2,716
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Created page with "{{Infobox book | italic title = Time for a Change: Overhauling the ISCA Convention Voting System<!--(Article title goes here and in the 'name' field below.)--> | name..."
{{Infobox book
| italic title = Time for a Change: Overhauling the ISCA Convention Voting System<!--(Article title goes here and in the 'name' field below.)-->
| name = Time for a Change: Overhauling the ISCA Convention Voting System
| image = OpEdGraphic.jpg<!--(If no good single image is suitable, use a screenshot of the first page of the article)-->
| image_size = 260px
| border = yes
| alt =
| caption =
| author = [[Jordan Martin]]<!--(use [[name]], <br/> [[name]], <br/> to list multiple authors or subjects)-->
| illustrator = [[Jordan Martin]]
| subject = [[ISCAcon]], <br> [[Caricaturist of the Year]]<!--(acceptable subjects include: Editorial, Op/Ed, Article, Interview, How-To, Member Spotlight, etc. Multiple subjects see multimple authors)-->
| genre = Op/Ed, <br> Editorial
| published = [[EF Issue 2019.2]]
| pub_date = Spring 2019<!--(Should match EF Issue Published date)-->
| media_type = Digital<!--(Digital, Print or both)-->
| pages = 8-10<!--(Page number(s) of the issue the article appears on)-->
| preceded_by = <!--(Previous article in the issue)-->
| followed_by = <!--(Next article in the issue)-->
| notes = ''The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the official policy or position of ISCA or ISCAcon.''
| website = {{URL|caricature.org}}
}}
This Op/Ed piece was written by [[Jordan Martin]]. It appears in [[Exaggerated Features]] issue [[2019.2]] on pages 8-10.
==Article Transcript==
Change for the sake of change is
bad, but the core problem that
I see here is that the current
system does not work for ISCA
anymore. Voting has changed quite a
lot over the years, and I simply think it’s
time for another one of these changes.
With more than 160 artists doing
somewhere around an average of 10
pieces, the members have around 1,600
pieces of artwork to compare to every
other piece. Since artists do not submit
pieces to specific categories, you are
comparing every piece you see to every
other piece in every category. This
is already a daunting task, and if the
convention has any desire to grow and
be more professional, this must change.
If this is to change, the board will
need to be upfront and open about
the change. It shouldn’t come out of
nowhere. The last thing to keep in mind,
and possibly the most important, is
that there is no such thing as a perfect
voting system. You need to choose the
one that you are most comfortable with
despite its flaws.
What follows here is my suggestion for
change based on research, talking to
other ISCA members, and talks with
similar industries like body art and
experienced game designers.
=== Panel of Judges ===
Voting should change from a popular
vote to a large panel of qualified
judges scoring each artist wall in
each category on a scale from one to
one hundred. Not only do almost all
creative organizations judge contests
by jury, but there are good reasons for
it. It would be fine to leave some of the
categories as a popular vote, but most
of them should be changed.
This is more effective because it means
that every wall is judged by its own
merit, and not compared to everything
else. The main problem with comparing
everything to everything is that it is
simply impossible to do without people
being missed or things becoming
some form of popularity contest. If the
convention is to grow, this will become
exponentially worse. I have not seen
anyone win who was only popular, and
not actually a good artist, but I have
seen good artists lose to equally good
artists who are more outgoing.
Most importantly, artists would
receive their scores after voting (like
at major body art conventions), and
that would absolutely raise the value
of the convention. It would mean that
competing at ISCA includes evaluations
from a large panel of the top caricature
artists out there. Many artists would
jump at the opportunity to get an
evaluation of their work from Stephen
Silver, Tom Richmond, or even Golden
Nosey winners.
Currently, you either win or don’t win.
You don’t know where you stand, you
don’t know what you need to work on,
or how you can improve. Even winning
only tells you that people like your work
more than other artists attending, but it
doesn’t tell you why your work is good.
====Jury Selection Suggestions:====
Fairly large group of people that are
NOT competing. The larger the group
the less bias influences the final results.
* All of the guest speakers that
aren’t competing.
* One outside artist from a similar
field like comics or animation.
* At least one master.
* At least one well-known
caricature artist.
* Someone attending the majority
of the convention so that they
are familiar with the faces of the
members attending.
* Possibly the board members (It’s
slightly problematic that currently
the people counting the votes are
also competing. It’s never been a
problem, but it’s playing with fire.)
===Winners===
====Caricature Artist of the Year====
The strangest part of our current
system is the fact that we vote for “best
of the year” separate from the other
categories; this is decidedly ridiculous.
This means that it would be possible
for someone to win every category, but
not be in the top 10. More importantly,
it means that votes can be so spread
out that some of the winners may
only have received a few votes. It also
means that it’s mathematically possible
for someone to get more votes than
anyone else but not win a single award.
It would make much more sense to use
a system that is more similar to the
Miss America Pageant. In the pageant,
scores are given by a panel of judges
in the categories, and then the overall
winners are the ones with the highest
total combined scores.
The top 3 people with the highest
combined scores are the winners, but
they do not win any categories. Since
they are taken out of the running for
categories, it can then leave room for
more people to have an opportunity to
win a category. Right now, a handful
of artists take all of the awards. It
makes it feel like you don’t really have
a chance. This elevates placing as a top
artist because those people have won
the show: they have the most votes
out of everyone, they are the best, and
everyone one else who won is second
place to the true winners.
The particulars of this would have to
be worked out. Taking the top 10 out of
the running for the categories might be
too much. Perhaps you take the top 3
out of the running, but the top 4-10 are
still in the running for categories. This
would mean that tension is building
as the categories are announced. Not
winning each category means that
you might have won in the top 3, and
winning means maybe you still placed
in the top 10. This may not be the right
answer, but it is a good direction to
be thinking in.
In contrast, I would keep Caricature
of the Year as a popular vote. It
would be much too much to ask the
judges to evaluate each individual
==See Also==
==External Links==
<!--(check the issue number in the navbar template below)-->
{{201?.?Navbox}}
| italic title = Time for a Change: Overhauling the ISCA Convention Voting System<!--(Article title goes here and in the 'name' field below.)-->
| name = Time for a Change: Overhauling the ISCA Convention Voting System
| image = OpEdGraphic.jpg<!--(If no good single image is suitable, use a screenshot of the first page of the article)-->
| image_size = 260px
| border = yes
| alt =
| caption =
| author = [[Jordan Martin]]<!--(use [[name]], <br/> [[name]], <br/> to list multiple authors or subjects)-->
| illustrator = [[Jordan Martin]]
| subject = [[ISCAcon]], <br> [[Caricaturist of the Year]]<!--(acceptable subjects include: Editorial, Op/Ed, Article, Interview, How-To, Member Spotlight, etc. Multiple subjects see multimple authors)-->
| genre = Op/Ed, <br> Editorial
| published = [[EF Issue 2019.2]]
| pub_date = Spring 2019<!--(Should match EF Issue Published date)-->
| media_type = Digital<!--(Digital, Print or both)-->
| pages = 8-10<!--(Page number(s) of the issue the article appears on)-->
| preceded_by = <!--(Previous article in the issue)-->
| followed_by = <!--(Next article in the issue)-->
| notes = ''The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the official policy or position of ISCA or ISCAcon.''
| website = {{URL|caricature.org}}
}}
This Op/Ed piece was written by [[Jordan Martin]]. It appears in [[Exaggerated Features]] issue [[2019.2]] on pages 8-10.
==Article Transcript==
Change for the sake of change is
bad, but the core problem that
I see here is that the current
system does not work for ISCA
anymore. Voting has changed quite a
lot over the years, and I simply think it’s
time for another one of these changes.
With more than 160 artists doing
somewhere around an average of 10
pieces, the members have around 1,600
pieces of artwork to compare to every
other piece. Since artists do not submit
pieces to specific categories, you are
comparing every piece you see to every
other piece in every category. This
is already a daunting task, and if the
convention has any desire to grow and
be more professional, this must change.
If this is to change, the board will
need to be upfront and open about
the change. It shouldn’t come out of
nowhere. The last thing to keep in mind,
and possibly the most important, is
that there is no such thing as a perfect
voting system. You need to choose the
one that you are most comfortable with
despite its flaws.
What follows here is my suggestion for
change based on research, talking to
other ISCA members, and talks with
similar industries like body art and
experienced game designers.
=== Panel of Judges ===
Voting should change from a popular
vote to a large panel of qualified
judges scoring each artist wall in
each category on a scale from one to
one hundred. Not only do almost all
creative organizations judge contests
by jury, but there are good reasons for
it. It would be fine to leave some of the
categories as a popular vote, but most
of them should be changed.
This is more effective because it means
that every wall is judged by its own
merit, and not compared to everything
else. The main problem with comparing
everything to everything is that it is
simply impossible to do without people
being missed or things becoming
some form of popularity contest. If the
convention is to grow, this will become
exponentially worse. I have not seen
anyone win who was only popular, and
not actually a good artist, but I have
seen good artists lose to equally good
artists who are more outgoing.
Most importantly, artists would
receive their scores after voting (like
at major body art conventions), and
that would absolutely raise the value
of the convention. It would mean that
competing at ISCA includes evaluations
from a large panel of the top caricature
artists out there. Many artists would
jump at the opportunity to get an
evaluation of their work from Stephen
Silver, Tom Richmond, or even Golden
Nosey winners.
Currently, you either win or don’t win.
You don’t know where you stand, you
don’t know what you need to work on,
or how you can improve. Even winning
only tells you that people like your work
more than other artists attending, but it
doesn’t tell you why your work is good.
====Jury Selection Suggestions:====
Fairly large group of people that are
NOT competing. The larger the group
the less bias influences the final results.
* All of the guest speakers that
aren’t competing.
* One outside artist from a similar
field like comics or animation.
* At least one master.
* At least one well-known
caricature artist.
* Someone attending the majority
of the convention so that they
are familiar with the faces of the
members attending.
* Possibly the board members (It’s
slightly problematic that currently
the people counting the votes are
also competing. It’s never been a
problem, but it’s playing with fire.)
===Winners===
====Caricature Artist of the Year====
The strangest part of our current
system is the fact that we vote for “best
of the year” separate from the other
categories; this is decidedly ridiculous.
This means that it would be possible
for someone to win every category, but
not be in the top 10. More importantly,
it means that votes can be so spread
out that some of the winners may
only have received a few votes. It also
means that it’s mathematically possible
for someone to get more votes than
anyone else but not win a single award.
It would make much more sense to use
a system that is more similar to the
Miss America Pageant. In the pageant,
scores are given by a panel of judges
in the categories, and then the overall
winners are the ones with the highest
total combined scores.
The top 3 people with the highest
combined scores are the winners, but
they do not win any categories. Since
they are taken out of the running for
categories, it can then leave room for
more people to have an opportunity to
win a category. Right now, a handful
of artists take all of the awards. It
makes it feel like you don’t really have
a chance. This elevates placing as a top
artist because those people have won
the show: they have the most votes
out of everyone, they are the best, and
everyone one else who won is second
place to the true winners.
The particulars of this would have to
be worked out. Taking the top 10 out of
the running for the categories might be
too much. Perhaps you take the top 3
out of the running, but the top 4-10 are
still in the running for categories. This
would mean that tension is building
as the categories are announced. Not
winning each category means that
you might have won in the top 3, and
winning means maybe you still placed
in the top 10. This may not be the right
answer, but it is a good direction to
be thinking in.
In contrast, I would keep Caricature
of the Year as a popular vote. It
would be much too much to ask the
judges to evaluate each individual
==See Also==
==External Links==
<!--(check the issue number in the navbar template below)-->
{{201?.?Navbox}}
