00:00
00:00
Newgrounds Background Image Theme

Rawkins85 just joined the crew!

We need you on the team, too.

Support Newgrounds and get tons of perks for just $2.99!

Create a Free Account and then..

Become a Supporter!

N G A D M 2017 - Round of 32

16,337 Views | 261 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic

Response to N G A D M 2017 - Round of 32 2017-07-17 12:29:20


At 7/17/17 12:24 PM, ChronoNomad wrote: Just do you, man. Be yourself. That's my advice.

Obviously, I personally feel that you have solid judgment, or I wouldn't have - oh, I don't know - asked you to be a judge!
Not to mention my Co-Master of Ceremonies. Both of which you've been doing a phenomenal job with, imho.

Aww...thanks, man! :)

Perhaps I just need to relax for a while. It's really easy to get too tightly wound about judging contests...


"Time's fun when you're having flies." ~Kermit the Frog

BBS Signature

Response to N G A D M 2017 - Round of 32 2017-07-17 12:57:44


Doesn't Skye take off more points the farther into the deathmatch contestants go? That's what I remember from past years


hey man, you uh you got something on your face right there, lemme just... ok, there we go, MUCH better, you are looking GOOD AS NEW

Response to N G A D M 2017 - Round of 32 2017-07-17 13:04:37


At 7/17/17 12:57 PM, 1f1n1ty wrote: Doesn't Skye take off more points the farther into the deathmatch contestants go? That's what I remember from past years

By the round of 4 everyone is struggling just to get a 2/10 out of him.


At 7/17/17 01:04 PM, FinnMK wrote: By the round of 4 everyone is struggling just to get a 2/10 out of him.

just to get a 2/10 out of him.

out of him.

him.

hmmmmmm.


hey man, you uh you got something on your face right there, lemme just... ok, there we go, MUCH better, you are looking GOOD AS NEW

Response to N G A D M 2017 - Round of 32 2017-07-17 13:39:53


At 7/17/17 01:12 PM, 1f1n1ty wrote:
At 7/17/17 01:04 PM, FinnMK wrote: By the round of 4 everyone is struggling just to get a 2/10 out of him.

just to get a 2/10 out of him.

out of him.

him.
hmmmmmm.

I will admit, I did not do my research before using that pronoun.


At 7/17/17 01:39 PM, FinnMK wrote:
At 7/17/17 01:12 PM, 1f1n1ty wrote:
At 7/17/17 01:04 PM, FinnMK wrote: By the round of 4 everyone is struggling just to get a 2/10 out of him.

just to get a 2/10 out of him.

out of him.

him.
hmmmmmm.
I will admit, I did not do my research before using that pronoun.

What can I say? A complete and utter sausage fest just wouldn't be diverse enough for our judging panel!

Response to N G A D M 2017 - Round of 32 2017-07-17 14:02:41


At 7/17/17 06:13 AM, Spadezer wrote: Well played @AzulJazz, it was a close match

Thanks Spadezer, and good luck for the next rounds.


BBS Signature

Response to N G A D M 2017 - Round of 32 2017-07-17 14:18:53


At 7/17/17 01:39 PM, FinnMK wrote: I will admit, I did not do my research before using that pronoun.

I did

Response to N G A D M 2017 - Round of 32 2017-07-17 14:27:17


At 7/17/17 02:18 PM, Buoy wrote:
At 7/17/17 01:39 PM, FinnMK wrote: I will admit, I did not do my research before using that pronoun.
I did

Good think you cited your source so I could determine that it's crap outdated


hey man, you uh you got something on your face right there, lemme just... ok, there we go, MUCH better, you are looking GOOD AS NEW

Response to N G A D M 2017 - Round of 32 2017-07-17 15:17:00


Hey, have you heard the latest news?

http://lucidshadowdreamer.newgrounds.com/news/post/990535

Shameless plug

Response to N G A D M 2017 - Round of 32 2017-07-17 15:52:28


At 7/17/17 02:27 PM, 1f1n1ty wrote: Good think you cited your source so I could determine that it's crap outdated

I know right? Anyway, that's cool

Response to N G A D M 2017 - Round of 32 2017-07-17 15:56:53


Welp, guess i didn't make it XD. Congratz @Veronina and everyone else who made it through :D


Just a random idiot

Response to N G A D M 2017 - Round of 32 2017-07-17 16:17:59


At 7/17/17 03:56 PM, Ectisity wrote: Welp, guess i didn't make it XD. Congratz @Veronina and everyone else who made it through :D

As you have no doubt seen, with a mere score differential of .002, your match was quite literally the closest and hardest-fought battle within the Round of 64! In all honesty, I thought it would end up going the other way. Just goes to show that even us judges can be surprised from time to time.

This was one of only two instances where we needed to extend our values to the thousandths place in order to determine the actual winner. The second of which was also incredibly close, with a disparity of only .004, and was won by @Spadezer, who ended up entering the fray after a very late withdrawal.

Response to N G A D M 2017 - Round of 32 2017-07-17 16:22:28


a lot of new faces made it, that's something at least good news about this contest.

avenge us next round @etherealwinds


At 7/17/17 05:04 AM, SoundChris wrote: Hey @EvilRaccoon ,

even i already did on fb today i want to also congratulate you in the forum, too. I think you were the well deserved winner here. Your production level - as in most of your works - was really high and you nailed your genre pretty damn awesome! Working on a track within a field we both are not used to made incredible much fun and i do think we both learned a lot with our projects. And i especially enjoyed the long, fun and creative conversations with you until early in the morning ;)

Thank you so much SoundChris, you made this round an absolute enjoyment to be part of. I could have lost and it wouldn't have taken away a thing from it. It's been the best time I've had on NGADM yet! The conversations and wit online had me laughing at times nonstop. You also share the best online material! Thank you so much for such an incredibly fun time. Here's hoping it continues, we may meet again on the battle field. You never know!

At 7/17/17 12:11 PM, TaintedLogic wrote: That said, I'm still inclined to switch systems, but if people think that's unfair, even with the transparency I'm attempting to convey, then I'll abstain.

I think most people would prefer the system of choosing which track was better. Not only does it make it easier for the judges, it's a fairer fight. Judges therefore manage the ability of two individuals in context, rather than depend on perfectly hitting a score to create an overall context. Judgement is also fairer as 'power' of one judge is equal to another.

The are a few reasons against, so people who have no opponent to go through automatically wont have a value to gauge how well they are perceived to be, however each track is different anyway. The argument can be made that one judge could be singled out as a swaying the decision, but it doesn't really work like that imo. Because if you have 5 judges, and it's 3 v 2, the sway lies with all of the majority judges. It's also easier to handle as a participant, because you aren't going "That one judge score was so powerful, and far differing from the other judges. It made me lose by 0.002."

So I think having 7 judges, then have them pick one or the other is a much better, for the judges, for the participant and just in general much fairer. It would be interesting to hear what everyone else though of this matter, as it's something which could be implemented in 2018.


BBS Signature

Response to N G A D M 2017 - Round of 32 2017-07-17 18:31:35


At 7/17/17 12:11 PM, TaintedLogic wrote:
At 7/17/17 04:31 AM, EvilRaccoon wrote: At this stage of the competition, I think the new system would be more practical. I'm sorry I made it all about "my desire to be as tough as the other judges," which was misguided of me.

can you pls just judge based on how good a track is rather than what flaws a track has? =p


Come join music competitions on Chips Compo and hang on our Discord!

Good artists copy. Great artists get banned from the Audio Portal.

BBS Signature

Response to N G A D M 2017 - Round of 32 2017-07-17 18:31:51


lol how is a guy using fl stock drums and the fl keys still in NGADM

ahahaha
..\

ahahahahaha
wow

this contest is a joke.


lel

BBS Signature

Response to N G A D M 2017 - Round of 32 2017-07-17 18:39:45



The second of which was also incredibly close, with a disparity of only .004, and was won by @Spadezer, who ended up entering the fray after a very late withdrawal.

I haven't been able to ponder enough to really grasp how close it was. I'm still somewhat frantically trying to pen music for the next round.

Although I'm not sure if pen is the write word since I never even touch a piece of paper making music lol


DM me if you want a review!

BBS Signature

Response to N G A D M 2017 - Round of 32 2017-07-17 19:02:02


Attention @garlagan! We just received word that @JDawg00100 will be unable to participate in the Round of 32, and that coveted spot is now being offered to you. Do you wish to reenter the NGADM arena?

The tentative match-up would be: @5TanLey vs @garlagan

Response to N G A D M 2017 - Round of 32 2017-07-17 19:23:53


At 7/17/17 06:09 PM, EvilRaccoon wrote: So I think having 7 judges, then have them pick one or the other is a much better, for the judges, for the participant and just in general much fairer. It would be interesting to hear what everyone else though of this matter, as it's something which could be implemented in 2018.

I like that idea! It makes it more of a head-to-head match, rather than a regular ol' contest.

Response to N G A D M 2017 - Round of 32 2017-07-17 19:25:37


Guys, I've got over 8,000 words of reviews typed up. Send me a PM if you want 'em on the express train.

At 7/17/17 06:09 PM, EvilRaccoon wrote: So I think having 7 judges, then have them pick one or the other is a much better, for the judges, for the participant and just in general much fairer. It would be interesting to hear what everyone else though of this matter, as it's something which could be implemented in 2018.

The number of judges isn't really something we even put that much thought into, I don't think. Had @RealFaction been able to organize the compo this year and/or participate, we would have had an extra judge -- unless I'm horribly wrong. We all know that my brain is a spiderweb of lies, misconceptions, and half-truths trying to figure out which is what's actually going on.

Honestly, through the last round, I felt that not immediately seeing someone's competitor in the line-up to draw a direct comparison was much fairer. It allowed me to focus on the quality of the work and not think about anything but the song I was judging at that exact moment. Do you realize that if we focused on the 1v1 matchups at the same time, so many more biases could enter the equation?

Cutting out the scores also cuts out important statistics such as the overall statistical trends from our most lenient judge, @TaintedLogic, and our most critical judge, @SkyeWint. The consistency of these scores reads like a litmus test of sorts, the results informing that yes, we're all paying attention and being honest. A simple Y/N is not as simple as it sounds, and it's not going to disclose much -- or even help me remember what stars to score your submission when I go back through and paste my reviews in.

Also, I like being able to see from a glance the highest and lowest average scores from each round. You're not going to be able to glean that kind of record from Y/N -- and it's also interesting to see how the line-up would have looked were we to go by each judge's individual perspective, something a Y/N will not give you either.

I also find that Y/N is like being on a jury. There's so much pressure to agree with everyone else, even though you know you aren't supposed to, just so you can go home.

At 7/17/17 06:31 PM, Sequenced wrote: this contest is a joke.

Then why are you still paying attention?


music producer freebies // Januarylist // Februarylist // Take My Cymbals // Get ALL my big sample projects, FREE

I do professional audio critique & commissions. Catch me on YT and X! If you got music, I'll playlist you!

BBS Signature

At 7/17/17 07:02 PM, ChronoNomad wrote: Attention @garlagan! We just received word that @JDawg00100 will be unable to participate in the Round of 32, and that coveted spot is now being offered to you. Do you wish to reenter the NGADM arena?

The tentative match-up would be: @5TanLey vs @garlagan

#RIP5TanLey

Jokes aside, hopefully this will be an opportunity to really encourage you to outdo yourself!

(If garlagan accepts, that is)

Response to N G A D M 2017 - Round of 32 2017-07-17 20:16:44


At 7/17/17 07:02 PM, ChronoNomad wrote: Do you wish to reenter the NGADM arena?

OH BOI
YEAH I DO WISH SO


123456789

BBS Signature

At 7/17/17 08:16 PM, garlagan wrote:
At 7/17/17 07:02 PM, ChronoNomad wrote: Do you wish to reenter the NGADM arena?
OH BOI
YEAH I DO WISH SO

Then welcome back! Sharpen your weapons of destruction and bring the pain.

The bracket has been updated to reflect the new match-up.


Now I can strategically lose to Connor so that I don't have to fight garlagan next round, unless 5tanley can hold him off...

Hehehe. I've got a plan for everything.


At 7/17/17 08:30 PM, FinnMK wrote: Now I can strategically lose to Connor so that I don't have to fight Garlagan next round, unless 5tanley can hold him off...

Hehehe. I've got a plan for everything.

I thought the ultimate plan consisted of beating everyone else, claiming subsequent cash and prizes, winning fame, glory, earning book deals, film rights, meeting other slightly-less-famous celebrities, and finally knocking back a beer or two as you reminisce about those selfsame glory days.

But yeah, yours sounds pretty good, too.

Response to N G A D M 2017 - Round of 32 2017-07-17 20:41:48


At 7/17/17 08:36 PM, ChronoNomad wrote: I thought the ultimate plan consisted of beating everyone else, claiming subsequent cash and prizes, winning fame, glory, earning book deals, film rights, meeting other slightly-less-famous celebrities, and finally knocking back a beer or two as you reminisce about those selfsame glory days.

Who needs ambition or success when you have CRIPPLING FAILURE ON YOUR SIDE??? :D


At 7/17/17 07:25 PM, EDM364 wrote: Guys, I've got over 8,000 words of reviews typed up. Send me a PM if you want 'em on the express train.

At 7/17/17 06:09 PM, EvilRaccoon wrote: So I think having 7 judges, then have them pick one or the other is a much better, for the judges, for the participant and just in general much fairer. It would be interesting to hear what everyone else though of this matter, as it's something which could be implemented in 2018.
Honestly, through the last round, I felt that not immediately seeing someone's competitor in the line-up to draw a direct comparison was much fairer. It allowed me to focus on the quality of the work and not think about anything but the song I was judging at that exact moment. Do you realize that if we focused on the 1v1 matchups at the same time, so many more biases could enter the equation?

As a judge though, How you draw your own conclusions to who should win is up to yourself. The same way you are currently flexible to build your own criteria for scoring. If you chose to score them both individually, then give your decision based on your evidence, that would probably be a needed anyway since you are all still reviewing. This would be most likely the way some of the judges would work. But how it's brought together is where the impact lies.


Cutting out the scores also cuts out important statistics such as the overall statistical trends from our most lenient judge, @TaintedLogic, and our most critical judge, @SkyeWint. The consistency of these scores reads like a litmus test of sorts, the results informing that yes, we're all paying attention and being honest. A simple Y/N is not as simple as it sounds, and it's not going to disclose much -- or even help me remember what stars to score your submission when I go back through and paste my reviews in.

Statistical trends do not support evidence of more appropriate outcomes though, they actually enforce the problem with people losing out of 0.002. The stats merely support judges behavior. If all judges are giving a weight of 1 vote. Then this statistic is no longer needed, there would be no need to be concerned with who is the pulling judge - this is something participants really don't want imo. And as a judge of the NGUnderDogs, I would not like to think, my score can outweigh for better or worse several other judges. The scoring statistics of tracks wasn't added to the run down either. The mean of the judges was, nobody asked for the average of the tracks.

And then you see why we are going in full circle. We are concerned with the averages of judges habits because they do impact the outcome. The judges shouldnt be in question, but they are because of the lack of equal influence.

Also, I like being able to see from a glance the highest and lowest average scores from each round. You're not going to be able to glean that kind of record from Y/N -- and it's also interesting to see how the line-up would have looked were we to go by each judge's individual perspective, something a Y/N will not give you either.

That's understandable, you get to see which tracks the judges favor, and potentially who is a threat. But, I'd argue fairness and equal judge influence outweighs the need to see scores. If anything, you could keep this as a happy medium. Maintain scores for this visual statistic. But judges influence is only 1 or 0 per group.

I also find that Y/N is like being on a jury. There's so much pressure to agree with everyone else, even though you know you aren't supposed to, just so you can go home.

Judges should be able to deliberate and make a decision. They do this already. Judges afterall do not adhere to strict criteria, they score as they see fit. If a judge cannot decide which is the stronger piece, even through existing criteria then there is a case of uncertainty. Your own decision can't be swayed if you have an even number of judges. It will always side one or another, it's up to you as a judge how you arrive at your decision.

The idea here is to yes, have the tracks evaluated, but your evaluation will not impact another judges decision, which is what's happening right now (not of your own doing of course). Judges decisions need to have the same amount of influence. It's creates a fair equalization among yourselves so when arrives at the end of the round, it's solid.


BBS Signature

Hey, we actually did have 7 judges going into the 2017 NGADM! Unfortunately, it didn't work out. Kind of hard to be a judge when you fail to show up, participate, or communicate in any way. But hey, these things happen.

We all make plans, and we hope those plans will go well, but you can never predict what will happen or how other people will react. So what do we do? We keep right on making those plans. Said plans tend to go sideways. We improvise. That's how things tend to go down. Anyone with a pulse should already know that.

What I'm really not getting is why there's all this discussion, not just right now but every single year, about how this contest should be run. You have ideas for a contest? Great! Hold your own contest. Run it however you please. But please do not disparage this contest, the judges, or me simply because you disagree with how something is being done.

Hey, it's right here in the GENERAL RULES, folks:

"Keep any suggestions, arguments and complaints to PMs. DO NOT argue or complain about a judge's score, for example, in the thread. That includes anything from passive-aggressive remarks to butthurt rants. I cannot stress this enough."

Read it. Live it.

Response to N G A D M 2017 - Round of 32 2017-07-17 21:39:21


At 7/17/17 09:14 PM, ChronoNomad wrote: What I'm really not getting is why there's all this discussion, not just right now but every single year, about how this contest should be run.

I understand what you mean but posts like Peter's can only help the NGADM improve imo. I can't see where he's being disrespectful or anything. The competition requires massive amounts of effort from the judges, so logically being told how to do things can seem inconsiderate but I definitely want to suggest that his type of feedback shouldn't be considered anything but productive


123456789

BBS Signature