arguments about wether we should choose AC or "just one big final" seems to really split most of the participants on two sides. There will be a lot of unhappy faces around if either would be implemented.

 

I fear that if we go with one big final, we're all going to realise that it's just the best practical contest option. Less time consuming, less stages.. and yes - there will be more (all) countries in one final, but that doesn't make it a bigger contest , just a larger amount of countries in one final to vote for/that are able to recieve votes. A bigger contest depends on both all of the stages, and all the activity 'available'. They way I see it, one big final makes everything easier, but this also gives the impression of getting the musical discoveries out of the way when there is obviously more it than that or otherwise we could've just opened a new thread were we could post unkown songs etc.

 

So, the contest would be smaller, less fun and exciting. The activity would drop, and already it seems someone has decided to drop out of we implement either of the formats. Surely this isn't better for the BJSC contest? And I'm usually not against changes in itself. But not all changes is for the better, and this new contest format change doesn't seem to be one of them.

If you actually read what I said, I said that this is an EXPERIMENT. There will be a poll afterwards. If you like it, you can say, if you don't, you can say. From previous experience, we know that 'a lot of unhappy faces if x is implemented' very quickly turns into people realising it isn't that big of a deal and actually improves the contest.

 

Again, how does 'all of this discussion' prove that the best thing is to do nothing? We've had far more fierce debates than this which have produced measures which have gone ahead and resulted in...nobody leaving and a general agreement that the contest had improved.

 

Why would the contest be smaller? You seem to assume that people would leave as a result and that nobody would join up. Why would it be less fun/exciting? More people would be more involved in the final itself, rather than the current system which leads to about 10+ countries just not really caring. It would also get rid of the problem whereby countries that didn't qualify just refuse to vote because they can't be bothered, so it'll produce fairer results in general...

 

If you're on about Utopia, he was already getting fairly bored of the contest, but mainly for musical purposes...it isn't so much a dramatic objection to the format but one that has other strong factors behind it.

I'll say it in a seperate post, so it doesn't get mixed in with all the discussion.

 

My exams end May 3rd, depending on whether things change, do you think this will clash?

If you actually read what I said, I said that this is an EXPERIMENT. There will be a poll afterwards. If you like it, you can say, if you don't, you can say. From previous experience, we know that 'a lot of unhappy faces if x is implemented' very quickly turns into people realising it isn't that big of a deal and actually improves the contest.

 

Again, how does 'all of this discussion' prove that the best thing is to do nothing? We've had far more fierce debates than this which have produced measures which have gone ahead and resulted in...nobody leaving and a general agreement that the contest had improved.

 

I know that. But during this discussion I got the impression it was to implemented for a longer time period no matter what. My point would then be all but a theory, but I trust you to make the right decisions anyhow.

 

Why would the contest be smaller? You seem to assume that people would leave as a result and that nobody would join up. Why would it be less fun/exciting? More people would be more involved in the final itself, rather than the current system which leads to about 10+ countries just not really caring. It would also get rid of the problem whereby countries that didn't qualify just refuse to vote because they can't be bothered, so it'll produce fairer results in general...

 

As I said; the contest would be smaller both because of the activity available and the stages. Naturally, there being less stages and all, there would be a lot less to discuss. And I agree that with a DNQ there is a lot less to engage in, and that with a bigger final it makes everything fairer and experimental. But as I stated this is only a concern of mine. I'm not against a one-contest experiment, I just fear this will make the contest a lot less fun etc if it was implemented on a 'permanent' basis.

 

 

If you're on about Utopia, he was already getting fairly bored of the contest, but mainly for musical purposes...it isn't so much a dramatic objection to the format but one that has other strong factors behind it.

 

 

Not, not just Utopia. I noticed Kylienips in his thread too, amongst some other comments on the forum. Though I wouldn't know for certain if they actually meant it.

Edited April 11, 201015 yr by Freeze

I'll say it in a seperate post, so it doesn't get mixed in with all the discussion.

 

My exams end May 3rd, depending on whether things change, do you think this will clash?

It shouldn't do, if it's being held so that the final results are around May 16th...

I know that. But during this discussion I got the impression it was to implemented for a longer time period no matter what. My point would then be all but a theory, but I trust you to make the right decisions anyhow.

As I said; the contest would be smaller both because of the activity available and the stages. Naturally, there being less stages and all, there would be a lot less to discuss. And I agree that with a DNQ there is a lot less to engage in, and that with a bigger final it makes everything fairer and experimental. But as I stated this is only a concern of mine. I'm not against a one-contest experiment, I just fear this will make the contest a lot less fun etc if it was implemented on a 'permanent' basis.

Not, not just Utopia. I noticed Kylienips in his thread too, amongst some other comments on the forum. Though I wouldn't know for certain if they actually meant it.

Kylienips is a drama queen with all changes and this is well known :smoke:

 

As I said, there will be a poll. If the majority are against the new system, then it won't go through! :P

Kylienips is a drama queen with all changes and this is well known :smoke:

 

As I said, there will be a poll. If the majority are against the new system, then it won't go through! :P

 

Fine! :P

Instead of being experimental and everything I'm sending this generic pop/rock/electro song Delphic-esque in Danish language. :( Which is incredible btw.