Hosting is a LOT of effort and ultimately I don't think anybody realises just how much until you do it, it consumes a hell of a lot of your spare/online time from the moment you open the confirmation thread until the moment you announce the final scoreboard. It's all very well people nitpicking minor things, like insignificant punctuation mistakes I made the last time I hosted a few months ago but I consider that it went very smoothly if those were the only issues with my hosting! :lol: It's definitely fun and nice to see how the voting is going and getting to reveal it but it's also a lot of work which doesn't seem to go appreciated by a lot of people (likewise when I hosted NMTBJ's and came under fire for something or other). I can definitely empathise with Martyn.

 

It is a nightmare, I agree. I had enough trouble with hosting Never Mind The Buzzjacks, so I don't know why I'm wishing for another win (it won't happen this month, or frankly the one after...)

I think the thing about 'having' to send reminders was in regard to banning people from the next contest, not as a general rule for hosting (At least, that's what I got from it)

Plus, sending reminders for a plain member like me is a big time consuming deal with all those one minute before you're allowed to send another PM conditions. It'd be so much easier if the mods sent out reminders, they can CC and there's no limit for PMs per minute so it'd take like literally 100 seconds to do all this.

Have you timed this? :lol:

 

Anyway the mods can only do what they are asked to do. I sent Martyn several PMs in the last couple of days asking if he wanted help and he didn't reply to me so...

Still, it's ridiculous. Weren't people banned after the last contest because they didn't vote? So I don't see why this should be different. You can't not ban people because they weren't reminded! I'm not saying "BAN THEM!!!" but I don't think it's fair to change the rules because Martyn didn't remind people. Fair enough if the voting was only for two days, but it's been on for longer than a week. I wouldn't be so vocal about this had people not been banned previously. I don't think it's right to make exceptions when the voting window was considerably longer this time.

What is IIIV? :lol: 35? LOL

 

Maybe. :blush: It should've been written as BJSC XXXIV which I got right everywhere else bar the semi videos.

Still, it's ridiculous. Weren't people banned after the last contest because they didn't vote? So I don't see why this should be different. You can't not ban people because they weren't reminded! I'm not saying "BAN THEM!!!" but I don't think it's fair to change the rules because Martyn didn't remind people. Fair enough if the voting was only for two days, but it's been on for longer than a week. I wouldn't be so vocal about this had people not been banned previously. I don't think it's right to make exceptions when the voting window was considerably longer this time.

 

Tbh, anyone who hasn't voted by, like, now should be banned IMHO, but not anyone after 11am.

There seems to be a mix reaction to this, I wonder how will Martyn respond to this :o

Do you mean until the final? That's 7pm on SUNDAY! :P

I meant 15 miunter and 24 hours to go :kink:

Still, it's ridiculous. Weren't people banned after the last contest because they didn't vote? So I don't see why this should be different. You can't not ban people because they weren't reminded! I'm not saying "BAN THEM!!!" but I don't think it's fair to change the rules because Martyn didn't remind people. Fair enough if the voting was only for two days, but it's been on for longer than a week. I wouldn't be so vocal about this had people not been banned previously. I don't think it's right to make exceptions when the voting window was considerably longer this time.

 

We're not CHANGING any rules. Certainly as far as I'm aware, when we brought back the banning rule I had always said that non-voters "who have been reminded" will be banned from the following contest.

We're not CHANGING any rules. Certainly as far as I'm aware, when we brought back the banning rule I had always said that non-voters "who have been reminded" will be banned from the following contest.

 

Well you are because it states: If a country fails to vote in the final, then the deduction will be applied and that country will be banned from entering the next edition of the contest. We may be slightly more flexible where countries have put in genuine effort into attempting to vote. I'm not asking for people to be banned, I just don't think it's fair that it's subjective when the circumstances are actually IN FAVOUR of the participants this month (ie. they had longer to vote). Like I said, I wouldn't care if people hadn't already been banned for this. But to not apply the rule because X-number didn't vote when they had way more time to vote is just silly.

My ideal solution would be to ban everyone who missed 11pm as a deadine with penalties applying to the people who voted in the 12hrs in between. But we can't really ban half the contest over a mass misconception over the deadline.

 

I know it's not ideal, far from it, but we'd be looking at a BJSC IV and I don't know if we'd bounce back from that at a time when general activity on Buzzjack is low.

Well you are because it states: If a country fails to vote in the final, then the deduction will be applied and that country will be banned from entering the next edition of the contest. We may be slightly more flexible where countries have put in genuine effort into attempting to vote. I'm not asking for people to be banned, I just don't think it's fair that it's subjective when the circumstances are actually IN FAVOUR of the participants this month (ie. they had longer to vote). Like I said, I wouldn't care if people hadn't already been banned for this. But to not apply the rule because X-number didn't vote when they had way more time to vote is just silly.

 

This is true, I don't think the likes of currently banned ChrIseland and Letland would be too happy with non-voters this month not getting banned from the next contest. Another really difficult situation that makes me glad I'm not mod anymore :lol:

My ideal solution would be to ban everyone who missed 11pm as a deadine with penalties applying to the people who voted in the 12hrs in between. But we can't really ban half the contest over a mass misconception over the deadline.

 

I know it's not ideal, far from it, but we'd be looking at a BJSC IV and I don't know if we'd bounce back from that at a time when general activity on Buzzjack is low.

 

THIS. Tbh I don't think it's fair to ban anyone until Martyn has logged on and checked his messages, which I presume hasn't happened yet.

THIS. Tbh I don't think it's fair to ban anyone until Martyn has logged on and checked his messages, which I presume hasn't happened yet.

This again. Bans for 11PM's plus. Deductions for people who simply didn't read the deadline properly (especially since Martyn reminded everyone in this thread last night and I set my alarm particularly early this morning so I COULD vote on time.)

I don't think it's practical to ban half the contestants, but they should still receive the 33% deduction if they miss the 11AM but reach the 11PM voting 'deadline'.

Agreed here too, that would seem a fair way of being keeping to part of the rules without ruining the next contest for the host by having a lot of people unable to participate.

We just have to hope that everyone doesn't say they thought it was 11am tomorrow now :lol:

Those people can be banned for two contests instead! :D

I agree with Phil as well :)

This is true, I don't think the likes of currently banned ChrIseland and Letland would be too happy with non-voters this month not getting banned from the next contest. Another really difficult situation that makes me glad I'm not mod anymore :lol:

 

That's where I'm coming from. I don't want to speak for those two, but I would be a bit miffed if I was banned and then the rule didn't apply the next month. Perhaps from now on there should be a rule that if you vote within 4 or so hours after voting has closed then you get the deduction, but any time after that then you get the deduction and a ban? It would tackle the issue we have now. And of course we need to make the reading of the deadline compulsory. :P