One-Synth-Challenge: General discussion thread

[chilledpanda]

^^^ I totally agree with idfpower's point. The more we argue about "not voting is okay" the more we move towards failure of this contest. It will take the seriousness, commitment away from the competition and any tom, dick and harry will just submit a song and disappear. I will not like to listen, provide feedback and vote 65-70 tracks to find out later that 20-25 of them submitted just for the heck of it (read "fun") and never listened to other tracks and provided feedback. Until unless someone votes it's really questionable whether they even listened to every track.

To me it's okay to show them at the bottom of the list. Whether to write DQ or not, that's all irrelevant cause everyone know why they are on a different list.

Disclaimer: tom, dick and harry, is just a phrase I used, if any contestant has the same name please don't take it personally . It wasn't meant for you.

Can we separate commenting/feedback to others from the vote discussion as you don't need to provide it as it isn't part of a requirement and I have seen it used earlier to justify the DQ for the voting issue ( though personally I think the feedback and commenting part is one of the great aspects of osc does capture the spirit of the comp. ) maybe it should be part of the rules and ppl should get DQ's for not commenting.

Right back to the voting thing.

The thing is voting doesn't prove anything about someone listening to tracks (yes, I know it wouldn't be a comp without it). Just means it proves they moved numbers into a box.
The comment you made satYatunes to Jasinksi on commending him not voting rather than just slinging in the numbers is kind of how I felt about the point system where people were given a high majority of 1's and a few higher to some. Almost smacks of not taking the time to listen and appreciate the work someone put in.

One thing I would like to know is how come suddenly now with someone not voting it seems to be deemed that the results are been skewed as mentioned earlier comment, but in the case of the 1-5 point system where someone put's a majority of 1's and a few 3,4,5's it is deemed not?? If the law of averages holds, shouldn't make a blind bit of difference.

Now don't get me wrong I am not saying it's okay not to vote, for me it's the severity of punishment, because sometimes things happen that even the best laid plans of mice and men occasionally get scuppered.

Also I don't see what the DQ with points been shown at the end actually proves, just seems a pointless exercise because you can figure out where they finished anyway, so certainly not going to change anyone thinking on commitment to voting if they are that way inclined not to.

[idfpower]

im out of any more osc's, getting 1's and 2's from people was completely crushing and heartbreaking.

theres no way my song was a 1 or 2. people are just being jerks.

i talk more about it in the specific thread.

Heh, I can totally relate to that But you have to understand a couple of things:

- when you enter OSC you go against ppl that make plugins, presets or do studio work for a living. I think it's normal that these guys have a lower level of tolerance for "rookie" mistakes If your track is not perfect composition/sound/production-wise you won't make it to the top 5. Heck, there are folks that submit flawless songs and still find themselves only halfway up that list.

- ppl are subjective and have different tastes. Even if your song is very good, it may not get good marks simply 'cause it's not everyone's cup of tea. But that goes for all music - you simply can't please everyone everytime

- some folks do rely on what's called "tactical voting"; just because they may leave a nice comment on Soundcloud doesn't mean they can't bomb your track when voting. Fortunately these things don't happen that often.

- some participants tend to give higher marks to friends or ppl that support their stuff. During OSC you establish good relations with other competitors, gain respect for others and that is reflected sometimes in the votes.

- it takes a bit to be noticed in OSC and for ppl to pay a closer look to your songs. Be patient and try to learn and enjoy it as much as possible.

In spite of all this, your main goal should be the joy to make music with 1 synth only and the accomplishment feeling that you get when youmanage to overcome the limitations imposed by the OSC rules. It's an efficient way to learn more about you as a musician, your militations and how to improve certain aspects.

Ultimately: just because you think you have a killer track, doesn't mean you're right about it There have been situations when I thought the cat was in the bag, and the final result proved me I was dead wrong Just enjoy the ride and don't mind the votes that much - otherwise it will dirve you crazy

[Tony Ostinato]

did you listen?

[idfpower]

Yes (even left a few comments). IMO it's a kick ass track. BUT...it's a bit out of the norm (I only recall a handful of tracks with a similar jam vibe to them being submitted) and the style is not everyone's cup of tea. Not all ppl can be objective and give a high mark for a good song even if it's not right down their alley. My 2 cents, anyway

[Tony Ostinato]

ty that helps

i guess ill wait for style specific contests , or live ones.

now i just feel miserable today.

anyways, as i said in the specific thread: anyone who voted me a 5 can get free real trumpet, tenor sax, or windsynth overdubbed on any tune they want!

[bjporter]

To whoever won a copy of CM Magazine from the OSC cm special

They should have shipped! It took a while, but now you can enjoy!

[V'ger]

Been out of the loop for Easter holidays but shame to see the personal attacks and unsporting behavior in the competition thread recently.. This is so different from the normal tone in OSC..

Moving on, the new 'no voting = DQ' rule has obviously split people but it will stay for a while as it was a straight vote to a straight question in the rules poll and is what the people wanted. Maybe the desired effect of the rule will only be evident later on, so only fair to let it be tried out first.

Also, I would suggest that we should define a timeline for "rules voting" like every quarter, every 2 months or so.

The idea has been to have it once at the end of the old, or beginning of every new year, but I guess it's been happening every 6 months recently.. Of course when there are new and unusual stuff like track voting recently there will be special polls for that.

What do you all want? If we are to set a rule about a fixed time between general votes, how often do you think is best? In a way it seems it was the last rules vote that triggered the recent arguments which might indicate fewer waves if fewer polls, but the reason the rules are changed in the first place is obviously as that's what the people want and that is ultimately for the good. There's also less time between ineffective rules being able to be replaced, and people change their minds all the time too which speaks for more frequent rules votes. Maybe a poll about it?

Another point brought up is to have anonymous submissions, and even anonymous voting results. The obvious things I can see here is that with anonymous submissions, you lose the SoundCloud commenting which is a nice feature, and with anonymous voting results, it opens up for more 'adventurous' voting since no one will see who voted for who. Views?

[z.prime]

the new 'no voting = DQ' rule ... Maybe the desired effect of the rule will only be evident later on ... fixed time between general votes, how often do you think is best? ... The obvious things I can see here is that with anonymous submissions, you lose the SoundCloud commenting which is a nice feature, and with anonymous voting results, it opens up for more 'adventurous' voting since no one will see who voted for who. Views?

I think this may have been an outlier for the DQ rule just because of the specifics and a few people who thought they voted but didn't actually rank all tracks. A bit more clear messaging perhaps will fix the latter, but I think it's still a good idea as a means to encourage voting.

Not sure about the rules polls. They seem frequent enough for me unless there's a particular issue e.g. the voting you mentioned. Though, I've missed a few I guess because of a few months out here & there. That's really my own fault, though.

Anonymous submission is a really interesting idea. I think the comments and feedback would probably end up having more importance than submission anonymity. I wonder if there's a way between shared private tracks and a custom voting UI we could make it work including comments. I'd be happy to help Brian on the code for it.

Personally, I'm all for the anonymous voting. Though people can try to sway the votes more that way, with the 1-5 point system, not much.

[BlackWinny]

The vote beeing open to all the KVR members... it should be anonymous.

And to avoid absolutely all the problems, only the musicians who submit their tune should not be allowed to vote. I know that almost all the musicians here will disagree but if you think really with depth and without any preconceptions, you would see that it is the real best solution !

It would avoid absolutely all the problems, all the tactical votes, all the complaints, all the attacks, all the revenges... all the problems!

And a vote open not for only 15 days but for the whole month would allow absolutely everybody to have the time to vote. And would permit to the managers to have enough time to manage the crowd of new competitors which will come!

Because all that... would really invite many other KVR members to enter the challenge! With far more styles of music, therefore far more diversity!

Everybody would have to gain in such rules! Even each musician... by a huge number of new comments on their tunes!

[z.prime]

... And to avoid absolutely all the problems, only the musicians who submit their tune should not be allowed to vote ...

Sorry to disagree (hey, you called it!). The problem isn't that having external voting is wrong or that removing the voting politics is a bad idea, the problem is that these mythical votes are essentially non-existent. And they are likely to continue to be non-existent until such time as there is an incentive to vote, because let's face it: it does actually take a while to listen and subjectively grade the entries.

Further, instead of having at least some amount of subjective votes by the entrants, there would be zero votes. Or possibly a few, which would skew things even worse, since one person's vote would be nearly 100% of the total. Then, it wouldn't be tactical voting by participants, it would be a contest of "how many people do you know on KVR or who satisfy the voting criteria and can get to vote for you?", which would end up being even worse. So, yes, some of us can actually "think really with depth and without any preconceptions", but still see the flaws.

[chilledpanda]

Personally, I'm all for the anonymous voting. Though people can try to sway the votes more that way, with the 1-5 point system, not much.

How can they sway the vote more than normal, the 1-5 voting system will still be there, just not the voting stats results, e.g. no who scored who what.You could always still list who voter. I think the issue is mainly the who scored who what, because some people get upset seen that someone scored their beloved masterpiece a low score.

[BlackWinny]

Personally, I'm all for the anonymous voting. Though people can try to sway the votes more that way, with the 1-5 point system, not much.

How can they sway the vote more than normal, the 1-5 voting system will still be there, just not the voting stats results, e.g. no who scored who what.You could always still list who voter. I think the issue is mainly the who scored who what, because some people get upset seen that someone scored their beloved masterpiece a low score.

With my suggested method, there's absolutely no need at all to vote for every tune. Basically the principle is the same as the counter "Favorites" in yellow in the pages of the products.

A KVR member listens to all the tracks that he wants during the month. And he adds 1 point to all the tunes that he likes.

One could retort that the first tunes of the list will have statistically more points that the last tunes at the bottom of the list. That's false. Because it is very, very easy to randomise the sort of the list each time it is opened. So, there are no tunes which have the fortune to be at the top more than others.

When a tune has got one point from the identified (exactly as now) member, the tune is ticked with the same little square logo yellow "1" (or "0"), and placed at the left column of the page, all the tunes having no number remain at the right column of the page.

Each time the KVR member opens the page, the cards which are the non ticked tunes are shuffled, to let the same fortuneto all these remaining tunes.

That's all.

Very simple !

Totally democratic !

And without any least risk of complaint, tactical vote, etc.

[BlackWinny]

And almost all the work to develop the voting page is already written.

See how works this page:
http://www.kvraudio.com/mykvr/?g=0
and in the way the "Favorite" counter works in the pages of the products.

You have almost all the IT code in them. Ready to reuse.

[idfpower]

I know it's just 1 voice & 1 opinion (as good - or bad - as the next one), but here's my 2 cents:

1. setting a specific time period between rule changes: NO.
- on one hand the rules are made for the active participants of OSC and the majority of voters decide. You can't be out for half a year for ex and then complain that rules were changed in the meantime, if you know what I mean. Once the results of a poll are out, even if you don't like it, you have to comply with the changes. If you were really that interested you could have voted and change whatever rule was not to your liking. If it didn't happen, then accept the majority does not share your point of view (talking from own experience here).
- on the other hand, it's nobody's fault that you can't understand what the rules say - yes, it can happen, and yes, someties they can seem confusing, but the people in charge of OSC are always active on forums and if you're not sure about something it's better to ask than waiting for the competition to be over and risking getting DQ-ed.
- last, but not least: we need to be able to change things whenever we think they're not working. Waiting for months just to be able to vote again to remove a bad rule makes no sense and would only conduct to frustration building up.

2. anonymous voting: NO.
- I want to know who's the author of the track/song - I might want to talk in private with him/her regarding certain aspects (like technical tips for instance), or simply congratulate the guy/girl for an outstanding job. On the other hand, I want to know who voted for my track and how much he/she really liked it.
- besides, IMO anonymous voting is used when knowing the identity of the voter might have unwanted repercussion for that voter; so it's used to protect the voter. I don't see the point of it in OSC - it's not a dictatorship ruling with an iron fist

3. anonymous results: HELL NO.
- who would not want to see the result of voting out in the open? That is a huge can or worms that basically opens by itself. If you think the situation is bad now, wait until ppl would be able to vote and win without other ppl knowing. I'm sorry, but it makes no sense to me

4. OSC participants not able to vote: HELL NO.
I thought by now the reasons in favour of voting would be obvious...but for the sake of the argument:
- the vast majority of votes comes from OSC competitors; you can probably count the "outsider" votes by the fingers from just one hand. A lot of them do vote because they want to qualify for prizes or since the latest changes because they dont want to risk getting DQ-ed. Otherwise they wouldn't do it - pass a certain point it's tedious for everyone, you know.
- just because you can't vote with your participant account, doesn't mean you can't create an alt account and do it. Or ask for your friends' help - if there's a will, there's a way. So questionable schemes such as tactical voting could still be used - probably even more effective 'cause you'd only need to beat a handful of votes. So in the end it won't solve anything.
- who would vote for you so you'd be able to get some juicy prizes? Maybe you and me are not thinking this way, but others do. Let's remove the prizes all together (and the comments as well) and then we'll see how many ppl are in just for having fun On the other hand, some OSC participants don't seem to bother to vote or see no point in it, but you expect the casual kvrist to do it? Why?

5. anonymous track submitting: NO.
- maybe some of you don't realise, but a lot of ppl submit tracks for OSC just to get feedback and comments regarding their work ('cause it doesn't take long to figure out your current chances to score in the top 5, so all that you are left with is feedback) - and not just for bragging rights - it helps sharpening your skills more than you think: 10 ppl telling how great your track sounds is one thing, 2 ppl that really know what they're talking about giving you an honest opinion and maybe some tips is another - which one do you think will help you improve?
- knowing who submitted what helps in the long run building good relations with other artists, may lead to collaborations, and so on. You can't have that with anonymous submitting.
- on the other hand, anonymous submitting might actually protect the identity of a dishonest participant.


I can understand why others might not agree and I normally see OSC as a friendly & helpful competition as well, but it's always better to be prepared for the worst and nothing bad to happen instead of being caught with your pants down everytime someone finds a loophole in the system - which does happen.

[bjporter]

And almost all the work to develop the voting page is already written.

See how works this page:
http://www.kvraudio.com/mykvr/?g=0
and in the way the "Favorite" counter works in the pages of the products.

You have almost all the IT code in them. Ready to reuse.

We've explored this option already. The same drawback we have with the Google sites system - there is a huge lack of control.