Forum:All "Best Illustrated" Articles in PLS are Disqualified

Forums: Index > Village Dump > All "Best Illustrated" Articles in PLS are Disqualified

Note: This topic has been unedited for 5086 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over.

Due to the fact that none of the articles in the "Best Illustrated" category are of any acceptable level due to the fact that the level of work that has gone into their "illustration" is essentially fuck all, we are disqualifying all of them and reopening that category for ONE WEEK ONLY. If no quality submissions are recieved by the new deadline then we will dispose of that category altogether and the money that would have gone to the winner of that category will be divided between the remaining categories instead as it's simply not fair to award money for complete and utter shit when the submissions in the other categories are way above the level of the aforementioned. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 17:50, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

I definitely remember this being put to a vote and it is not at all a seemingly arbitrary decision that could potentially upset people. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 21:36 May 24, 2010

Oli, for once I have to disagree with you. This whole money award is against the spirit of PLS and caused unnecessary dramathon. Articles should not be judged weather they're worth the money award or not. If they're not worth the effort, the judges of the category should rate it as such, otherwise I don't see a reason to categorically remove anything from that category. I think that this whole idea of money prize should be dropped and this category reinstated. ~ 21:38, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Mordillo, the judges also agreed the articles weren't worthy of the award irrespective of the cash price. You seem to be completely missing the point in that PLS is supposed to be our "best of", permitting those articles in that category would do a disservice to the submissions in the other categories. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 21:44, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

So our "best of" articles are only those written during a specific period of time, not, say, our best of. And money is supposed to be their reward for doing so. It's not like people don't write articles for free the entire year round. – Sir Skullthumper, MD (criticize • writings • SU&W) 21:47 May 24, 2010

If that's what you'd like to see then I suggest creating a new award to suit that, what you're describing is not what PLS is supposed to be about, the whole point of PLS is to create an incentive for *NEW* quality articles as well as expanding the userbase (and for shits and giggles); not to mention practical issues with arbitrarily awarding cash prizes to old written articles. -- Prof. Olipro KUN (W)Anchor Op Bur. (Harass) 21:51, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see where that discussion took place? And if they don't feel that the articles aren't worth, score them low, don't disqualify the whole category. Also, that is certainly not the point. The PLS is supposed to be a fun writing competition whereas money plays no part whatsoever and does not dictate a certain standard of quality. Granted, we hope it will produce quality articles, but if people write for the sake of enjoying - than the PLS achieved its goal. ~ 21:48, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Mordillo, could you hop onto the IRC for me big boy? --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 21:48 May 24 2010

Compromise

Following a discussion with EMC over IRC - the category was reinstated and extended for another week for additional candidates to join in. ~ 23:54, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad a compromise was worked out and appreciate the work of those who helped resolve it. After seeing some of this topic's incendiary comments, I was afraid this would explode into a full-blown fire fest. Hopefully, it's now been worked out so everyone involved is at least reasonably satisfied. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 17:20, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

Comment

Having been the "author" of one of the articles in question, I have a few words. 1st, the articles that hyperbole and I wrote started out as a joke, because nobody else did submit anything, so why not? However, the very last version of the article I wrote I actually put time and effort into. True, I didn't notice that the images were supposed to be my own until it was too late, but still. So yes, technically, I'm disqualified there.

"the whole point of PLS is to create an incentive for *NEW* quality articles." Yes, I didn't create any new images. But I still like my article. It's not just garbage. I think that what I'm insulted with here is that people seem to act like the article has no merit at all. If it's disqualified, fine. I noticed the rule too late, so my fault. I was still going to cross the finish line though, and I'm still happy with what I got.

What do you plan to do, however if there are no new entries in a week? Extend another week? Forget it altogether?

Question #2: If I edit my images to have only self-created images, can I un-disqualify myself?

Question #3: Maybe the category itself is to be questioned? Making a quality image and putting it in your article is one thing, but maybe you would improve entries to the category if you relaxed the rules to state that only some of the images have to be hand made.

Not angry at all here, just giving my feedback.It's Mrthejazz... a case not yet solved. 11:55, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

Well, now that Mordillo and I have come to an agreement, the entries aren't disqualified. The category is running for an extra week. You're welcome to make improvements to your article however you see fit. We can discuss the specifics of categories come the 10th PLS. We're not quite sure yet of what we'll do if no entries are submitted in a week. EugeneKay proposed that we include entries in other categories that qualify for Best Illustrated and include them as well, which I think is a great idea. --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 15:50 May 25 2010

I'm assuming this means if they aren't already entered in another category. I know a writer can't enter the same article in more than one category, and it would certainly screw things up for us judges if we spent the time and effort to judge and score an entry and then it was suddenly switched somewhere else. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 17:23, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

Oh no. We'd be making an exception and allowing these articles to enter two categories. --Hotadmin4u69 ^[TALK] 17:55 May 25 2010

Could you clarify something for me? The articles aren't disqualified for now, or they aren't disqualified period? I mean, if I were to leave my article as is for a week, would it still have any chance as a legitimate entry? It's Mrthejazz... a case not yet solved. 21:57, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

I must say I strongly disagree with letting articles entered in the illustrated category to be entered in another as well. To me that violates the basis of this contest. If people in that category can enter another, why can't entries in all categories do that? It seems to me this gives special priviledge to those who either submitted entries that weren't deemed acceptable, or who never got around to doing one on time. I don't agree with rewarding incompetence and procrastination. WHY???^{PuppyOnTheRadio} 01:15, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Um, if I have 10 more days, could I get someone to unlock my article please? It's Mrthejazz... a case not yet solved. 01:33, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my head is on backwards these days. It's unprotected. ~ 16:10, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) An informational question. What was wrong with Hyperbole's article, the emergence of raccoons? I laughed as I clicked through it, and thought it was very well done and funny. If that was the only eligible page, what was wrong with it? Was it disqualified for some reason in the first round, even though it still is in the contest (and maybe Hyperbole is expanding it?). Just asking. Aleister des chains 1:35 26 5 MMX

Goa Tse Caln's response

Fuck those who make an article, submit it to "Best Illustrated", and have fuck all! We will destroy them! |Si Plebius Dato' (Sir) Joe ang Kemador CUN|IC Kill | 11:51, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

-- |c|o|d|e|i|n|e| 11:57, May 26, 2010 (UTC)