|
In 2008, when the contest began, they were able to select 32 people who they felt had the necessary understanding of the rules and the creativity to be able to write for Paizo in the future. And, if you look at the top 4, they were right. Christine Schneider wrote a great module, Jason Nelson freelances regularly for Paizo, Rob McCreary is a developer, and Clinton Boomer has a ton of freelance credits of his own (especially with Rite Publishing). Look at year two. Neil is judging this competition, after all. I won't list every contestant who went on to write for Paizo, but it's obvious that the judges have been pretty spot-on in finding talent.
They most certainly were Seth.
This, of all rounds, is the one where talent, coolness factor, subjectivity by the judges, and following the rules, are most important to the submitter. There are four judges that your item must get past, and not one single paizo subscriber has a vote to "help you out".
American Idol is the perfect show to compare to, as the judges have turned away many who were "good" singers, but did not have the mojo factor or the presence on stage to impress them enough to allow them to pass.
Our submissions are the same. Many of us should thank the gods that we are not made to present our submissions in person. How many more of us would be turned away because we were argumentitive, stubborn, abrassive, or just plain stupid in our presentations?
Good luck Seth, and I hope there are many more great tales of success in this years submissions.
I disagree that singing isn't what American Idol is about. Appearance and presentation is part of the American Idol competition, but you can't actually believe that "ability to sing well" isn't a critical part of the competition.
I think this sums up the cause of my initial misunderstanding pretty well and convinces me I was wrong. There is probably nothing that could be added to the rules that would have avoided it.
Someone who watches American Idol and sees a talent competition where great singers are then differentiated by mojo or popularity or style or whatever to determine the winners is probably incapable of conveying what talent means to those that don’t. There is simply such a fundamental different idea of what is compelling that only seeing what they mean in practice will make me get it.
Will I win next year? I can hope, but probably not statically speaking. At least I won’t be one of the entries that makes the judges surprised (again :P) that I thought a useful, desirable entry that didn’t break any of the “auto reject” guidelines had a good chance. Or say, a better chance than something that didn’t, but had a lot of flash and moving parts. That’s the learning process.
I want to give the judges what they want. You are the experts. I have no issues with your judgments being superior to mine or losing or any of that. Only trying (and failing it seems) to convey that for some, well me anyway, it wasn’t about ignoring the rules and tips. It was about misunderstanding what the contest was really about despite genuinely wanting to.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Completely off topic-
I would just like to applaud Ross Byers on his use of the word "rubric". Not something I see in print very often :)
"No Ruprecht... She is not our mother."
"Ruprick leave the cork on the fork."
May I take your trident, sir?
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
,
Star Voter Season 6, Dedicated Voter Season 7, Dedicated Voter Season 8
aka WalterGM
|
You've all overlooked what's important in this thread...
As a guy who can sing decently, but not well enough to be a professional...
I'd like to request a youtube video verifying this :P
As a guy who can sing decently, but not well enough to be a professional...I'd like to request a youtube video verifying this :P
I second this.
I second this.As a guy who can sing decently, but not well enough to be a professional...I'd like to request a youtube video verifying this :P
Doesn't have to be Utube. Intro to the next podcast would do :P