After Action Review, the 2014 UCA thread

[yotsuya]

Oh, by the way, did Janeane Garafalo ever get a nom for anything?

[Generic Eric]

Oh, by the way, did Janeane Garafalo ever get a nom for anything?

She got secondthirded by five of the four members.

[Le Chuck]

Oh, by the way, did Janeane Garafalo ever get a nom for anything?

She got secondthirded by five of the four members.

I'd settle with getting to either of those bases with her. 

[Louis Tully]

.

[ChanceKJ]

Sounds like a veiled request for a shot at the big time.  I nominate ChanceKJ.   

haha! +1 

When you are done with your popcorn...

Mmmm, yes. I'll let you know as soon as I'm done privately working out any beef a couple of people may or may not have with me first.

...that and I actualy want real popcorn right now. Hmmm

[yotsuya]

Oh, by the way, did Janeane Garafalo ever get a nom for anything?

She got secondthirded by five of the four members.

Naughty Naughty!

[Generic Eric]

On the other hand, there should be a gate. Another subforum if you will, that gets opened in the last quarter of the forth quarter where people can submit their details as is done on the wiki, perhaps a parts list, and a build diagram or an exhaustive build log for everyone to see.  Effectively saying, "I would like to be considered for your award show and here is why."

Interesting, Eric. I like the fact that all projects are nominated by members. It's a community award recognizing the work of community members. This quote by Gregg Popovich regarding the 2015 All-Star games reminds me of this. He takes umbrages with self-promotion:

“We got some interesting things in the mail from people who are politicking for their guys. And for everybody who sent me something, I just want them to know it immediately went in the trash can. Such pandering is embarrassing. We got it from several places and it immediately went in the trash can. We make sure we look to see who did not send us humiliating little political packages of propaganda. We cross (those who did) off the list right away.”

Basically, let their play speak for the player. If they deserve to be an all-star, they should be an all-star. Lots of guys having good years don't get in. If the community thinks the player (or in our case, the project) is deserving of accolades, they'll earn it. Self-promoting (and it DOES happen) is, like Pop says, embarrassing.

I dunno, just an observation. 

First of, that is silly.  Tell me what about this isn't self promotion?  The UCA aside, the project announcement forum would disagree with that stance. 

Ok, let me say it this way.  Some people do a less than stellar job of documenting (or in my case completing) their project.  I'd like a kinder, gentler way to persuade folks to submitting fully documented project.  If being part of a competition at the end is what takes them to do it, let that be the thing that gets it done.

[yotsuya]

On the other hand, there should be a gate. Another subforum if you will, that gets opened in the last quarter of the forth quarter where people can submit their details as is done on the wiki, perhaps a parts list, and a build diagram or an exhaustive build log for everyone to see.  Effectively saying, "I would like to be considered for your award show and here is why."

Interesting, Eric. I like the fact that all projects are nominated by members. It's a community award recognizing the work of community members. This quote by Gregg Popovich regarding the 2015 All-Star games reminds me of this. He takes umbrages with self-promotion:

“We got some interesting things in the mail from people who are politicking for their guys. And for everybody who sent me something, I just want them to know it immediately went in the trash can. Such pandering is embarrassing. We got it from several places and it immediately went in the trash can. We make sure we look to see who did not send us humiliating little political packages of propaganda. We cross (those who did) off the list right away.”

Basically, let their play speak for the player. If they deserve to be an all-star, they should be an all-star. Lots of guys having good years don't get in. If the community thinks the player (or in our case, the project) is deserving of accolades, they'll earn it. Self-promoting (and it DOES happen) is, like Pop says, embarrassing.

I dunno, just an observation. 

First of, that is silly.  Tell me what about this isn't self promotion?  The UCA aside, the project announcement forum would disagree with that stance.

The Project Annoucnement forum was suggested as a way to make it easier for people to find projects, not submit yourself to the UCAs. You don't HAVE to submit anything in there to be nominated. It's a nice side result of it (like using MAME to play video games, not just documenting hardware), but that's not why that thread exists.

Ok, let me say it this way.  Some people do a less than stellar job of documenting (or in my case completing) their project.  I'd like a kinder, gentler way to persuade folks to submitting fully documented project.  If being part of a competition at the end is what takes them to do it, let that be the thing that gets it done.

Yeah, sure, but I still agree with Pop on the motivation of saying "HEY, HERE, I'M DONE! NOMINATE ME!". I'm not saying it's wrong, if that's what motivates people, then go for it, I'm saying I find that kind of pandering embarrassing.

[Malenko]

I think a better example are people who nominate themselves for the hall of fame here with fairly crummy projects.

[Vigo]

I think that the best thing about the UCA's is that they are unrequested praise. The minute people open project threads, they are opening the door to receiving praise for their work. Asking to be nominated beyond that, even in the smallest sense would only cheapen the awards. This isn't Instructables, we are not pimping our work out to try to win a 3d printer.

I do think there is a place for an easier channel to see what has been accomplished. I would be all for promoting the wiki and the "I finished my project" threads as good source material for nomination material, but don't think any steps other than completing your project and having a project thread should be required.


I also have been mulling over the nomination thing. My current train of thought is have a limit, but make it expandable. Something like You can 2nd or 3rd as much as you want, but new nominations are limited to 3. For every nomination you make that gets 3rded, you are granted another nomination. In theory, you would be able to have infinite nominations, granted that your prior nominations are confirmed as having merit by at least 2 peers.

[yotsuya]

I think that the best thing about the UCA's is that they are unrequested praise. The minute people open project threads, they are opening the door to receiving praise for their work. Asking to be nominated beyond that, even in the smallest sense would only cheapen the awards. This isn't Instructables, we are not pimping our work out to try to win a 3d printer.

I do think there is a place for an easier channel to see what has been accomplished. I would be all for promoting the wiki and the "I finished my project" threads as good source material for nomination material, but don't think any steps other than completing your project and having a project thread should be required.

I also have been mulling over the nomination thing. My current train of thought is have a limit, but make it expandable. Something like You can 2nd or 3rd as much as you want, but new nominations are limited to 3. For every nomination you make that gets 3rded, you are granted another nomination. In theory, you would be able to have infinite nominations, granted that your prior nominations are confirmed as having merit by at least 2 peers.

[Nephasth]

I also have been mulling over the nomination thing. My current train of thought is have a limit, but make it expandable. Something like You can 2nd or 3rd as much as you want, but new nominations are limited to 3. For every nomination you make that gets 3rded, you are granted another nomination. In theory, you would be able to have infinite nominations, granted that your prior nominations are confirmed as having merit by at least 2 peers.

We're pretty close on this. I think a member should only be able to nominate 1 project per category, but be able to 2nd and 3rd as many other nominations as they want. Gets more people involved in the nomination process...

[Nephasth]

Oh, and PBJ is so full UCA ideas every year, he should be forced to sit on the board at least once.

[Vigo]

@ yot - Yep, we are 100% on the same page. 

I also have been mulling over the nomination thing. My current train of thought is have a limit, but make it expandable. Something like You can 2nd or 3rd as much as you want, but new nominations are limited to 3. For every nomination you make that gets 3rded, you are granted another nomination. In theory, you would be able to have infinite nominations, granted that your prior nominations are confirmed as having merit by at least 2 peers.

We're pretty close on this. I think a member should only be able to nominate 1 project per category, but be able to 2nd and 3rd as many other nominations as they want. Gets more people involved in the nomination process...

I'd be totally fine with this, but the it might get confusing if we continue to do the shifting categories thing. We would also need to hammer out a plan if a project gets nominated in a category that we don't think it fits in. Do we negate the nomination, or move it to the right category, even if the person who nominated doesn't necessarily have an open nomination in that category? I also get the point of wanting to limit nominations out to one for multiple categories. I am pretty sure that is the norm for most award systems.

[Vigo]

Oh, and PBJ is so full UCA ideas every year, he should be forced to sit on the board at least once.

It would be an easy council to sit on. 1 category, people do whatever. Who cares if it ends up looking like a Dick Clark top 20 list.


I want to recommend Louis Tully, He has a pretty complete resume on different types of builds. I think he would have tons of insight.

[pbj]

Oh, and PBJ is so full UCA ideas every year, he should be forced to sit on the board at least once.

I'd be happy to help.

[Louis Tully]

.

[wp34]

Can someone confirm an assumption of mine?  Currently the categories seem to be fluid and are finalized based on the number of and types of builds that are nominated and then confirmed by two other people.  In other words if there are enough 3rd-ed nominations for a particular build type a new category can be created.   In a nutshell is the current process?

[yotsuya]

Can someone confirm an assumption of mine?  Currently the categories seem to be fluid and are finalized based on the number of and types of builds that are nominated and then confirmed by two other people.  In other words if there are enough 3rd-ed nominations for a particular build type a new category can be created.   In a nutshell is the current process?

Yes, pretty much.

[wp34]

Can someone confirm an assumption of mine?  Currently the categories seem to be fluid and are finalized based on the number of and types of builds that are nominated and then confirmed by two other people.  In other words if there are enough 3rd-ed nominations for a particular build type a new category can be created.   In a nutshell is the current process?

Yes, pretty much.

Thanks.     

[wp34]

It seems to me the issue with number of nominations is tied to the issue of categories.   I'm not sure how you limit the number of nominations if the categories are fixed.  For example I nominated two cabinets for the same category this year.  By the end of the nominations a new category had been created enabling me to vote for both cabinets that I nominated had I wished.

I like the current process and the leeway it gives the UCA to adjust the categories if need be.   I also do not have an issue with people nominating multiple cabinets.   As has been said before these things usually get sorted out in the voting.  If the group feels there are too many final candidates perhaps an easy tweak to the process is to require more than two people to "second" a nomination.

[yotsuya]

It seems to me the issue with number of nominations is tied to the issue of categories.   I'm not sure how you limit the number of nominations if the categories are fixed.  For example I nominated two cabinets for the same category this year.  By the end of the nominations a new category had been created enabling me to vote for both cabinets that I nominated had I wished.

I like the current process and the leeway it gives the UCA to adjust the categories if need be.   I also do not have an issue with people nominating multiple cabinets.   As has been said before these things usually get sort out in the voting. If the group feels therw13e are too many final candidates perhaps an easy tweak to the process is to require more than two people to "second" a nomination

That's why we expanded it to "thirded" this year.

To further expand on the process, it came out of the fact that when we had Full-Size and Small, at times you would see certain trends. One year it was bartops, this year it seems to be pedestals. Rather than have a huge category with like 11 builds, you could spin out a clear subset with that category, making two appropriately sized ones. I think 5 is probably the magic number, and this helps.

Some years, there aren't just enough builds for a specific category. Take this year, for instance. I proposed a bartop category because I was SURE with the amount of bartops built, we'd have deluge of them nominated. Turns out the community only thought there were TWO worth the vote-off. Now, by the rules, this would mean that NEITHER would have been voted on, because three are needed for a valid category, but we were able to spin of Pedestals into their own category and take the two bartops back into the Small Size catergory, where they will have a chance to be voted on. Same with the two pincabs. If we had a separate pincab catergory, neither would have made it to the voting round because the category would not have been valid. By folding them back into dedicated, at least they get voted on.

So I like the process because it is very organic and fluid, depending on what was popular the previous year. Maybe nezt year, it's Cabarets. Or Racers. Who knows?

[wp34]

I think we are saying the same thing because I like the flexibility of the current process as well. 

Limiting the nominations is what I am struggling with.  I just don't see it as that big of an issue.  The process seems to sort itself out in the end.  There is only one build in all the nominations that is questionable to me and even then it is borderline. 

It seems to me the issue with number of nominations is tied to the issue of categories.   I'm not sure how you limit the number of nominations if the categories are fixed.  For example I nominated two cabinets for the same category this year.  By the end of the nominations a new category had been created enabling me to vote for both cabinets that I nominated had I wished.

I like the current process and the leeway it gives the UCA to adjust the categories if need be.   I also do not have an issue with people nominating multiple cabinets.   As has been said before these things usually get sort out in the voting. If the group feels therw13e are too many final candidates perhaps an easy tweak to the process is to require more than two people to "second" a nomination

That's why we expanded it to "thirded" this year.

To further expand on the process, it came out of the fact that when we had Full-Size and Small, at times you would see certain trends. One year it was bartops, this year it seems to be pedestals. Rather than have a huge category with like 11 builds, you could spin out a clear subset with that category, making two appropriately sized ones. I think 5 is probably the magic number, and this helps.

Some years, there aren't just enough builds for a specific category. Take this year, for instance. I proposed a bartop category because I was SURE with the amount of bartops built, we'd have deluge of them nominated. Turns out the community only thought there were TWO worth the vote-off. Now, by the rules, this would mean that NEITHER would have been voted on, because three are needed for a valid category, but we were able to spin of Pedestals into their own category and take the two bartops back into the Small Size catergory, where they will have a chance to be voted on. Same with the two pincabs. If we had a separate pincab catergory, neither would have made it to the voting round because the category would not have been valid. By folding them back into dedicated, at least they get voted on.

So I like the process because it is very organic and fluid, depending on what was popular the previous year. Maybe nezt year, it's Cabarets. Or Racers. Who knows?

[yamatetsu]

Or maybe try to encourage builders to add the word "Finished" or "Complete" or something to their project announcement thread title, that way it's an easy search?

Or maybe try to encourage builders to add their build to the 'completed' sticky, that way it's an easy search?

I did that four or five times, all of those builds are now in the thread.

[yotsuya]

Or maybe try to encourage builders to add the word "Finished" or "Complete" or something to their project announcement thread title, that way it's an easy search?

Or maybe try to encourage builders to add their build to the 'completed' sticky, that way it's an easy search?

I did that four or five times, all of those builds are now in the thread.

 

[Louis Tully]

.

[yotsuya]

I mean, yeah... that works too.

Or maybe try to encourage builders to add the word "Finished" or "Complete" or something to their project announcement thread title, that way it's an easy search?

Or maybe try to encourage builders to add their build to the 'completed' sticky, that way it's an easy search?

I did that four or five times, all of those builds are now in the thread.

 

So is you in or is you out, Tully?

[Louis Tully]

.

[Generic Eric]

So is you in or is you out, Tully?

Mmm...


Current status: Mulling

I think you should.  Besides, you'll be reading BYOAC anyhow, right?

[DeLuSioNal29]

LT, I think you'd be great!

D

[AzureKnight]

Work has kept me from keeping up on the boards like I prefer too lately.

Thank you to all the former board members, I think the awards are really fun.

LT, I also think you should join the board.

[yotsuya]

As we have a lot of undecideds sitting on the pot, I wanted to throw another name in the mix. I'd like to nominate Opt2Not to serve on the board. I think the board as a whole could benefit from his eye as an artist.

[opt2not]

As we have a lot of undecideds sitting on the pot, I wanted to throw another name in the mix. I'd like to nominate Opt2Not to serve on the board. I think the board as a whole could benefit from his eye as an artist.

Thanks yots, I accept!
I'm on here daily, and I feel I bring a lot to the UCA table.   

[Malenko]

great a ---smurfing--- canadian on the board? jk  Opt2Not is muh boyyyyyyyy


I wonder if Im a deal breaker for anyone.  If so, speak up

[yotsuya]

BobA was the token Canadian on the last board.

JK, BobA is a good dude. 

[Louis Tully]

.

[Nephasth]

I wonder if Im a deal breaker for anyone.  If so, speak up

I'm waiting for you to ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- or get off the pot before I decide to ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- or get off the pot...

[opt2not]

BobA was the token Canadian on the last board.

Yeah but I'm West-coast Canadian...we're a bit different out here 

[Vigo]

Welcome aboard, Opt!

[Louis Tully]

.