I'm not disregarding anybody's ideas, but I'm just not sold on the reasons behind them. Jonjo, in your original post you said "certain other songs are getting the go ahead. (Most the ones from the mods)" and that there's a slight bias towards the mods, which prompted me to reply the way I did. The only situation where this was considered to be the case was Darin-Tone, and even that was (and still is) being completely blown out of the water (imo, of course). I can't find any other situations where a mod has had a cheap entry that should've been vetoed, hence why I'm finding it difficult to accept the reasons for the jury. Subsequent replies about the jury idea to monitor mods' choices annoyed me because it does suggest that we're not fully trusted (even if that wasn't your intention, but it does come across that way). A mod's entry can be vetoed, it only takes a majority to do it. Like I said before, vetoes have gone ahead when I've disagreed with them, so there's nothing stopping this from happening to a mod's entry. And there have been cases where one of us supports a veto and the other three don't. It works both ways. Besides, we often have cases where two of us support a veto and two of us are against, so it doesn't get vetoed, perhaps when it should - so do we have to bring in a system where this doesn't happen? It seems to be a bit complicated, although not entirely unworkable. It's definitely something we're looking into, and I know we've agreed to some rule changes already in response to your concerns. Please don't let this deter others from raising suggestions. And please remember, it wasn't your suggestion I was against, just the reasons/sentiment behind it. I think Silas has a post ready with a few changes being announced, so please keep an eye out for it!

That post will be coming after I've caught up with the new posts. I'll have a proper read/reply to this thread after I've had dinner.

On the veto issue, I watch the mods discussing vetos every 'month' and they are pretty fair and I have never thought 'hang on, thats a dodgy decision!'. There is no hard and fast rule on what is even slightly cheap though and 4 opinions do help define it - you cannot please everybody though.

I'm not disregarding anybody's ideas, but I'm just not sold on the reasons behind them. Jonjo, in your original post you said "certain other songs are getting the go ahead. (Most the ones from the mods)" and that there's a slight bias towards the mods, which prompted me to reply the way I did. The only situation where this was considered to be the case was Darin-Tone, and even that was (and still is) being completely blown out of the water (imo, of course). I can't find any other situations where a mod has had a cheap entry that should've been vetoed, hence why I'm finding it difficult to accept the reasons for the jury. Subsequent replies about the jury idea to monitor mods' choices annoyed me because it does suggest that we're not fully trusted (even if that wasn't your intention, but it does come across that way). A mod's entry can be vetoed, it only takes a majority to do it. Like I said before, vetoes have gone ahead when I've disagreed with them, so there's nothing stopping this from happening to a mod's entry. And there have been cases where one of us supports a veto and the other three don't. It works both ways. Besides, we often have cases where two of us support a veto and two of us are against, so it doesn't get vetoed, perhaps when it should - so do we have to bring in a system where this doesn't happen? It seems to be a bit complicated, although not entirely unworkable. It's definitely something we're looking into, and I know we've agreed to some rule changes already in response to your concerns. Please don't let this deter others from raising suggestions. And please remember, it wasn't your suggestion I was against, just the reasons/sentiment behind it. I think Silas has a post ready with a few changes being announced, so please keep an eye out for it!

Looking back at my original post I shouldn't have singled out the mods, as looking back just recently shows that, with the mods it is only the one situation. So I do, sincerely apologise for that and can understand why you guys would feel like it was meant the way I didn't intend it. I have said this plenty of times before on here, but I am terrible at wording things which is why I usually miss out on taking part in certain discussions, because I can never get what I want to say, to come out the way I planned/have it in my head. (It's so much more simple in my head :lol:) Rich has taken what I've wanted to say and worded it a thousand times better than I did/could.

 

But like I said in my last post, maybe I'm just more lenient and just have a different approach as to what's cheap and what's not considered cheap (because I wouldn't have banned Tone at all, either) and maybe because I was so riled about the whole Darin-Tone thing (I know it's been blown out of proportion - sorry for that) is where this idea in my mind generated from and so it just seems like there's been other incidents. I didn't intend to purposely offend anyone and I do trust you guys 100% with your choices and that you would ban if you needed too, but like Rich says I do think a 5th person (the host/runnerup) could come into play and decide the 50/50 splits or at least have input themselves (i.e. when they send you the list, they write down what they personally think should/shouldn't be vetoed or whatever) Thank you for replying back to me in a very decent way and I don't mean to be patronising or anything but I do thank you for that. (It's another reason why you four are possibly the strongest mod team going) And again I am really sorry for my terrible wording when it comes to things like this. I hate discussions and this is one of the reasons why I don't take part in many like this on the forum. :lol:

 

EDIT: This post itself has taken me a good 30-45 minutes LOL! :(

I think you've hit the nail on the head here. Perhaps it's just that the mod vetting procedure is so behind the scenes that most of us didn't realise properly how it worked hence what must look like some uninformed off the cuff comments.

 

Until you've just said it, I didn't realise that a 50/50 split means that the entry still goes forward to the competition, so perhaps in cases like this, and this only it should go to a 'respected fifth member' or the host. It's honestly not lack of trust or anything like that, it's just giving a third party a chance to have an objective say if 50% of the mods are deeming the track too cheap or unworthy of being in the contest.

 

But I apologise if anything that I've said has come across as accusing or anything like that because it really wasn't intended in that way at all. When I say 'a level playing field' what I mean is that every single entry be subjected to the same procedure, the procedure of a panel of four deciding on a track's fate. This is all hypothetical but what would happen if Ghosty confirmed a new hot leak that only Silas objected to, but you and Tom let through? Under the current rules it would go straight through as it would be a 2-1 split for the track, however with an impartial fourth panel member objecting to it too, it could go to a 2-2 split and therefore be subject to extra scrutiny if this 'fifth member' thing came into force. It's not about lack of trust, it's about every entry having the same odds of going through various procedures the same way. To flip these trust accusations 180, the whole vetting procedure itself could be seen as a lack of trust on everyone that isn't a mod that we're all going to select uninspired contest ruining entries that have to be screened before being deemed suitable! Luckily nobody thinks of it like that, I don't think anyone does at least :lol:

Yeah, if we can't come to a definite decision one way or another it ends up in the contest. We are trying to come up with a solution that will actually incorporate this 5th member/jury idea but gets past our reservations about the idea.

If they ever have a tie, Jester, RFC and I can see the mod forum so maybe one of us (perhaps Jester as he's more established in BJSC?) could be the 5th opinion?

 

What I would add is, having read the discussions in the mod forum while I was being nosey, I really wouldn't say the mods usually favour their own entries.

Talking of the mod forum, we actually do need your opinion on something. (As well as Matt and Mark please!)

 

 

On the veto issue, I watch the mods discussing vetos every 'month' and they are pretty fair and I have never thought 'hang on, thats a dodgy decision!'. There is no hard and fast rule on what is even slightly cheap though and 4 opinions do help define it - you cannot please everybody though.

 

Thanks for that! We really can't please everyone as much as we do try.

Looking back at my original post I shouldn't have singled out the mods, as looking back just recently shows that, with the mods it is only the one situation. So I do, sincerely apologise for that and can understand why you guys would feel like it was meant the way I didn't intend it. I have said this plenty of times before on here, but I am terrible at wording things which is why I usually miss out on taking part in certain discussions, because I can never get what I want to say, to come out the way I planned/have it in my head. (It's so much more simple in my head :lol:) Rich has taken what I've wanted to say and worded it a thousand times better than I did/could.

 

But like I said in my last post, maybe I'm just more lenient and just have a different approach as to what's cheap and what's not considered cheap (because I wouldn't have banned Tone at all, either) and maybe because I was so riled about the whole Darin-Tone thing (I know it's been blown out of proportion - sorry for that) is where this idea in my mind generated from and so it just seems like there's been other incidents. I didn't intend to purposely offend anyone and I do trust you guys 100% with your choices and that you would ban if you needed too, but like Rich says I do think a 5th person (the host/runnerup) could come into play and decide the 50/50 splits or at least have input themselves (i.e. when they send you the list, they write down what they personally think should/shouldn't be vetoed or whatever) Thank you for replying back to me in a very decent way and I don't mean to be patronising or anything but I do thank you for that. (It's another reason why you four are possibly the strongest mod team going) And again I am really sorry for my terrible wording when it comes to things like this. I hate discussions and this is one of the reasons why I don't take part in many like this on the forum. :lol:

 

EDIT: This post itself has taken me a good 30-45 minutes LOL! :(

I think between Cal and myself we've pretty much covered everything. Thank you for clarifying the part of you initial post I highlighted, don't let what you think is terrible wording stop you from participating. As someone who has been around a while you have a lot of experience to back up your opinion.

 

I am hopeful we will be able to have a workable solution soon.

 

 

---

 

I feel like some of this has come from the veto system being kept completely behind closed doors and the details not really being fully explained. If Tom and/or Cal give it the OK (Ghosty already has) then we will be moving the veto section of our thread on BJSC XL into this forum for a few days to a week where it will be pinned and locked so you can see what the veto process usually entails. I'll most likely post a counterpart thread so you all can ask questions and really help everyone fully understand the process as much as we possibly can.

I feel like some of this has come from the veto system being kept completely behind closed doors and the details not really being fully explained. If Tom and/or Cal give it the OK (Ghosty already has) then we will be moving the veto section of our thread on BJSC XL into this forum for a few days to a week where it will be pinned and locked so you can see what the veto process usually entails. I'll most likely post a counterpart thread so you all can ask questions and really help everyone fully understand the process as much as we possibly can.

 

I think you may be right and it would certainly be an eye opener for non-mods/admin to see exactly what the vetting process entails and how decisions are/have been reached.

 

4 people is a tiny cross section of around 50, so obviously you can't and won't always please the majority, but I think most people agree with the reasoning behind 90%+ of your decisions. To say that you've probably vetoed 30 odd tracks since the process has come in and it's only the same 2 or 3 that keep popping up in conversation proves this. It's not that people don't trust the mods, far from it, but the extra transparency would help people to understand WHY their tracks have been vetoed or why something the rest of us feel is a little bit cheap has been allowed in.