I was poking through the Gruefood, and it occurred to me that it's been about two years since the original Gruefood Revival Project™, wherein rejected movies were given a second chance at publication. I think I remember someone proposing to do it on an annual or semi-annual basis, and as I mentioned it's been two years, so I figured I'd put the idea out there to remind our good userbase about it.
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
I did suggest that when it originally got brought up, but I haven't been active enough lately to know if there are any grues that truly deserve a chance at being regurgitated.
I think that the original idea with the revival project was that it was felt that some runs were unjustly rejected in the first years because we were still establishing proper judging guidelines and the judging was a bit cowboyish and sometimes too rushed. Since the judging process has been a lot more defined and "stable" in later years, there's probably not going to be many rejected runs in the past couple of years that were so for unjust reasons.
Of course this is a good opportunity for someone to bring up their opinion if they think a specific run has been rejected for unjust reasons. If someone can provide good arguments for re-judging a specific run, it could be evaluated again.
Joined: 10/27/2004
Posts: 1978
Location: Making an escape
What about runs that were cancelled, and for whatever reason stand little to no chance of seeing the light of day again? The Willow run deserved publication, but certain things prevented that from ever happening.
A hundred years from now, they will gaze upon my work and marvel at my skills but never know my name. And that will be good enough for me.
What about runs that were cancelled, and for whatever reason stand little to no chance of seeing the light of day again? The Willow run deserved publication, but certain things prevented that from ever happening.
That would depend on why it was canceled. If the author doesn't want it published, then it won't be.
I think that the original idea with the revival project was that it was felt that some runs were unjustly rejected.
I don't think the rejections were 'unjust'. As I mentioned here, the site was undergoing a reduction in the required caliber of TAS to get published.
Otherwise, I agree with you.
Ferret Warlord wrote:
What about runs that were cancelled, and for whatever reason stand little to no chance of seeing the light of day again? The Willow run deserved publication, but certain things prevented that from ever happening.
That run was canceled by the author, and now falls under the "Non-acceptance of movies by banned authors," so that won't see the light of day.
Sage advice from a friend of Jim: So put your tinfoil hat back in the closet, open your eyes to the truth, and realize that the government is in fact causing austismal cancer with it's 9/11 fluoride vaccinations of your water supply.
I think there should be a way to appeal a decision, that's all. Judging shouldn't be set in stone; perhaps it isn't, but I always was under that impression. Also, I find it frustrating when there are runs that clearly break the records here made by authors that refuse to submit. I wish there was some way to direct the user to this improvement without violating the author's rights.
Well, that depends solely on the rights they claim. For one, we attribute every run properly and don't make any profit off of them. Those are commonly the most important.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Joined: 8/26/2006
Posts: 1139
Location: United Kingdom
If my memory serves, one of the reasons for returning some submissions to the workbench was in response to some users losing faith in the judging process. As the present system relies on the goodwill of the TASing community taking steps to remedy such feelings is desirable.
Do any of you still feel this way?
If some users genuinely feel as if a decision has been unfair then it is good practice to investigate, however ungruing may not necessarily be the best means of doing so. Perhaps allowing an author, or user, to refer questionable decisions to DarkKobold (as senior judge) would be a less arbitrary way of doing this, rather than allowing a small window of opportunity every ~2 years (though I guess that this is already theoretically the case, but I question how many users feel encouraged to do this).
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3573)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4754
Location: Tennessee
Mukki wrote:
Perhaps allowing an author, or user, to refer questionable decisions to DarkKobold (as senior judge) would be a less arbitrary way of doing this, rather than allowing a small window of opportunity every ~2 years (though I guess that this is already theoretically the case, but I question how many users feel encouraged to do this).
That was a large reason for having such a role. That and to resolve potential clashes between judges. Which I was concerned about when adding so many new judges when we traditionally only had 1-2 active. Interestingly enough we haven't had a single judge clash.
