P.S. Does anyone actually read the terms of agreement before scrolling down and clicking "Agree" anymore? I fear not... and that might be one point in favor of Proc's multi-point checking suggestion. Perhaps not after "every" rule, but maybe after half the rules, and again at the end?

P.P.S. Can we opt to have a slightly earlier reminder for the H2H entry deadlines? I do appreciate the nudge you guys sent!

Agreed. Lots of shitty ass chops would be thrown in immediately.

I would say that if BOTH contestants failed to enter then they can get back in but ONLY if BOTH submit an entry before the first day of voting ends.

If a person no-shows, but their opponent entered, then they're shit outta luck.

That year I got time zone stupidity I didn't lobby to get my entry uploaded. I merely begged and pleaded to not be banned for the following year. That's the ultimate rule that needs to be enforced. You no-show and you're automatically unable to enter the following year.

(and I still think a $5 entry fee is not too much to ask to ensure people are going to submit something when they enter)

seriously... if with 4 days to chop noobs didn't do even a 5 minutes chop, what makes you think they will with 3 weeks? Besides, we hardly fill the 128 spot... make it 64 with no-shows and it's ok for me...

I second that

I've been struggling to try and come up with an idea to combat no-shows and this is actually an idea in the right direction.
On one hand, I think there is some merit and excitement in knowing who your opponent is beforehand, but at the same time you will get that in the following rounds and this method does eliminate no-shows alltogether.



That's a good point. I would propose that everyone who wanted could enter and we could do a play-in round (which we avoided this year), but then everyone who chopped for round 1 that got a bye through the play-in would've chopped in vain, so that won't work. Releasing the source first to advantage members would also be a possibility, except that the H2H has always been kind of the great equalizer on the site, in that no one gets a time or image quality/size advantage.
As I said, it's a thought in the right direction, but I don't know how we can make it work as stated. Any ideas?

Seriously... even if you're given 3 months to chop, but are told that only the first (lets say for arguments sake) 64 people are allowed in, you don't think it would be half-assed?



Caf, I agree cause I don't read most of that crap either. But you know damn well Adobe, iTunes or whomever can come knocking on my door and say sorry, you clicked the accept button.

They really just need to make the rules and then STICK to them. Sorry... other than a death of in the family, you're done. And even then, they should just not get the banhammer for the next year due to those circumstances. But they should not be let back into the comp during the comp. Leave those empty spaces for those IN the competition already.

na, I don't think so

May I change one of my votes?

if you want to do it like AZ says...
What about a 3 week entry time available to everyone, No entrant close off. So that people who want to work hard on an entry and present something 'good' can do so w/o worrying about not getting in cause they took too long. Then do the seeding depending on PSCore. Then if you have odd numbers the top seeds get the Bye... Yeah... That kinda sucks if you worked hard for nothing, but this way there are no no-shows in Rd. 1 period. You could always give the choppers who got the Bye some sort of prize, 3mo advantage... you know for at least entering into the comp. I wouldn't feel bad about a bye week if I got 3mo's advantage or something for my trouble.

In a sense, the people who get the byes got "no-showed".
If we had a target of 128 and had 118 by cutoff, 10 people would have essentially no-showed and 5 people would have byes that functioned just the same as if their opponent had no-showed; they made a chop, but didn't have a person to compete against (it's like a no-show without a name). So technically Az's idea doesn't truly eliminate the potential for no-show's at all unless we hit a perfect number.
(Side note: the difference between this and a play-in round is that the people who get the bye's in a play-in don't have to go to the effort of making a chop and then unexpectedly not have someone to complete against.)


Ok how about this idea. Everyone who wants to enter is given X weeks or days to submit their round 1 entry.
Let's say 115 people enter. Our objective is to get to an even Top 64 and then have bracketed one-on-one matchups afterwards (just like normal). We post all 115 images to a page in random order. Each person has X votes to distribute and then the 64 entries that have the most votes after this process make the field of 64 and then it goes to Head to Head matchups after that. That definitely eliminates Round 1 no-shows, although on the downside it also does eliminate the concept of "head to head" from the first round. But it is an idea that virtually guarantees the elimination of no-shows altogether.

ok... the best idea was predicting you the winner of the H2H... I know, I know... so Azi's is the 2nd best idea someone had for years in here. better now?

what i dont get is how did Jefflang007 even enter the comp... he had to log in and click register correct?... He hasn't posted since 2008! I almost knew he would no-show.

we should have a 3 part registration starting 3 weeks earlier than this year. That way if someone does not visit the site enough to register all three times than they are shit out of luck. jeff probably registered and then has not been back since.

How about we keep just the game in place as is, and just enforce the rules?

No-shows are banned (or in certain circumstances are not) but no matter the issue are not allowed to compete that year.

Any empty slots are then filled by the loser with the most votes from the previous round...

lol

coughdictatorshipcough!!

I don't particularly like "loser with the most votes" as much as "loser with highest percentage of votes for his/her match-up" since not all the matches have the same number of votes. A person who loses a tie, imo (cough), did better with 50 out of 100 votes than the person who got 51 out of 130 votes. In the event that there is more than one "tie," first-in would again be used to break that tie.