pouët.net

i should rephrase. What 'other categories' options are there besides the current ones that don't just introduce a highly subjective focus on something that group A might find relevant and group B won't? And yes, using consensus indeed lets you end up with the obvious.

Since the way the Meteorik-evaluation work is basically akin to academic peer review (group of experts in a given category, a chair/head of the jury etc), we will inherit all the strengths and weaknesses of that model. One thing I can't quite decipher from the website is whether the head of the jury is part of the deliberations among the jury. He could be, thats one model, but another one that we use in academia is this:

a) an expert is appointed head/chair of a committee (jury) tasked with grading a number of academic contributions within a category.

b) he chooses a number (typically numbering 3+ for diversity) of experts that volunteered in that category. They each write up a review focusing on whatever focal areas seem relevant - novelty and method etc, as well as give a grade between 1-10. During this process, all experts can revise their reviews based on what they see others write. I often am pointed to things I have overlooked etc. So it is a form of written deliberation.

c) the head of the jury/committee writes up a meta-review of the 3+ opinions, and consolidates the grade

d) the heads of the individual categories meets up and decides who the winners of each categories are (in academia we choose ie. 25 "winners" based on how many slots we have in our journal - here we would just choose one.

The above system has a lot of weaknesses (workload, repetition of ideas that fit what "experts in the field" like, etc) but it has the advantage of a somewhat fair judgement of your work. As such, if you have something really novel and out of bounds, you need to make an effort to make it digestible to other experts in your field. That is not unfair.

Anyway: is this the structure of the Meteoriks more or less? I get the idea that the jury "discuss" and come up with a decision, as opposed to doing solo reviews and then leaving it up to the metajury?

My 5 cents: I don't think it makes sense to treat any demoscene awards seriously. Obviously if you have only "one slot" for say best demo of the year, it will be unfair, no matter what! Everyone has different taste and since there were quite a few quality productions last year, you cannot possibly get into a reasonable conclusion here.

IMHO Award ceremonies are just for pure entertainment, usually with an expected perverse twist, when the ones who everyone was thinking should receive an award are not getting it, and they give it instead to some underrated guy that is crying on stage how surprised he is and how much it means to him that people appreciate his niche artistic work (but unfortunately, this kind of group/guy is not nominated this year, ooops ;))

I'm the head of jury, and I have so far completely kept myself out of the deliberations. What I did do, was assign the jurors to their categories - while taking their wishes into account. I didn't have to order anyone around. :)

The juror process is a little less formal than what you described, in that the 3-person juries don't have to write a review of every nomination, but are free to discuss and choose a winner among themselves in any way they like. I know that some juries decided by voting, some by arguing heavily, and some just immediately had identical opinions.

Had there been a contested jury, in which no consensus could be found, I would have probably cast a decisive vote, but that hasn't happen this year (neither in the last).

And while this process works pretty well, and comes up with results that I think are pretty reasonable, I'm still very much open to suggestions on how to improve it. Because, as people said, the categories seem pretty stiff, often overlapping, and kinda don't feel like they do the undefinable openness of the demoscene complete justice. There have been a number of different suggestions to do away with fixed categories entirely, and allow people to submit releases together with a name for the prize they should recieve. Similarly and relatedly, the fixed juries have been criticized, but I still haven't heard a good idea how to keep things

a) accessible to everybody
b) free from the "same old boring categories" and
c) Still keep the ceremony interesting because the winners are still secret

But anyway, let's first get this year's stuff through, and then discuss how to attack it next year!

Urs, I love the meteoriks with all my heart, it was mostly just a matter of clarification and comparison with the more rigid academic structure, because anything is more exciting than typing up ones dissertation ;)

It's cool that our old demonstration video got nominated in METEORIKS along with the other cool computer graphics demonstrations!
To celebrate this, we finally released a 1.1 patch that fixes various things. (such as color calibration)

Links can be found at the prod page. And here's a new Capture!

And since posters are cool, here's one made by Hi-Stack!

Prints? :D

Ok, I need to jump into that game too...

(ps. fucking brilliant)

Yes, I want a print of this too.

Totally need a print of that.

YEP PRINTS PLEASE NOW THAT AND CNS THANKS

jake are you coming to Germany?

I don't always decorate my bedroom
But when I do
I use DEMOSCENE POSTERS.

farfar: no unfortunately, no easter party for me (minus a small shadow thing here in SF)

Fuck, I would totally print a bunch of demoscene posters :D

Okay:

<3

for a signing session ? ^^

@Gargaj: nude posing AND signing session? :)

I think you're confusing this with the Jumalauta calendars, maytz :)

hahahaha oh please I just forgot about those, pictures emerging... :)

okay we're copy-catting, but really that is in the spirit of the dub battle cards, so we're consistent at least.

I want all those posters plz