|
Post by Martin Stett on Jun 17, 2024 14:38:26 GMT
Okay, a few questions before moving on.
1. 1992 or 2023 next? Keep in mind that the nomination phase will be 1 1/2 - 2 months (probably 1 1/2), with another month or so for the second phase. In my opinion, I think most people have seen what they plan on seeing, and can use the nominations for catch-up for FYCs on things they were unaware of. But I'm seeing some pushback against that, so I'm putting it to a vote.
2. Do you want ties in the future AMARA presentations? The nomination phase could work as a tiebreaker - whoever gets more points in nominations could win instead of a split. In the case of '93 supporting actress, there was a four way split until near the end of voting, and I'd rather not have *that* happen.
3. In the case of the 2023 show, there is a rule that is being asked about regarding eligibility. The current law states: "The eligibility period will be for the first theatrical release in the film's country (or one of its countries) of origin. Look on IMDb for that information, and ask me if you need clarification on an edge case." There are some asking that this be changed to first theatrical release in any country. The past AMARAS do not use the eligibility as any country's release, as they were originally run by different people. For the sake of keeping things clear, I want this to be put to a vote before moving on with the '23 show.
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Jun 17, 2024 15:04:32 GMT
1. 1992. Honestly, I find the older years much more interesting and it can give us a bit of distance from the discourse on the most recent season.
2. I'd say ties are fine if we had a larger voting pool. Maybe we could institute a sort of ranked ballot system, because honestly, I think that would help in seeing whether voters actually have seen all the nominees.
3. My rationale is this: the first country who had the opportunity to see it in a theatrical setting outside of a festival gets to claim it. I personally am fine if people want to go with country of origin (although it gets messy when you have multiple countries who have a stake in the project who have different release schedules across the deadline). Just as long as it's not first US release because that's just stupid.
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Jun 17, 2024 18:44:13 GMT
1. 2023. It's time.
2. Now this is tough. Overall I'm cool with ties in these types of awards: if the votes happened to align this way, there's nothing further to be done. But I'd limit this to two-way ties only. A four-way split would be quite silly indeed. I'd say yes to two-way ties and yes to tiebreakers if the tie is three-way and upward.
3. Any country.
|
|
|
Post by finniussnrub on Jun 17, 2024 23:35:07 GMT
1. 2023. Based on some of the comments from 93, I'd say the majority of voters may be better acquainted with 23 than 92, and I'd say to everyone start trying to catch up on 92 now that way when we get to after 23, we'll have a better turnout.
2. Tiebreakers due to the shallower pool of voters we're working with now.
3. Any country release, though I'm fine with country of origin.
|
|