|
Post by Darth Vilgore on Dec 28, 2008 9:54:36 GMT -6
Don't like the rules? Propose a change here.
|
|
|
Post by darthfather on Jan 5, 2009 20:16:20 GMT -6
I would like to see the Best Collection Award become bi annual.
|
|
|
Post by Darth Dianthus on Jan 7, 2009 20:44:33 GMT -6
Held once every two years? That's a long time between drinks!
I kid, I am guessing you mean semi-annually, i.e. twice a year.
I see the pros to such a plan as: a lot more time to decide on the categories and design the page, possibly better prizes because donors (us or sponsors) would not be donating so often, and a reduction of the possibility of our entrants and fans developing "photos of Star Wars collections" fatigue.
I see the cons as: less winners per year which might reduce the enthusiasm of new entrants (if they feel they have a low chance of winning), and the possibility that people will forget about us in between contests.
It is an interesting idea, what do others think?
|
|
|
Post by darthfather on Jan 8, 2009 4:26:36 GMT -6
Sorry. Yes I meant semi annual. Collections change so much through the year. I will put some more thought into changes and present a few more.
|
|
|
Post by Darth Vilgore on Jan 8, 2009 18:16:45 GMT -6
one rule change I suggested is not limit winning to one catagory, but one prize per winner. the "Extra" prize could be given az a runner up prize for that close second. That way ppl like myself, Revenge, and Xaos who enter multiple times frequently can still have the honor of winning if we are voted so, but its not like everyone iz shipping their prizes to one person.
Another benifit iz that a close second could recieve a prize. the details of how to decide which person would recieve that can be discussed with the commitee.
And it dosent set up wins by default...lets face it no one likes to win by default.
What do you ppl think?
|
|
|
Post by Darth Revenge on Jan 9, 2009 10:12:28 GMT -6
I totally agree with you Lord Vilgore !
|
|
|
Post by darthfather on Jan 13, 2009 7:08:27 GMT -6
I like the idea of a second place prize winner.
|
|
|
Post by Darth Dianthus on Jan 13, 2009 18:11:17 GMT -6
If we do go down that route, it would mean that we frequently have just two or three winners from six categories. And we would have two or three winners even if we had eight, or ten, or twelve, categories. The fact is, some of your collections are so good that they dominate, and I tried that "one win per entrant" rule for the Nov-Dec awards specifically to increase the number of winners which I hoped would be encouraging for new entrants - if three people routinely take out all the awards it would be most discouraging to anyone else to bother to enter. I am guessing here that winning itself is worth at least as much to the winners as the prize - I'd agree with your reasoning if the prize was the big thing, and winning itself was not so important compared to getting a prize.
It is a tricky thing. People spend a lot of time and effort on their entries, and seeing your entry lose out to someone who has already taken out two other categories would be most disheartening. On the other hand, people spend a lot of time and effort on their entries, so being denied a win because you've already won another category would be most disheartening.
Remember that we have not yet had any true "default winners" - the only occasion when someone was set up for a default win, they actually took out the vast majority of votes in that category anyway and therefore won on merit, not by default. There was one award where the highest vote-getter had already won and so was discounted, but there were multiple other entries in that category, and so a real contest was still held between those other entrants.
I will implement whatever plan is decided upon, but I have to say, my preference is either to retain the "one win per entrant per comp" rule as was done in the Holiday awards, OR to actually limit the number of categories one person can enter, say to two categories. That latter rule would, to my mind, prevent anyone's hard work being either discounted, or in vain, and seems a better balance between the competing interests. We would still have many winners and those with fantastic collections would not spend time creating entries that could not win.
|
|
|
Post by Darth Vilgore on Jan 15, 2009 19:08:00 GMT -6
I agree with you Dianthus. We want new people and we don't want them discouraged by "Uber" collectors.
This is just speaking for myself here so please tell me how you guys feel.
I like entering for the sake of entering because its something creative that I can do with my collection rather than just go stare at it everyday at 6:30. So I like your idea of limiting to two entries/ one prize.
How about going one step further. A person can enter 4,5,6 times but other entries beyond the two specified will go boldly stated as exhibition entries. (i.e. not eligible for a vote).
If not I like your idea of the 2 entries/ 1 prize and feel that should be a way to go.
|
|
dj121
BCA Member
Posts: 47
|
Post by dj121 on Jan 26, 2009 16:43:16 GMT -6
Coming from a member who has been on both sides of the winning, I can see both points. For example there was one contest where I alone took two or three catagories. I was very happy, to say the least but I can imagine how the other entrants must have felt. They all had some very very good stuff.
At the same time, and not that I am a sore looser by any means, but I got shut out completely from the last round.
I do think everyone should have a fair chance at winning, so I agree with a maximum of two wins with one prize. The "extra" prize should then go to the "runner up" in the second catagory.
Just some thoughts, what do you all think?
|
|
|
Post by Darth Dianthus on Jan 26, 2009 19:51:15 GMT -6
I think we will just be making things unnecessarily confusing if we separate winning and prizes, and have people winning but not getting a prize, and people getting a prize but not winning. It just makes the whole thing seem ramshackle and random. I believe we should be limiting the number of wins each entrant can have, or the number of categories they can enter, rather than the number of prizes they can win, and we should always have the prize going to the eventual winner of the category.
In terms of rule simplicity alone, nothing will beat the "enter as many categories as you want, but you can win only once at most" rule. It is easy to understand, and importantly, people will know beforehand that they can only win once and use that knowledge when deciding how many categories to spend their time and efforts on.
I do appreciate what you're saying - you want to be able to enter multiple categories, and while you don't expect to get multiple prizes, you would still like to be able to get the honour of multiple wins, if your entries are assessed as the best in their respective categories. The problem that I see is, there is no way to achieve that, with any kind of simple rule structure. As soon as we divorce wins and prizes, the rules become unavoidably complex (not to mention the issue of working out who gets the un-awarded prize.)
Indeed, I would be in favour of retaining "prize goes to the winner" even if we said "two wins maximum per comp" (instead of one). That is, each person can win up to two times each comp, and if they do win two categories, they get two prizes.
That is now my suggested compromise solution, actually! Each entrant can enter as many categories as they like; they can only win two at most, but they do get a prize for each win they achieve. It allows the uber-collectors to win when they deserve to, and get credited for multiple wins, it still allows newbies to have a good chance at winning, prizes and wins stay linked together, and the rules stay fairly simple.
We will take a vote on this issue soon and resolve it before the BCA8 Mar-Apr contest. As I have said before, I will happily run the contest the way the committee thinks it should be run, so please have your say, and make your decision, according to what you think would be best!
|
|
|
Post by Darth Vilgore on Jan 26, 2009 22:37:19 GMT -6
I'm down with anything.
I would like to be able to enter multiple catagories even if I know I can't win.
Thats all I really care about is the ability to enter.
|
|
|
|
Post by darthfather on Feb 2, 2009 20:23:05 GMT -6
"Indeed, I would be in favour of retaining "prize goes to the winner" even if we said "two wins maximum per comp" (instead of one). That is, each person can win up to two times each comp, and if they do win two categories, they get two prizes."
I like the idea of two wins per comp. Is there more than one person, that typicaly enters, that has bootlegs? I have not seen any yet or read about them in a topic. I would like to see more of them.
|
|
|
Post by Darth Dianthus on Feb 4, 2009 17:52:25 GMT -6
My feeling is, unless the category says "custom" or "homemade" or something like that, then we should only accept genuine LFL-licensed merchandise. For two reasons.
First, when it comes to things like "Worst (character) Figure", it would just be too easy to find horrible (but non-genuine) reproductions. This category is really about the worst that gets officially sanctioned, not the worst that could potentially be made.
Secondly, I am pretty sure that we are all supporters of Star Wars, and we respect the fact that George Lucas and LFL allow us fans to use their IP pretty much any way we want to (so long as we don't profit from it) and so I feel a moral obligation to not support, condone or promote any non-licensed merchandise.
For this competition (BCA7) though, we cannot exclude any non-genuine entries, because there is nothing in the rules that says merchandise needs to be officially licensed. So they will be accepted this time around.
If it is agreed to, then I will add a rule regarding this issue for future competitions.
|
|