Post by Jeremy King on Jun 30, 2016 9:39:55 GMT
Good morning folks.
Thank you for voting. Every single one of you had your say, which is brilliant because it means that there can be no contention over the result.
71% voted to KEEP the current system
29% voted to CHANGE to the new proposed system.
As far as I'm concerned, that's an overwhelming majority. You guys have spoken, the judging system remains as it is.
To those 29% who wanted to see it change, all I could advise is that you look at creative ways to deliver your arguments in the second piece, don't do a second piece, or divide your arguments between the two pieces by finding other points beyond the attribute system.
E.G - your first piece has argument that focuses on the attributes and strengths/weaknesses, etc. Then your second piece focuses on other elements for argument, such as social timeline comments, press conference comments, past match roleplay comments, match records (as we advance that becomes easier), match preferences, personality traits, etc.
The example given there may sound challenging but there's one or two people in this fed who have been with me since the IWA days who successfully manage this every single week. It's not actually difficult to do, in my opinion - but as I set the rules, maybe I'm biased. If your arguments tend to only rely on one element (I.E attributes) then repetition is bound to happen. The solution is to broaden your horizons, as the vote - for me - is overwhelming enough not to look at proposing a more compelling case for a change and voting again.
Thanks for participating guys.
Thank you for voting. Every single one of you had your say, which is brilliant because it means that there can be no contention over the result.
71% voted to KEEP the current system
29% voted to CHANGE to the new proposed system.
As far as I'm concerned, that's an overwhelming majority. You guys have spoken, the judging system remains as it is.
To those 29% who wanted to see it change, all I could advise is that you look at creative ways to deliver your arguments in the second piece, don't do a second piece, or divide your arguments between the two pieces by finding other points beyond the attribute system.
E.G - your first piece has argument that focuses on the attributes and strengths/weaknesses, etc. Then your second piece focuses on other elements for argument, such as social timeline comments, press conference comments, past match roleplay comments, match records (as we advance that becomes easier), match preferences, personality traits, etc.
The example given there may sound challenging but there's one or two people in this fed who have been with me since the IWA days who successfully manage this every single week. It's not actually difficult to do, in my opinion - but as I set the rules, maybe I'm biased. If your arguments tend to only rely on one element (I.E attributes) then repetition is bound to happen. The solution is to broaden your horizons, as the vote - for me - is overwhelming enough not to look at proposing a more compelling case for a change and voting again.
Thanks for participating guys.
