At 7/17/17 09:39 PM, garlagan wrote: 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

@ChronoNomad is saying that side-jacking the thread with a bunch of suggestions how to run the contest publicly isn't productive for the simple reason that it's likely to start a big, tangential discussion that ultimately pisses everyone off and goes nowhere, like American politics, when the rules, which I'll admit I didn't recall until he pointed them out, say that should be taken over PM. On face, it's like heckling the judges, at best for not doing a better job and at worst implying we somehow seek to manipulate the averages by modifying our scores. It's just as easy to bitch about whichever judge is the tie-breaker in a line-up, and I would argue that it's easier to abuse the 1/0 system by virtue of simply typing in a value that benefits whoever strikes your fancy. After all, that's how elections go.

As is, I'm probably not ever going to agree with Peter here, but that doesn't matter in the long run, because this is how things are set up now and it'd be a total shit-show to try and reconfigure the entire project over one or two objections to how things are being done. Even were we to judge competing tracks in the same brackets, I still prefer a 0-10 score over a 0-1 score because quality is subjective. It's not a yes or a no kind of thing. At most I would consider a score AND a Y/N, to show the degree of preference.

At 7/17/17 08:42 PM, EvilRaccoon wrote: Judges decisions need to have the same amount of influence.

I don't necessarily agree with this, actually. The degree to which one track is better than an opposing track is a valid metric for determining who should advance. For example, if Chrono scores Player1 and Player2 a 9.5 and 8.5, respectively, while I give them a 6.5 and 9.5, I think the scoring system should take into account that I thought the difference in appeal between the pieces was much greater than what Chrono thought. Player2 is the rightful victor because, despite having the same number of judges favoring him as his opponent, Player1's submission elicited a stronger negative response in the judges overall.

At 7/17/17 06:31 PM, Sequenced wrote: lol how is a guy using fl stock drums and the fl keys still in NGADM

but melodies!!! :v

jk judges you're alright. well, at least everyone who gave me a good score is

I know @EDM364 , and your remarks are on point. Also, any suggestion should be considered for the next year's, rationally. I just think it's fruitless to take feedback about the contest personally, especially when no negativity is intended

At 7/17/17 11:34 PM, garlagan wrote: I know @EDM364 , and your remarks are on point. Also, any suggestion should be considered for the next year's, rationally. I just think it's fruitless to take feedback about the contest personally, especially when no negativity is intended

Of course, and they should be considered! However, it's such a touchy subject that I think it's very sensible that the rules state that we talk about it all over PM. It's not forcing people to exercise the 5th amendment so much as trying to avoid a flame war that ruins the fun for everyone. What are we doing right now? We're getting distracted. I'm still pasting reviews and writing my resume right now, speaking of.

I also agree with @TaintedLogic. Consider that some of us judges specialize in particular genres, some of us are classically trained musicians/theorists, some of us are critics, and some of us are kinda in the middle. Strong objection and strong approval are pretty important to me in that regard. Someone may be a better judge of quality than I am. I also don't think that 1/6th sway either direction is as powerful as we're making it out to be when the average score for the entire round is a hair's breadth under 4 stars and most of the panels were pretty consistent. If people are going to nitpick, they're going to nitpick, no matter what method is used.

That's the last I'm gonna say about this outside of PM, but if anyone wants to PM me, anything we bring up, I'll take to the Discord. Also, @Ceevro, please remind me to re-listen to your piece! I just found out that my brother has cancer recently (lymphoma and possibly hepatoma, still testing) and the resulting chaos has fubar'ed about 3 reviews, including yours. If there's questions about my reviews or objections, also feel free to PM me.

real talk: no matter how you do the scoring there will always be a situations where one judge has the "deciding" vote. the only real solution to that is having the judges collectively (but not necessarily unanimously) deciding on a winner for each match without any scoring system whatsoever. which is boring imo :v

scoring is definitely not the problem this year ;)

@ChronoNomad

@EDM364

@EvilRaccoon

Are you all being serious? Perhaps you're tired or something. Even so, I think I'll be rude enough to say I think you be acting a bit silly :p

To begin with, knowing my stuff, let me quote Peter (EvilRaccoon) from 2015:

"Like last year, I think any issues with the contest are best left until it's complete, and then a civilized discussion is had to find out the best methods of taking it forward. Now currently is not the time. With you both with law backgrounds build a case with reasoning and then we can discuss it in a NGADM feedback thread, for the following year. There's no point talking about groups and what possible disadvantages and advantages they have when it's part of this years rules. You can't change them now."

Which was in response to a similar drama a couple of years ago. I think perhaps Peter would do best to follow his own advice, unless he has changed his opinion, ofc :p

That said, at no point was he disrespectful in the least. That quote from a previous instance, was when people were actually starting to get a bit heated. This year, it seems to me like people are almost taking offence out of a lack of something better to do.

For instance. Chrono:

"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."

=> I recommend adopting a slightly different attitude as an organizer. Don't get me wrong thouhg, you've been a fantastic organizer and judge! What I'm trying to say, is that this "make your own competition" attitude comes across as a bit ugly. Naturally, you can make your own competition if you don't like the current ones. But there is nothing wrong about discussing and wanting to improve the current ones either, so an attitude of dismissal never sits well when coming from someone with a bit of authority in the situation. That said, I think the time and place for the critique was poorly conceived. Even so, it might peak the most ears in this forum, so I see no need to react with even slight hostility. I realize that this is a critique too, but I think it's not as much about how things are run, but rather how ideas and suggestions are treated. To exemplify, I recall Step being more open to in the very least addressing new suggestions, even when they were put forth in an actual disrespectful manner, as opposed to what Peter did, which was just to make points. Personally, I would prefer for that more positive spirit to live on. This competition is no one's own; it's the whole community's.

If you want an instance of what I mean, I will link you to this:

http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1397070/3#bbspost25632884_post_text

That said, I have no intention of dragging Step into this, so I hope nobody tags him without reason.

As for EDM's response.

I think you might want to reflect upon your reaction to the critique some, as well. I feel a judge, if anyone, should be able to take criticism at any point, since they are willing to give it out so freely (which is also a great burden, deserving of respect). THAT SAID I in no way think Peter was criticizing any individual judge or person, so to jump to that conclusion and such strong words simply feels out of place.
What I personally didn't like seeing, was the suggestion that the discussion was doomed to bear no fruit, and would only piss people off, and thus should not be started at all. While I understand this kind of negative thinking (surprisingly to some perhaps, I'm quite the pessimist), I don't think that is the case at all. If we can't solve our differences through discussion and arguments, how else are we to solve them? The only other ways are essentially a miniature form of tyranny, or revolution, none of which seem to be very attractive to me at the moment.
That's only a personal feeling though. What I think most people might disenjoy, is this:

"On face, it's like heckling the judges, at best for not doing a better job and at worst implying we somehow seek to manipulate the averages by modifying our scores".

I read through all that Peter said, and in no instance did he in the least indicate such. It's a form of putting words into someone's mouth, and I think that if anything could contribute to the kind of negative downhill spiral you were referencing yourself. The closest thing he said was to suggest that judges need to be able to make their own decisions regardless of the mode of the score, and peer pressure, etc. Which, he only said in order to emphasize his point.

I agree with this, though:

"...but that doesn't matter in the long run, because this is how things are set up now..."

I don't think there's anything wrong with the "now" changing in the future, but whatever the rules are, I think they should stay the same from start to finish, bereft of a very good reason to immediately make an exception. So I would suggest creating a forum thread after the competition is over, just like EvilRaccoon himself originally suggested. People who are interested could then suggest new ideas to make the competition even better in the future. Who doesn't want to see something good improve even more?

@TaintedLogic

By definition, there is really nothing fairer than a 0 / 1 scoring system, unless personal biases come into play. But, that is just one factor out of many possible injustices (most of which I won't even begin to mention). The reason being that the judges here have their own scoring systems. If one of the judges generally fluctuates between giving scores of 4, and scores of 10, whereas another judge stays between 7 and 8, the first judge will have significantly more power over the result. That factor makes up more of a significance than the advantage from the point you mentioned. I think the perspective of "...I thought the difference in appeal between the pieces was much greater..." might be a bit misguided. Since that is from the viewpoint of you as a judge, and not the result as an objective outsider looking at it. It doesn't necessarily mean you were more negatively impacted by the piece as you suggested; it might just mean the reasoning behind your scores were different at the core, which still leaves the mathematical skewing towards the judge with more fluctuation.

THAT SAID I actually agree with you, and disagree with Chris and Peter when it comes to how the score should be judged. I think that the 1 / 0 method would technically be fairer, but I also think it would be less encouraging (even with symbolic scores at the side), and more boring :p

As a friend and I discussed earlier, a huge part of the spirit of the competition aside from being a deathmatch is to encourage the competitors to improve, and to give them individual scores and reviews from many different people (most notably the judges), as well as to just be a fun and exciting event for everyone involved. It is unfair. That's the very nature of a deathmatch. We can try to make it better, but in the end, any method we ultimately pick for the scoring will lead to similar feelings of unfairness. Also, traditionally, the scores have been given in this manner and it's a part of the competition we've all come to love. Different competitions that aim to be more fair are all around, but not all of them are as popular!

That, however, is just my opinion. I'd be happy to hear any critique of it. Even so, I suggest not going too deeply into it here. I have some personal minor critiques of the competition set up myself, but I'll save them for a potential thread after the show is over, when we can start thinking about 2018 :)

Sorry for the rant, but I think there were some things better mentioned than left unsaid.

At 7/18/17 12:37 AM, midimachine wrote: real talk: no matter how you do the scoring there will always be a situations where one judge has the "deciding" vote.

So true!

BTW @EvilRaccoon did you know you're 1 post away from 2000 posts?

I might secretly be wishing that your response to me will be that 2000th post :3

In light of recent events, please read this entire reply with smileys appended to the end of each paragraph, lol.

At 7/18/17 12:42 AM, LucidShadowDreamer wrote: Are you all being serious? Perhaps you're tired or something. Even so, I think I'll be rude enough to say I think you be acting a bit silly :p

And I think I'll be rude enough to say I think you've spent entirely too much effort on something that's not altogether that dire. I don't see anyone slinging cuss words or saying NEPOTISM!11!!1 Do you? :P

Although in all seriousness, my best friend was severely injured in a car accident, my brother has cancer, my grandma had a glycemic episode, one of my finacee's friends almost killed himself, my best friend just got married with complications, and I just found out about all of this in the past week, so yes, I am frazzled. And I have a job interview tomorrow.

This year, it seems to me like people are almost taking offence out of a lack of something better to do.

If anyone has some kind of issue with me, call me out. Send me a PM. Smoke signals, w/e.

I think you might want to reflect upon your reaction to the critique some

Why is it that everyone always assumes I'm angry? I'm not an angry person!

THAT SAID I in no way think Peter was criticizing any individual judge or person, so to jump to that conclusion and such strong words simply feels out of place.

Did I ever say Peter was doing that? I said that on face, the action itself lends itself to offending everyone in general. But I'm used to everyone thinking I have an axe to grind, so I expect people to hear what they want to hear, lol.

What I personally didn't like seeing, was the suggestion that the discussion was doomed to bear no fruit, and would only piss people off, and thus should not be started at all.

I'm not implying that's what's automatically going to happen. I am saying that that's the reason the rules are the way they are, to prevent that, so that when that does happen, the rules are staring all of us in the face and saying "I told you so." It's like Newgrounds rules. They're made for those that break them. As we see here, we have to have people to enforce the rules because without them, no one will follow the rules, and history will repeat itself.

If people are breaking the rules set forth, @ChronoNomad is well within them to point it out, and be displeased, since we all agreed to follow the rules in participating in the competition. Can you understand why he'd be upset people were not respecting the rules? I may not agree with exactly how it was said, but ultimately, he's right. If we don't like how the competition is done, we're free to run our own, and to compete, we're bound to the rules. We don't tell the judge how the trial should be run.

It's a form of putting words into someone's mouth

You mistake me for talking about Peter and not preaching to the choir.

I don't think there's anything wrong with the "now" changing in the future, but whatever the rules are, I think they should stay the same from start to finish, bereft of a very good reason to immediately make an exception.

This is what I was saying.

THAT SAID I actually agree with you, and disagree with Chris and Peter when it comes to how the score should be judged. I think that the 1 / 0 method would technically be fairer, but I also think it would be less encouraging (even with symbolic scores at the side), and more boring :p

Cool. I'm not opposed to adding a Y/N element alongside the scores, but I prefer the scores. This is how Newgrounds operates, how exams operate, and how REAL LIFE deathmatches such as band competitions operate. It would be anticlimactic if every time I went to solo & ensemble or marching band competition that I just got a 0 or a 1 without a score component. Same with band clinics.

As a friend and I discussed earlier, a huge part of the spirit of the competition aside from being a deathmatch is to encourage the competitors to improve, and to give them individual scores and reviews from many different people (most notably the judges), as well as to just be a fun and exciting event for everyone involved. It is unfair. That's the very nature of a deathmatch. We can try to make it better, but in the end, any method we ultimately pick for the scoring will lead to similar feelings of unfairness. Also, traditionally, the scores have been given in this manner and it's a part of the competition we've all come to love. Different competitions that aim to be more fair are all around, but not all of them are as popular!

QFT

That, however, is just my opinion. I'd be happy to hear any critique of it. Even so, I suggest not going too deeply into it here. I have some personal minor critiques of the competition set up myself, but I'll save them for a potential thread after the show is over, when we can start thinking about 2018 :)

Is there any rule against starting a suggestion thread during the competition, @ChronoNomad? With the obvious point being for next year's compo, ofc.

At 7/17/17 03:28 AM, SourJovis wrote: Congrats @Connorgrail well done!

Thanks, it was a pleasure :)

truth is, average is just an arbitrary mathematical function you guys have settled on to decide which of two sets of scores is better. fun fact: most competent mathematicians know its not the best one!!! simply moving to taking the MEDIAN judge score over the average would be a marked improvement because then 1 judge cant crap on an overall score by giving it an insanely low score.

At 7/18/17 02:40 AM, johnfn wrote: simply moving to taking the MEDIAN judge score over the average would be a marked improvement because then 1 judge cant crap on an overall score by giving it an insanely low score.

median is pretty bad when n = 6 tho

what we need to do is run the contest over and over again and create a bayesian probability function for each match :v

At 7/18/17 02:57 AM, midimachine wrote: median is pretty bad when n = 6 tho

Not to mention median gives the deciding factor to the last judge or whoever can cram themselves in the middle. It might work for an audition round, but not for a 1v1 for this reason. Nevermind that right now we have 6 judges so you'd have to extrapolate the data from the middle 2 scores, as you mentioned, which gives those two judges absurd power. If you use the highest and lowest, those two judges are unfairly magnified. Frankly I don't think that's a good method, though an interesting approach for sure.

Also I would raise the question, what is the point in having more than one judge if the data set uses only one input to determine score, discarding the guy who says "hey, this is great!" and tossing out the low ball with it, regardless of how far apart they may be? It wouldn't affect the highest scoring tracks much at all, but what about those where the judges are very divided?

At 7/18/17 02:57 AM, midimachine wrote: median is pretty bad when n = 6 tho

you'd take the average of the 2 middle scores. i'd be pretty curious to see what it'd look like on these scores - i think it'd be fairer than having one judge give you an insanely low score and screwing over your piece

what we need to do is run the contest over and over again and create a bayesian probability function for each match :v

well that's the obvious solution - i didn't say it because i assumed they already tried it

i wrote something here but then i deleted it

At 7/18/17 03:18 AM, johnfn wrote:

At 7/18/17 02:57 AM, midimachine wrote: median is pretty bad when n = 6 tho

you'd take the average of the 2 middle scores. i'd be pretty curious to see what it'd look like on these scores - i think it'd be fairer than having one judge give you an insanely low score and screwing over your piece

yes i know what a median is :v
i mean using means is also bad when n = 6 and your distribution is this weird inverse χ²

At 7/18/17 03:18 AM, johnfn wrote: you'd take the average of the 2 middle scores. i'd be pretty curious to see what it'd look like on these scores - i think it'd be fairer than having one judge give you an insanely low score and screwing over your piece

I mentioned as much. My question is this. Would you rather have the two most ambivalent opinions about your work be the standard by which it is weighed? Not I. Do I want to go into a competition knowing only 1 or 2 scores in each entry will matter, whether they're mine or someone else's? Nope. That's a lot of wasted effort. Intending to go in like so could influence scores by encouraging future judges to try and make their votes "count", too.

Part of entering a competition is trusting the judges aren't going to "shit" on you and trusting if they do give a low score, there's a good technical reason behind it. Are you under the impression there are tracks being shat on for no good reason? Because I don't think there's any logical reason to assume there are. I'd hope we're all a little more mature than that and a bowl of sour grapes.

Again, insert good-natured smiley faces here, but it isn't as if any of us comes here because we secretly want to see anyone fail. The scores are averaged to prevent judges from skewing scores as a whole, and I don't even know what motivation there would be to try and skew them in the first place. I've seen this in every competition I've ever been a part of, including RL. When the judges are sweat peas, everyone loves them. When they're honest, everyone says there has to be a better way and that that one judge just really fucked them over, like that one time when I was a junior in HS and the judges at competition gave us a 1-1-3 for an overall 2 and we thought he was a dick for not giving us the extra 1 point to have a 1-1-2 and get an overall 1. Truth was, we had 2 bare 1's and really did deserve a 2, yet I held onto the conviction that we were somehow oppressed for ages.

At 7/18/17 01:20 AM, EDM364 wrote:
please read this entire reply with smileys appended to the end of each paragraph

Sure, and please do the same. I think people tend to take my words as "colder" than I am intending too, especially if I'm talking seriously about something. So I get your frustration. Even so, there are still some things I disagree with.

THAT SAID I in no way think Peter was criticizing any individual judge or person, so to jump to that conclusion and such strong words simply feels out of place.

Did I ever say Peter was doing that? I said that on face, the action itself lends itself to offending everyone in general. But I'm used to everyone thinking I have an axe to grind, so I expect people to hear what they want to hear, lol.

"...at worst implying we somehow seek to manipulate the averages by modifying our scores"

You said that at worst, he's implying the judges seek to manipulate the avarages by modifying their scores. In the at best scenario, you suggested heckling: "interrupt (a public speaker) with derisive or aggressive comments or abuse.". So I'd say you were very close to that, even if it was worded differently. Perhaps it's phrased more fairly now. I feel that the act of suggesting how things could be done here, neither falls under your best of or worst of category suggested; that is what I mainly wanted to point out.

I'm not implying that's what's automatically going to happen. I am saying that that's the reason the rules are the way they are, to prevent that, so that when that does happen, the rules are staring all of us in the face and saying "I told you so."

Just because you have a rule essentially saying "you may not criticize the competition openly" doesn't mean you can say "See? I knew they'd crticize the competition openly!" when someone does. Well you can, but it's not impressive. I just think doing it in this forum is the wrong time and place. That said, I think doing it only over PM's has disadvantages too, since then there's less public discourse. As I mentioned, I feel that this competition belongs to the community too.

It's a form of putting words into someone's mouth

You mistake me for talking about Peter and not preaching to the choir.

Once again, you quite literally said:

"suggestions how to run the contest publicly isn't productive for the simple reason that it's likely to start a big, tangential discussion..."

"On face, it's like heckling the judges, at best for not doing a better job and at worst implying we somehow seek to manipulate the averages by modifying our scores."

Which is saying (somewhat shortened) "to do what Peter did is on face, like heckling the judges at best, and like implying foul play at worst.

I don't see that as being misrepresentative of in the very least, the way you phrased it, even if you didn't necessarily think about Peter's action on its own, in that particular instance.
I also feel that there is merit to be found within such big tangential discussions, even if I'd rather it didn't take place here.

If people are breaking the rules set forth, @ChronoNomad is well within them to point it out

Of course, I didn't suggest he doesn't have that right. I was just letting him know it came across in a manner he might not have meant it to, at least to me. In my experience, we tend to get along really well as friends here on Newgrounds, so I don't find it's out of my place to let him know when I feel he could be handling something differently :)

Is there any rule against starting a suggestion thread during the competition, @ChronoNomad? With the obvious point being for next year's compo, ofc.

I doubt there is nor should there be, but don't you think it's better to see if anyone is still interested after the competition? I'm just saying that since most of the drama tends to die down after the first few rounds, so if anyone doesn't care in a little while, perhaps it wasn't necessarily that important?
That's just my reasoning though! Afterall, the audio guidlines say:

"Please focus discussion on the creation and appreciation of original works here on Newgrounds."

Which I think such a thread would well fall under, since that's also the spirit of the competition; to create original works, and figure out how to judge them, and just appreciating theme in general. Giving suggestions of how to do that even better is just an extension of that.

At 7/17/17 09:14 PM, ChronoNomad wrote: 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.

I was only engaging in what I considered interesting and healthy discussion, as @garlagan said. There's no offending contender here. Nobody is at fault, and I'm not pointing the finger. Please keep in mind too, we also discussed groups and that changed the competition with immediate effect. That's a prime example of good discussion, impactful changes with no issues. I said this might hold for interesting conversation, because I was looking for reasons against the idea. As LSD says, I should maybe take my own advice.

So, with that in mind I've read everyone's reply but won't engage directly in NGADM method discussion, I will not continue this conversation.

There was an internet outage in my town for a few hours. Replied to this originally at 4:30 or so by NG reckoning. It is now 5:00 as I type this. Leaving this here.

Came back at 6:00. Internet came back. Must have been maintenance. Anyway, read Peter's reply, no harm no foul, etc. This reply consists mostly of discussion on semantics.

At 7/18/17 04:16 AM, LucidShadowDreamer wrote: Sure, and please do the same. I think people tend to take my words as "colder" than I am intending too, especially if I'm talking seriously about something.

That seems to be the unfortunate reality of forum. In person, I'm quite the character, always making people laugh. On the forums, everyone thinks I'm a crotchety grandma. Go figure.

neither falls under your best of or worst of category suggested; that is what I mainly wanted to point out.

You're misquoting me here, or at least putting the cart before the horse. I'll explain.

Just because you have a rule essentially saying "you may not criticize the competition openly" doesn't mean you can say "See? I knew they'd crticize the competition openly!" when someone does. Well you can, but it's not impressive.

It may not be impressive, but does it now show that the rules were created for a reason? That's what I'm getting at. The rule wouldn't be necessary if it never happened.

Once again, you quite literally said:

"suggestions how to run the contest publicly isn't productive for the simple reason that it's likely to start a big, tangential discussion..."

Which it has, and I'm partly at fault.

"On face, it's like heckling the judges, at best for not doing a better job and at worst implying we somehow seek to manipulate the averages by modifying our scores."

Which is saying (somewhat shortened) "to do what Peter did is on face, like heckling the judges at best, and like implying fould play at worst.

You misunderstand my meaning. "On face", meaning at first glance, nitpicking how the judges are set to go about their tasks is going to look like heckling/griping, period, i.e., I can see how ChronoNomad took it wrong, and it's going to cause contention by the simple laws of probability. We go into each interaction with an assumption, and a bad one can change the tone of an entire interaction. For example, if we just read these paragraphs, we can't tell that the other is calm without remembering that we've all expressed that previously, to make sure no one misunderstands -- and still someone does because humans are meant to read social cues, not encyclopedias.

You're also confusing the reasoning for the act itself. Forget Peter's response, which has subsequently lead us down this rabbit hole; the act of criticizing, irrespective of Peter and how respectfully he did it, lends itself to that -- more so when we've been told not to do it except over PM, because this is something people fight no matter how it's handled. There's a precedent for contention, argument, and tension in this competition, and how can we not expect it? Half the crew goes home every time we all meet up!

I also feel that there is merit to be found within such big tangential discussions, even if I'd rather it didn't take place here.

I don't believe in waste, but I might make an exception for the number of times we've gotten tripped up in arguments of perceived semantics, hahah.

Of course, I didn't suggest he doesn't have that right. I was just letting him know it came across in a manner he might not have meant it to, at least to me. In my experience, we tend to get along really well as friends here on Newgrounds, so I don't find it's out of my place to let him know when I feel he could be handling something differently :)

There was something I learned in college, and that was, "Never assume friendship a license to say whatever you wish. If anything, in the company of friends, we must choose our words even more carefully, for it is here they have the potential to do the most damage." It's easy to lose friends over such deceptively simple things. Personal experience.

I doubt there is nor should there be, but don't you think it's better to see if anyone is still interested after the competition? I'm just saying that since most of the drama tends to die down after the first few rounds, so if anyone doesn't care in a little while, perhaps it wasn't necessarily that important?

Fair point. Although we might also want to think about those that are following this thread would like a reprieve from the tons of notifications rofl.

the audio guidlines say:

"Please focus discussion on the creation and appreciation of original works here on Newgrounds."

Which I think such a thread would well fall under, since that's also the spirit of the competition; to create original works, and figure out how to judge them, and just appreciating theme in general. Giving suggestions of how to do that even better is just an extension of that.

QFT

Welp it ain't an ADM without the heated political debates, amirite? I once tried to jump in on this a few years back and embarrassed myself pretty badly, heh.

Personally, I don't see any harm in Peter's willingness to discuss productively. But if misunderstandings are unavoidable in this thread, then yeah perhaps there is a better time and place to discuss.

Anywho, hows about we not lose sight of the fact that this is all just fun and games, and there aren't any real credentials to gain from this other than some cash, a pretty banner, and/or a little bit of street cred. Now, let's all shut the fuck up and make some music. =)

I have a headache

anyway, when you get a really good idea for round 2 but can't realize it because you're more ambitious than you are skilled at this moment in time hahaha

dammit

how's everyone's round 2 tracks going? @1f1n1ty you better be working on one in case you get back in!

At 7/18/17 06:31 AM, JacobCadmus wrote: Now, let's all shut the fuck up and make some music. =)

The best post of the day goes to you, sir XD

Also people , please. I've followed these threads for a while now, and can we please just stop with all this fake and meaningless drama? Words are being twisted and turned upside down, creating something that was never there to begin with, it's ridiculous. I've tried to refrain from commenting on this for a while, but it's starting to just become a bad parody. I would understand it if this thread was full of shitposters like the NGADM has suffered from in previous years, but this year people are friggin angles in comparison. as Lucid said, it almost seems like drama is created out of nothing due to the lack of something better to do.
It's ridiculous, and you're all so much better than that.

At 7/18/17 06:01 AM, EDM364 wrote: There was an internet outage in my town for a few hours. Replied to this originally at 4:30 or so by NG reckoning. It is now 5:00 as I type this. Leaving this here.

Came back at 6:00. Internet came back. Must have been maintenance. Anyway, read Peter's reply, no harm no foul, etc. This reply consists mostly of discussion on semantics.

Right, I'll keep it short too. I'm on my phone, out on some business anyway. I want to mention a few more things though. Any potential further discussion, I'm willing to continue through PM, since the topic is moving further from being related to the contest.

To start with, I'm sorry if you feel I misrepresented you. That said, I do think I took your words in a way they very much seem to imply. And even explained, I disagree fundamentally about a couple aspects. I think there should be no fear or shunning from civil discussions, even if there will be misunderstandings, and disagreements. I don't think avoidance of critique about the contest should be a rule, though it certainly can be a guideline. When I said impressive, it was a bad word choice. I think it's simply not even functional, enforced or not.

As for friendships. No one true friendship of mine has been nearly fragile enough to depend on some words of critique, nor should they be. If Chrono has some contention with what I said, I'm confident he knows he can freely call me out, and we can talk about it until we reach an agreement.
As I mentioned, I strongly believe in honest discussion, not avoiding confrontation.

Anyway, that's all I wanted to add. I hope people don't let this small talk get to them, and that we'll be able to focus on the more important aspects of the competition, which is the music!

tldr

At 7/18/17 06:48 AM, etherealwinds wrote: how's everyone's round 2 tracks going?

I don't know what to do with myself, and work has been a bit busy the past two days for me. Knowing how much frustrations I've had creating my last track is something I don't look forward returning to-- very surprised by the results.

The nature of the game is survival by trudging through the desert of writer's block.

At 7/18/17 06:48 AM, etherealwinds wrote: @1f1n1ty you better be working on one in case you get back in!

gahhh trying

From right now, we've got about twelve and a half days left before the deadline.

There's still plenty of time to make those killer tracks!

At 7/18/17 11:51 AM, ChronoNomad wrote: we've got about twelve and a half days left before the deadline.

Well if you're doubling up for NGUAC like I would have been if I made it you don't have quite that much time

I don't know who here is in NGUAC though

A heads up @ChronoNomad

At 7/18/17 09:37 AM, 1f1n1ty wrote:

At 7/18/17 06:48 AM, etherealwinds wrote: @1f1n1ty you better be working on one in case you get back in!

gahhh trying

Well, get ready to feel the pressure again @1f1n1ty, you could go up against Bassfiddlejones and josh. I'm handing my position over to you, as I won't be participating in the NGADM anymore.

All yours! How's that for a twist?