Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Qualidar" data-source="post: 4483563" data-attributes="member: 13388">I disagree with your assertion. I don't believe that things have turned out unfair, nor do I believe that the general perception is that they did. A few vocal detractors do not indicate that people, in general, think the process is either flawed or unfair. That some of those detractors have a larger voice due to them owning podcasts or competing websites may give their voice more traction, but I do not think it gives their argument more weight.Meghan, I'll have to go point by point with your posts. Please forgive me: I'm trying to be clear, not obnoxious. I find this to be insulting: who are you to say that they did not delve into them with an open mind, or to say that their mind had been made up before they had seen the submissions? It's perfectly possible (and believable, and likely) that a product that was good enough to distinguish itself among the sea of products out there fared well when judged against other products. It certainly is rational. It's also presumably what happened, unless you have some secret information that indicates otherwise?It's not dirty if they actually judged those products to be the best entrants in those categories, is it?It's representational democracy: the judges were voted in by the people to judge based on their personal criteria. If their criteria is "what I liked out of the crop", that's no more or less valid than your rubric. Them being able to put aside the fact that a book might not be as grammatically correct as it could be in deference to the fact that it creates an entertaining play experience isn't a flaw. It's "judging", not "measuring".I do not disagree with you here. I think it would be fair for all entrants to pay an entrance fee. I know in my field (graphic design) contests have an entrance fee of around $50 - $70 per entry (plus the additional requirement of including samples). I'm not suggesting those figures, but it would be fair to require all entrants to have the same fee. Does it not seem obvious to you that the judges looked at the pool of contestants, and judged the podcasts inferior to the websites? What else would be the answer?This seems like the opposite of a logical point to me: debate that convinces the other judges of a product's good points and convinces them to vote for it is neither unwanted nor unethical. If a convincing argument can be formed for the inclusion of a product, does it not logically follow that the product is worthy of inclusion?And what, other than your opinion, is the basis for declaring these products "unworthy"? And what, other than differing from your opinion, do you offer as evidence that the judges "let favortism get in the way of them making an informed decision"? Without offering up evidence to back up your assertions it comes off like sour grapes to me.I would imagine that is the case. If the rules specify those entry requirements, than you are expected to meet those requirements to be considered. I noticed above that it was mentioned that one of the reasons there were not enough podcasts submitted to make them a separate category was taht severeal were discarded for not being properly submitted.</blockquote>

Verification