About a potential next tournament

[mae]

Not at all. There is lots of interesting discussion on the difference between suspense and thriller: https://www.google.com/search?q=difference+between+suspense+and+thriller

It mainly boils down to the fact that thrillers are action-oriented and suspense or mystery movies are not. One particular article breaks it down thus: Suspense/Mystery is "why" and "who". Thriller is "how". Doesn't mean there can't be elements of each in one movie, like Alien is horror/sci-fi, but to me a suspense film and a thriller are different. But maybe that's just me...

[Mattrick]

So Gone Girl is action oriented? Thriller and Suspense are two sides of the same coin but the value of the coin is the same. Just two slightly different methods on achieving the same end. Action, Comedy, Drama, Horror, Science Fiction, are the genres of film: everything else is just subsets of these. Though things like Westerns are their own genre, I think Westerns and War films as a sub-genre of Action, and though this link disagrees with that, it does agree thriller-suspense are the same thing. Surprised with your Fincher examples you didn't say Se7en, which is his definitive thriller/suspense.

http://www.filmsite.org/filmgenres.html

[Tommy]

Well when you get right down to the nitty gritty, everything can be either a tragedy or a comedy, there's also the idea that there are only about five or six stories; success, failure, love, revenge, quest for meaning/god etc.

[mae]

Maybe Gone Girl isn't the best example, I agree. And most will just lump suspense and thrillers together. But then we'd have to call Hitch the Master of Thriller.

[pathoftheturtle]

I thought Michael Jackson was the Master of Thriller.

[Mattrick]

Maybe Gone Girl isn't the best example, I agree. And most will just lump suspense and thrillers together. But then we'd have to call Hitch the Master of Thriller.

His movies were Thrillers for the time period. Psycho, The Birds, Rear Window, Vertigo, Rebecca...all thrillers, just some more methodical and latent in the thrills than others.

[fernandito]

So Gone Girl is action oriented? Thriller and Suspense are two sides of the same coin but the value of the coin is the same.

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/5d/5de5239fe7bdce25fd551c26c611a7d90e0f88cf04eb48eab8 45fb529ddb205e.jpg

[mae]

Rear Window is the epitome of suspense. And most other Hitchcock films. Can you really call Rope a thriller? There's almost no action whatsoever.

[Tommy]

Rear Window is the epitome of suspense. And most other Hitchcock films. Can you really call Rope a thriller? There's almost no action whatsoever.

Plenty of talk about strangling chickens though :)

[mae]

Also, I always put suspense and mystery together, because often in a thriller there is no mystery. So to me the distinction is with suspense/mystery something happened or could happen, but you're not sure what, and in a thriller it happened or is happening in plain sight.

[Mattrick]

Haven't seen Rope. Suspense is just a tool for thrillers. I don't consider any film a suspense film. Suspense is just tension, and tension is used to build an eventual thrilling payoff, which Rear Window definitely has. Just because Hitchcock is the Master of Thrillers doesn't mean all his movies are thrillers. That's like saying because Stephen King can't be the Master of Horror because of Shawshank Redemption.

[mae]

There's suspense in everything, it's an essential part of drama. But a suspense/mystery film is not everything, it's a specific genre, I believe,

[Tommy]

He may have a point pablo, all the films mentioned here are classified as Thrillers on IMDB, even Rope, although most have other classifications such as crime, mystery, horror etc. but I haven't found any listed as suspense

edit: suspense is not a genre listed on IMDB but Thriller is

[mae]

RT lists Rope as: Drama, Mystery & Suspense.

[Tommy]

Genres listed on IMDB:

Action
Adventure
Animation
Biography
Comedy
Crime
Documentary
Drama
Family
Fantasy
Film-Noir
History
Horror
Music
Musical
Mystery
Romance
Sci-Fi
Sport
Thriller
War
Western

[mae]

IMDB is not the end-all of movie encyclopedias (it lists as genres things that aren't technically a genre, like Animation or Documentary). Though you could expand "Mystery" to be "Mystery/Suspense". Here's Paramount Pictures with their list: http://www.paramount.com/theatrical-library/tags/131/mystery-suspense

[Tommy]

IMDB is not the end-all of movie encyclopedias

Never claimed it was but it is a large tool that we all use and shouldn't be dismissed, I do also agree with you about Mystery and Suspense but I have to ask myself, If you took the suspense part away and those movies are just listed as Mystery, would there be a very big difference?

[mae]

I think so. Take Rope as an example again. There's no mystery, we know whodunnit. There is suspense though, because we don't know how or if they'll get away with it.

[Tommy]

good point, but then it could be called a thriller and we are back where we started.

The original tagline for Rope was "It's his most nerve-stretching thriller!"

[Mattrick]

But still pablo, it's Mystery & Suspense, not Mystery, Suspense. That just means Suspense is a subgenre of mystery which is a subgenre of thriller and/or crime, which is a subgenre of action and/or drama. Suspense is a quality of a film, not the genre. If suspense is a genre than 90% of reality TV is considered suspense television.

[Iwritecode]

Next tourney should be best animated film.

[Mattrick]

Next tourney should be best animated film.

I could do this, but even animation is just a type of medium.

[fernandito]

Next tourney should be best animated film.
That sounds even better.

[Still Servant]

I'm fine with how we did the nominations last time, unless we do worst movie. Like I mentioned above, it will have to be tweaked for that.

How would you guys feel about smaller tournaments to bridge the gap between the larger ones? I'm thinking along the lines of specific sub-genres like best war movie, best prison movie, best heist movie, best disaster movie and there are tons more that are interesting, but wouldn't take long to do.

I know not everybody is into sports, but I'd love to do a best sports movie tournament.

[Merlin1958]

This is way way too early, but I'm really looking forward to doing a suspense/mystery tournament and a thriller tournament. Because these two genres often overlap, it will be a pretty fascinating and contentious (hopefully in a good way) process that could be real fun. But to make things easy maybe the next one should be action.


Idk... grouping those two separately will be splitting hairs. Shit, we had a hard enough time separating Horror and Sci-Fi, it might be next to impossible to extract these two.


Well, that's the fun part! For me, suspense is more cerebral, less actiony. Like Rear Window, probably the best suspense/mystery film. On the other hand, movies like Fight Club or Gone Girl are thrillers, in my view. So the discussions will be meaningful.


Thriller/Suspense are the same genre.


This tournament will probably take us into May anyway so no worries. And any new tournament wouldn't be held right away. As far as tweaking the nominating process, I'm all for that, but I think it worked pretty well this time around, no?


Well when you get right down to the nitty gritty, everything can be either a tragedy or a comedy, there's also the idea that there are only about five or six stories; success, failure, love, revenge, quest for meaning/god etc.

Look, I am fully aware that my opinion carries little weight in this neck of the woods (or the site for that matter), but some of the above banter is exactly my point. I get that some of you enjoy the back and forth quite a bit, but I feel it gets to an extreme. IMHO you should really tighten the definition of each individual genre and then have the nomination process strictly adhere to it. If I recall, BTTF was up for best comedy and Sci-Fi!!! Pick one!! Sure it's a comedy utilizing a Sci-Fi premise, but if you're going to include it in a "Best of" contest you need to firmly decide which one it truly qualifies as an entry. Otherwise, your voting, as much fun and enjoyment as may you get out of it, is totally worthless with regard to any true gauge of the films competing. JMHO and FWIW to consider going forward.

Also, as in most sports, it is very difficult to truly gauge a "Best of all time film & category". Just as in sports, the times, technology and evolution make a lot of comparison's unfair. Take Sci-Fi for instance, you cannot even begin to account for advances in movie making in Avatar as compared to say, Forbidden Planet. Therefore, it may be best to have the films compete somewhat "Generationally" so to speak, that way you pit them fairly against their peers at the time. Maybe every 20 or 25 years? for instance.

Again, just food for thought. I'm not telling anyone how to run the show just making some suggestions, IMHO on how to improve the process.

[Merlin1958]

This is way way too early, but I'm really looking forward to doing a suspense/mystery tournament and a thriller tournament. Because these two genres often overlap, it will be a pretty fascinating and contentious (hopefully in a good way) process that could be real fun. But to make things easy maybe the next one should be action.


Idk... grouping those two separately will be splitting hairs. Shit, we had a hard enough time separating Horror and Sci-Fi, it might be next to impossible to extract these two.


Well, that's the fun part! For me, suspense is more cerebral, less actiony. Like Rear Window, probably the best suspense/mystery film. On the other hand, movies like Fight Club or Gone Girl are thrillers, in my view. So the discussions will be meaningful.


Thriller/Suspense are the same genre.


This tournament will probably take us into May anyway so no worries. And any new tournament wouldn't be held right away. As far as tweaking the nominating process, I'm all for that, but I think it worked pretty well this time around, no?



This is way way too early, but I'm really looking forward to doing a suspense/mystery tournament and a thriller tournament. Because these two genres often overlap, it will be a pretty fascinating and contentious (hopefully in a good way) process that could be real fun. But to make things easy maybe the next one should be action.


Idk... grouping those two separately will be splitting hairs. Shit, we had a hard enough time separating Horror and Sci-Fi, it might be next to impossible to extract these two.


Well, that's the fun part! For me, suspense is more cerebral, less actiony. Like Rear Window, probably the best suspense/mystery film. On the other hand, movies like Fight Club or Gone Girl are thrillers, in my view. So the discussions will be meaningful.


Thriller/Suspense are the same genre.


This tournament will probably take us into May anyway so no worries. And any new tournament wouldn't be held right away. As far as tweaking the nominating process, I'm all for that, but I think it worked pretty well this time around, no?


Well when you get right down to the nitty gritty, everything can be either a tragedy or a comedy, there's also the idea that there are only about five or six stories; success, failure, love, revenge, quest for meaning/god etc.

Look, I am fully aware that my opinion carries little weight in this neck of the woods (or the site for that matter), but some of the above banter is exactly my point. I get that some of you enjoy the back and forth quite a bit, but I feel it gets to an extreme. IMHO you should really tighten the definition of each individual genre and then have the nomination process strictly adhere to it. If I recall, BTTF was up for best comedy and Sci-Fi!!! Pick one!! Sure it's a comedy utilizing a Sci-Fi premise, but if you're going to include it in a "Best of" contest you need to firmly decide which one it truly qualifies as an entry. Otherwise, your voting, as much fun and enjoyment as may you get out of it, is totally worthless with regard to any true gauge of the films competing. JMHO and FWIW to consider going forward.

Also, as in most sports, it is very difficult to truly gauge a "Best of all time film & category". Just as in sports, the times, technology and evolution make a lot of comparison's unfair. Take Sci-Fi for instance, you cannot even begin to account for advances in movie making in Avatar as compared to say, Forbidden Planet. Therefore, it may be best to have the films compete somewhat "Generationally" so to speak, that way you pit them fairly against their peers at the time. Maybe every 20 or 25 years? for instance.

Again, just food for thought. I'm not telling anyone how to run the show just making some suggestions, IMHO on how to improve the process.


Edit: A nice rule of thumb would be an automatic disqualification of a film being nominated in two tournaments. IMHO IMDB may list a film as an "Action/Sci-Fi", but when you truly get down to it part of the evaluation process inherent in a "Best of" tournament is to decide which it ultimately "is". The "Movie Industry" is all about diversity/marketing. If they thought it would help they would list every movie as a "Sci-Fi/RomCom/Drama/Comedy/Thriller/etc. They don't give a shit unless you buy the DVD or a ticket.

Edit II: Oops, sorry about that. Hit the wrong button!!! LOL LOL

[pathoftheturtle]

For genuine critical thinkers, there is art film. Everything else is really just marketing.

[Merlin1958]

For genuine critical thinkers, there is art film. Everything else is really just marketing.

Are you saying there is absolutely no worth in crafting a worthwhile and/or entertaining film? The product may be crap, but the "Marketing" will prove out? You know, for a purportedly "Smart Guy", you can say some really "dumb shit". I don't usually even read your posts, I ignore them, but I was generally interested in trying to help out in this thread and maybe contribute something. I see that was a pure waste of time and energy.

BTW, there is a reason most "Art Films" do not appeal to the public. Think about it.

[Mattrick]

Thinking about it saddens me.

[mae]

All film is art. Some are just better or worse art.

As far as animation, although it's not a genre, I would love to do that tournament. That's definitely art! As an animation buff, I'm afraid films I would consider best of all time may not necessarily be produced by Disney or Pixar, but Snow White and Dumbo certainly are up there.

[pathoftheturtle]

For genuine critical thinkers, there is art film. Everything else is really just marketing.

Are you saying there is absolutely no worth in crafting a worthwhile and/or entertaining film? The product may be crap, but the "Marketing" will prove out? You know, for a purportedly "Smart Guy", you can say some really "dumb shit". I don't usually even read your posts, I ignore them, but I was generally interested in trying to help out in this thread and maybe contribute something. I see that was a pure waste of time and energy.

BTW, there is a reason most "Art Films" do not appeal to the public. Think about it.
Yeah, that is me, alright -- so smart I could be respected and rich, if only I weren't too stupid to stop giving a shit. TY for contributing: in reality, I agree with part of what you said. You're still just the same as the rest of us, though. Sorry to burst your bubble.


All film is art. Some are just better or worse art. Exactly. Genre only matters for organizing collections or business.

[mae]

To get back for a second to the whole suspense vs. thriller debate, I think separate Best Mystery and Best Thriller are very doable. It'll still be an interesting debate during nominations, but if we just do Best Thriller, I can't see most Hitchcock movies fitting. Mystery is more like it, and IMDB, RT, and Wikioedia list it as a film genre.

[Mattrick]

I consider most mysteries thrillers, they just might vary on how much thrills there are. Or am I the only one who gets thrills trying to figure out a whodunit? Hitchcock makes psychological thrillers, which are my favourite kind. Most mysteries revolve around murders, conspiracies, people in power, scandals, the criminal underworld and the supernatural, all very thriller-like. A lot of the mysteries I've thought of are thrillers as well. I just don't see the point in splitting these hairs. Thriller is such a broad sub-genre it has it's hands in every genres/sub-genres pockets it's impossible to draw any distinct lines for what should be thriller and what genres are separate from thrillers, because no genres are separate from thrillers.

[Merlin1958]

To get back for a second to the whole suspense vs. thriller debate, I think separate Best Mystery and Best Thriller are very doable. It'll still be an interesting debate during nominations, but if we just do Best Thriller, I can't see most Hitchcock movies fitting. Mystery is more like it, and IMDB, RT, and Wikioedia list it as a film genre.


I consider most mysteries thrillers, they just might vary on how much thrills there are. Or am I the only one who gets thrills trying to figure out a whodunit? Hitchcock makes psychological thrillers, which are my favourite kind. Most mysteries revolve around murders, conspiracies, people in power, scandals, the criminal underworld and the supernatural, all very thriller-like. A lot of the mysteries I've thought of are thrillers as well. I just don't see the point in splitting these hairs. Thriller is such a broad sub-genre it has it's hands in every genres/sub-genres pockets it's impossible to draw any distinct lines for what should be thriller and what genres are separate from thrillers, because no genres are separate from thrillers.

See my point? We need to construct and agree on what a category actually is first. JMHO

[Girlystevedave]

If I'm remembering correctly, Shawshank won our best movie of all time tournament a few years ago.

I was thinking the same thing. :orely:


Next tourney should be best animated film.

This would be fun.
Also, it would leave less room for debate over what makes it an "animated" film. :lol:

[Mattrick]

See my point? We need to construct and agree on what a category actually is first. JMHO

That's why unless we're doing a major genre like Comedy, Sci-Fi, Horror as we've already done, if we're going to do smaller tournaments on sub-genres, there should be very distinct and undeniable lines that make up those genres. War movies are War movies. Westerns are Westerns. Biopics are Biopics. Animated films are animated films. Can anyone say The People vs. Larry Flynt isn't a biopic? Can anyone say Platoon isn't a war movie? Can anyone say Unforgiven isn't a Western? Can anyone say Toy Story isn't animated? These would be the best sorts of places to start when it comes to sub-genres. Thriller is far too broad and impossible to define.

[Iwritecode]

If I'm remembering correctly, Shawshank won our best movie of all time tournament a few years ago.

I was thinking the same thing. :orely:


Next tourney should be best animated film.

This would be fun.
Also, it would leave less room for debate over what makes it an "animated" film. :lol:

I was just trying to break up the debate over thriller/mystery/suspense, but it sounds like a few people would be up for it. :biggrin:

[Merlin1958]

See my point? We need to construct and agree on what a category actually is first. JMHO

That's why unless we're doing a major genre like Comedy, Sci-Fi, Horror as we've already done, if we're going to do smaller tournaments on sub-genres, there should be very distinct and undeniable lines that make up those genres. War movies are War movies. Westerns are Westerns. Biopics are Biopics. Animated films are animated films. Can anyone say The People vs. Larry Flynt isn't a biopic? Can anyone say Platoon isn't a war movie? Can anyone say Unforgiven isn't a Western? Can anyone say Toy Story isn't animated? These would be the best sorts of places to start when it comes to sub-genres. Thriller is far too broad and impossible to define.

And your point? BTTF was a "SciFi & a Comedy" contestant to name one of I am sure many.

[Mattrick]

See my point? We need to construct and agree on what a category actually is first. JMHO

That's why unless we're doing a major genre like Comedy, Sci-Fi, Horror as we've already done, if we're going to do smaller tournaments on sub-genres, there should be very distinct and undeniable lines that make up those genres. War movies are War movies. Westerns are Westerns. Biopics are Biopics. Animated films are animated films. Can anyone say The People vs. Larry Flynt isn't a biopic? Can anyone say Platoon isn't a war movie? Can anyone say Unforgiven isn't a Western? Can anyone say Toy Story isn't animated? These would be the best sorts of places to start when it comes to sub-genres. Thriller is far too broad and impossible to define.

And your point? BTTF was a "SciFi & a Comedy" contestant to name one of I am sure many.

My point is in that post, but I'll explain it again.

If we do a best war film, no one is going to nominate The Truman Show because it's not a war film. If we do best western no one is going to nominate Alien because it's not a western. If we do best biopic no one is going to nominate The Shining because it's not a biopic. If we do best animated no one is going to nominate 3:10 to Yuma because it's not animated. It has nothing to do with films that can't be both a sci-fi and a comedy, it's about films that are undeniably a western, or a war film, or animated. When you watched Saving Private Ryan did you ever question if you were watching a war movie? Did you think The Good, The Bad and The Ugly was science fiction? Did you question if Toy Story featured live actors? Did you question if Muhammad Ali actually existed when watching Ali? If the answer to all these question is 'no', then you understand my point very well.

With Thrillers we already have debate on what is and isn't a thriller. If you can debate that Saving Private Ryan isn't a film about war, or that Unforgiven isn't a Western, or Bambi isn't animated, or Theory of Everything isn't a biopic, I'd like to hear that debate lol.

[Merlin1958]

See my point? We need to construct and agree on what a category actually is first. JMHO

That's why unless we're doing a major genre like Comedy, Sci-Fi, Horror as we've already done, if we're going to do smaller tournaments on sub-genres, there should be very distinct and undeniable lines that make up those genres. War movies are War movies. Westerns are Westerns. Biopics are Biopics. Animated films are animated films. Can anyone say The People vs. Larry Flynt isn't a biopic? Can anyone say Platoon isn't a war movie? Can anyone say Unforgiven isn't a Western? Can anyone say Toy Story isn't animated? These would be the best sorts of places to start when it comes to sub-genres. Thriller is far too broad and impossible to define.

And your point? BTTF was a "SciFi & a Comedy" contestant to name one of I am sure many.

My point is in that post, but I'll explain it again.

If we do a best war film, no one is going to nominate The Truman Show because it's not a war film. If we do best western no one is going to nominate Alien because it's not a western. If we do best biopic no one is going to nominate The Shining because it's not a biopic. If we do best animated no one is going to nominate 3:10 to Yuma because it's not animated. It has nothing to do with films that can't be both a sci-fi and a comedy, it's about films that are undeniably a western, or a war film, or animated. When you watched Saving Private Ryan did you ever question if you were watching a war movie? Did you think The Good, The Bad and The Ugly was science fiction? Did you question if Toy Story featured live actors? Did you question if Muhammad Ali actually existed when watching Ali? If the answer to all these question is 'no', then you understand my point very well.

No, but my point is that some felt "Toy Story" was a comedy and an animated film. Are you obtuse? You need to properly define the categories is all I am saying so that there is no room for debate. Vote it out. Unless I am mistaken this kind of scenario has occurred more than once in these tournaments and IMHO it invaludate's the process. That's my point.

[Mattrick]

See my point? We need to construct and agree on what a category actually is first. JMHO

That's why unless we're doing a major genre like Comedy, Sci-Fi, Horror as we've already done, if we're going to do smaller tournaments on sub-genres, there should be very distinct and undeniable lines that make up those genres. War movies are War movies. Westerns are Westerns. Biopics are Biopics. Animated films are animated films. Can anyone say The People vs. Larry Flynt isn't a biopic? Can anyone say Platoon isn't a war movie? Can anyone say Unforgiven isn't a Western? Can anyone say Toy Story isn't animated? These would be the best sorts of places to start when it comes to sub-genres. Thriller is far too broad and impossible to define.

And your point? BTTF was a "SciFi & a Comedy" contestant to name one of I am sure many.

My point is in that post, but I'll explain it again.

If we do a best war film, no one is going to nominate The Truman Show because it's not a war film. If we do best western no one is going to nominate Alien because it's not a western. If we do best biopic no one is going to nominate The Shining because it's not a biopic. If we do best animated no one is going to nominate 3:10 to Yuma because it's not animated. It has nothing to do with films that can't be both a sci-fi and a comedy, it's about films that are undeniably a western, or a war film, or animated. When you watched Saving Private Ryan did you ever question if you were watching a war movie? Did you think The Good, The Bad and The Ugly was science fiction? Did you question if Toy Story featured live actors? Did you question if Muhammad Ali actually existed when watching Ali? If the answer to all these question is 'no', then you understand my point very well.

No, but my point is that some felt "Toy Story" was a comedy and an animated film. Are you obtuse? You need to properly define the categories is all I am saying so that there is no room for debate. Vote it out. Unless I am mistaken this kind of scenario has occurred more than once in these tournaments and IMHO it invaludate's the process. That's my point.

And it doesn't matter if Toy Story is an animated film and a comedy or not. We're not relegating certain films to certain tournaments. So your point doesn't really matter in this case. That's the point of a sub-genre specific mini tournament. Animated films will be comedies, drama, sci-fi...it doesn't matter so long as it is animated. A biopic can be comedy, drama, action...it doesn't matter so long as it is a biopic. If we did a best sports movie a drama like For Love of the Game will be just as applicable as Major League despite one being a drama, and one being a comedy, because they're both sports movies. Get it?

[Still Servant]

All film is art. Some are just better or worse art.


This. All day, twice on Sunday and three times on Tuesday.

[pathoftheturtle]

if we're going to do smaller tournaments on sub-genres, there should be very distinct and undeniable lines that make up those genres.OR, we could just NOT do that.

[Merlin1958]

See my point? We need to construct and agree on what a category actually is first. JMHO

That's why unless we're doing a major genre like Comedy, Sci-Fi, Horror as we've already done, if we're going to do smaller tournaments on sub-genres, there should be very distinct and undeniable lines that make up those genres. War movies are War movies. Westerns are Westerns. Biopics are Biopics. Animated films are animated films. Can anyone say The People vs. Larry Flynt isn't a biopic? Can anyone say Platoon isn't a war movie? Can anyone say Unforgiven isn't a Western? Can anyone say Toy Story isn't animated? These would be the best sorts of places to start when it comes to sub-genres. Thriller is far too broad and impossible to define.

And your point? BTTF was a "SciFi & a Comedy" contestant to name one of I am sure many.

My point is in that post, but I'll explain it again.

If we do a best war film, no one is going to nominate The Truman Show because it's not a war film. If we do best western no one is going to nominate Alien because it's not a western. If we do best biopic no one is going to nominate The Shining because it's not a biopic. If we do best animated no one is going to nominate 3:10 to Yuma because it's not animated. It has nothing to do with films that can't be both a sci-fi and a comedy, it's about films that are undeniably a western, or a war film, or animated. When you watched Saving Private Ryan did you ever question if you were watching a war movie? Did you think The Good, The Bad and The Ugly was science fiction? Did you question if Toy Story featured live actors? Did you question if Muhammad Ali actually existed when watching Ali? If the answer to all these question is 'no', then you understand my point very well.

No, but my point is that some felt "Toy Story" was a comedy and an animated film. Are you obtuse? You need to properly define the categories is all I am saying so that there is no room for debate. Vote it out. Unless I am mistaken this kind of scenario has occurred more than once in these tournaments and IMHO it invaludate's the process. That's my point.

And it doesn't matter if Toy Story is an animated film and a comedy or not. We're not relegating certain films to certain tournaments. So your point doesn't really matter in this case. That's the point of a sub-genre specific mini tournament. Animated films will be comedies, drama, sci-fi...it doesn't matter so long as it is animated. A biopic can be comedy, drama, action...it doesn't matter so long as it is a biopic. If we did a best sports movie a drama like For Love of the Game will be just as applicable as Major League despite one being a drama, and one being a comedy, because they're both sports movies. Get it?

Actually, no. I don't get it. One minute we're discussing improvements to the voting process, the next you're moving on to a different venue altogether. Have fun playing with yourselves. I should have known better than to weigh in here. FWIW, your stupid "Tournaments" clog the boards and serve no true purpose to those who actually participate here. I voiced my thoughts which will no doubt be ignored by the "Great Minds" of "movie-dom" in resident here. Victory secured, I pass on any input, have at it!!!


Why the fuck did I even bother to waste my time with this shit? I should know better!!!

[Mattrick]

if we're going to do smaller tournaments on sub-genres, there should be very distinct and undeniable lines that make up those genres.OR, we could just NOT do that.

It's not hard to. It will be easier to nominate specific sub genres since, well it's just easier. I bet we could nominate a list of 50 Sports films without anyone really debating if Hoosiers or Eight Men Out or Rudy are sports films or not. The strict lines are simple: is the movie about sports? If the answer is yes, it is eligible. If it the answer is no, it is not eligible. Very simple. There really isn't any subjection here.

[Mattrick]

Actually, no. I don't get it. One minute we're discussing improvements to the voting process, the next you're moving on to a different venue altogether. Have fun playing with yourselves. I should have known better than to weigh in here. FWIW, your stupid "Tournaments" clog the boards and serve no true purpose to those who actually participate here. I voiced my thoughts which will no doubt be ignored by the "Great Minds" of "movie-dom" in resident here. Victory secured, I pass on any input, have at it!!!


Why the fuck did I even bother to waste my time with this shit? I should know better!!!

You got that backwards. We were actually discussing ideas for what the next tournament would be about, then you came in about the nomination process and the boards being clogged, so you were the one moving onto a different venue altogether. And then Still Servant brought up doing sub-genre specific tournament like best War movie or best Sports movie, something he'd brought up in the past, I was discussing his idea. We talked about the nomination process for like ten posts three pages ago man. Before your post and after we've been talking about what the next tournament can be...if you don't want to talk about what the next tournament might be, don't. No one is forcing you. Don't get upset because you don't enjoy talking about such things because other people do enjoy it, that's just childish.

[pathoftheturtle]

if we're going to do smaller tournaments on sub-genres, there should be very distinct and undeniable lines that make up those genres.OR, we could just NOT do that.

It's not hard to. It will be easier to nominate specific sub genres since, well it's just easier. I bet we could nominate a list of 50 Sports films without anyone really debating if Hoosiers or Eight Men Out or Rudy are sports films or not. The strict lines are simple: is the movie about sports? If the answer is yes, it is eligible. If it the answer is no, it is not eligible. Very simple. There really isn't any subjection here.Sports comedies. Bam. What about sports comedies?





Actually, no. I don't get it. One minute we're discussing improvements to the voting process, the next you're moving on to a different venue altogether. Have fun playing with yourselves. I should have known better than to weigh in here. FWIW, your stupid "Tournaments" clog the boards and serve no true purpose to those who actually participate here. I voiced my thoughts which will no doubt be ignored by the "Great Minds" of "movie-dom" in resident here. Victory secured, I pass on any input, have at it!!!


Why the fuck did I even bother to waste my time with this shit? I should know better!!!

You got that backwards. We were actually discussing ideas for what the next tournament would be about, then you came in about the nomination process and the boards being clogged, so you were the one moving onto a different venue altogether. And then Still Servant brought up doing sub-genre specific tournament like best War movie or best Sports movie, something he'd brought up in the past, I was discussing his idea. We talked about the nomination process for like ten posts three pages ago man. Before your post and after we've been talking about what the next tournament can be...if you don't want to talk about what the next tournament might be, don't. No one is forcing you. Don't get upset because you don't enjoy talking about such things because other people do enjoy it, that's just childish.No, he's right, and you're being near-sighted. This didn't start way, way back three or four posts ago; it actually started a mere handful of years ago. It may seem not hard to now go on and on with tourneys for the sake of tourneys from the point of view of visitors to a server, but what value in sports films trumps the priorities of our hosts? A thriller contest, at least, would either be redundant to the proposed mystery category or redundant to the already done horror category. But I think we should look at an end game, anyway. Get an exit strategy, or at least some perspective as to the whole business that issues within, such as how many categories a film can repeat in, could be measured against naturally.

[Mattrick]

if we're going to do smaller tournaments on sub-genres, there should be very distinct and undeniable lines that make up those genres.OR, we could just NOT do that.

It's not hard to. It will be easier to nominate specific sub genres since, well it's just easier. I bet we could nominate a list of 50 Sports films without anyone really debating if Hoosiers or Eight Men Out or Rudy are sports films or not. The strict lines are simple: is the movie about sports? If the answer is yes, it is eligible. If it the answer is no, it is not eligible. Very simple. There really isn't any subjection here.Sports comedies. Bam. What about sports comedies?





Actually, no. I don't get it. One minute we're discussing improvements to the voting process, the next you're moving on to a different venue altogether. Have fun playing with yourselves. I should have known better than to weigh in here. FWIW, your stupid "Tournaments" clog the boards and serve no true purpose to those who actually participate here. I voiced my thoughts which will no doubt be ignored by the "Great Minds" of "movie-dom" in resident here. Victory secured, I pass on any input, have at it!!!


Why the fuck did I even bother to waste my time with this shit? I should know better!!!

You got that backwards. We were actually discussing ideas for what the next tournament would be about, then you came in about the nomination process and the boards being clogged, so you were the one moving onto a different venue altogether. And then Still Servant brought up doing sub-genre specific tournament like best War movie or best Sports movie, something he'd brought up in the past, I was discussing his idea. We talked about the nomination process for like ten posts three pages ago man. Before your post and after we've been talking about what the next tournament can be...if you don't want to talk about what the next tournament might be, don't. No one is forcing you. Don't get upset because you don't enjoy talking about such things because other people do enjoy it, that's just childish.No, he's right, and you're being near-sighted. This didn't start way, way back three or four posts ago; it actually started a mere handful of years ago. It may seem not hard to now go on and on with tourneys for the sake of tourneys from the point of view of visitors to a server, but what value in sports films trumps the priorities of our hosts? A thriller contest, at least, would either be redundant to the proposed mystery category or redundant to the already done horror category. But I think we should look at an end game, anyway. Get an exit strategy, or at least some perspective as to the whole business that issues within, such as how many categories a film can repeat in, could be measured against naturally.

If you go back you'll find out the entire reason we started these tournaments was I suggested we do a greatest movie character tournament because it went over well on a different forum back in the day. So I don't see how I'm being short sighted at all. Frankly I like the idea of doing tournaments on the regular, and perhaps a separate forum specifically for tournaments would help clean up the boards so they don't appear clogged. I think 200 films is too much, to be honest. The tournament also starts way too soon after nominations. Fewer films (128 is just over half and is an even split all the way down to 2 and double March Madness), and with a gap of time, it would give people a chance to watch/revisit nominated films. I would also say films should be thirded to help weed out the pack. The sub-genre tournaments wasn't my idea, nor were short tournaments in between. I'm merely discussing what other people bring to the table. Don't see how any of those ideas are on me.


Sports comedies. Bam. What about sports comedies?


If we did a best sports movie a drama like For Love of the Game will be just as applicable as Major League despite one being a drama, and one being a comedy, because they're both sports movies. Get it?

[mae]

200 may seem like a lot, but it really isn't. For the comedy tournament we didn't get so many great films nominated. And 200 seems to be a good round number and the rounds structure gets through them pretty quickly and fairly.

[T-Dogz_AK47]

200 may seem like a lot, but it really isn't. For the comedy tournament we didn't get so many great films nominated. And 200 seems to be a good round number and the rounds structure gets through them pretty quickly and fairly.

It's not the number of films in a tournament that's the problem. It's the number of threads created at once that clog the boards up.

At present, there are six live polls for the second round of the comedy tournament and a further 3 tiebreaker threads from the first round, all created in quick succession of each other. Why the need to rush all these polls out at once? Wouldn't it be wiser to at least wait until the tiebreakers for the first round are finished before diving straight into the second round?

If things were slowed down and only a maximum of three live polls were created at any one time, it would not only give people the chance to actually watch these movies before voting, but you would also incur less flak for clogging the boards up.

Also consider the fact that the Haven Foundation Fundraiser is in full swing at the moment, so creating too many tournament threads at once may be seen as being a hindrance to this cause and the wider forum's main objectives. I think slowing down when conducting these tournaments would alleviate a lot of the obvious resentment resonating across the rest of the forum.

Just my 2 cents worth.

[pathoftheturtle]

As I said before, I think I'm like most people in that I intentionally bad movies. So a Worst tournament doesn't sound appealing. I'm hoping we continue with other genres. We've done horror, sci-fi and now comedy. Next we can go for action, animation (not a genre,but...), drama, thriller, mystery/suspense, war, etc. after 8 or so of these we can pit them together to pick the best genre film.

Another reason I said this sounded square was because it's like obsessive-compulsive.
We can't leave some genres undone! :rolleyes: Calm down, Rain Man.

Definitely fits Hitchcock. Good round numbers. Round numbers!

[mae]

Not sure I agree the "clogging up" argument. If it doesn't interest you, don't pay attention. As far as the number of threads, I'm keeping to a schedule of two groups a week so that this doesn't drag for months. If it's too quick, people are overwhelmed, if it's too long, people become disinterested. You can't win. I've had a lot of experience running our Constant Reader Awards and other tournaments here. Over the years I've come to use a similar overall structure and schedule so there's rhyme and reason to the polls. If it's not apparent, that's my fault and I apologize. As for the tiebreakers from Round 1 running along polls from Round 2, I explained that anomaly in the General tournamnet thread.

[Heather19]

I agree with Pablo about the clogging the boards argument. If you're not interested in the thread don't click on it. I have to skip past all the collecting threads since I'm not a collector, and believe me those far outnumber the polls. I don't get upset about them, so I don't see why its a problem if its the opposite.

As for the contests, maybe we should all give a list of what we'd like do? What genre or tournaments we'd like to see and go forward with the most popular ones?

[Ricky]

I agree with the few posts above as well. The "clogging up the boards" is only an issue if one chooses to scroll through the site by using the Unread Posts feature. And even then, if you don't like it, don't read them. The 85 Haven Fund threads are never an issue every year and no one seems to complain, so what's the big deal with a few tournament threads? Believe it or not--and I know it may be hard for some to believe--there's more to the site than the Haven Fund and Collector's Corner.

[pathoftheturtle]

And then Still Servant brought up doing sub-genre specific tournament like best War movie or best Sports movie, something he'd brought up in the past, I was discussing his idea.No, he's right, and you're being near-sighted. This didn't start way, way back three or four posts ago; it actually started a mere handful of years ago. ...

If you go back you'll find out the entire reason we started these tournaments was I suggested we do a greatest movie character tournament because it went over well on a different forum back in the day. So I don't see how I'm being short sighted at all. ...I wasn't saying short sighted... short sighted is different to me than near-sighted. But you are being near-sighted again; right after you suggested we do a greatest movie character tournament, we informed you that we had already done one of those. So that wasn't really the entire reason that we started these. Not that I believe we really need to go quite that far back after material evidence for any of this right now. Just sayin.



Sports comedies. Bam. What about sports comedies?


If we did a best sports movie a drama like For Love of the Game will be just as applicable as Major League despite one being a drama, and one being a comedy, because they're both sports movies. Get it?My mistake. I meant sports parodies. Just as an example of the fact that complications can still arise, should you or should you not put films that denigrate sports in the same contest with films that celebrate sports? Get it?


Over the years I've come to use a similar overall structure and schedule so there's rhyme and reason to the polls.Rhyme and reason also have two different meanings to me. I know you have your reasons, that much is apparent. I just think maybe it could be more meaningful.

[fernandito]

No one's "clogging up" anything. Like others mentioned, just don't click on the function which shows all unread posts. Simple.

In that case, we should ask all the collectors that each have their own collection to thread to merge it into one massive thread.

[mae]

Over the years I've come to use a similar overall structure and schedule so there's rhyme and reason to the polls.Rhyme and reason also have two different meanings to me. I know you have your reasons, that much is apparent. I just think maybe it could be more meaningful.

I always welcome constructive discussion on how to improve the timing, nominating, and/or the voting process. Anything that makes everything better and more fun for everybody. Because that is the point, just to have fun.

On that note, as far as potential other tournaments, I think someone previously mentioned decades and that would be quite a lot of fun too. Given enough time we could do every decade from the 2000s to the 1990s and the 1980s all the way to the 1920s.

[Girlystevedave]

I agree with the few posts above as well. The "clogging up the boards" is only an issue if one chooses to scroll through the site by using the Unread Posts feature. And even then, if you don't like it, don't read them. The 85 Haven Fund threads are never an issue every year and no one seems to complain, so what's the big deal with a few tournament threads? Believe it or not--and I know it may be hard for some to believe--there's more to the site than the Haven Fund and Collector's Corner.

I agree with what Ricky said. I do use the Unread Posts feature and haven't even been that active in the polls, but seeing the threads constantly pop up doesn't bother me. I never visit the Collector's Threads, but I don't care when they fill the boards. I just scroll on by and click on something else.
This site has a ton of great things about it, but that doesn't mean that everyone is interested in and/or visiting the same threads.

[Tommy]

...I think slowing down when conducting these tournaments would alleviate a lot of the obvious resentment resonating across the rest of the forum.



obvious resentment resonating from whom?

[Mattrick]

Over the years I've come to use a similar overall structure and schedule so there's rhyme and reason to the polls.Rhyme and reason also have two different meanings to me. I know you have your reasons, that much is apparent. I just think maybe it could be more meaningful.

I always welcome constructive discussion on how to improve the timing, nominating, and/or the voting process. Anything that makes everything better and more fun for everybody. Because that is the point, just to have fun.

On that note, as far as potential other tournaments, I think someone previously mentioned decades and that would be quite a lot of fun too. Given enough time we could do every decade from the 2000s to the 1990s and the 1980s all the way to the 1920s.

Didn't we do that for greatest film? I thought we picked one for each decade and they faced off against each other.

I just want more time to view these movies. 100 get eliminated in the first week and then they're kind of forgotten about if we haven't seen them. I have no issue waiting a month between nominations and the tournament. A lot of the lesser known films get axed and then fewer people will seek them out.

[T-Dogz_AK47]

...I think slowing down when conducting these tournaments would alleviate a lot of the obvious resentment resonating across the rest of the forum.



obvious resentment resonating from whom?

Is that a rhetorical question?

[Tommy]

...I think slowing down when conducting these tournaments would alleviate a lot of the obvious resentment resonating across the rest of the forum.



obvious resentment resonating from whom?

Is that a rhetorical question?

is that? Honestly I am curious who all these people are that resent the movie tournament threads? If someone resents me I'd like to know why? The "clogging" theory doesn't work because if you don't want to click on something, you don't have to, I would see your point if there were a limited number of threads that could be utilized at once but there isn't.

[fernandito]

I just want more time to view these movies. 100 get eliminated in the first week and then they're kind of forgotten about if we haven't seen them. I have no issue waiting a month between nominations and the tournament. A lot of the lesser known films get axed and then fewer people will seek them out.

That wouldn't be a bad idea, actually. I could cite 3 or 4 movies just from this tournament that I was close to adding to my queue, but when I realized they were almost certainly not making through to the next round I quickly removed them.

It could help us make 'smarter' choices when the polls do open, more informed anyway. In theory of course lol.

[mae]

Yeah that's certainly a good idea.

[Tommy]

I get what you are you saying about slowing down, it's the idea that the movie threads somehow prevent people from donating to the Haven fund that confuses me. How is a fast moving movie tournament stopping people from giving to the Haven fund?

[fernandito]

I get what you are you saying about slowing down, it's the idea that the movie threads somehow prevent people from donating to the Haven fund that confuses me. How is a fast moving movie tournament stopping people from giving to the Haven fund?

It's not. I don't know where they're getting that from. I'm looking forward to reading the logic.

[T-Dogz_AK47]

I get what you are you saying about slowing down, it's the idea that the movie threads somehow prevent people from donating to the Haven fund that confuses me. How is a fast moving movie tournament stopping people from giving to the Haven fund?

Because posting nine polls all at once clog the unread posts and "bury" the HF auctions. I understand that some people here don't use the unread post panel, but the HF has to rely on as many people as possible seeing the auction threads and that common denominator is through the unread posts.

[fernandito]

The Haven Foundation gets PLENTY of advertisement outside of the sub forum it's located in. Barring the site suddenly hosting 500 active members at once, I don't think it's in any danger of being buried anywhere.

[Tommy]

To keep the Haven fund auctions near the top, Bump them daily, this is a pretty busy website and to lay all the supposed blame on the movie tournament is reaching

[Mattrick]

What's the widget at the top of every page? Is that a movie tournament widget or a Haven Fund widget? The Collectors Corner probably account for 65-75% of the site's activity, anyways. Don't see what the big deal is at all.

[T-Dogz_AK47]

Nine polls. All at once. And you say that's reaching?

Sure. Whatever.

[mae]

Polls aren't posted all at the same time. Round 2 polls are three on Mondays and three on Wednesdays.

[Iwritecode]

Nine polls. All at once. And you say that's reaching?

Sure. Whatever.

When I click new posts it shows 20 threads on the first page alone. So that's not even half. Then there's another 4 pages worth of threads. So 9 threads out of 100 isn't that much.

[Tommy]

Nine polls. All at once. And you say that's reaching?

Sure. Whatever.

Out of your last 40 posts, 24 were on the movie tournament polls and seven were on this thread. So 31/40 posts devoted to these polls. If you have such a problem with them, why participate?

Just my two cents

[Mattrick]

There are 295, 610 posts in every separate forum excluding Calvin's Corner and General Chat.

There are 206,299 posts in Calvin's Corner

There are 189, 345 posts in Shardik


Calvin's corner comprises roughly 30% of the total posts not archived.


On the flipside, Gem Theatre has 192 active threads that when posted in and go into the Unread post feed, compared to the 1,241 threads active in Calvin's Corner. With 9 tournament polls going at once, that's 9 threads that can 'clog' the Unread post feed...that's not that much. It's not as if every new post takes up a spot on that list.

Right now two of the 20 spots on the Unread posts feed are about this tournament (one is this thread). My God, how can anyone find any of the other threads? It's just too hard to filter through this tournament.

[Ricky]

Guys, why don't we do our next tournament on the Best Haven Fund Fundraiser of All Time? I loved 2012, but 2013 could take the lead! The special effects alone for that one was worth it.

[Mattrick]

I'm partial the inaugural Haven Fund Fundraiser (this is really awkward to speak, btw, it's like having a stut stutter). It was the more inaugural than the rest.

[T-Dogz_AK47]

Nine polls. All at once. And you say that's reaching?

Sure. Whatever.

Out of your last 40 posts, 24 were on the movie tournament polls and seven were on this thread. So 31/40 posts devoted to these polls. If you have such a problem with them, why participate?

Just my two cents

Those 24 posts of mine. On the same day where they? Oh no that's right.... they weren't.

Nice logic by the way. Not.

[Tommy]

same day, same month, same year, whatever, my point is why participate in something that you have such a problem with?

[Mattrick]

I don't see what the same day has to do with anything. Maybe, instead of telling people they'll say hello to your little friend for not donating, you could say 'Haven Foundation Fundraiser in Calvin's Corner' and link to the forum, and add that to the top of the page, so, you know, people know where to go without relying on the Unread posts, and this whole situation becomes moot?

[Tommy]

I don't see what the same day has to do with anything. Maybe, instead of telling people they'll say hello to your little friend for not donating, you could say 'Haven Foundation Fundraiser in Calvin's Corner' and link to the forum, and add that to the top of the page, so, you know, people know where to go without relying on the Unread posts, and this whole situation becomes moot?

:thumbsup:

[Mattrick]

Or there could be a specific section for Haven Foundation Fundraisers so the auction threads don't get lost in the shuffle of all the other Calvin's Corner threads, which are far more damning to your cause than posts in an entirely unrelated section of the forum. Instead of complaining this is impacting the fundraisers (it's not), figure out ways to make your auctions more prominent with a greater ease of access than they are currently as sporadic threads in a busy section of the forum.

[T-Dogz_AK47]

same day, same month, same year, whatever, my point is why participate in something that you have such a problem with?

I participate in both areas of the forum. If you read back over the last page, I offered a constructive observation about the way the polls are conducted and how things are currently perceived from other areas of the forum as a way to help things. Not an argument. An observation.

For whatever reason, there has always been a deep rooted division between those within Calvin's Corner and those who participate here. However, after reading some of the snide comments and smart ass remarks posted in response to my recommendations, I can see why.

[Girlystevedave]

Guys, why don't we do our next tournament on the Best Haven Fund Fundraiser of All Time? I loved 2012, but 2013 could take the lead! The special effects alone for that one was worth it.

:rofl:
Ricky!

[T-Dogz_AK47]

Case in point.

[Tommy]

I participate in both areas of the forum. If you read back over the last page, I offered a constructive observation about the way the polls are conducted and how things are currently perceived from other areas of the forum as a way to help things. Not an argument. An observation.

For whatever reason, there has always been a deep rooted division between those within Calvin's Corner and those who participate here. However, after reading some of the snide comments and smart ass remarks posted in response to my recommendations, I can see why.

Your constructive observation insinuated that the polls were a hindrance to the Haven Fund which I don't agree with, and as far as snide comments and smart ass remarks, you get what you give

[mae]

Why not take a breather and just enjoy whatever sections of the forum you enjoy. I don't go to CC very often but I do from time to time, yet lots of members ONLY go to that one section, while the rest, I feel, are just as important for the overall community. And I too use the Unread Posts function all the time and don't pay attention to threads that don't interest me. It's easy.

[Tommy]

You're right pablo, I apologize for monopolizing this thread today with a lot of posts that have nothing to do with the next tournament and I will, as you say, take a breather. It's bad for my blood pressure as well :doh:

[T-Dogz_AK47]

Your constructive observation insinuated that the polls were a hindrance to the Haven Fund which I don't agree with, and as far as snide comments and smart ass remarks, you get what you give

Is that so? Then what's snide or smart ass about this?...


Orginally Posted by T-Dogz_AK47
It's not the number of films in a tournament that's the problem. It's the number of threads created at once that clog the boards up.

At present, there are six live polls for the second round of the comedy tournament and a further 3 tiebreaker threads from the first round, all created in quick succession of each other. Why the need to rush all these polls out at once? Wouldn't it be wiser to at least wait until the tiebreakers for the first round are finished before diving straight into the second round?

If things were slowed down and only a maximum of three live polls were created at any one time, it would not only give people the chance to actually watch these movies before voting, but you would also incur less flak for clogging the boards up.

Also consider the fact that the Haven Foundation Fundraiser is in full swing at the moment, so creating too many tournament threads at once may be seen as being a hindrance to this cause and the wider forum's main objectives. I think slowing down when conducting these tournaments would alleviate a lot of the obvious resentment resonating across the rest of the forum.

Just my 2 cents worth.

You can disagree with me all you like, but you don't have to be self righteous and pompous about it.


Orginally Posted by Merlin1958
Actually, no. I don't get it. One minute we're discussing improvements to the voting process, the next you're moving on to a different venue altogether. Have fun playing with yourselves. I should have known better than to weigh in here. FWIW, your stupid "Tournaments" clog the boards and serve no true purpose to those who actually participate here. I voiced my thoughts which will no doubt be ignored by the "Great Minds" of "movie-dom" in resident here. Victory secured, I pass on any input, have at it!!!

You think comments like Merlin's are isolated? There is a division here which I attempted to alleviate. Not interested? Fine. I don't actually give a shit.


Originally Posted by Merlin1958
Why the fuck did I even bother to waste my time with this shit? I should know better!!!

Sage advice. I should have followed it too.

[mae]

And we are trying to determine the best comedy, not best drama :)

[Mattrick]

For whatever reason, there has always been a deep rooted division between those within Calvin's Corner and those who participate here. However, after reading some of the snide comments and smart ass remarks posted in response to my recommendations, I can see why.

You left during the last tournament all agitated, then you came back for this one and got agitated again. Take some personal responsibility for your own decisions, man. We're not forcing you to be involved in this in any way, shape or form. There are been more snide comments and smart ass remarks from you and Merlin, the two more agitated over these tournaments than anyone else, so maybe you guys are to blame for this 'division'. We're not hurting anyone. We formally apologise for interrupting your amazing humanitarian efforts by talking about movies...how can be we so thoughtless and self-centred? We're horrible people.

Whatever deep rooted division you've mentioned, I've never noticed, and I've been a part of this forum for a decade...if the roots were that deep I'd have seen them by now.

[T-Dogz_AK47]

Whatever deep rooted division you've mentioned, I've never noticed, and I've been a part of this forum for a decade...if the roots were that deep I'd have seen them by now.

Yeah? So you don't remember this thread?...

http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?18699-Site-Unity&highlight=divided+forum (http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?18699-Site-Unity&highlight=divided+forum)

take note of the following comments posted right at the start...


Originally Posted by Shannon
Uh oh, I smell the old war brewing up again, lol.


Originally Posted by Lookwhoitis
I'd much rather see birthday threads than the ubiquitous "tournament" posts that often clog the boards unread posts page.


Originally Posted by Merlin1958
Multiple Birthday threads is not really the issue, I don't particularly see the problem with it. However as an example it seems indicative of a division on the boards and I just thought it a way to get folks talking about the subject again.

See it now?

Like I said before, I offered a constructive solution to help things along, but you guys would rather shit in my face for doing so.

[Tommy]

Three people is a deep rooted division?

[Iwritecode]

I remember the day I realized there are a lot of people that post in one section of the site only. I was quite surprised.

[Mattrick]

Tdogz, And do you also see that no one in that thread cared about or even acknowledged this 'division'? From the same thread:


My strategy: If I see posts Im not keen on, I just ignore em. That's what I do to tourney posts. I feel like they are a pain in my butt (as far as my surfing of this site goes) but hey some people love em so who am I to get in the way of that?

Having dual birthday posts shouldn't be a crime, heck it may make someone feel twice as good on their birthday.

I suggest if you see something (or someone) that annoys you, just pass over it. It's easy to do and it makes the energy a lot more harmonious around here. There is plenty of positive stuff to read and participate on this site, even if every member doesn't participate in similar areas.

You of course cropped the above comment which says skipping things in the Unread posts feed isn't an issue, because it doesn't purport your point.


I wasn't aware of any division in the site... and whenever it gets brought up, I always have the same feeling: It doesn't impact me, so I don't care.

I also filter by "unread posts" and consider the site to be one giant awesomeness. I will say, however, that it would make logical sense to include the birthday threads in the general discussions section rather than the collection section.


There are no divisions other than those that occur naturally along the borders of our various interests.



It's funny tdogz, that you went through effort of highlight 'forum' and 'division' but didn't bother to READ THE THREAD in which it's basically defined that there isn't any division at all (in basically each post, so I didn't want to clog this post with quotes when you have the link right there), and that most people just ignore what they don't like/aren't interested in without getting upset, nor have any bias or animosity toward any particular section. So are you trying to prove my point for me? That's all you've done..heck, even Merlin who started the thread agrees it isn't a problem:


Multiple Birthday threads is not really the issue, I don't particularly see the problem with it. However as an example it seems indicative of a division on the boards and I just thought it a way to get folks talking about the subject again.

What do you know? It's almost like the words 'seem' and 'indicative' beside each other creates a sense of ambiguity or doubt or something like that...like he's just thinking of something that might be the case even though he doesn't 'particularly see the problem with it' personally. How strange, this division you're trying to prove is proven false with the same evidence you used to prove it is true...how utterly ironic.

[fernandito]

Closing this thread for now, I feel whatever constructiveness there was to be had from this discussion has already been extracted.

Will reopen later.

[Randall Flagg]

I feel compelled to weigh in.
The site has 6 primary sections (excluding The Clearing and sections viewable only to staff) with numerous breakouts and sub-forums.
There are several ways to view the site; (new posts, main page, forums, sub-forums, etc.) and on occasion it would behoove members to look at the site from a different perspective. A simple double-click on a forum marks it as read and then new posts from before that double-click no longer appear. Presto! Gone.
Pablo and fernandito work very hard to create and track these tournaments, and have a very logical process. They are trying to improve the process, but bickering doesn't help. Passionate debate is wonderful, but repetitive non-productive posts do not help.

The site is NOT to be divided between CC and everywhere else, nor are fresh threads, polls, tournaments, ideas-you name it, to be kept to a minimum from January through May 19th every year. The exact opposite is encouraged.
The more activity the site has in total, the better!

The decision was made long ago to have the site be diverse (I hate that buzzword, yet it works), eclectic, and eccentric.

Haven fund threads don't "get buried" by polls and threads. If an auction is exciting, it self-populates. More than half of the auctions sell to a non-member.

If I wished to, I could turn off every forum except for Calvin's Corner. CC makes up the bulk of members and visitor activity, but not all of the activity. I think that would be unwise.

Please stop the squabbling, and provide cogent ideas to improve the tournaments.

[Merlin1958]

Cogent idea to improve the tournaments in the future. As I thought I explained in my original post, IMHO there needs to be more oversight and a more defined sense of a category than has been applied in the past. For example, if a film is deemed a "Sci-Fi", it cannot compete as an "action film". While I understand that some films qualify in both categories, I firmly believe that if you are running a "Best of" tournament a choice must be decided and stuck to, seems to me that some form of this criteria needs to be included in the process.

Also, I believe I was the one that suggested entertaining the various movies in their respective "Decade/Era". It may be a lot more fair to films that are classics, but did not have the benefit of current technology. Think the original "King Kong vs. Peter Jackson's version". As I believe I stated it's a parallel to comparing sports figures over the years. Very hard to take them out of their respective "Era's" and compare them to today's athlete's given evolution and technology. I hope this will help TPTB improve these tournaments that folks are obviously passionate about.

[pathoftheturtle]

I think there should be a higher a bar for nominations. Why don't we require the nominee to find pictures/previews himself, to describe the film, making a case for its inclusion in the category, and so on. This would save the moderator work, slow things down automatically, encourage watching new movies ahead of time, and stimulate the, you know, actual film discussion this forum is supposed to be about.

[Tommy]

Well I did make the suggestion of a veto. All participants get one veto during the nomination process to challenge and then eliminate a nomination that you feel is whack. The veto would have to be seconded by another member but this wouldn't mean that member would lose their initial veto so no limit on how many times you could second a veto but just the one veto for everyone. Did I explain that well??

[T-Dogz_AK47]

Well I did make the suggestion of a veto. All participants get one veto during the nomination process to challenge and then eliminate a nomination that you feel is whack. The veto would have to be seconded by another member but this wouldn't mean that member would lose their initial veto so no limit on how many times you could second a veto but just the one veto for everyone. Did I explain that well??

That is a recipe for disaster. If a film has been nominated and then seconded by another person, as per the current process used for the comedy tournament - then that film is already deemed not to be "whack" and the the need for a veto is completely unnecessary.

Adding the option of being able to veto a choice that has already gone through the process of being seconded, will result in arguments, petty squabbles and tit for tat vetoing. Guaranteed!!!

[mae]

Thirding could be an option but may delay nominations far too much.

[pathoftheturtle]

Also, I believe I was the one that suggested entertaining the various movies in their respective "Decade/Era". It may be a lot more fair to films that are classics, but did not have the benefit of current technology.If I may present a counterargument, classics had the benefit of breaking new ground, which might be why there was more creativity than in the current era. But that is neither here nor there; regardless of how you or I stand on whether film technology or originality is more important, we can agree that many voters may not be fair in how they view the comparison. Dividing into eras was used to great effect in our Best Television Show tourney, and I think it would have been quite helpful in our current comedy tournament. It's not necessarily applicable to any possibility, though, IMO: I move we hold the idea in reserve until we have decided what category we are going to do.


Well I did make the suggestion of a veto. All participants get one veto during the nomination process to challenge and then eliminate a nomination that you feel is whack. The veto would have to be seconded by another member but this wouldn't mean that member would lose their initial veto so no limit on how many times you could second a veto but just the one veto for everyone. Did I explain that well??It had potential when you brought it up in the context of a Worst Film contest. We used something like that on-the-fly in the last stage of sci-fi nominations. Sort of mini-pre-voting where a title had to gather more seconds than vetoes. I expected that to be more formalized this time, but I have to admit that using the simpler process was in this case at least not unpleasant, and its results not terrible as a list to vote on. Except that I would have liked to have titles of more different types entered. It might be worthwhile to hold preliminary rounds to pick equal numbers of best nominations from each decade, even if we're not separating the decades during proper voting, or to democratically pick a best film from each of favorite directors beforehand, perhaps.


Adding the option of being able to veto a choice that has already gone through the process of being seconded, will result in arguments, petty squabbles and tit for tat vetoing. Guaranteed!!!If anyone can guarantee behavior like that, T-Dogz_AK47 certainly can. Should there be no one else of such childish psychology, he'll make sure that his prediction comes true all by himself.

[mae]

Doing a, let's say, Best Film of the 1950s tournament sounds like a really fun time, and those of us that are fans of classic cinema won't cringe as much when bonafide greats are eliminated for more recent but less refined titles, as we've seen during the current tournament. Participation will likely be less, and less still the more we go back in decades, but can raise some awareness about these older movies some of our members may usually not care for. I'm of the firm opinion a movie can be great and interesting regardless whether it was made in 2015 or 1925. But I do realize for some it's not a fair comparison because styles have changed so much. So down the road doing a tournament for each decade should be a lot of fun. Plus each decade winner can then be faced off in an overall tournament too.

[mae]

Cogent idea to improve the tournaments in the future. As I thought I explained in my original post, IMHO there needs to be more oversight and a more defined sense of a category than has been applied in the past. For example, if a film is deemed a "Sci-Fi", it cannot compete as an "action film". While I understand that some films qualify in both categories, I firmly believe that if you are running a "Best of" tournament a choice must be decided and stuck to, seems to me that some form of this criteria needs to be included in the process.

Actually, after our first genre tournament (horror) which Alien won, there was some solid debate and even a poll, whether Alien and other titles that participated in the horror tournament can be nominated in the next tournament (sci-fi). The result was an overwhelming Yes.

Here's that thread: http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?18501

[T-Dogz_AK47]

If anyone can guarantee behavior like that, T-Dogz_AK47 certainly can. Should there be no one else of such childish psychology, he'll make sure that his prediction comes true all by himself.

That's rich considering the childish behaviour that you displayed after you were called out for trying to change/add votes at the end of a poll for the second time.

[pathoftheturtle]

This is the thread he's referring to, in case anyone imagines that there might be something there of which I'm less than proud. --> Best-Comedy-Tournament-Round-1-Group-L (http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?19005-Best-Comedy-Tournament-Round-1-Group-L)

[T-Dogz_AK47]

And I quote:


Originally posted by Pathoftheturtle
You tell everybody to follow dumb rules, everybody picks dumb movies. That doesn't prove that they are really the best; it only proves that you are all being dumb.
Do you understand this time, or do I have to use flash cards?

Suggesting that the rules are "dumb", that we are all "dumb" for following those rules, and that we are only picking "dumb" movies because of said rules, is hardly an act of maturity.

If you're going to cast stones about my behaviour, I suggest doing so when you're not sitting in a glass house. It's looking rather fragile.

[Heather19]

I like the idea of thirding nominations and also maybe making members wait a few more posts before they can nominate again. I think it would be good if the nomination process lasted longer, a few weeks at least, and ensured that all members that wanted to participate got a chance to nominate several films. It always seems to go so fast and it's all dependent upon who happens to be online at the time. This would also give people a little bit more time to maybe start watching a few of the films that have already maybe made the list.

[fernandito]

I like Michael's suggestion about each nominating user stating their case as to why their nomination should be included, but that might be too stringent. Some users, by their own admission, don't feel they can adequately convey why they feel a particular film is worthy. It would be a shame if those weren't included simply because they can't talk up a storm like some of us lol.

Perhaps if it was just strongly encouraged but not required. What we're pursuing after all is discussion.

[pathoftheturtle]

I definitely agree that it would be shooting ourselves in the foot to say, "If you guys like Calvin's Corner so much, you can go back there and stay out of this.">< We need lots of voters to keep the fun going. Even if we're not all exactly alike we can play together, and even if not all of us even like each other we can try to work together. I don't know if we particularly need lots of people to submit nominations, though. Nobody should be left out arbitrarily, but if a lot of people want the honor of adding a lot of titles, you can ask them to earn it. If nobody cares at that point, then you lower the bar again. That's the fair way to slow enthusiasm: add chores.


And I quote:


Originally posted by Pathoftheturtle
You tell everybody to follow dumb rules, everybody picks dumb movies. That doesn't prove that they are really the best; it only proves that you are all being dumb.
Do you understand this time, or do I have to use flash cards?

Suggesting that the rules are "dumb", that we are all "dumb" for following those rules, and that we are only picking "dumb" movies because of said rules, is hardly an act of maturity.You're taking me out of context. I used blunt language because you claimed that my original explanation was too obscure. The rules in question are just something you made up, based on the same assumptions about human nature that you're now using to justify making up some more dumb rules. They're dumb because they leave us mute. I'm still opposed to not letting people change their votes, I won't apologize for that position. To say that disrespecting rules is automatically immature does not itself show an adult perspective on politics.


If you're going to cast stones about my behaviour, I suggest doing so when you're not sitting in a glass house. It's looking rather fragile.Again presumptions of a universal human nature. If I look that way to you, it doesn't suggest to me that I worry about looking the same way to different people.

[Mattrick]

I think thirding nominations is the best way to go. It doesn't complicate things. If two people second a movie, it's in. Simple is safe. We should install a max number of nominations per person though. I think ten is a fair number. It would prevent anyone from nominating a ton of films and dominating the process.

I'm all for changing/adding votes if a mistake is made. We don't need another situation like my voting for 2001: A Space Odyssey by mistake causing a massive kerfuffle with someone. There have been situations where I forget to click a movie too and signify I meant to vote for it in my post. Mistakes happen and it keeps the polls more honest. Films being rewarded/punished for a voting mistake is just silly. As for adding/changing votes days later, I'm undecided about. I'd be more inclined to allow adding votes if they haven't reached their max, than changing them when you've already selected the maximum can be manipulating results.

[pathoftheturtle]

There's nothing wrong with "manipulating results." That's what voting is. What's unjust is one person or clique dominating the manipulation. It's true it would be disruptive if we were competing for a special power to determine winners that nobody else gets. But I think that even if you could change your mind and say "I don't like X more than Y, so I don't want X after all," many people would nonetheless say "Thanks for asking, but I still want my vote for X to remain a vote for X." So what's the problem?

If it's only that it could give more influence to people who pay more attention than to people who click-and-forget, I call that both fair and good.

[Merlin1958]

Cogent idea to improve the tournaments in the future. As I thought I explained in my original post, IMHO there needs to be more oversight and a more defined sense of a category than has been applied in the past. For example, if a film is deemed a "Sci-Fi", it cannot compete as an "action film". While I understand that some films qualify in both categories, I firmly believe that if you are running a "Best of" tournament a choice must be decided and stuck to, seems to me that some form of this criteria needs to be included in the process.

Actually, after our first genre tournament (horror) which Alien won, there was some solid debate and even a poll, whether Alien and other titles that participated in the horror tournament can be nominated in the next tournament (sci-fi). The result was an overwhelming Yes.

Here's that thread: http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?18501

I am aware. I was just re-stating my opinion on the matter as I did then. In my mind I find it difficult to reconcile a single film as a "Best Of" in multiple categories, but that's just my opinion.


There's nothing wrong with "manipulating results." That's what voting is. What's unjust is one person or clique dominating the manipulation. It's true it would be disruptive if we were competing for a special power to determine winners that nobody else gets. But I think that even if you could change your mind and say "I don't like X more than Y, so I don't want X after all," many people would nonetheless say "Thanks for asking, but I still want my vote for X to remain a vote for X." So what's the problem?

If it's only that it could give more influence to people who pay more attention than to people who click-and-forget, I call that both fair and good.

Not sure I understand your intent here. Maybe it's just me, but doesn't "Watergate" come to mind? I mean they were locked up for manipulating the voting process, no?

[Heather19]

I agree. I say if there's an honest mistake made when voting like Matt stated, then that makes sense. But to change your mind after isn't the same thing, you are manipulating the votes.

[pathoftheturtle]

There's nothing wrong with "manipulating results." That's what voting is. What's unjust is one person or clique dominating the manipulation. It's true it would be disruptive if we were competing for a special power to determine winners that nobody else gets. But I think that even if you could change your mind and say "I don't like X more than Y, so I don't want X after all," many people would nonetheless say "Thanks for asking, but I still want my vote for X to remain a vote for X." So what's the problem?

If it's only that it could give more influence to people who pay more attention than to people who click-and-forget, I call that both fair and good.

Not sure I understand your intent here. Maybe it's just me, but doesn't "Watergate" come to mind? I mean they were locked up for manipulating the voting process, no?


"John N. Mitchell former United States Attorney General and director of Nixon's 1968 and 1972 election campaigns was found guilty of conspiracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(crime)), obstruction of justice (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obstruction_of_justice), and perjury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury)."


-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_Seven

If you could be locked up for something as vague as manipulating the voting process, then you might end up in jail just for saying "Please vote for Mr. Smith." That probably still doesn't make you fully understand my intent if you didn't understand it from what I've said before, but I hope it helps you see it a little more.


I agree. I say if there's an honest mistake made when voting like Matt stated, then that makes sense. But to change your mind after isn't the same thing, you are manipulating the votes.It's hard to judge people's internal motivations.




Cogent idea to improve the tournaments in the future. As I thought I explained in my original post, IMHO there needs to be more oversight and a more defined sense of a category than has been applied in the past. For example, if a film is deemed a "Sci-Fi", it cannot compete as an "action film". While I understand that some films qualify in both categories, I firmly believe that if you are running a "Best of" tournament a choice must be decided and stuck to, seems to me that some form of this criteria needs to be included in the process.

Actually, after our first genre tournament (horror) which Alien won, there was some solid debate and even a poll, whether Alien and other titles that participated in the horror tournament can be nominated in the next tournament (sci-fi). The result was an overwhelming Yes.

Here's that thread: http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?18501

I am aware. I was just re-stating my opinion on the matter as I did then. In my mind I find it difficult to reconcile a single film as a "Best Of" in multiple categories, but that's just my opinion.It's really complicated. Some films probably do bridge some gaps. I don't think it "invalidates" the whole process, like you said earlier, but some do suggest the standards for genre entry are overly lax. Reminding people that they can simply skip voting for a film in a comedy tournament that they don't believe is a comedy and then reminding them again and again might be the best that we can do about that.

[Heather19]

I think thirding nominations is the best way to go. It doesn't complicate things. If two people second a movie, it's in. Simple is safe. We should install a max number of nominations per person though. I think ten is a fair number. It would prevent anyone from nominating a ton of films and dominating the process.


I also would be for this. It would help give everyone an opportunity, and I think a possible broader range of films nominated. Sometimes the process goes so quickly that regular members to gem theater don't even get a chance to participate because the spots are filled up before they get there.

[Merlin1958]

I don't want to beat this to death, but there is a law prohibiting candidates from soliciting x amount of feet from a polling place. I guess it comes down to a fine line between "Tampering & Manipulating/influencing" is what I was trying to say. I sometimes struggle with being able to put my thoughts down in typing. LOL

However, though I agree that a vote is a vote and should not be changed, regardless of accident or intent. I feel more strongly on some of the issues I stated, but they are just my opinions and suggestions. The masses rule. I'm very happy to see my suggestion regarding "Era's" has some support. I really think this is a more fair and accurate way to rate the films and will ultimately be more fun. Now if I could just figure an angle for the HF..... LOL J/K

Seriously, just kidding!!!

[pathoftheturtle]

What if someone asks "Why didn't you vote for ______?" and you say "Never saw it." and they say "You should." and so you do and then you want to vote for it. Is that an honest mistake or somehow dishonest and against the purpose of having these contests? Where do you stop exactly once you're making exceptions based on the person's motive? I say that a mistake is a mistake. When it is or is not ok to change your mind should just be up to you!

[Still Servant]

This debate is still raging on? I saw this thread blow up over the weekend and start to go downhill.

I was prepared to comment, until I realized that the thread was closed. It turns out that the reasons for closing the thread were warranted because my comments might not have been perceived as kind. Things have settled down and so have I. I will just say that we have to remember that these tournaments are just for fun.

This isn't AFI. It's not going to air on TV. This is a message board on a site dedicated to something other than film. Now, that doesn't mean we shouldn't take it seriously. We should, we just have to remember not to take it too far.

[Merlin1958]

This debate is still raging on? I saw this thread blow up over the weekend and start to go downhill.

I was prepared to comment, until I realized that the thread was closed. It turns out that the reasons for closing the thread were warranted because my comments might not have been perceived as kind. Things have settled down and so have I. I will just say that we have to remember that these tournaments are just for fun.

This isn't AFI. It's not going to air on TV. This is a message board on a site dedicated to something other than film. Now, that doesn't mean we shouldn't take it seriously. We should, we just have to remember not to take it too far.


:emot-flame::wtf::wtf::wtf:

[pathoftheturtle]

This debate is still raging on? I saw this thread blow up over the weekend and start to go downhill.

I was prepared to comment, until I realized that the thread was closed. It turns out that the reasons for closing the thread were warranted because my comments might not have been perceived as kind. Things have settled down and so have I. I will just say that we have to remember that these tournaments are just for fun.

This isn't AFI. It's not going to air on TV. This is a message board on a site dedicated to something other than film. Now, that doesn't mean we shouldn't take it seriously. We should, we just have to remember not to take it too far.

That's true, but making an actual rule out of "try not to think too hard about it and always stick with your first impression" just feels like an endorsement of prejudice. Anti-intellectualism does too much harm in the real world for me to be shamed about calling out a rule like that, even in some petty game, as simply dumb.

[Still Servant]

I agree. There has to be a clear and fair format, which I think we've had over the years. A tweak here and a tweak here is welcomed.

[Merlin1958]

Just throwing this out there, but perhaps a bi-partisan oversight committee to review nominations before they are "Official"? Or may be that's too much. It's just that while I fully realize this is for fun, it should also be as accurate as it can be in the end. Otherwise what's the purpose?

For the record, I am in no way suggesting that I should be on that panel, nor would I accept if, you folks decide to go that way.

[pathoftheturtle]

Bi-partisan? Meaning what? Like American congressional protocol?

I don't think it needs very heavy-handed management. We want it to accurately reflect the will of the people in the community, at least at the time the polling takes place; that's all. Hopefully a little discussion here will be enough to tweak the organizing of a fairly open system for people sharing their own ideas.

[Merlin1958]

Bi-partisan? Meaning what? Like American congressional protocol?

I don't think it needs very heavy-handed management. We want it to accurately reflect the will of the people in the community, at least at the time the polling takes place; that's all. Hopefully a little discussion here will be enough to tweak the organizing of a fairly open system for people sharing their own ideas.

I was just spit balling. Throw enough thoughts out there and some will have merits. Just trying to be constructive is all. Bi-Patisan, well, maybe you conduct a poll to determine who the masses feel are the most qualified folks for oversight? That could be fun in and of itself, but worthwhile none the less. IDK, like I said just spitballing.

Edit: You know, take away the condescending and "Holier than thou" attitudes we have both been prone to adopting and we really can talk constructively. I stick my hand out in virtual detente if you will accept?

[Mattrick]

What I meant by manipulating results, is if a film you voted for is clearly making it, and will survive without your vote, you can change it to put another film over the top and advance. That's manipulating the results. If you're so unsure about your selections that five days later your disagree with your own opinion, then wait five days to make your vote. You don't have to do it right away. If you want discussion to help you make up your mind, wait.

[pathoftheturtle]

Bi-partisan? Meaning what? Like American congressional protocol?

I don't think it needs very heavy-handed management. We want it to accurately reflect the will of the people in the community, at least at the time the polling takes place; that's all. Hopefully a little discussion here will be enough to tweak the organizing of a fairly open system for people sharing their own ideas.

I was just spit balling. Throw enough thoughts out there and some will have merits. Just trying to be constructive is all. Bi-Patisan, well, maybe you conduct a poll to determine who the masses feel are the most qualified folks for oversight? That could be fun in and of itself, but worthwhile none the less. IDK, like I said just spitballing.

Edit: You know, take away the condescending and "Holier than thou" attitudes we have both been prone to adopting and we really can talk constructively. I stick my hand out in virtual detente if you will accept?
It's all the same to me. I'll agree with what I agree with if we have no truce & I'll disagree with what I disagree with if we do. If you're going to get offended by that, you might as well stay offended. I'll be constructive as I know how anyway. And I disagree with focusing on the people instead of the movies. That confuses things for me.

[Merlin1958]

Bi-partisan? Meaning what? Like American congressional protocol?

I don't think it needs very heavy-handed management. We want it to accurately reflect the will of the people in the community, at least at the time the polling takes place; that's all. Hopefully a little discussion here will be enough to tweak the organizing of a fairly open system for people sharing their own ideas.

I was just spit balling. Throw enough thoughts out there and some will have merits. Just trying to be constructive is all. Bi-Patisan, well, maybe you conduct a poll to determine who the masses feel are the most qualified folks for oversight? That could be fun in and of itself, but worthwhile none the less. IDK, like I said just spitballing.

Edit: You know, take away the condescending and "Holier than thou" attitudes we have both been prone to adopting and we really can talk constructively. I stick my hand out in virtual detente if you will accept?
It's all the same to me. I'll agree with what I agree with if we have no truce & I'll disagree with what I disagree with if we do. If you're going to get offended by that, you might as well stay offended. I'll be constructive as I know how anyway. And I disagree with focusing on the people instead of the movies. That confuses things for me.

I'm not suggesting anyone kiss ass either, but I think there is potential for us to at least remain civil and non condescending, therefore "getting along" is all I'm saying and maybe lead to meaningful discussion. I agree, the "Peace" can be broken at any time and we return to our respective positions, but I'm willing to try.

[pathoftheturtle]

What I meant by manipulating results, is if a film you voted for is clearly making it, and will survive without your vote, you can change it to put another film over the top and advance. That's manipulating the results. If you're so unsure about your selections that five days later your disagree with your own opinion, then wait five days to make your vote. You don't have to do it right away. If you want discussion to help you make up your mind, wait.Sure, that's what I have been doing since that point was made. I can follow the rule as long as I don't have to agree. I have been going along with irrational majorities my whole life.

[Mattrick]

It's just streamlining the process. The less muddled things get with corrections and alterations, the better and easier it is. If we're not changing votes all the time there's less of a chance of people getting their panties in a bunch, and people have really gotten pissed...T-Dogz ran away from this forum for like four months because I accidentally checked 2001: A Space Odyssey and I got it retracted. It's best to just avoid such situations. If you make a mistake and ask for it to be fixed, okay. Changing votes because you changed your mind is different. You don't have to agree, just don't expect it to happen if we as a group decide it won't happen.

[mae]

I don't really feel the overall process needs that much improvement. We've now done a few of these and each time tweaked things here and there. We don't need to overhaul everything. I think the nominating process is fine and we could perhaps require thirding but I wouldn't want to restrict people from only nominating a certain number of titles. Waiting for five nominations in between worked fine this time around and if that's too few, maybe we can up that a bit.

[Mattrick]

Even waiting five...it's possible for someone to nominate 20 movies while everyone else nominates 80 out of a 100 nominations if someone were so dedicated. If a few people are so dedicated a group of 5 could account for half the total nominations. The nomination process goes swift and if someone misses a few days of it, they now have less opportunity while those who were nominating those days can still be nominating. Ten is probably too small a number since noms aren't necessarily making it, but a limit, at the very least, will make people consider their nominations a little more. If it takes 400 nominations to get to 200 entrants it's mathematically possible, though unlikely, that 80 of those nominations will belong to one person. With this tournament 10% of the entrants were determined before I even made one nomination and the process only went for 10 hours.

I bet if we looked through the nominations we would find some numbers that show how certain members had a lot of dominance. I'll crunch some numbers so we have some tanglible data. I want to run the next tournmanent so I'm all for ironing everything out until that time comes, it'll make my job easier lol

[T-Dogz_AK47]

Even waiting five...it's possible for someone to nominate 20 movies while everyone else nominates 80 out of a 100 nominations if someone were so dedicated. If a few people are so dedicated a group of 5 could account for half the total nominations. The nomination process goes swift and if someone misses a few days of it, they now have less opportunity while those who were nominating those days can still be nominating. Ten is probably too small a number since noms aren't necessarily making it, but a limit, at the very least, will make people consider their nominations a little more. If it takes 400 nominations to get to 200 entrants it's mathematically possible, though unlikely, that 80 of those nominations will belong to one person. With this tournament 10% of the entrants were determined before I even made one nomination and the process only went for 10 hours.

I bet if we looked through the nominations we would find some numbers that show how certain members had a lot of dominance. I'll crunch some numbers so we have some tanglible data. I want to run the next tournmanent so I'm all for ironing everything out until that time comes, it'll make my job easier lol

The nominating process for the comedy tournament started in the morning of 7th February and the entire voting process was concluded late evening, on 11th February. It took a period of four days to nominate the 200 films in this current tournament.

With that in mind, I think the current process of having to wait for 5 films in between nominating another is absolutely fine and does not warrant an increase. I do however, suggest that a date and time should be agreed upon to start the nominating process, so that everyone is aware in advance when it is about to start. I remember the Sci-fi tournament was given a date to start nominations, but that was later completely disregarded and the nomination process started suddenly with no warning and many people lost the chance to vote. Unlike the current process, the Sci-fi tournament did not have the rule of having to wait for 5 films in between nominating another so the voting process was concluded very quickly (I remember removing one of my choices so that Jean had the chance to nominate something he wanted, as he had missed the chance to vote). Even with the 5 film rule in place, I think it is only fair to everyone that we agree on a firm date and time to start nominations and stick to it. I would recommend starting the nomination process on a Saturday or Sunday, so it allows the maximum amount of people to be online at the very start of the process.

Changing the subject slightly, I want to add that I strongly disagree with the idea of placing a limit on the number of films a person can nominate. As these nominations will require seconding, or even possibly thirding - introducing a limit on the number of films a person can nominate with no guarantee that they will be included is a little unfair.

[Mattrick]

This data isn't 100% perfect...with people nominating/seconding films already nominated/seconded, there may have been 1 or 2 that weren't subtracted to correct (189/190 seconds, so missing one somewhere). The last ten nominations were muddled and didn't feel like discerning who nominated/seconded what. Here is a list of everyone who nominated/seconded a film, and how many times they did each. The columns are ordered in the order people first nominated/seconded, top to bottom left column, then to the middle, then to the right column.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/11016082_10155397256490571_5328565687754031068_n.j pg?oh=1fe50bf8845269bb7965096404b3f23f&oe=5578D443&__gda__=1438057766_5c5d6656b7b7af6dfd6cb43f9d1f071 0

Total Nominations (not including final ten and that mess): 218
Percentage of noms from top 5 nominators: 50%
Nominations per day from top nominators: 28.5 (1.2 per hour)

Total Seconds (same as above bracket): 189
Percentage of 2nds from top 5 2nders: 57%
Seconds per day from top 2nders: 28.5 (1.2 per hour)

Pablo himself account for 25% (maybe a little bit more) of all the seconds.

When pablo posted saying there were 93 seconded entries thus far, Pablo/TDogz accounted for 48 of them. Between the two of them, they seconded 75/190 entries.



Does this process still feel balanced the way it is? Not only did those who nominated the most get more input, they also seconded more than anyone else. This isn't to say these films wouldn't have been nominated/seconded anyways, but it could quite possibly be taking away other films chances from even being included by filling up spots quick and early before others can join. When you have a handful of people basically filling in half the tournament...this whole process seems kind of pointless. I counted (excluding the final ten nominations as I'd said before) 218 nominations for 190 spots...What's the point in seconding if every film nominated gets in anyways? Thirding would help prevent these kind of things, and limiting nominations and seconds to a certain number, will not only allow a process longer than four days (not much time, especially when you don't live on a computer) but it might help put all these numbers in balance.

In this process we had 26 participants. At ten noms/seconds each that would account for 260. If it stretched out and more people had a chance to join in, we could have a potential 300-400 nominations from 30-40 different people, instead of 114/218 nominations from 5 people. This isn't about pointing fingers or anything, it's just showing the true balance of the nomination process is what I said it can potentially be EXACTLY as I said above


If a few people are so dedicated a group of 5 could account for half the total nominations.

Because that's how it was this time.

[mae]

That's a lot of work, thanks for doing it. I'm surprised I had such high numbers. Plus seven of my nominees were not seconded. Because I was tracking the nominations and seconds, I was constantly in the thread so that may account for my high numbers. As I said before, thirding a nomination can certainly be a good idea, though I disagree with limiting people to the overall number of nominations, seconds, or thirds. If someone nominates 100 titles and only 10 of then actually get into the tournament, it's not any different from someone nominating 10 and each one getting in.

[Heather19]

Thanks for doing that Matt. The thread was started I think on the weekend, when I usually can't get on, so when I returned monday morning I'd say at least half if not more of the slots were already filled. As you can see I only got in 3 nominations and I'm pretty regular poster down here. Not to mention all the other members that aren't on every day, I want them to get a fair chance at getting a few nominations in as well. After each nominating process ends there's always a few people that come in and say they missed it because they were gone for a day or two. How is that fair?

Also 4 days in my opinion is way too fast to fill all the spots. I don't understand what the problem would be if it takes a good 2 weeks or so to fill all the spots. I know when it starts everyone is excited, but it would give more people a chance at getting a few nominations in.

I would also really be for putting a limit on the number of films a person can nominate, but it seems like people don't like that idea. Maybe once they're all seconded, thirded, and they know they're in they could hold off on nominating more until a lot of other members get some input? Or what if we wait 8-10 people before we're allowed to vote again. I don't think that's unreasonable and it would help allow more people to nominate films. Also if it slows down so much that nothing is being nominated for a few days then we can always open it up again, although I highly doubt that would happen.

[fernandito]

Wow, great work Matt. Thanks for putting that together.

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of a cap on the amount of films any one member can nominate. Theoretically, it would diversify the array of films nominated. I've seen several films nominated by collectors so I know of their interest in the nomination portion of the tournaments at least. If we reach a point where everyone has reached the allotted number of posts and no further posts are flowing in, we can address it at that stage.

I think we should approach as [A] setting a precise start date and time for the nominations and adhering to it without fail, [B] setting a maximum number of noms per user as we've been musing, and [C] giving ourselves a month or two after the nominations have been completed to discuss and watch the nominees.

[fernandito]

Also, if I may be so bold, I would love to start off with a best of 2000-2010 tournament lol.

[T-Dogz_AK47]

That's a lot of work, thanks for doing it. I'm surprised I had such high numbers. Plus seven of my nominees were not seconded. Because I was tracking the nominations and seconds, I was constantly in the thread so that may account for my high numbers. As I said before, thirding a nomination can certainly be a good idea, though I disagree with limiting people to the overall number of nominations, seconds, or thirds. If someone nominates 100 titles and only 10 of then actually get into the tournament, it's not any different from someone nominating 10 and each one getting in.

I agree with Pablo on this. :thumbsup:

[mae]

Also, if I may be so bold, I would love to start off with a best of 2000-2010 tournament lol.

That's 11 years :) It would be 2000-2009. By the time we do the other genres and all the decades, it'll be time to do 2010-2019.

[pathoftheturtle]

Theoretically, it would diversify the array of films nominated.That's a very good point.
If a fan of one director nominates all films by that director, or if a fan of some franchise nominates all the sequels in it, then it's not a final contest that is truly representative of whatever genre/category it's supposed to cover. Spread the nominations around and make seconding more of a group effort, then that will come up only if multiple members happen to be fans of the same niche of films. Or in any case, they'll think harder about which one is their very favorite knowing they might not be able to get them all in.

[Mattrick]

I noticed some people (I did it once as well) seconding two or three films with one post. I think we could maintain a balance by only being able to second 1 film when we nominate a film, if we choose to second one.

I would agree nominating a film doesn't mean it gets in, but about 85% of the nominated films made it this time, and our lists for those final ten showed how many more films could have still made it into the process but had no room. I just think it can provide some balance, so if some people are involved heavily at the get go, that's fine, they just won't have the option to be as involved later on and leaves space for those who aren't here for the first few days. It would be easy to keep track of if we all put what number our nom is when we nominate. We can't really have a limit for those who make it, because then we'd have to go back and remove nomination once someone reached their limit or they would go over if they got more seconds. Maybe an agreed upon time period per day for nominations? Something amicable to the majority? Maybe then everyone can be involved at the same time? There are a lot of options that shouldn't really impede the process in the slightest yet draw it out a little longer.

If we're not going to limit nominations, would limiting our seconds be more to people's liking? I think it would be easier to cap number of noms/seconds than, say, how many we get per day. Extending the time between nominations to 7/8 noms might work too. I just know some people active in the film section came in very late and had very little input. Frankly, I was shocked at the results when I tabulated it up. I wasn't expecting to find that literally find 5 people comprised 50% of the nominations lol. Even if we don't have a limit perhaps if we all keep track of our noms/seconds we can monitor the process a little closer as it's ongoing? I don't want to enforce rules on people, but it might help people regulate themselves a little easier.

No real rush on this. We've got time. The process itself is fine, it just needs a little fine tuning for balance.

[pathoftheturtle]

You can choose to let the people who are more dedicated manipulate the nomination phase more greatly by leaving it mostly to whoever shows up and makes effort at the same time that you try to equalize the manipulation of the voting phase by downplaying comments, but maybe you should stop acting surprised at the predictable result time and again that the broader audience who would have nominated more films if they hadn't been too busy doing other things select the popular films that play on tv all the time over the classics and art films which only dedicated film enthusiasts take time out of their busy lives to seek and watch. I can't say, maybe it's beneficial to get titles like that out there into more people's line of sight even though there's no way they will win than it would be to equalize both ends of our process and end up with a greater proportion of generally popular films being all the fun. I like to think it may be beneficial. But anyhow, we choose the system, consciously or unconsciously, that suits us.

[divemaster]

I don't think we should cap the number a films any one person can nominate. Let's say the cap for a particular tournament is 5 films. I've got in my head 10 films I'd like to nominate: 5 mainstream and 5 lesser known or Korean or whatever. I know the lesser known films might not gain traction and be seconded/thirded, but I'd like to let people know they're out there and worth a look.

If I'm limited to 5 films, I'm saying "screw it" to the lesser known ones b/c I'm just wasting my allotted slots. I don't nominate those. The tournament loses a little something I think.

[Mattrick]

You can choose to let the people who are more dedicated manipulate the nomination phase more greatly by leaving it mostly to whoever shows up and makes effort at the same time that you try to equalize the manipulation of the voting phase by downplaying comments, but maybe you should stop acting surprised at the predictable result time and again that the broader audience who would have nominated more films if they hadn't been too busy doing other things select the popular films that play on tv all the time over the classics and art films which only dedicated film enthusiasts take time out of their busy lives to seek and watch. I can't say, maybe it's beneficial to get titles like that out there into more people's line of sight even though there's no way they will win than it would be to equalize both ends of our process and end up with a greater proportion of generally popular films being all the fun. I like to think it may be beneficial. But anyhow, we choose the system, consciously or unconsciously, that suits us.

You're assuming those who were doing other things wouldn't nominate art films. And a lot of those art films didn't even make it past the first round because they hadn't been seen. A lot of good getting them in did anyways. I don't see how them not living in the thread means they have worst taste in films, that's totally arbitrary. Your point is kind of moot in that regard.

[pathoftheturtle]

You're assuming those who were doing other things wouldn't nominate art films. ... I don't see how them not living in the thread means they have worst taste in films, that's totally arbitrary. Your point is kind of moot in that regard.I'm not assuming that, I'm just suggesting it. It's not true in the case of Heather, (who brought it up) I'll grant you, based on my observation of her participation in this forum generally and in these tournaments. But the basis of my suggestion (still open for discussion) that the people living in the thread have better taste in general is your list showing the names of those people and my informal observation of their participation in this forum generally and in these tournaments as compared to the people who did not live in that thread who I observe are giving lots of votes to poorer films as we speak.


And a lot of those art films didn't even make it past the first round because they hadn't been seen. A lot of good getting them in did anyways.Agreed. Proving what? Ok, maybe proving that nominating them was pointless. Or maybe proving that the tournament itself is pointless. Just a matter of how you look at things, I suppose.

[fernandito]

If I'm limited to 5 films, I'm saying "screw it" to the lesser known ones b/c I'm just wasting my allotted slots. I don't nominate those. The tournament loses a little something I think.

Key word in your post, wasting; In essence you're conceding that those films aren't really worth checking out anyway. When I nominate films, I don't nominate on how popular they are, but rather on their perceived quality. That should be the aim I think.

Putting a nomination cap ensures you vote for those you truly feel are worthy.

[Heather19]

What about 10 films per member? If you look only 7 out of 26 people nominated more than 10 films. Or I like Matts idea of limiting the number of nominations by a member per day. I'm just trying to think of a way for more people to be able to participate. I don't think its fair to all the members if 5 people nominate half the films. It also would be good to slow it down a lot so its not dependent upon who happens to be online for those few days.

[fernandito]

And a lot of those art films didn't even make it past the first round because they hadn't been seen. A lot of good getting them in did anyways.Agreed. Proving what? Ok, maybe proving that nominating them was pointless. Or maybe proving that the tournament itself is pointless. Just a matter of how you look at things, I suppose.

The point of the tournament is to have fun. That should be the end game, regardless of how many classics or w/e get 'snubbed'.

[Mattrick]

You're assuming those who were doing other things wouldn't nominate art films. ... I don't see how them not living in the thread means they have worst taste in films, that's totally arbitrary. Your point is kind of moot in that regard.I'm not assuming that, I'm just suggesting it. It's not true in the case of Heather, (who brought it up) I'll grant you, based on my observation of her participation in this forum generally and in these tournaments. But the basis of my suggestion (still open for discussion) that the people living in the thread have better taste in general is your list showing the names of those people and my informal observation of their participation in this forum generally and in these tournaments as compared to the people who did not live in that thread who I observe are giving lots of votes to poorer films as we speak.

Exactly why we should have a gap of time between nominations and the tournament and lengthen the nomination process. If people who haven't seen the art films and classics have time to watch some of them, we may have people voting differently. It seems people are more interested in nominating films that are less serious than more serious movies that are hilarious. I'm pretty sure you seconded Almost Famous after I nominated it, where as pablo and others didn't think it was much of a comedy. Dramedies stood no chance in this tournament most because of why people are voting for certain films. I think, in general, a lot of people don't watch comedies for anything arty and aren't considering that aspect much. Me and someone else had that discussion in the nominations thread, in that some people are voting because they laughed, and others are voting because of why they laughed. Most of the smart comedies haven't fared well because of this, I think.





And a lot of those art films didn't even make it past the first round because they hadn't been seen. A lot of good getting them in did anyways.Agreed. Proving what? Ok, maybe proving that nominating them was pointless. Or maybe proving that the tournament itself is pointless. Just a matter of how you look at things, I suppose.

Like I said above, if people had more time and it wasn't a week long whirlwind of nominations and the start of the tournament, people would have a chance to watch them. Loaded up a tournament with a bunch of films the majority hasn't seen is almost guaranteeing those films won't get votes. The problem isn't that films a lot of people haven't seen get into the tournament, the problem is that so many did.

I've always seen these tournaments not just as fun or as a vehicle to discuss a wide variety of films, but as a means to introduce a variety of new films for people to watch. When 100 films are eliminated two weeks after the nominations begin, it defeats people's drive to watch those 100 films since they're already gone. Some of those films I'll still try to watch, but any motivation to watch them soon is kind of gone. When it comes to classics and obscure movies, short of downloading (and even then, classics are much harder to find), they're limited to the Netflixes of the world who might not have them anyways, or knowing someone who has them. Even going into a store specifically to buy them isn't as easy as finding copies of popular, more contemporary movies. Half the reason I haven't seen as many classic films is lack of access, not just to the film, but knowing about them in the first place.

[fernandito]

I'm just trying to think of a way for more people to be able to participate. I don't think its fair to all the members if 5 people nominate half the films.
Playing devil's advocate just for the hell of it (har,har), you could make a case that it's also not fair for those of us who will actually ignite debate and discussion of the films to have our total number of noms stymied in favor of others who will only nominate something and never join the discussions.

Again, not a counter argument, just like to make sure we cover as much ground as possible here.

[Mattrick]

Putting a nomination cap ensures you vote for those you truly feel are worthy.

This was my point, though I don't think I said as much. People would be far more thoughtful with their nominations. Instead of nominating the first films that come to mind, which must happen often since it happens to me during these processes. I'll suddenly think of a film, or another nomination will make me think of a film, and I nominate it on impulse, which there's nothing wrong with, there just isn't as much individual deliberation, and I think individual deliberation in this case is a beneficial thing to everyone.

[pathoftheturtle]

The point of the tournament is to have fun. That should be the end game, regardless of how many classics or w/e get 'snubbed'.
Education is fun to me. I like education.





If I'm limited to 5 films, I'm saying "screw it" to the lesser known ones b/c I'm just wasting my allotted slots. I don't nominate those. The tournament loses a little something I think.

Key word in your post, wasting; In essence you're conceding that those films aren't really worth checking out anyway. When I nominate films, I don't nominate on how popular they are, but rather on their perceived quality. That should be the aim I think.

Putting a nomination cap ensures you vote for those you truly feel are worthy.It's just a distraction, the idea of what has a chance to win, but I'll concede that distraction can affect me as well if I'm not conscious about it. Worth thinking about, IMO, that's all.

Maybe it would be fun for a change to do months of nominating involving the whole community and a lot of discussion, then compress the voting to four days so that just a handful of hardcore enthusiasts pick the best ones. :lol:

[fernandito]

OMG

I got it!

How about this; we open grounds for discussion of the films before the nomination starts. Hear me out -

Each member participating can make a list of 5- 10 films they're positive they will nominate in the tournament (not a requirement of course, optional).

You list your 5-10 films, and state your case on why you feel this film is worth the other users' time.

So:

1. Movie A
Nominating this because it's well made and bla bla bla bla

2. Movie B
It's socially relevant and well choreographed and bla bla bla

3. Movie C
Omg it's like so mind blowing and that twist at the end etc.,

So on and so forth


We'll leave this thread open for a month before the nominations start. Participating members will help raise awareness of the films they'll be submitting, discussions will ensue, members will seek out these films, and it will help us make more informed 2nd'ngs (?) during the nomination process; films that wouldn't have been 2nd before can/will be now because we saw it before it was even nominated, presumably.

What do you guys think?

[Mattrick]

It's a good idea in theory Fernando. I'm just worried that would exhaust all of our discussion before anything even begins. It's some outside the box thinking though.

[pathoftheturtle]

It's a good idea in theory Fernando. I'm just worried that would exhaust all of our discussion before anything even begins. It's some outside the box thinking though.
Most people right now don't comment anyway. At most, someone might say "More people please vote for Caddyshack!" The few of us who talk all the time probably always will. But if it's a worry that the rest might run out of meaningful criticism to give while they are voting, it still wouldn't really make that part much different from what we have already.

[mae]

As for other future tournaments, I would love to do the animation one (even though, again, animation itself is not a genre). Maybe we should try and schedule these in some way. We can definitely do several more genres and all the decades:


Best Action
Best Animated Film
Best Drama
Best Thriller
Best Mystery


These five along with our three other genres (Horror, Sci-Fi, Comedy) will give us eight and we can have an 8-title round-robin playoff for the best genre at the end of it all. Not to restart the whole thriller vs. mystery debate, these are just an idea. What other genres can we do?



Best Film of the 2000s
Best Film of the 1990s
Best Film of the 1980s
Best Film of the 1970s
Best Film of the 1960s
Best Film of the 1950s
Best Film of the 1940s
Best Film of the 1930s
Best Film of the 1920s


The 1920s could also be expanded to include films from the 1910s and prior. I doubt we could nominate 200 good films just from the '20s alone.

[Mattrick]

Is my memory awful or didn't we break the Best Film of All Time into decades?

[pathoftheturtle]

As for other future tournaments, I would love to do the animation one (even though, again, animation itself is not a genre). Maybe we should try and schedule these in some way. We can definitely do several more genres and all the decades:


Best Action
Best Animated Film
Best Drama
Best Thriller
Best Mystery


These five along with our three other genres (Horror, Sci-Fi, Comedy) will give us eight and we can have an 8-title round-robin playoff for the best genre at the end of it all. Not to restart the whole thriller vs. mystery debate, these are just an idea. What other genres can we do?



Best Film of the 2000s
Best Film of the 1990s
Best Film of the 1980s
Best Film of the 1970s
Best Film of the 1960s
Best Film of the 1950s
Best Film of the 1940s
Best Film of the 1930s
Best Film of the 1920s


The 1920s could also be expanded to include films from the 1910s and prior. I doubt we could nominate 200 good films just from the '20s alone.Why do you phrase your ongoing presentation of your plan as if you want feedback when you never listen to anyone? Every one of your posts are "all the rest of your comments aside" and back to the same thing. I vote, primarily, that our next category be something other than another genre. There are plenty of possibilities that could be fun, and variety is fun in itself. Just not being stuck in a compulsive schedule would be nice. All in favor?

[fernandito]

I'd be inclined to agree with you Michael if you cited examples lol.

[pathoftheturtle]

Well, to begin with, one suggestion that I've floated before would be a Best Detective tourney. That would take us back toward the Best Character angle, (it would be kind of nice to again shift to looking at film crosswise rather than title-by-title) and allow us to embrace the action/thriller/suspense areas at once with no need to split hairs.

[Heather19]

I'd be for a best animated film tournament next. Or a best worst film, although I know there's probably really only 3 or 4 us that would be into that. Anything aside from action or western :lol:

Matt, we never split the best film of all-time tournament into decades, but we did semi-recently have threads for each decade where people could list their favorite films.

[Iwritecode]

Did we do a best TV show by decade? Maybe that's what he's thinking of.

[T-Dogz_AK47]

I'd be for a best animated film tournament next. Or a best worst film, although I know there's probably really only 3 or 4 us that would be into that. Anything aside from action or western :lol:


I thought we had already agreed ages ago, that the next tournament would be Best Worst Movie?

[Heather19]

I don't think many people are into it :(

[pathoftheturtle]

Matt, we never split the best film of all-time tournament into decades, but we did semi-recently have threads for each decade where people could list their favorite films.Right, that was interesting, though not a formal polling tournament like internet people have a craze for. And yes, Iwc, also instructive was the method pablo introduced and managed in our Best TV Series of All Time (http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?11418-The-Best-TV-Series-of-All-Time-%28BTVSAT%29&highlight=serling) contest.


Or a best worst film, although I know there's probably really only 3 or 4 us that would be into that.Actually, I think there's plenty of interest. It gets suggested by someone else on a regular basis. And the timing would be kind of nice following this comedy thing. But I really think, unfortunately, that it should be put off until more kinks are worked out of how we operate. As was pointed out, it is a contentious concept; really one of the most difficult potential categories to pull off as it assumes the judging body is in a solid position of understanding on the art and industry.


Anything aside from action or western :lol:We can argue and object, but I guess there won't ever be a "Best Romance" tourney done in such a male-heavy community as this one.


I'd be for a best animated film tournament next.Sure, that's a cool idea. Or maybe we could consider other possible divisions based on format rather than content, such as best musical.

[Heather19]

Anything aside from action or western :lol:We can argue and object, but I guess there won't ever be a "Best Romance" tourney done in such a male-heavy community as this one.

You know I've been thinking about that lately. There's very few women that post down here :(

[Girlystevedave]

Anything aside from action or western :lol:We can argue and object, but I guess there won't ever be a "Best Romance" tourney done in such a male-heavy community as this one.

You know I've been thinking about that lately. There's very few women that post down here :(


I never really thought about it until now. There really aren't many female posters.



And I'll throw in a vote for doing best animated film at some point in the future. :)

[pathoftheturtle]

Anything aside from action or western :lol:We can argue and object, but I guess there won't ever be a "Best Romance" tourney done in such a male-heavy community as this one.

You know I've been thinking about that lately. There's very few women that post down here :(Less than in the past. IDK, maybe there will be more changes in the membership at some point. For now it seems we have to expect a lot of the masculine energy, though.

[Mattrick]

I think best animated film would be perfect. It can be a smaller tournament and everyone has watched plenty of them in their lives, I am sure. Plus it would give me an excuse to finally watch all those Miyazaki films I haven't seen (only watched Princess Mononoke).

For the next big tournament I'd love to do drama since we'd get a bunch of new films. We've had quite a bit of a cross over between genres so far and I think it would be very fresh. I'm not really too picky though.

[Heather19]

Start with Spirited Away :)

[mae]

As for other future tournaments, I would love to do the animation one (even though, again, animation itself is not a genre). Maybe we should try and schedule these in some way. We can definitely do several more genres and all the decades:


Best Action
Best Animated Film
Best Drama
Best Thriller
Best Mystery


These five along with our three other genres (Horror, Sci-Fi, Comedy) will give us eight and we can have an 8-title round-robin playoff for the best genre at the end of it all. Not to restart the whole thriller vs. mystery debate, these are just an idea. What other genres can we do?



Best Film of the 2000s
Best Film of the 1990s
Best Film of the 1980s
Best Film of the 1970s
Best Film of the 1960s
Best Film of the 1950s
Best Film of the 1940s
Best Film of the 1930s
Best Film of the 1920s


The 1920s could also be expanded to include films from the 1910s and prior. I doubt we could nominate 200 good films just from the '20s alone.Why do you phrase your ongoing presentation of your plan as if you want feedback when you never listen to anyone? Every one of your posts are "all the rest of your comments aside" and back to the same thing. I vote, primarily, that our next category be something other than another genre. There are plenty of possibilities that could be fun, and variety is fun in itself. Just not being stuck in a compulsive schedule would be nice. All in favor?

I don't see why you would take it like that, because the above was meant as stimulating further discussion on possible topics for tournaments and when to do them. What's wrong with that exactly? If you and other people have more suggestions, I'm only all for it.

One different thing we could do is whole actor or director filmographies.

[pathoftheturtle]

I exaggerated, I apologize. Not "every" post you make is dismissive. I just logged on hoping to hear your opinion of all the ideas about upgrades to nominating and instead it was repetitive outline of that one agenda. I'mnot sure I understand about filmographies. We've done Best Actor and Director.

[mae]

I've already posted some thoughts on nominating upgrades and said that thirding is stood idea. If need be, we can also increase the waiting period between moms from five to eight, for instance. We can also have a limit as waiting for a certain period before seconding and thirding and not being able to second or third in the same post multiple titles.

As for filmographies, I meant doing every film an actor or director or anyone made.

[Iwritecode]

As for filmographies, I meant doing every film an actor or director or anyone made.

Wouldn't that essentially be a best actor or director tourney?

Or are you talking about judging an actor based on the movies he's been in rather than the actor himself?

[mae]

Yes, for example, doing a tournament of Steven Spielberg films. Or Jack Nicholson films. Something like that.

[Girlystevedave]

Yes, for example, doing a tournament of Steven Spielberg films. Or Jack Nicholson films. Something like that.

I think that's a pretty cool idea.

[Iwritecode]

It’s an interesting idea but I think it might be difficult to separate the actors themselves from the films they’ve been in. There are movies that I like with actors that I don’t necessarily like. There are also actors that I really like that have made some bad movies.

It also might be difficult to credit one actor to a specific film. Say Dodgeball. Is that a Vince Vaughn film or a Ben Stiller film?

Or am I thinking about this all wrong?

[pathoftheturtle]

It’s an interesting idea but I think it might be difficult to separate the actors themselves from the films they’ve been in. There are movies that I like with actors that I don’t necessarily like. There are also actors that I really like that have made some bad movies.

It also might be difficult to credit one actor to a specific film. Say Dodgeball. Is that a Vince Vaughn film or a Ben Stiller film?

Or am I thinking about this all wrong?It depends on what you're doing it for. In theory, we could do tourneys for everyone, just for the sake of doing a lot of tourneys. It would only take two or three poll threads to put the major works of even major players up for vote. In that case, you would have to wonder, "Should I vote for the best movie this actor has been in, or for the best performance by him in particular?" But it wouldn't really matter because the entire poll wouldn't really stand for anything. I've suggested we do some of these mini-tourneys preparatory to a larger category. One of the ways the nominating procedure might be used to manipulate the outcome of a tournament would be if someone thinks, "The Marx Brothers are great, but I don't know if anyone else thinks so. If I nominate half a dozen of their movies, there will be more chances later for one of them to win than there will be for some comedian who only has one film entered." To improve our selections, we could add an apparatus to narrow various fields ahead of time. This would need to be clearly intentional. If one person says, "Dodgeball was not the best Ben Stiller movie, I move we send it to a pre-nominating thread." and another person says, "But I liked Vince Vaughn in that." then it could be run both ways, and then if it wins either one, move on to face whatever film from the other that's found to be better alongside of all our other best choices. That would make the entire voting activity more informative, as it would show some indication of why we make the choices that we do, which is currently missing when you just look at the statistical results of blindly polling from lists thrown together out of whatever got mentioned first by whoever happened to come along.

[Mattrick]

Getting into filmographies is a little too OCD for my tastes lol.

[fernandito]

Yeah, that sounds very cumbersome tbh.

[pathoftheturtle]

The whole thing is to me, to be frank. What good does all the work of setting up a tournament and voting do? If it gets more people to come to this forum and talk about the movies, that is good, IMO, because it's the talk between people that I find interesting. If it has the opposite effect, though, where somebody says "Look, turned out the most popular winner is something I already knew about, so there's no reason left to hang out in here any more." then that's just silly, and I don't know why the membership of this forum does it to ourselves.

It's fine with me, though, anyway, if people don't want to use this or that idea. I appreciate you just hearing them out and giving it fair thought. Whatever suits the whole group, y'know?

[fernandito]

I'm thinking of the idiom about not being able to see the forest for the trees.

Like you I too enjoy the member interaction more than anything. Barring minor upsets we all have a fairly strong grasp of what films will end up in the latter stages of the tournament, and debating the strengths and weaknesses of the underdogs and those feel are more than deserving is part of the fun. My bottom line has always been discussing films, I can never tire of talking about movies. The craft, the conceptual, the execution. I love it. Even if I've seen a film a hundred times I love debating and discussing, there's always new ways to appreciate a film which comes via a different perspective. Many times I've gone back to revisit a film I might have watched and set down with nary a second thought because of the enthusiasm it's met with by other members on here.

New members joining the fun should be a byproduct of all the effort we put into these things, but it by no means should be used as a barometer for a tournament's success or validity.

If you build it, they will come.

[Still Servant]

Well, to begin with, one suggestion that I've floated before would be a Best Detective tourney. That would take us back toward the Best Character angle, (it would be kind of nice to again shift to looking at film crosswise rather than title-by-title) and allow us to embrace the action/thriller/suspense areas at once with no need to split hairs.

I'd be all for that. Then again a Best Detective Tournament is essentially a genre tournament. I know you want to move away from genre tournaments, but you stepped right into what I would consider a sub-genre.

There really aren't many females here anymore. Turtle and Emily used to be around a lot, but they're gone now. Maybe that's why we are at each others throats so much. We need more balance :lol:

I'm with, Feev. I love talking about film. I talk about movies in real life as much as I can. Unfortunately, there are limits to the conversations I can have with friends and family. This is my only other outlet, I avoid the IMDB message boards like the plague.

I too would love for some of the lurkers to join the discussion, but I also understand their reluctance. We have some strong personalities here, myself included. Perhaps we just intimidate some of the other posters.

[Mattrick]

Obviously the best detectives of all time are The Hardly Boys


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_aDOVmn6dE

[pathoftheturtle]

Not branching off too far right away was intentional. It's actually not hard to come up with ideas; what's hard is things that will interest the group. It's true Detective Fiction is a sub-genre of Suspense, but the character archetype does not have to be defined narrowly. As I said, certain action characters could be included, dramas, police, spies, reporters. If you want to be constructive, you could suggest an alternative yourself rather than just find fault. I'm not going to fight for nothing if the rest of you have faith.

[T-Dogz_AK47]

You know what I particularly enjoy about these tournaments? The discussion and debate. :smile:

Therefore, I thought it would be great to have the next tournament on the best films that are any dual genre. For instance, Action Adventure, Sci-Fi Horror, Romantic Comedy etc... :idea:

During the nominating process, participants would have to discuss the reasons why they are nominating a particular film and demonstrate how it fits into the category of dual genre. This should open up the discussion and debate much wider, which is always the most fun aspect of these tournaments. :clap:

I do not wish to hijack this section of the forum, so if forum members are happy with this suggestion for the next tournament, I would ask for support from either Pablo or Fernandito to run things.

So what does everyone here think of this idea? :excited:

[Still Servant]

It has potential. I guess my only question is that can't every film be put into a dual genre category? Maybe not all, but certainly a lot of them. Where would we draw the line?

[Merlin1958]

It has potential. I guess my only question is that can't every film be put into a dual genre category? Maybe not all, but certainly a lot of them. Where would we draw the line?

I think it is a good idea. Haven't we run into this same discussion in all the previous polls? Let's try and settle it here once and for all. Maybe, if we all make our arguments some rules will come of it for the future, I'm game to try.

[mae]

So this thread has meandered for a good while, but I suggest we take some time off now that this latest tournament is done and come back with some ideas on what our next tournament might be. I'm up for anything, be it another genre, a person- or decade- or year-based tournament, or something different altogether. I think someone previously said they wanted to run the Best Action tournament, and at a future point in time I'd love to run a Best Animated Film tournament. (Maybe have a poll as to what to have a tournament about? :tongue:)

[Girlystevedave]

I would love it if we eventually did a Best Animated Film Tournament. :thumbsup:

[Girlystevedave]

Wait, Pablo. Should we do a poll over whether or not we should do a poll? :P

[fernandito]

Switching gears a bit... what about a Best TV Drama tournament!?

:o

[T-Dogz_AK47]

Switching gears a bit... what about a Best TV Drama tournament!?

:o

The problem with TV is that not everyone here has access to the same shows. There are many US TV Dramas I have never seen because of limited access to what is available here in the UK, and likewise I expect there are many British TV Dramas that members in the US have never even heard of, let alone seen.

For instance if I was to nominate the British TV Drama, Z Cars would anyone here outside of the UK know what that is?

I do however, like the idea of having DRAMA movies as our next tournament though. A lot of films in the comedy tournament were rather low brow, so moving onto Drama, especially those within the foreign art house medium will allow some really poignant and classic films to be discussed and debated upon.

A Drama tournament could have films from Directors such as:

Chantal Akerman
Robert Altman
Darren Aronofsky
Ingmar Bergman
Bernardo Bertolucci
Luc Besson
Claude Chabrol
Carl Theodor Dreyer
Sergei Eisenstein
Rainer Werner Fassbinder
Federico Fellini
Jean-Luc Godard
Alfred Hitchcock
Akira Kurosawa
Ang Lee
Terrence Malick
Martin Scorsese
Andrei Tarkovsky
François Truffaut
Zhang Yimou

[Merlin1958]

Switching gears a bit... what about a Best TV Drama tournament!?

:o

The problem with TV is that not everyone here has access to the same shows. There are many US TV Dramas I have never seen because of limited access to what is available here in the UK, and likewise I expect there are many British TV Dramas that members in the US have never even heard of, let alone seen.

For instance if I was to nominate the British TV Drama, Z Cars would anyone here outside of the UK know what that is?

I do however, like the idea of having DRAMA movies as our next tournament though. A lot of films in the comedy tournament were rather low brow, so moving onto Drama, especially those within the foreign art house medium will allow some really poignant and classic films to be discussed and debated upon.

A Drama tournament could have films from Directors such as:

Chantal Akerman
Robert Altman
Darren Aronofsky
Ingmar Bergman
Bernardo Bertolucci
Luc Besson
Claude Chabrol
Carl Theodor Dreyer
Sergei Eisenstein
Rainer Werner Fassbinder
Federico Fellini
Jean-Luc Godard
Alfred Hitchcock
Akira Kurosawa
Ang Lee
Terrence Malick
Martin Scorsese
Andrei Tarkovsky
François Truffaut
Zhang Yimou

Just a suggestion, but maybe you have a poll for the top five (10?) Directors all time and then another to determine their top five films of all time out of ten submissions? It would take a while, but maybe that's a good thing? At least you eliminate all the squabbling regarding what is and what isn't genre specific. Though I suppose you open another can of worms all together. Might be fun anyway. Theoretically it will cross genre rather nicely I would think.

[Still Servant]

Best movie quotes.

[T-Dogz_AK47]

Best movie quotes.

"One thing's sure: Inspector Clay is dead — murdered — and somebody's responsible!" - Plan 9 from Outer Space (1957).

[Odetta]

Best Superhero movie

[Girlystevedave]

:thumbsup:

[Ricky]

Kind of different, but what about a best movie poster tournament? We could even do it as a mini/side tournament if there wasn't as much interest.

[fernandito]

Best movie quotes.


Kind of different, but what about a best movie poster tournament? We could even do it as a mini/side tournament if there wasn't as much interest.

I love both of these ideas.

[webstar1000]

Best movie quotes.


Kind of different, but what about a best movie poster tournament? We could even do it as a mini/side tournament if there wasn't as much interest.

I love both of these ideas.

The quotes I do for sure. What about best action scene?

[mae]

So with our last big tournament ending in June, I feel like it's about time for another. What do you all say? There have been lots of suggestions on what to do next, so maybe we can settle on some ideas and move forward with that.

[fernandito]

On FB Matt, Mike and myself were kicking around the idea of a Greatest Movie Scene of all Time tournament.

It would be sheer chaos obviously, but extremely entertaining chaos. :lol:

[T-Dogz_AK47]

IMHO I thought the last few tournaments contained far too many "high concept" films....

Therefore, I still believe that a best ARTHOUSE DRAMA tournament would evoke more meaningful, thought provoking discussion - and the kind of discussion that make these tournaments so enjoyable in the first place!

[Still Servant]

On FB Matt, Mike and myself were kicking around the idea of a Greatest Movie Scene of all Time tournament.

It would be sheer chaos obviously, but extremely entertaining chaos. :lol:

Ah, yes. I remember that. Actually, I started putting together a short-list of scenes, but I don't know what I did with it. :pullhair:

Honestly, I'm cool with any tournament. I loves me some tourneys.

[webstar1000]

Greatest Movie Scene??????????????????? LOVE IT! I AM IN!

[Merlin1958]

Greatest Movie Scene??????????????????? LOVE IT! I AM IN!

That's cool. Maybe boil it down even further to best movie "line"?


Eg. "Frankly, my dear I don't give a damn" etc.

[mae]

Now that our gigantic music tournament is over and our last film-related tournament long in the rear-view mirror, let's revive this discussion and see if we can't have another movie tournament soon. I won't be running it but I know some other peeps who might! Would love to sit back and just be a participant this time :redface:

[Tommy]

Greatest Movie Villains.

[webstar1000]

Greatest Movie Villains.

GREAT ONE! I think the one mentioned that I felt most passionate about thus far was BEST MOVIE SCENE... could be love, action, comedic... whatever. SO much to choose from.

[T-Dogz_AK47]

Greatest Movie Villains.

Emperor Palpatine would win that with ease.... Job done!

[webstar1000]

Greatest Movie Villains.

Emperor Palpatine would win that with ease.... Job done!

Ummmmmm.... Agent Smith, Vader, Terminator, Leger's Joker, Silence of the Lambs Hannibal, shall I go on? haha TOO many I would rate higher than Palpatine! Thats just me though.

[Tommy]

Palpatine would be pretty low on my list as well.

[Mattrick]

Let me run the tournament. It won't be super insane like Pablos. Will probably be over in weeks. I did bring forth the original tournament lol. I'm not doing the traditional format though. That stuff takes way too damn long.

[fernandito]

Greatest Troll of All Time.

1st place : Mattrick
2nd place: Mattrick



3rd place: pornbot

[Mattrick]

http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/173/012/1cf.png

I just don't want to the forum to be overrun with poll after poll after poll. One thread is all we'll need...well two, one for the nominations and another for the tournament itself.

[mae]

Where would the polls be? That's the most fun part! Watching those lines and percentages.

[Mattrick]

www.brackify.com

[mae]

I guess I'm just too old school. I like poll threads :cry:

[Jean]

I guess I'm just too old school. I like poll threads :cry:so do bears! The tournament was totally great, and I only wish I had taken part more consistently, and started earlier!

Mattrick, I would gladly participate in any kind of game, anyway

[Mattrick]

I like poll threads too, but when you need 40 of them, it clogs up the forum if it doesn't get it's own. Also you need to make them up, keep a separate database of numbers and entries. Brackify just streamlines it all like march madness. Easy to vote. Rounds last a certain amount of time. Only real difference is that it is sudden death, one on one, so no top 4 advance or anything like that.

I think doing polls to decide on final nominations is one thing, or even the round robin.

At the very least, brackify will be great for more specialised tournaments, like best villain. No reason we can't save our traditional formula for big tournaments.

[Still Servant]

Now that our gigantic music tournament is over and our last film-related tournament long in the rear-view mirror, let's revive this discussion and see if we can't have another movie tournament soon. I won't be running it but I know some other peeps who might! Would love to sit back and just be a participant this time :redface:

Is there a place where I can see which songs won for each decade?

Also, unless I'm missing something, how the fuck did Kiss From a Rose go so far in the 90's?

Who knocked out Smells Like Teen Spirit?

[mae]

Right here: http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?19507-The-Great-Music-Tournament-Overall-Event-Overview&p=1039042&viewfull=1#post1039042

[Still Servant]

Right here: http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?19507-The-Great-Music-Tournament-Overall-Event-Overview&p=1039042&viewfull=1#post1039042

Thanks, Pablo! I edited my post above with two more questions.

Also, I didn't participate much, but you did a great job with that tournament.

[Merlin1958]

Give, Matts a shot!!!!

[Mattrick]

Are we going to do a greatest villain tournament? If so, We'll take a few weeks off from tournaments and I'll start up the nominations in March. I'll be out of town for about ten days next week so it will have to wait until then.

[ladysai]

So, is it Greatest Villan for the next tournament?
Speak up denizens of tdt.org!

I say ok.

[Tommy]

How about we get at least five people to second the idea of a Greatest Villain Tournament? Just a suggestion.

[Tommy]

So, is it Greatest Villan for the next tournament?
Speak up denizens of tdt.org!

I say ok.

There's one!

[mae]

Reading over the thread from the beginning, there have been some good suggestions for various tournaments we could have. I'm down for whatever, I just hope it's not off-site, since we know we will have our archives here for future generations, but who knows about a random third-party site? That said, my preference would be for another genre or type of film. Some good suggestions in the past were: drama, action, animated, western, musical... I noted previously, we could do a specific amount of different types of films (having already done horror, sci-fi, and comedy), and them pit the winners against one another. That could be fun.

The villain tournament could be fun as well, but interestingly enough Collider Movie Talk crew has just started that same tournament: https://twitter.com/ColliderVideo/status/829395495399198720

[Mattrick]

I'm up for the villains. I don't want to spend a genre tournament on brackify if it doesn't work out well in everyone's opinion, we can use the traditional format for it for the genres. Nothing stopping us from doing 'fun' tournaments this way.

[needfulthings]

:evil:
http://imageshack.com/a/img924/896/u8QuQG.jpg
http://imageshack.com/a/img924/4940/upkgUT.jpg

[T-Dogz_AK47]

I vote for Best Second Unit Boom Operator.

[fernandito]

I vote for Best Second Unit Boom Operator.

lmao.

[Still Servant]

Meh.

We know that Darth Vader will at least be in the final four, more than likely he will be the winner. Seems like a fairly predictable end to the tournament.

[Tommy]

Maybe but what would the final 4 be? Or the final 10? Could be fun either way but questions abound. Would villains be a nomination per film or as overall villains? Would Vader only be a nomination for IV or for the whole series? Would Dracula as a character be counted for individual films or as an overall villain? Godzilla, Pinhead, Krueger etc.?

[Still Servant]

Maybe but what would the final 4 be? Or the final 10? Could be fun either way but questions abound. Would villains be a nomination per film or as overall villains? Would Vader only be a nomination for IV or for the whole series? Would Dracula as a character be counted for individual films or as an overall villain? Godzilla, Pinhead, Krueger etc.?

Don't get me wrong, it would be fun leading up to that. I just think it might end up being anticlimactic.

[Tommy]

Maybe but what would the final 4 be? Or the final 10? Could be fun either way but questions abound. Would villains be a nomination per film or as overall villains? Would Vader only be a nomination for IV or for the whole series? Would Dracula as a character be counted for individual films or as an overall villain? Godzilla, Pinhead, Krueger etc.?

Don't get me wrong, it would be fun leading up to that. I just think it might end up being anticlimactic.

Story of my life. :doh:

[Tommy]

What would also be cool are all the pics Bruce could share along the way. :excited::evil::clap::rock:

[Mattrick]

I find most of these tournaments go down fairly predictable routes until the final couple of rounds anyways, with popularity always carrying things through very far.

I didn't follow the greatest song tournament since I missed out on most of the nominating process, but it would surprise me to see a Beatles song having won it, Hotel California or Comfortably Numb. I just remember being disappointed no one nominated any Bob Dylan or any Guess Who :'(

EDIT - Just looked, and Hotel California tied for first I guess? I'm not surprised.

[pathoftheturtle]

I think I can help if I can control my own impatience. Something cross-genre like a Best Villain contest sounds great to me because, even when what you are "creating" is just lists of other people's movies, nobody wants to spend a lot of time simply painting by numbers. However, the partial dissatisfaction which some of us feel about some parts of the methods in past voting is a separate matter. Too many changes at once might make the already difficult task of democratic course correction absolutely overwhelming. Not that another massive class of film like comedy would be simpler. It is reassuring that we are talking about a briefer round next since it's experimental; perhaps one of the less exciting, narrower genres would actually be wise this time. I don't see any better idea right now than Mattrick's plan, but the point pablo brought up about record-keeping makes sense. I notice at times not everyone remembers all of our already vast archives the same way as it is. I can volunteer to compile history. If we use offsite resources, all of it should be reported here. Experience also tells me that the would-be secretary will face a real can of worms in cases of real-time nominating, besides that type of first come/first served process being hard to keep up with for participants. We should think about rules for an open review phase to any deadlines we set up before the results can officially count, for the sake of both fairness and clarity.

[Merlin1958]

The only tournament I( want to hear about is the NCAA Men's basketball one!!!!!!! March Madness is nigh upon us!!!!!

[Mattrick]

One thing I'll be doing is more regulating the nomination process a little more. I can't remember which tournament it was...I think it was comedy or sci-fi but couldn't find the post in search, but during one of the nominations processes, I tabulated how many nominations per person, and how many seconds and these were the results (it was actually this thread lol) http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?18756-About-a-potential-next-tournament&p=910857&viewfull=1#post910857

The actual list I put down in the post seems to have vanished, but the heart of the data still remains.

I am thinking a cap of nominations, a cap of seconds, maybe introducing thirds and some measure to slow down the process. The comedy tournament was over and done with in four days, which is just too short. I have the worst luck personally with these tournaments as nominations always seem to happen when I'm not on the site, and then I've missed.

Whatever tournament we decide to do, nominations will Begin March 3rd. So everyone mark that date on your calendars or your brain.

If we're doing villains, I don't think we'll need to go higher than a 64 entry tournament. If we think we can nominate 128 villains, then we can do a bigger, multi-layered tournament. That, or we'll do an even number...80 or 90 or 100, and we'll do some polls to see who makes it to the elimination bracket. We've got three weeks to figure it out! I personally like the idea of doing polls to lead up to the bracket. It'll work straight up votes. The lowest X number of votes don't advance.

Brackify relies on a seeding system, but I won't be seeding films, as that just helps bigger/more popular titles advance. It will all be randomised. The two most popular villains could potentially meet in round one and there can only be one!

[needfulthings]

"There Can Only Be One"
http://imageshack.com/a/img922/742/v0Y6xe.jpg

[Merlin1958]

"There Can Only Be One"
http://imageshack.com/a/img922/742/v0Y6xe.jpg

That's right, Bruce!!! I'm thinking "Duke" again!!! lol lol

[Still Servant]

One thing I'll be doing is more regulating the nomination process a little more. I can't remember which tournament it was...I think it was comedy or sci-fi but couldn't find the post in search, but during one of the nominations processes, I tabulated how many nominations per person, and how many seconds and these were the results (it was actually this thread lol) http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/showthread.php?18756-About-a-potential-next-tournament&p=910857&viewfull=1#post910857

The actual list I put down in the post seems to have vanished, but the heart of the data still remains.

I am thinking a cap of nominations, a cap of seconds, maybe introducing thirds and some measure to slow down the process. The comedy tournament was over and done with in four days, which is just too short. I have the worst luck personally with these tournaments as nominations always seem to happen when I'm not on the site, and then I've missed.

Whatever tournament we decide to do, nominations will Begin March 3rd. So everyone mark that date on your calendars or your brain.

If we're doing villains, I don't think we'll need to go higher than a 64 entry tournament. If we think we can nominate 128 villains, then we can do a bigger, multi-layered tournament. That, or we'll do an even number...80 or 90 or 100, and we'll do some polls to see who makes it to the elimination bracket. We've got three weeks to figure it out! I personally like the idea of doing polls to lead up to the bracket. It'll work straight up votes. The lowest X number of votes don't advance.

Brackify relies on a seeding system, but I won't be seeding films, as that just helps bigger/more popular titles advance. It will all be randomised. The two most popular villains could potentially meet in round one and there can only be one!

I agree. The nominating process can sometimes get chaotic and confusing. I've mentioned it before, but I think people should submit a list of their top villains. If a villain appears on 3 (or whatever number we decide) lists, they're automatically in.

Obviously, we aren't going to make a list of 128. The remaining will have to be decided by some other process. More than likely a nominating component.

[Heather19]

I'm good with whatever everyone wants to do. And I agree the nomination phase needs to be reworked. We could cap it at so many noms, or we could give people a week to put together a list of their top 20 or whatever number, and whoever is on it the most gets in?

[mae]

How about we do a new TV tournament instead of another movie one? We did The Best TV Series of All Time six years ago: http://www.thedarktower.org/palaver/forumdisplay.php?222-The-Best-TV-Series-of-All-Time But I was just thinking it would be interesting to do a Best TV Series Since 2000. Looking over that initial TV tournament now, I feel it was a tad restrictive even though the outcome itself turned our really well, I think (The Twilight Zone is the best TV series of all time). This time we would only nominate shows that premiered in the 21st century, with the dawn of "Peak TV" heralded by The Sopranos in 1999. Back then, of course, we had no Netflix, Amazon, or Hulu series competing, so this will be very different. We can follow the same model used for the comedy film tournament with 200 seconded nominations, giving us about 12 show per year.