Yeah I'd be hopeless at making MP3 packs and have asked someone else to do them for me both times I need them doing! :kink:

We acknowledge that Jake hasn't had the time to vote due to his hectic real life schedule, BUT on the other hand it's also unfair to those previous auto-qualifiers who spent the time on actually hearing all 50 entries and carefully choosing which they like best to vote for in both semi-finals. Furthermore it does state that if you auto-qualify, you must vote in both semi-finals although the consequences of not doing so isn't laid out. Rich not asking Jake about auto-qualifying isn't a fault on his behalf either as in a contest with even numbers, the runner-up automatically qualifies along with the winner and it has been like this for a while now. Choosing not to qualify would just cause further disrupt as the question of "who will auto-qualify then to provide an even number of semi-final participants?" and thus going against normal tradition by passing it down to the 3rd place. I'm also fairly certain that having the runner-up automatically sailing through to the final is a given and it isn't the host's job to inform them of that.

 

Giving Jake the "okay it's a flaw on our behalf for not writing it in the rules correctly" seems (in my opinion) unfair on previous nations who automatically qualify through to the final and spent the time to listen to each entry on both semi-finals and vote but "hey let's penalise Jake 100%" seems to be a bit harsh as us mods have to take responsibility for not covering everything. *NOTE* This is MY opinion on the stance.

 

So far, discussion is still going as to what to do with this situation. Whether Jake will be given the "okay but no next time!" treatment or "you still have to suffer due to your non-voting" hasn't been decided yet but hopefully a final verdict will be issued soon.

I think the only solution is to make up Jake's votes up for him in the final and pretend he's incapable of doing them himself - therefore just assume he was going to give 12 to Lipstick?

Personally I think Jake should be hanged, drawn and quartered for his horrific crime.

Let's just do OBF again tbh.

We acknowledge that Jake hasn't had the time to vote due to his hectic real life schedule, BUT on the other hand it's also unfair to those previous auto-qualifiers who spent the time on actually hearing all 50 entries and carefully choosing which they like best to vote for in both semi-finals. Furthermore it does state that if you auto-qualify, you must vote in both semi-finals although the consequences of not doing so isn't laid out. Rich not asking Jake about auto-qualifying isn't a fault on his behalf either as in a contest with even numbers, the runner-up automatically qualifies along with the winner and it has been like this for a while now. Choosing not to qualify would just cause further disrupt as the question of "who will auto-qualify then to provide an even number of semi-final participants?" and thus going against normal tradition by passing it down to the 3rd place. I'm also fairly certain that having the runner-up automatically sailing through to the final is a given and it isn't the host's job to inform them of that.

 

Giving Jake the "okay it's a flaw on our behalf for not writing it in the rules correctly" seems (in my opinion) unfair on previous nations who automatically qualify through to the final and spent the time to listen to each entry on both semi-finals and vote but "hey let's penalise Jake 100%" seems to be a bit harsh as us mods have to take responsibility for not covering everything. *NOTE* This is MY opinion on the stance.

 

So far, discussion is still going as to what to do with this situation. Whether Jake will be given the "okay but no next time!" treatment or "you still have to suffer due to your non-voting" hasn't been decided yet but hopefully a final verdict will be issued soon.

yeah your personal opinion but how and when does that differ from your moderating opinion? aren't the two interchangeable?

 

your post sums up things pretty well in a sense-- how this competition has become overrun with bureaucracy, rules, red tape and notions of power.

 

you're defending a legacy, a legacy no-one else has asked to be defended and created a view that totally contradicts the general mood.

 

it plays in to a lot of what i've been wondering recently. why is it the same four people are the mods of this forum? this is in no way a personal attack on any of you guys as i like you all but surely the moderators should rotate on a more regular basis to maintain a purity to the competition and keeping things fresh. the tone of bjsc as it stands becomes mired when the same people make all the decisions for too long. it's the same in life, staying in power too long only has negative effects.

As the GM in charge of this section I have to say I disagree with you about the modding of this forum Jake. It's probably the most effective forum on the site in terms of getting things done (at least in terms of each contest, the stats and stuff have fallen behind a bit, granted) and I think the current team is fairly representative of the members of BJSC as a whole. There was a lengthy vetting process last year which ended up in two new mods being recruited and there were no complaints about that or how things have proceeded until the last few months.

 

At the end of the day, yes, it is essentially a fun online competition, but it wouldn't flourish without the rules in place. There are always unforeseen circumstances, such as this, which cause ire for all those involved, but at the end of the day without the rules people would be complaining even more about the contest being unfair and possibly leaving. Also, the contest has been widely revamped over the last year, with more spin offs and other annual events, so if anything it's the opposite of what you are saying, they are trying to build upon a legacy and take it forward so that it can remain the fun monthly event it currently is for months and years to come.

it plays in to a lot of what i've been wondering recently. why is it the same four people are the mods of this forum? this is in no way a personal attack on any of you guys as i like you all but surely the moderators should rotate on a more regular basis to maintain a purity to the competition and keeping things fresh. the tone of bjsc as it stands becomes mired when the same people make all the decisions for too long. it's the same in life, staying in power too long only has negative effects.

 

I completely agree, on the basis that everyone should have the same opportunities running the overall contest. Like a vote every six months, where anyone who wants to be or remain a mod puts their name forward, and the rest of the nations can vote on who mods the forum for the next six months.

Not that I have anything against the current mods, but I do feel as if it would be more democratic.

it plays in to a lot of what i've been wondering recently. why is it the same four people are the mods of this forum? this is in no way a personal attack on any of you guys as i like you all but surely the moderators should rotate on a more regular basis to maintain a purity to the competition and keeping things fresh. the tone of bjsc as it stands becomes mired when the same people make all the decisions for too long. it's the same in life, staying in power too long only has negative effects.

 

I've been a moderator for less than a year within this forum, and was chosen only through the trial mod basis back in last year Jake. Certainly wouldn't call that "staying in power too long". :(

 

I completely agree, on the basis that everyone should have the same opportunities running the overall contest. Like a vote every six months, where anyone who wants to be or remain a mod puts their name forward, and the rest of the nations can vote on who mods the forum for the next six months.

 

You do know that this won't actually work and it'll turn into another online individual popularity contest in terms of being nominated and getting picked?

I'd personally trust the members of Buzzjack to just choose the right person for the job.

There's no way to say this without starting a riot: I don't think we need change. The mods have been doing a fine job and lately I think they've only been doing it better as they've been settling into different roles according for what works for each of them. Me, John and Jester are always around to check any of their decisions and I don't think any one of the people with access to the staff forum wields too much power over the running of the contest.

 

Giving more people a say would result in more red tape to go through as we decide who would be best suited (the last process took half a year), and where they'd fit in as a role and ultimately it'd just be change for the sake of change. All the mods do is work to ensure the contest runs smoothly, often an incredibly thankless task, it's not really a power trip.

I'd personally trust the members of Buzzjack to just choose the right person for the job.

 

Nice in theory, but it absolutely would not work. Cliques/friendships would result in the same people month after month, and then if we prevent that it's no more democratic than what we currently have. Essentially, there is no need to change the current system, because there is little (or no) guarantee of it being improved and every chance the contest suffers as a result.

I've got to agree with Iz here. The mods all give a lot of their time to the contest, often without thanks. I'd care less about things being 'democratic' here than I would with them being run smoothly.

 

I can't help but feel this is only being brought up for the sake of being antagonistic.

I'm trying to antagonise nobody thank you Alex. Though you do like to come I to threads with the intention of parking a low blow on me so I get why you are saying what you are saying.

Yeah I have faith in our mods intentions. Adding this nomination and 6 month change over period will only over-complicate things (even if there are some occasional dubious moments with the mods!) if things were really bad then the admins would have removed certain mods ages ago. Personally I think Jake should receive the standard 33% deduction on the basis that the other non-AQing countries would have the same deduction and previous AQing countries have had to vote in both semis before (which should be seen as a privilege rather than a burden). Without trying to sound blunt, maybe Jake should just accept it and move on rather than find excuses?

 

I do agree that the mods are doing a 95% good job which is an amazing effort. It's not like choosing different mods every few months will make it any better, it probably hasn't occurred to the mods to include a rule about penalties for AQers who don't vote as they can't think of absolutely every single possibility.

I've got to agree with Iz here. The mods all give a lot of their time to the contest, often without thanks. I'd care less about things being 'democratic' here than I would with them being run smoothly.

 

I can't help but feel this is only being brought up for the sake of being antagonistic.

 

No harm in starting a debate about it.

i am in no way trying to suggest that any moderator is doing a poor job. nor am I trying to garner some kind if reaction. if a firm believer in questioning the status quo in any situation and to me 4 people holding such a strong amount if power for an extenuates period of time just isn't a good thing. we all think what we think and we don't change in the way we think things (well very little). I just don't believe in any scenario should a single individual be able to steer the direction a communal activity takes. look at the world around us, it's blair or thatcher on a naturally more benevolent scale.

 

i believe for the sanctity and legacy of the competition that moderating should rotate on a slightly more regular basis.

I can see the principle of what Jake is saying... If you spend too long on something, no matter how good you are/were at it, it can become part of you and as soon as that happens it becomes a personal thing rather than a neutral one. It becomes more and more likely that decisions will be made with unconscious bias and it becomes more likely that criticisms will be taken to heart when they were not intended to be.

 

It's just a general principle really, we do have a fair amount of fresh mods in BJSC at the moment so I wouldn't say it's necessarily a problem as long as the balance remains.