Controversy, Criticisim, and Response

When I decided to run this campaign to win the Ultimate Gaming Machine I knew it would not be an easy task.  I knew there would be those who would not believe in me, and those who would try to derail my efforts.  Every step of the way I've tried to be up-front with members of the TWiT community, and honest about my intentions.  While I had hoped the tongue-in-cheek nature of my quest would be enough to put potential critics at ease, this has not been the case.

It has come to my attention that at least two individuals have chosen to make public their frustrations with the attention and traction this campaign has received, via the TWiT Wiki.  Individuals posting from IP addresses: 67.159.5.99 and 76.204.101.47 have added a, "Controversies" section to the wiki entry for the Ultimate Gaming Machine.  These anonymous users list several criticisms of the contest, and more specifically the way I've chosen to run a campaign for votes.  While they do not mention me or this campaign by name, it will be immediately obvious to anyone familiar with the contest to whom they refer.

My first instinct was to delete the section entirely, as I feel it is an inappropriate place for personal attacks.  At the risk of being seen as too heavy handed a response to some arguably relevant grievances, I've chosen to leave the section in place as it is, and instead respond point-for-point in this post.

Here are the complaints as they are listed in the wiki, followed by my response:

• Entry judgment takes an immense amount of time, especially compared to the time participants had for submitting them.
• Some "entries" have gained a life of their own, expanding into campaigns running well beyond the deadline of Feb 28. It can be argued that some participants have devoted much more effort to rallying voters than for the entries themselves. This way a contest for singularly interesting entries turns into a popularity contest, favoring those who have a strong presence in the TWiT community and alienating newcomers.
• This also defeats the purpose of having an enforceable deadline if one could put in late entries anytime after the deadline.

On the first point we agree, it has taken quite some time to judge these entries. I've discussed this point before, so I'll avoid further elaboration.

I see this second point as a valid frustration, voiced in the wrong direction. I'll admit to spending as much or more time post-deadline on this campaign as I did in crafting my entry to the contest. I also understand that in order for the judges to choose their finalists fairly they must compare apples to apples. That is why I mentioned this issue specifically in the email that contained my submission. I acknowledged that the website and entry should be judged as it existed on the contest deadline. Since then, any changes made have been clearly marked, and the dates and times of content added to the site have remained public and unaltered.

For example, a few days after the contest deadline NiteInJail added some special effects to one of my videos. I posted it right away, in a post that clearly shows it was added after the contest deadline. When I wanted to add that version of the video in place of the one in my original entry slide show, I added in a clearly visible note beside the video informing judges, and viewers that the effects had been added after the deadline for the contest. I think my actions in this regard have been completely above board and that I've met the test of full disclosure every step of the way.

As for the "singularly interesting" vs. "popularity contest" argument, I'm afraid our anonymous critics have misunderstood the contest.  Were the intention to select the most interesting entry, there would have been no public voting phase; our judges would have simply selected the entry they liked best.  I believe that by leaving the final decision to their audience, Leo, Colleen, and Ryan are hoping to give the UGM to the contestant the audience likes best. It will be up to each individual voter to decide what qualities they will take into consideration when voting.

I believe I've already covered the third point for the most part, but allow me to reiterate. The judges had my entry, clearly defined, by the deadline for the contest.  Anything I've done since then could have been done by anyone else with the time, commitment, and desire to win the Ultimate Gaming Machine.

Thank you for allowing me to respond to these criticisms, and if I am a finalist, I hope I can have your vote!

GabeMcG for UGM

P.S.

I'd like to hear what you have to say on this, leave a comment below, email me, or call (616) 499-4469 and let me know what you think. Am I completely wrong? Or do I have a good point?

Update on Sunday, April 19, 2009 at 12:11AM by Gabe

Just a quick follow-up to the controversy, or lack there of unfolding on the TWiT Wiki.  Due to edit warring, the discussion has moved to the, "talk" page for that article, here. If you have anything you would like to say on the matter, please do so there.

Thanks,

Gabe