Q & A time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by championanwar
(Post 3432298)
Can I PM someone how to fix my "peculiar patterns" file?. . . 'cause the notes all together are a tad confusing x_x.
|
Feel free to ask anyone who reviewed the file for more details. (if you find me on msn, you can ask)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ichliebekase
(Post 3432324)
How in the world does a resubmission go from getting 4's and a 5 almost a 5+ to straight 3's? I really don't understand this AT ALL. After a fixed submission, I get lower grades. Did the judges forget to look at the previous batch notes for what was mentioned before? I thought bmah mentioned that last batch but it seems as if some people forgot to do that this time around.
|
It's very possible that you may end up changing something for the worse, but more likely, it's the issue of contradicting opinions which I've talked about several times before. Seeing how you've made several attempts at the file already, I think it was the right thing to do to PM me. I'll look at the file later and discuss it with you.
Also, read Silvuh's follow-up post on the sync. I think that may have cleared some confusion.
I remember I had to resubmit my Happy Rainbow file 5 times to Tass before it got accepted, and even then, there were disagreements amongst the judges. The issues were a ping-pong of opposing opinions, just like your case. I just was persistent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by krunkykai22
(Post 3432335)
there are problems being mentioned now that should have been mentioned in the first batch review.
|
Some issues aren't evident the first few times someone plays a file, and again some issues don't appear to surface until changes to the file have been made. This actually applies with a lot of things in life - from new software updates (to fix bugs that weren't initially evident) to new discoveries that were overlooked the first time.
Also, not everyone may spot the same problem or view certain areas as problematic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by krunkykai22
(Post 3432341)
Honestly, Plan I would agree with you if this was the 2nd submission. This is her last time she can submit this file. Only 2 resubmissions can be put in.
|
Maybe you're just mixing things up, but the limit on the number of files one can send is for regular submissions. If you somehow had 8 resubmissions, you could send them all in if you wish. Temporally, however, resubmissions themselves only last for the subsequent batch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by leonid
(Post 3432369)
Youshou 02 / leonid
rating: [+.]
- hands unnecessary in m7-8; better used for sharper sounds
Fine fixed
- I don't hear some 8ths in the beginning such as beats 13.50, 17.50, etc.
Hear again if the sound is secondary or too quiet, it should be ignored anyhow, just as a note
- ghost 16th at beat 133.75? ghost 8th at beat 330.50?
Nope see above
- m42: first [124] hand and 8th jump necessary here?
Yes. [124] is String+Break+Snare, and 8th jump is Kick+Break
- missed 8th at timpani drums on beat 273.50, 281.50, etc. There are a few more in the upcoming measures.
I didn't layer timpani sounds
- hand is nasty at beat 362; just make it a jump
Fixed
- suggestion: Nice file, but I'll admit that I found some sections rather boring due to the song.
Don't you dare diss a tarolabo song zzzzzzzzzzzz
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cedolad
(Post 3432431)
We should really base teams on how the judges judge.
|
I at least try to make sure that the judge line-up is suitable...which is why some didn't make it in.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rushyrulz
(Post 3432432)
+. +. +. +. is 16/20, which isn't queued (17/20).
|
I personally think this should be good enough, but I think the bar is raised to 17/20 simply because of the influx of files we receive in each batch. I still don't consider this a permanent line of acceptance - I'm pretty sure there can be reasons to change it depending on how a batch fares.
Still, 16/20 is currently considered for voting, so there's still a chance such a file may be accepted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rushyrulz
(Post 3432464)
One judge shouldn't have the power to TRUMP reject all the other judges in the team, that's just insane.
|
I mentioned this in a previous post, but yes, this is still true unfortunately. We tried to fix the problem when it was suggested that a 5/5/5/1 file can have the "1" score dropped if reasons aren't justified. But what if someone thinks that the file is pretty good, but only gives it a [+.] for whatever reason? Then it's goodbye for acceptance (4/5/5/1 for instance).
Quote:
Originally Posted by rushyrulz
(Post 3432464)
TL;DR: Current system gives too much power to the individual judge, we should throw out the most odd score to make a 'majority' type decision rather than a unanimous one.
|
Hmm, you have to be careful with this, as you're pretty much suggesting that the judge who provided the lowest score does not know what he/she is talking about. And before you can make such an assumption, we'll have to look more closely at the file itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mans0n
(Post 3432473)
If that's the case I will have lost most if not all respect i have towards the current system used to judge files
:neutral:
|
Well now that you've got your file accepted and you're happy about it, above quote suggests that you dislike the system simply on whether your file got in or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iironiic
(Post 3432478)
I'd like to let you all know that my file is actually a borderline file.
[+][+][+?][+?] = 16 not 17.
EDIT: May I still send in a resubmission, or will I have to wait for next batch?
|
Appreciate your honesty. Your file will go through the voting system, and although I gave your passage D file a [+?], I'd be inclined to vote a yes on your file. It IS fun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rushyrulz
(Post 3432507)
You wanna know rude? See Dossar's 5/5/1/5. That's just a huge kick in the ass. The way one person thinks shouldn't dictate the outcome of a file especially in a 4 judge team, jsin. This is a problem, and it needs a solution, whether mine is valid or not.
|
It's not an issue; a file doesn't have to have consistent opinions - nor should you expect this to happen all the time. Reviewing simfiles is verrry subjective, and you MUST expect this to happen sometimes. It has happened to me before. You cannot simply exclude the odd man out as a "nutcase" who doesn't know what he's talking about (I already said this) just because his rating stood out like a sore thumb.
Quote:
Originally Posted by qqwref
(Post 3432522)
giving it to jx/bmah is basically changing from four judges' opinions to two, and I thought the whole four-judges system was supposed to avoid having one or two people personally decide your fate.
|
That is true, but I did make a suggestion earlier that we'd (myself and jx) personally look at a highly disputed file if it appears that no progress has been made and the simfile artist wants to resolve it. I'm currently looking through ichlie's Glorious Morning file and seeing what all the rage is about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ichliebekase
(Post 3432532)
Do we need to start tagging our files as "meant as an easy file" or "meant to be fun"?
|
You know, this is sort of how I felt when I had my easy files rejected*. Remember I asked you and others on how to make a good easy file? My inquiry was the result of what I thought was a misunderstanding of my intentions to make the file easy. Some judges give recognition to such possibilities, but not all the time, and you can't press them on for everything.
*in the end, one of my easy files, Ready to go, was changed to be slightly harder than intended - not what I exactly wanted, but it wasn't too bad. As I said in the past, if it appears that a file isn't turning out how you'd like after fixes, then don't force yourself to submit it. You don't have to. As who_cares (and kommisar) said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by who_cares973
(Post 3432595)
IF YOU DONT LIKE IT SUBMIT YOUR SHIT TO ANOTHER SITE/PACK OR RELEASE AS A SINGLE
|
Yep.
Quote:
Originally Posted by krunkykai22
(Post 3432535)
I agree if they have a LEGITIMATE excuse, but if everyone else gives them a 5 and for example you give them a 1, how is that a fair legitimate excuse? Shouldn't the whole judge team, since you are all elitist step artists apparently, shouldn't you all have and see the SAME errors?
|
Read some of the responses I've already made above. The answer is no. Also, we're not elites. I honestly like to see myself as a normal person or at least someone who can relate to what others are saying, which is partially why I'm making responses right now to your issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by qqwref
(Post 3432540)
Really? It's decently hard as it is; putting 48th rolls all over the place would just be stupid. Does anyone think the judges would give a *better* score if Passage D was stepped with every possible sound?
|
In my defense, the technicality aspect of that song had nothing to do with stepping every sound, because yes, that would indeed be more of a mess. The main issue had to do with 32nds being 24ths or vice versa or other bursts being stepped in the wrong sync. For another example, look at the notes for my song Fly Away -mix del matador-. I made similar errors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by i love you
(Post 3432558)
@ Bmah, am i allow to post my notes here?
|
Ehh, I already posted the Sun and Stars notes on the batch review thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mans0n
(Post 3432645)
So JX is the only one that updates the queue list?
|
Yeah, jx officially accepts/rejects files into the game. I really only collect the judges' notes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ichliebekase
(Post 3432652)
To be honest, you guys wouldn't be saying that if it happened to you where you got extreme scores on files without proper justification :/
|
Actually, no, some people in this thread are graciously taking reviews the way they are and are doing their best to fix them. (Please don't view this as a way of "complying to people who are hush hush/shy about making complaints".) That's also not to say that I dislike receiving all the criticisms - please continue to let us know how to improve the judging system. Improvement is a continuous process.
