Quote from Arch-Angel

I've got a question that's kinda half and half with this. Let's say 15 people with the same skill level of KronusFA make and submit an animation all of which are relatively around the same quality, length, etc. All fifteen of these animations place but obviously as the order is determined, some of the entries will be rewarded prize money that does not really equate to the quality animation that you all are getting. I'm sure in this case some of the lower scoring people might be super pissed because it takes quite a lot of time to make something so great to only be rewarded the 15th place prize. How do you think you guys would go about dealing with something like this, assuming this crazy hypothetical could happen?

As far as the whole Praveen00 thing goes, it's just a case of the dude's ego getting ahead of himself. I usually feel like a judge that gives significantly lower scores than the other judges is someone who has seen or dealt a lot more with the things they're judging. Top three is always the dream, but fourth is nothing to get butt mad over lol.

This kind of scenario is highly unlikely but assuming that it really does happen, is there any kind of problem with getting the place you deserve?

Yes, most if not all competitors give their best in the creation of their animations. However, it is inevitable for the entries to be ranked in chronological order during a competition. What then if you receive the 15th place? That just goes to show that there are other people who demonstrated their abilities better, it goes to show that there are actually people who are better than you. Before entering a competition, you should already have that embedded in your head and expect all of the unexpected scenarios such as this. If an entrant cannot acknowledge this fact then as Jeff said, they are better off not entering the competition in the first place. Let's say, fifteen legendary animators take part in a competition. Despite their efforts, the possibility of one of them getting the 15th place is inherently undeniable. An ideal way to confront this situation would be acceptance and as Jeff said, maturity.

Also I might as well share my perspective. I'm a participant of the first two SPAC competition and honestly, I had high hopes for the first one. I didn't know what kind of "parody" to make exactly, so I thought of making a parody of Mario with a humor content based on the culture I grew up in. Truth be told, the definition of "funny" in my place is slightly lewd and somewhat involves deteriorating people due to physical appearances, so there, I animated something with that kind of humor. When I got the results, I was shocked of my rank which was relatively far from what I had expected. A good thing to point out is that because of Terkoiz's explanation, I was able to understand and accept my results. Aside from the rushed quality, it was mostly because of the lewdness and body shaming in my animation that probably resulted in my downfall. As I began to explore the rest of the entries, I then began to understand how the definition of a parody differs from people to people but that basically means that if your taste doesn't match the judges' then you're surely getting a low score. I also understood that there is no certainty in every entry. Unfortunately, that kind of discouraged me since well, I kind of needed the money but I had no reason to not accept the place I really deserve.

I'd like to make a suggestion, can all of the judges send critiques, suggestions and advices like Terkoiz? I mean, knowing their point of view along with the results will really help in making the entrant understand the root cause of his result and will help the entrant think more thoroughly on how to change his strategy if he decides to join the next competition. Since you will be rotating the judges and consistently changing the weights of each category in succeeding competitions, it wouldn't be considered disclosing sensitive information related to the scoring system right? In my opinion, it would give you a better constructive insight and would potentially deter you from arguments such as this.

By reading Jeff's post, I also understood why the scoring system is hidden, it's to provide variety and avoid animations with relatively the same content to avoid the competition from being boring and dying. It also gives everyone an equal footing of successfully getting the first prize. However, hiding the scoring system makes this competition more like a lottery ticket, it gives an impression of certain uncertainty, that despite your skill, you can still fail. It's kind of sad you know, doing your best and not actually getting a higher place due to certain factors you failed to demonstrate (again, due to the hidden score system). It's quite discouraging, especially for those who actually know how this competition works now (like me). I animated the first competition, carrying the thought that the score is based mostly on how smooth the animation flows, it's art and story. I guess I was wrong because certain cultural biases also affect the rating. It makes me think, "if only I knew their definition of funny".

I suggest somewhat giving "tips", you know. Each judge gives a certain tip that serves as a guide on what to actually create, given that it is not sensitive enough to make the animations stale. A broad or general tip would be really helpful, or you could say a "clue" on winning the judge's taste. I know it's somewhat tailoring to the judge's tastes but a simple tip like "Real art comes from you, not from others" may have prevented Praven00 from tracing bitmap art. Now tell me, will that tip actually make most of the entries stale? Of course not, it just gave a clue that tracing might result in your downfall. A lot of things would've been prevented and the results would've been drastically changed with a single tip from each judge while preserving the variety and creativity of each participant.

Most of the suggestions I made are just to counteract the negative consequences of using the hidden score system and anonymous judges. That's because they're basically the biggest factors why these arguments even happen. I don't disagree with them though but we need to at least counteract the consequences of using these. There are also some things I don't understand, if two or more entrants are stuck in a tie, will they receive half of the prize in that place? If 3 participants were to be in a tie, then 1/3 of the prize? If you were to somewhat give equal prizes to each of them, then what will happen to the prizes for the ones at the lower ranks? I just wanted to clarify this if ever this was to happen.