Welcome to the
ABC4 (J)
Voting Thread


Voting deadline for ABC4(J) is midnight (amiright time)     Wednesday January 9th
No votes date-stamped after the voting deadline will be accepted - no exceptions


Vote by replying to this thread with your five favorites in order:

1st choice........5 points
2nd place.........4 points
3rd place..........3 points
4th place..........2 points
5th place..........1 point

or in algebraic terms, p = 6 - r     (p=points, r=rank)



RULES
- Any parody beginning with the current letter is eligible, except parodies that have been entered into ABC1 or ABC2 or ABC3
- You're not allowed to vote for your own parody
- Once you've posted a vote, you're not allowed to change it
- Anyone who's participated in any previous ABC contest may vote
- Any entrant who hasn't left a comment on all entries is disqualified and may not participate in the next letter
- Any entrant who doesn't vote by the voting deadline (above) is disqualified and may not participate in the next letter



ALSO
Under no circumstances will a vote that missed the voting deadline be accepted (even by 1 second)
However the resulting disqualification from entry to the next ABC4 comp may be over-ruled, if you do the following...

   1.  Post an "appeal" on this thread giving your excuse for missing the deadline, and plead for mercy
   2.  If your plea wins the sympathy of 3 other entrants your disqualification from the next round will be overturned
        Your late votes will still not count though 
        (if less than 4 entrants in the comp, only 2 sympathetic "Thumbs Ups" are required)


and the entries are.........



1.  Agrimorfee
JamesKurtJoyceCobain #2: Stephen Dedalus
          youtube here


2.  Doritos
John Doe Who?
          youtube here



3.  Red Ant
Just A Little Freak, Nympho Streak
          youtube here



4.  conqueror_of_parodies
Jestin'
          youtube here



5.  Below Average Dave
Jock Itch
          Dave's recording here



6.  Invisible Boy
Just the Two Of Them
         


7.  Matthias
Just Another Day In A Campsite
          youtube here

I know this kinda goes without saying, but I'm presuming we'll be voting for a top 4 this round?

I know this kinda goes without saying, but I'm presuming we'll be voting for a top 4 this round?


yes, good point bobpie, and the voting is 5,4,3,2 - so entrants for smaller rounds aren't disadvantaged in the larger ABC Tournament

:)

Are we following the Below Average Dave rule, and if I can sneak in a "J" song in the next few days can I enter?

Are we following the Below Average Dave rule, and if I can sneak in a "J" song in the next few days can I enter?


Inivisble Boy just asked the same thing at the Entry Thread. What gives?  ???

(sigh) do we let 'em in, folks? I have don't have a personal thing against it, but this could set a dangerous precedent.

I like the Below Average Dave rule myself. . .I mean. . .why not if no one has voted, it's done very well in Artistry and Decathlon2.

I think Stu let in one of Kristof's after the entry deadline passed, so I don't see a problem with it. Bigger contests are a good thing. Occasionally the voting deadlines are extended as well. It's Stu's call though.

Regardless the ruling, no entries should be accepted after the first vote is cast. Not to be a peen, but I plan on voting today or tomorrow as I'll be out of town all next week.

Ant

I think Stu let in one of Kristof's after the entry deadline passed, so I don't see a problem with it. Bigger contests are a good thing. Occasionally the voting deadlines are extended as well. It's Stu's call though.

Regardless the ruling, no entries should be accepted after the first vote is cast. Not to be a peen, but I plan on voting today or tomorrow as I'll be out of town all next week.

Ant


I'm in Dec 31, but out Jan 1. I can wait until the 2nd.

hmm, as Newman would say, quite the conundrum......... :-\\

Le Ant Rouge is encyclopaedic in his back-knowledge of amiright contest history, so if I've let Kristof in late before, I must do it again (which one was that, Jack?)

also, I've always been impressed with Dave's solution about allowing entries until the first votes roll in, because those votes are a time-stamped event, so submissions are clearly either before or after that event - no subjective decision to make on my part

so that's what I'll do, although obviously I'd like to register a super-charged  >:( - because as Aggy said, this creates a precedent (or confirms one at least) and I'd hate to see late submissions becoming a trend

anyway, I''l add those two entries, and the voting obviously goes back to 5,4,3,2,1

And having okayed them, anybody who votes in the minutes before I get them added onto the list will have to re-vote

phew :)

I just realised Matthias didn't post his entry, so if you want to enter it Matty, get it in soon, as there are some early voters about to roll, and after the first one votes, it'll be too late

Le Ant Rouge is encyclopaedic in his back-knowledge of amiright contest history, so if I've let Kristof in late before, I must do it again (which one was that, Jack?)

For a minute I thought I was going crazy. Anyway, here it is:

http://www.inthe00s.com/index.php?topic=29307.msg1442032#msg1442032

I can wait until Monday to vote.

I can see entries being late this round (and the DQs last round) due to the holidays. I too don't want to see late entries become a trend: 2 weeks is plenty of time to get in an entry.

As has happened once or twice before (and I can't remember what competitions), late entrants wound up getting DQed by not voting in time. Not that I think it'll happen here, but let's say this is something you (whomever "you" may be) seriously want to avoid.

Le Ant

So is this a permanent thing or is it just for this round. I would like to have it be a permanent thing, because I find that technique to be pretty easy on the parodists, and contest members, because bigger contests are usually a better thing (unless the people who enter don't like your parody, or their parody is spectacular).
So anyways...

Permanent or Temporary?

Either way here is my entry: http://www.amiright.com/parody/90s/philvassar2.shtml

The Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yakW10rgKX0

I say we put it up for vote as a permanent rule suggestion, that way we people have a chance to vote yay or nay when they vote, since no one objected to it this time, it's ok, but I think that as a permanent rule change--per Stu's contest rules--it should go to vote. . .and I will be voting enthusiastically yes since I now have that rule in all contests I'm part of.

I vote "Yes"

I vote "No" - so this is not a simple "everyone agrees" alteration.  I'll put it to the vote during the up-coming L-round.

The reasons I'm against it are...

I'm sometimes away from the site for 2-3 days.  If I post the voting thread, then somebody decides they want to be in the comp AFTER I've posted it (which the new rule would allow) and I don't see that decision of theirs for 3 days, during which time some votes have come in, do I then have to contact all the voters and say "sorry, your votes are disqualified because I didn't notice that someone (let's call him Poomaster) had added an entry after closing-time?  So please wait while I update the Voting Thread, then we all have to start again, guys. 

Because to avoid this, it would mean I would have to constantly check the threads, just to do the right thing by a johnny-come-lately, who may just be acting on a whim, until he first votes come in, which might take up to 12-13 days going by some of the comps.

Seems to me it's working fine as it is, and there have been nearly 100 ABC comps so far, without issue.  Currently the deadline for voting is the same as the deadline for the next comp entry, so it's pretty intuitive.

So I would definitely rather keep it as it is, and have the johnny-come-latelys PM or request me for their entry to be added, which I would agree to of course, but only if I see the request in time, before the first votes are in.

- the difference being that it is then a request by the latecomer for consideration (acknowledging their oversight), and not a demand for inclusion, which this proposed new rule would entitle them to do.

Stu's got a point. I suppose I'm against it as a permanent rule since it's pathetically easy to enter a contest. Go to your author page, find an eligible entry, copy the URL, paste it in the entry thread and hit post. This might take five minutes tops, and 4:53 of that would be deciding which parody to enter.

I know we are all busy, but if someone can't find 5 minutes in a two week span to do this, then that person probably should sit out a round to take care of the more pressing issues.

I would be begrudgingly for a rule that, by request, an author can enter a contest past the entry deadline, with the stipulation that no one has to hold off voting or wait for them - once the first vote is cast, the entry thread is closed to new entries.

Reason being is that while it hasn't happened to me yet, I don't want to eat a DQ if I comment early on all entries and take some time away from that contest, come back and vote, only to find a new entry that I "missed". 

I'm also against it because the same reasoning could be used to push for acceptance of late votes, i.e. "Well, Stu didn't tally the votes yet, and I was only x minutes late, so my vote should count"

There are a few other options though:


I'm sometimes away from the site for 2-3 days.  If I post the voting thread, then somebody decides they want to be in the comp AFTER I've posted it (which the new rule would allow) and I don't see that decision of theirs for 3 days, during which time some votes have come in, do I then have to contact all the voters and say "sorry, your votes are disqualified because I didn't notice that someone (let's call him Poomaster) had added an entry after closing-time?  So please wait while I update the Voting Thread, then we all have to start again, guys. 


There is a precedent for a legit entry not posted on the voting thread. What Claude did (early 2004) was not allow vote changing, but the people who had voted had the option to award the missed entry 1-5 points if they thought it would have made their list.


Because to avoid this, it would mean I would have to constantly check the threads, just to do the right thing by a johnny-come-lately, who may just be acting on a whim, until he first votes come in, which might take up to 12-13 days going by some of the comps.

A solution would be, when you make the voting thread, to lock the entry thread so this doesn't happen. You can lock any topic you start.

Ant

I supposed ABC and SOTM are different from Decathlon and Artistry in this aspect, because those are usually parodies that people have a deadline to write by and extending the date on those isn't really saying all that much, while on SOTM and ABC these are parodies that already have been written and like Red Ant said it only takes 5 minutes tops to submit to this (unless you're really stuck between two choices or your finding a cool picture on Google to add along with it).
This said I change my responce to "No", after hearing what Stuart and Red Ant had to say.

And Stuart, I don't really care if you do or do not post my entry. It's your decision.

Stu's got a point. I suppose I'm against it as a permanent rule since it's pathetically easy to enter a contest. Go to your author page, find an eligible entry, copy the URL, paste it in the entry thread and hit post. This might take five minutes tops, and 4:53 of that would be deciding which parody to enter.

I know we are all busy, but if someone can't find 5 minutes in a two week span to do this, then that person probably should sit out a round to take care of the more pressing issues.

I would be begrudgingly for a rule that, by request, an author can enter a contest past the entry deadline, with the stipulation that no one has to hold off voting or wait for them - once the first vote is cast, the entry thread is closed to new entries.

Reason being is that while it hasn't happened to me yet, I don't want to eat a DQ if I comment early on all entries and take some time away from that contest, come back and vote, only to find a new entry that I "missed". 

I'm also against it because the same reasoning could be used to push for acceptance of late votes, i.e. "Well, Stu didn't tally the votes yet, and I was only x minutes late, so my vote should count"

There are a few other options though:

There is a precedent for a legit entry not posted on the voting thread. What Claude did (early 2004) was not allow vote changing, but the people who had voted had the option to award the missed entry 1-5 points if they thought it would have made their list.

A solution would be, when you make the voting thread, to lock the entry thread so this doesn't happen. You can lock any topic you start.

Ant


Very good points, Jack.  Your points confirm my points, and you're right, it could contagion-spread to allow late voting requests.

As for Claude's solution, I don't think anybody would be happy seeing the 1 vote they thought they'd earned being wiped to allow votes to be awarded to a latecomer, so that would probably get more complaints than doing nothing. 

It's possible that I could just include the late entry, and disallow vote changes, so the latecomer is disadvantaged by missing out on the early voting, but that strikes at the integirty of the comps too, in that a 5 earned from an early voter was easier to get than a 5 awarded when there were more entries to choose from.


I supposed ABC and SOTM are different from Decathlon and Artistry in this aspect, because those are usually parodies that people have a deadline to write by and extending the date on those isn't really saying all that much, while on SOTM and ABC these are parodies that already have been written and like Red Ant said it only takes 5 minutes tops to submit to this (unless you're really stuck between two choices or your finding a cool picture on Google to add along with it).
This said I change my responce to "No", after hearing what Stuart and Red Ant had to say.


Yes, I hadn't thought of that, Matty.  There IS that difference with the SOTMs and the ABCs that makes late entries less forgiveable, given the minute or so that's needed to enter.  As Jack said, if they're too busy to find that minute, they're too busy to be voting anyway.


And Stuart, I don't really care if you do or do not post my entry. It's your decision.


whoops, I clean forgot.  Sorry Matty. I was going to add your entrty on last night after my post but completely forgot.  I'll do it now...
(btw, as I said before, I don't mind doing it - I would just prefer to be asked as a favour (if voting hasn't started of course) than have it demanded of me)

I vote "No" - so this is not a simple "everyone agrees" alteration.  I'll put it to the vote during the up-coming L-round.

The reasons I'm against it are...

I'm sometimes away from the site for 2-3 days.  If I post the voting thread, then somebody decides they want to be in the comp AFTER I've posted it (which the new rule would allow) and I don't see that decision of theirs for 3 days, during which time some votes have come in, do I then have to contact all the voters and say "sorry, your votes are disqualified because I didn't notice that someone (let's call him Poomaster) had added an entry after closing-time?  So please wait while I update the Voting Thread, then we all have to start again, guys. 

Because to avoid this, it would mean I would have to constantly check the threads, just to do the right thing by a johnny-come-lately, who may just be acting on a whim, until he first votes come in, which might take up to 12-13 days going by some of the comps.

Seems to me it's working fine as it is, and there have been nearly 100 ABC comps so far, without issue.  Currently the deadline for voting is the same as the deadline for the next comp entry, so it's pretty intuitive.

So I would definitely rather keep it as it is, and have the johnny-come-latelys PM or request me for their entry to be added, which I would agree to of course, but only if I see the request in time, before the first votes are in.

- the difference being that it is then a request by the latecomer for consideration (acknowledging their oversight), and not a demand for inclusion, which this proposed new rule would entitle them to do.
















I personally (as a solution) suggest what I do, which is still post their entry, but if someone voted without noticing, I do not make anyone revote, that is part of the penalty for being late--but that's just me.

and I remain a "yes" but without the part of the rule that says those who didn't see a parody that was posted late being penalized and forced to revote. . .because while it is uncommon (and I myself have not had to use it in ABC or SOTM), there are times when someone will literally be away from a computer for a full week, and maybe before that week they didn't want to enter, you guys are thinking from a viewpoint of someone who visits the site regularly, but if you are traveling or out of town for extended periods of time, where it is perfectly plausable to say 5 minutes would be impossible (say you were in your family's house who does not have internet access and have not reasonable way to get to the internet. . .

Besides why are we voting now, this will be in the L thread. . .I will draft my official submission of the rule suggestion, which as I apply it does not penalize a person who votes while a late entry is not yet in the voting portion of the thread.  I am yet to have the problems suggested here, and the reason it is important to have a set in stone rule on it one way or another is so that we can't allow favoritism of any kind--otherwise there has to be a hard rule against it. . .

I will draft my official submission of the rule suggestion, which as I apply it does not penalize a person who votes while a late entry is not yet in the voting portion of the thread. 



I know you're keen to get this rule up, Dave, but I have 2 problems with allowing early votes to stand and then allowing a late entry in.

1.  Like I said above, it affects the integrity of the contests if different voters are voting from different fields.  For instance it would be easier to get votes from a traditionally early voter like Aggy than from a late voter like myself who has more parodies to have to choose from

2.  Once you allow late entries in after the votes have started coming in, you have to keep allowing them in, right up to the last day, so a 4-parody field could swell out to 10 parodies by the last day and there would be no integrity in the voting at all.  It opens up a hornets nest.

Also, I agree that if there's a problem it should be fixed, but there is no problem.  It aint broke.  I already have to allow late pre-first-vote entries (if I see the request before the first votes arrive) because I did that once for Kristof, and I've done it twice in this comp.  So I don't see a problem that needs fixing. 

You're basically saying we should turn this privilege into a right - and I disagree, given that it opens up the potential problems I mentioned in my first 2 points.

Anyway, good debate, and as you said, this will all be re-argued when/if you propose the rule change in the L-comp  :)

Yeah. . .and that is a big if. . .because in honesty--it works for me, but this is your competition, and I don't want to try and force a rule change--especially since it doesn't affect my own personal entries (since I have made my intended ABC deadlines without exception). . .I mean--I understand and respect your opinion, and stand by mine, but that's something you and I can do as non-radical and reasonable people--but buddy this is your competition not mine and I have no intention of submitting a rule that you firmly disagree with, I mean, that wouldn't be right especially since I am not a regular to the ABC (though in this particular set I have been) . .my thing is Artistry, if it does ultimately grow in interest, I will vote for it, but I think I will let it slide as if you feel comfortable with the current way, I will not contest it. . .

Very good points, Jack.  Your points confirm my points, and you're right, it could contagion-spread to allow late voting requests.



Thank you.


As for Claude's solution, I don't think anybody would be happy seeing the 1 vote they thought they'd earned being wiped to allow votes to be awarded to a latecomer, so that would probably get more complaints than doing nothing. 


I think I misstated the point. No votes are changed or wiped (they never are, one of the great rules of all contests), rather an additional vote from 1-5 points is allowed. For example:

~~~

My votes for ABC-Hypothetical are:

5 points to Kristof
4 points to Stu
3 points to Rick
2 point to Dave
1 point to Aggy

~~~

Then, after I vote, you realize you left out, say, Guy's entry. So I can add a vote for guy if I thought his parody would have made my list:

~~~

"Guy's parody was really good and I think about even with Rick's, so I give guy 3 points".

~~

My final points/vote would look like this:

5 points to Kristof
4 points to Stu
3 points to Rick
3 points to Guy
2 point to Dave
1 point to Aggy

~~

It's not perfect, but if you ever accidentally omit an entry from the voting thread and someone votes before you catch the error, there is a solution for it that doesn't require revoting or changing votes.

Ant

All of this headache is one of the reasons why I don't host contests... 8-P :)


5pts=B.A.D.
4pts=Doritos
3pts=Conqueror
2pts=Matthias
1pt=Invisible Boy

5 Points        conqueror_of_parodies 53rd card in the deck
4 Points        Agri's Ulyssesis Analysis
3 Points        IB's Little Boys
2 Points        Matthias' Campede
1 Point          BAD's Jock-irreg-ularity

Honorable Mention  Red Ant's Nympatic Event

5 Points: Guy Doe
4 Points: Dave's Crotch (Horrible topic, but it was one of the most worked on parodies in this round)
3 Points: Red Ant's Slut
2 Points: Invisible Boy's Crotch-less
1 Point: Agrimorfee (It's all greek to me)

5 Points         conqueror_of_parodies 53rd card in the deck


Thanks! Anyways...

1 point to Nympho Ant
2 points to Matthias Goes To Camp
3 points to IB's Little Friends
4 points to John DoRitos
5 points to BAD Itch

5 points to Dave
4 points to Guy
3 points to Matt
2 points to IB
1 point to Aggy

Honorable to T-cop

Ant

HM to Agrimorfee: I think it was written well, but honestly I did get lost quite a bit, but tough OS to target buddy, and I think if I knew more about the topic I probably would have loved it

5th, 1 Point to Guy: The writing and sticking to the rhyme scheme are superb Guy, but on the comedy end it didn't spark much for me, you are a veteran writer--no doubt--but this isn't one of your funnier pieces.

4th, 2 Points to TCOP: An epic write Conqueror, my only problem is the whole grammar sacrifice thing.  You did well with the comedy end and made a good flow to the story, but the grammar distracts from the beauty of your talent. . .keep writing, you are getting better!

3rd, 3 Points to Red Ant: You know, I don't think I'll ever get fully tired of Sexual Oriented parodies as that is a big part of life, but more importantly there was a story to this song and everything from the title to the execution was perfect in a way only Red Ant can pull off.  I must admit this one was a little more repetitive than the Red Ant I'm used to, but it was still very funny

2nd, 4 Points to Invisible Boy: If you had chosen a slightly longer song, you probably could have squeezed far more comedy out of it. . .that said taking a short song on and doing a good job is a huge challenge compared to taking on a "sweet spot" song that tends to hit higher on the comedy end ("Sweet Spot" songs as I call them are between 3 minutes and 4 minutes long, and hold a BPM of 95 to 140--normal speeds)  I applaud you for coming through on that end.  The rhyming was well followed, though you changed it entirely from the OS which is OK--I do tend to look at everything from a recording stand point, where yours would work-especially with the popularity of the song you hit--so you can get away with totally altering the rhyme scheme

1st, 5 BIG Points to Matthias: I HATE THIS OS. . .but you really made it work.  Your grammar was good, your pacing was spot on, your rhyme scheme was identical to the original and it was absolutely hilarious.  Giving you the 5 wasn't even a question on this particular parody, you rocked this round buddy!

5 points to-BAD
4 points to-Doritos
3 points to-Matthias
2 points to-TCOP
1 point to-Red Ant

Agrimorfee-for me to say HM seems kind of trite. Your entry was certainly well done and thoughtful. It was sort of like an orange in a barrel full of apples.

Your entry was certainly well done and thoughtful. It was sort of like an orange in a barrel full of apples.


Nicely said. That describes me to a T.  ;)

Glad you liked it. After thinking about it, for subtle reasons, instead of "orange" I should have used "pomegranate"

The Results of the J Round
*********************************************
1st Below Average Dave with Jock Itch (25 Points)

2nd Guy DiRito with John Doe Who (22 Points)

3rd Matthias with Just Another Day in a Campsite (17 Points)
**********************************************

4th Invisible Boy with 15 Points

5th The Conqueror of Parodies with 12 Points

6th Red Ant with 8 Points

7th Agrimorfee with 6 Points



Congrats to Guy and Matthias, and thank you guys for helping heal Jock Itch.. . good luck in the K Round!!!

Thanks to all who participated in this comp.  Fine job BADave for talking the gold - congrats!  And congrats to Matt for the bronze.  I'm just happy to enter and have fun here.  Taking 2nd is just a bit of unexpected gravy.  Thanks all who found my entry worthy of your votes.  ;)

I didn't expect to podium at all with a parody so old I had to blow dust off of, but that's good for me.

Congrats to Dave and Guy!

Thanks for doing all that work for me, dave :)

and congrats to you!!!  and Guy and Matthias