The Oscar-B Awards! (Results Are Out!!)

[Felbourn]

Let's pretend for a moment that I agree that only an artistic video maker can judge artistic videos.

You think the art winner should not have won. Ok. Who should have?

Pretend we all agree, and that you're the only judge in the category because only you have the necessary expertise to accurately determine a winner.

Who wins?

[Halban]

-

Edited December 29, 2020 by HatBat

[Felbourn]

Yes, I agree, the reason for the question is important. It's really the crux of everything.

We don't change anything in life that doesn't need to change, so first we must agree that change is needed. Second we must agree on a specific change to make. Third we must agree the change is even feasible to make. Fourth we must validate that the change will solve the problem. This is basic engineering. Agreed?

I agree change is needed. We're disagreeing on the specific change to make. For the moment we're focusing on YOUR change proposal and not mine. That's okay. Let's just follow the steps.

Step two requires a specific change to make. For that we need to know what went wrong, and what should have happened. We have half the answer from you so far. We know you disagree with one category winner. We need to know the "true" winner as you see it. Part of needing that answer goes toward step four as well, validating the proposed solution will consistently result in a different and "better" outcome.

[Halban]

-

Edited December 29, 2020 by HatBat

[Felbourn]

"it's fair to say that we've found a solution that already meets that criteria"

What's your proof that's true?

[Halban]

-

Edited December 29, 2020 by HatBat

[Felbourn]

Correct. See step 5.

Step 1 - Identify a problem

You have said there's a problem, albeit not ALL of the details of that problem. I'd still like the complete details. I don't think I will ever be able to agree with you that there IS a problem unless you provide the full context of the issue you saw. But, you've refused, so okay I will try to work with what I have.

Step 2 - Agree there's a problem

I can only agree with you if I agree the winner was wrong. See step 1. I have no reason to believe the current artistic video winner was the wrong choice. The onwess is on you since you identified this issue.

Step 3 - Propose a solution

You've done this in great detail. We're more than done with this step. (I'd also say you've done this quite well; just as a personal aside. This debate has been enjoyable because you do it well.)

Step 4 - Make sure the solution is feasible

I'm not sure this is true either, but let's table that for now.

Step 5 - Verify the solution works

This is what I am asking for now. You said "it's fair to say that we've found a solution" but we have not verified it. I'm open to your ideas on how to do this. One idea on how to verify your proposal is to pretend we had run the Oscars using your pitch. We would look at one category (let's say... artistic/cinematic) and then "assign" a mock judge (let's say... you, since you are a self-professed master of the genre). We could also imagine what the other categories might have looked like. We'd then compare this to the real results.

So, again, how do you KNOW your solution will solve the problem you believe exists?

[Halban]

-

Edited December 29, 2020 by HatBat

[Felbourn]

Sure, we can look at my pitch now. Keep in mind I did not identify the same issue you saw. These are totally orthogonal problems. Remember, this debate started because I don't agree that a mistake was made. I'm not saying that the right choice was made, but I also have not seen proof that the wrong one was made. I'm open to hearing your reasoning. If you're confident you're right, you should be able to convince me. I'm reasonable. I'm a scientist. I'll agree as soon as I see good evidence or hear the proof. But lacking that, for now I think you're trying to solve a problem we don't actually have.

The problem *I* saw was that the categories had too many choices for so few judges. If 100 people were voting, okay. Five? Too many choices. My proof for this is fairly simple: we needed a second round of voting after the videos that did not receive more than 1 vote were weeded out. My proposal to fix it would be to have two rounds built into the process. In voting round one, anyone and everyone can propose anything they want. No restrictions. Judges would then whittle this down. (The manner of the whittling process can be debated. Perhaps this is related to your pitch in a way. Maybe it's a panel of three experts in the field who decide what 3-5 choices best meet the category requirements. I'm not 100% decided on this part.) I think 3-5 choices may be okay, but certainly NOT more than 5 choices. Then we have "real" voting in round two. Ideally this would be by more than 5 judges, but we'll work with what we can get.

That's a second issue actually. The number of judges was too low IMO. I have not put a lot of thought into how to get more other than by asking Squad/Kasper to help by making this more official. (Actually, I already did that. But we have a year to figure it out.) The more we get, though, the more the third problem matters. So...

I saw a third issue. The voting process itself was not streamlined. I received LONG emails, split into two parts in some cases, and it was difficult weeding through it to get the choices. I also pretended I was a judge by going through the mock process of voting. I had to watch a lot of stuff, and some categories were hard to work through. Then I had to basically create my own ballot. My solution here is tied to the first problem. If the field had already been whittled down then I'd have less to go through. The second part of this solution is to create a voting ballot to make getting back choices easier for everyone involved; judges and organizers.

I have other things I'd change, like HOW we know which judges are appropriate, and how the votes are tallied, but these were not true problems this time. I'd just be future proofing against possible problems that we didn't have yet. I'd rather focus on things I did perceive as problems first.

[Felbourn]

P.S.

I welcome any feedback, but we have a year to think this over. So let's talk about this again in 2016? I'm going to get back to more focus on some recent tasks (and game playing!) and will likely hold off more replies for a few months. Great debate though. Enjoy your game time!

[Halban]

-

Edited December 29, 2020 by HatBat

[Kozak]

We're not doing this for entertainment Felbourn . And why wait? Unless you think you actually need a year to think it through, and can't spare 5 minutes to write replies, then it'd be better to do it now rather than rush it before the awards.

To respond to your solution: I know you think it's better simply to have more people, whether they truly understand how to analyse the content or not, but according to your plan: we're going to need experts for each category anyway to whittle down the nominations. Why not just use the experts to make the final decisions? It's already been said why that would obviously be way easier than doing both that and getting several dozen people to make votes. As well as why it's fairer. To be honest, you don't seem to have much in the way of arguments against that, other than: 'I want evidence' and 'I don't see the problem'. Both of which are demands placed on the system by you Felbourn, the plan doesn't need statistical proof nor your personal approval to function correctly. What in particular makes you think that your solution is easier and yields better results? It's a longer and harder process that is prone to more inaccuracies due to voting from people who will likely not all properly evaluate each and every piece of content of every single category. It's a lot to ask of someone, but any less would be an inaccurate result, wouldn't you agree? Surely it would be easier to split up that work into one category for one person who is a complete expert and will fairly analyse all the content? Experts who you already have access to, because you needed them to whittle down the nominations.

At the end of the day it's not your competition man, it doesn't really matter to the success of the experts system whether you like it or not. When all is said and done, it's Upsilon's decision to make. Sorry to be rash, just saying what seems to have passed you by. You've said you don't see the problem but that doesn't mean it isn't there, it seems bizzare that you're so sure I'm making it all up.

Rekt by Hatbat.

[Halban]

-

Edited December 29, 2020 by HatBat

[Mobius]

☠Not rekt

☑ Rekt

☑ Shrekt

☑ Tyrannosaurus shrex

☑ Othnielia shrex

☑ Yanme'e (Turpis shrex)

☑ Homo eshrektus

☑ CT-7567 / Clone Captain Shrex

☑ CT-21-0408/ ARC Trooper Shreko

☑ Shrekolocation

☑ Shrexamination

☑ Shrexas

☑ Shrexico

☑ Shrekoslovakia

☑ Danny "Shrexbang" Avidan

☑ AlShrexander the Great

☑ Ship Shrek

☑ Metal Gear SHREX

☑ ShreX marks the spot

☑ Somewhere Ogre the Rainbow

☑ Adeptus Shrekanicus

☑ Parks and Shrek

☑ TurtleShrek Sweater

☑ Shrexplosion

☑ Deus Shrex Machina

☑ Freelancer Agent Shrexas

☑ Shrex Luthor

☑ Star Shrek

☑ Star Shrek: The Shrext Generation

☑ Shrektoral Fin

☑ Knuckles the Shrekidna

☑ Ogre the river and through the woods

☑ Shrektacular

☑ Shrequator

☑ Law of Shrequivalent Shrexchange

☑ Check yourself before you Shrek yourself

☑ JonTron says SHRECH

☑ ShrEx-girlfriend

☑ ShreXBox

☑ ShreXBox 360

☑ ShreXBox One

☑ Maximum Ogredrive

☑ Shrexodus

☑ The Shrext best thing

☑ The Uncanny ShreX-men

☑ Shrex Raptor

☑ Two-Headed King Shrex

☑ Shrextermination

☑ LEGO Shrexo-Force

☑ Warlord of the League of Six Kingdoms, EhShrek

☑ EShrektric shock

☑ Shrexcalibur

☑ Practical eShrekts are better than CGI

☑ Great Shrekspectations

☑ Solar Shrexus

☑ Shrek It Ralph

☑ Asking for the Shreck after you're done eating

☑ Gingers have Shrekles on their face

☑ Shrek it out

☑ Shrexecutor-Class Star Destroyer

☑ Flawless Shrexecution

☑ Shrexual Intercourse

☑ PokémOnion #023, Shrekans

☑ PokémOnion #047, ParaShrekt

☑ PokémOnion #101, EShrektrode

☑ PokémOnion #102, Shrexeggcute

☑ PokémOnion #103, Shrexeggcutor

☑ PokémOnion #125, EShrektabuzz

☑ PokémOnion #204, PiShreko

☑ PokémOnion #239, ElShrekid

☑ PokémOnion #295, Shrexploud

☑ PokémOnion #309, EShrektrike

☑ PokémOnion #310, ManShrektric

☑ PokémOnion #352, Shrekleon

☑ PokémOnion #358, ChimShreko

☑ PokémOnion #382, KyOgre

☑ PokémOnion #466, EShrektivire

☑ PokémOnion #468, ToShrekiss

☑ PokémOnion #530, Shrexcadrill

☑ PokémOnion #603, EeShrektrik

☑ PokémOnion #604, EeShrektross

☑ PokémOnion #644, Shrekrom

☑ PokémOnion #653, FenShrekin

☑ The ShawShrek Redemption

☑ Mask-Maker of Okoto, Shrekimu

☑ Horse, Shrequus ferus caballus

☑ Plains Zebra, Shrequus quagga

☑ The ShreX-Files

☑ Shrekception to the rule

☑ Meetra Surik, the Jedi Shrexile

☑ Shrexar Kun

☑ Shrexl Roosh

☑ Shreking Ball

☑ Shrektoplasm

☑ Qianzhousaurus sinensis (Pinocchio Shrex)

☑ Raptoshrex kriegsteini

☑ Shrektal Examination

☑ Shrequiem for a Dream

☑ Forerunner Shield World 0001, Didact's Crypt - Shrequiem

☑ Shrexcession at Voi

☑ Eshrektile Dysfunction

☑ S.T. - The Shrextraterrestrial

☑ Shrekcellent

☑ Shrextinction

☑ Bet you weren't Shrexpecting that, ey, laddeh?

☑ Shrexistential Crisis

☑ Straight outta Swampton

☑ Head Ogre heels in love

☑ Shrekronomicon

☑ Shrekceptional

☑ Shrextraordinary

☑ Shrexy Time

☑ Shrekurity Guard

☑ The Hunt for Red OctOgre

Edited October 14, 2015 by Mobius

[Felbourn]

> can't spare 5 minutes to write replies

Ok, you can have one more reply, but after that I need to move on. This has sapped more time than I had expected, and this conversation has gone well beyond diminishing returns. I'll also change the subject since we've said about all there is to say on the other matters.

> We're not doing this for entertainment Felbourn

You can only be doing this for one of two reasons, for fun, or for work. If you're not doing all this for fun, why do it? I know I'm not getting a paycheck for all this. You have your priorities wrong if if this is not for entertainment and love of the game.

> you don't see the problem but that doesn't mean it isn't there

Then tell me exactly what the problem is. You won't tell me. You've left it to my imagination, and therefore my imagination says it's this: You were in the category for Artistic but didn't win, and you think your proposal will change the rules enough to make it more favorable for you to win next year. If this guess is wrong then you'd need to tell me exactly what the problem was. Specifically. I can't help fix what you won't say was broken.

> And why wait?

Because nothing you or I think about this matters a lot, and even if it did matter much it's all irrelevant until next year. A lot can change between now and then. We could get a better idea with some time in between thinking about it. We could be wasting our time if Squad made it official. They'd make their own rules. UP could quit KSP and not "own" this next time, and a larger community group might take it over and change all the rules. There are SO many reasons to not waste our time anymore.

> At the end of the day it's not your competition man

And this is where you lost me. Saying I can't give input because it's not my decision is silly. The same rule would apply to you. So from that, and especially from your immature "tip of the hat" to someone using baby language to analyse our debate, I have nothing left to say. I'd be an idiot for replying one more time in a debate that has turned into emotes.

I realize you're going to want to make a final statement AND may ask additional questions, but I really need to move on. So please don't be offended when I don't reply again. It's not personal. I do wish you better luck next time, and hope you enjoy some quality KSP time today.

[Halban]

-

Edited December 29, 2020 by HatBat

[Halban]

-

Edited December 29, 2020 by HatBat

[JTpopcorn]

All right, time for me to say something. First, this is a thread, if this is for the community maybe a poll of what the community thinks is in order. I think I might have to agree with Hatbat. As with many major awards, the winners are picked by those that have great knowledge in the category that they are judging. There have been many times when actors or movies have won awards that the general population might disagree with. Something can be a good movie, without being the most liked movie and vice versa. Maybe this needs to be split into two competitions, one judged by experts, and one that is just a poll of what people think is the best.

I honestly don't see the point in this arguement, as neither of you agree with each other. It is simply reducing quality Youtubers to Donald Trump level name calling.

So yeh, just please stop and let the community decide, after all, that is what this is all about.

-JT

[Felbourn]

Ah, a new voice. Excellent. I'll re-add my thoughts if we have new things to say.

But...

> I think I might have to agree with Hatbat

You followed and preceeded this line with nothing I disagreed with, so I am not clear where you agree with him yet disagree with me.

> maybe a poll of what the community thinks is in order

> winners [should be] picked by those that have great knowledge in the category that they are judging

> Maybe this needs to be split into two competitions, one judged by experts, and one that is just a poll of what people think is the best

Maybe Hat and I agree on more than we all think?

Perhaps what we REALLY need is a summary. This has gone too long for anyone to keep it all in their head at one time.

Was this event a success.

HatBat: Almost

Felbourn: Yes

Could it be better now that we have learned some things from doing it once?

HatBat: Yes

Felbourn: Yes

Should we use expert judges?

HatBat: Yes

Felbourn: Yes

Should we make winners decided by community poll?

HatBat: No

Felbourn: Probably not. I prefer expert judges but I'll keep an open mind.

What's the first thing you would change?

HatBat: Assign one expert judge to each category.

Felbourn: Change how the expert judges whittle down and select the winners.

How many expert judges per category?

HatBat: 1

Felbourn: at least 3, but 5 is better

How would you make it easier on the judges?

HatBat: Don't need to if it's 1 judge.

Felbourn: Change how voting worked. (see previous posts for details)

Why do you think your idea is needed?

HatBat: The judges got one winner wrong.

Felbourn: The voting took two rounds.

Do you think the judges we had were "expert enough" to judge these categories?

HatBat: No

Felourn: Yes

Do you agree with the recent winners?

HatBat: All except Artistic

Felbourn: Yes

Who should have won Artistic?

HatBat: refuses to say

Felbourn: I personally liked Ares to Mars, but I am ok with the judges' pick too.

[One-Way Films]

Can't we make a poll and decide that way? Let's look at it democratically. Here's a poll:

(cut due to the poll not giving enough information. I'm also too tired to start another one. There were 2 votes in Felbourns' idea so far)

Why don't we have 2 teams of Judges? A load of judges who can assess every video and vote on them and then another group of experienced people in said categories.

- OWF

Edited October 16, 2015 by One-Way Films

[Halban]

-

Edited December 29, 2020 by HatBat

[JTpopcorn]

You followed and preceeded this line with nothing I disagreed with, so I am not clear where you agree with him yet disagree with me.

I meant the idea of having one or more expert judges, rather than a group of community members. However, as long as the judges are experts in their categories there is no problem with having multiple judges.

I am glad that this seems to have resolved itself somewhat peacefully.

-JT

[Felbourn]

Nice, this is going good places again.

> Question: Would these simply be industry judges or do you think it would be more useful to have experts of particular fields all vote in every category?

> is this what you'd choose if having expert judges for each category was used? ... then try to make that manageable by streamlining the process?

I think experts per category is the right way to go. I think we've only been debating your 1 versus my 3 ideas, and HOW judges get picked, and how they in turn pick Winners. We've never been debating they should be qualified (although maybe what defines being qualified is up for debate).

Let's pretend one person is still the "owner" and organizer of this next year, and not Squad themselves. I think it's a safe bet this will remain community-driven with only Squad participation, just like last time. I will call this person Owner. It might be Upsilon, but it doesn't really matter who it is for this example.

I believe this step would exist in your proposal and mine. So this is not specific to my idea. I am just being thorough.

Owner starts a new thread saying "It's time again for all video and channel nominations! Yay! Anyone can post whatever they want for any category. No restrictions! Go crazy! Also, we need expert judges. Let's get some volunteers like we had last year!"

The reason I think it's okay to have no restrictions at this step is because step 3 will whittle down the nominations as needed.

I believe this step would exist in your proposal and mine. So this is not specific to my idea.

Lots of people start posting stuff from every which way and that. Some people even send a PM to Owner saying, "I'd like to volunteer to be an expert judge."

I believe this step would exist in your proposal and mine. So this is not specific to my idea.

Owner looks at the nominations to ensure they meet some basic criteria. Did the video come out within the last 12 months? If not, Owner disqualifies it from the list. Does the video or channel seem to even remotely fit the theme of the suggested category? If not, cut it.

Owner also looks at the volunteer list to check for qualifications as a judge. Do they have an established and credible opinion? Do they have a channel of their own? Some volunteers may not be accepted. Owner has the hard job of explaining why not.

At the end of all this we have our Nominees & Judges. These are all the videos and channels that matched the criteria of being made in the last year, and were appropriate to a category rule (so a "tutorial" category needs to only have tutorials in it and so on). Judges are verified as experts in at least one category, probably more, after perhaps checking out their content, or getting opinions from respected community members.

This is the first step where we differ. You say 1. I say 3 to 5.

Suppose we decide we want 3 experts per category for this example. Let's also imagine we have 7 volunteers who were accepted. For example, maybe it's the same 5 of this year, plus Owner, and maybe I throw myself into the mix too. That would be 7 right there. I think we could get 7 easily next year too. So now we all talk amongst ourselves for a little bit and decide which 3 of us will do each category. Let's give the judges these fake names: Able, Baker, Candice, David, Eddie, Fiona, and Greg. Maybe Able, Baker, Candice do category X. Able, David, Fiona do category Y. Baker, Fiona, Greg to category Z. And so on. Who decides this? The judges themselves decide. If you think you're the right choice for Artistic, you suggest that, and most likely the other judges will agree. Or if we want to simplify this, another option is you tell Owner and he decides. Or another idea is the judges have a pre-ballot to decide it. If you get someone like me to help (aka someone compulsive and "into" organizing things heh, and designing systems) then this step can go quite smoothly. (The only rule I'd want to see is no judge in a category where they are a finalist. That's a conflict of interest since they could not vote for themself without it ruining the credibility of the whole system.) There are many ideas here, and you may have ideas of your own, but the end result is we'd have 3 judges per category. (This way we won't get an Olympics German Judge incident as easily.)

This step may or may not need to exist for 1 judge system so may be specific to my proposal.

All judges (so 7 for this example) have a round where they can contribute input into deciding the finalists. I think 4 could be a good # of finalists. Not more than 5. You probably want at least 3 so there's some mystery. So... yea say 3-5 finalists with 4 being the best number. Notice the categories we had this year had well more than 4 finalists. That made things harder. Again there are various options on how to whittle this down, and once again getting anyone who's good at organizing things [looks at self] would help make this go quite smoothly for the judges. This way the 7 judges have all had a chance to give input, but the final decision is not in the hands of ALL 7. It's in the hands of the 3 category experts.

This step exists in the 1 judge system but of course is simpler. Still, I think the extra effort is worth the credibility gained.

The 4 finalists are voted on by 3 judges, and one winner is selected. Most likely each judge would sort the 4 finalists into an order and give more "points" to the top videos. For example, just one idea... perhaps you have 4 finalists and you give one of them 3 points, another one gets 2 points, and a third gets 1 point. The max score would therefore be 3+3+3 = 9 points. This is actually how I did it this year. You each ranked the videos and I gave 2 points for your first 1st choice and 1 point for your 2nd choice. The video with the most points won. Anyway, there's a few ways to do this part too, but the basic idea is you do this in a way that experts are deciding, yet with a lower chance of a tie by scoring. With 3 judges there should not be tie, but if there could be then designate 1 judge as the ultimate decider.

I have left some of the details above as "it could be this or this or this" because I'd want time to think, and get feedback. If I HAD to pick a specific way to do it today, I could. But I think some of the details are ok to have a little undecided until next year.

[Goddess Bhavani]

The above proposal looks splendid and we'll thought out. Also I appreciate your effort to resurrect the video judging process and I believe that went smoothly too.

My 2c,

Have 3 expert judges per category. Under no circumstances have one expert judge per category as that will simply lead to what I term aesthetic bias: as a craft builder I mimic certain design trends, which other craft builders may find odd and vice versa. You don't want helicopter videos all over the showcase video finalists, lol!

Likewise for video productions I like emphasis on Ares to Mars type documentary presentations with little to no VFX but maximum overdrive on mission detail and generally NASA like mission proposal. That level of detail allows our KSP players to act as mission planners and engineers making similar concepts work with the video as reference. There is art in superb engineering and in game execution after all. Other opinions will differ, so one judge does not fit all.

Edited October 16, 2015 by pandoras kitten

[Halban]

-

Edited December 29, 2020 by HatBat