Leaderboard

Sounds like someone got rejected and is trying to deflect. I've done that too, in at least one bad attempt at humor. Some good points here, but I think they get lost in an unhelpfully negative attitude. Since OP supposedly won't respond, let's just talk about some of the points being made here. I'll ignore the ones conflating tracks passing the panel with tracks being good, because not every track is suited for ocr and vice versa. The standards could benefit from an update along the lines of OP's suggestion of a LUFS number. Useful reference. I propose a range, so people aren't making their ballads and bangers equally loud. Nepotism! Like hoboka and platonist and velkku and a bunch of other familiar names among the recent rejections. I kind'a agree, actually. I would have liked to read a bunch of positive remarks from a minimum number of judges on my Frozen Rose track which bypassed the panel and got direct-posted. But from a listener, non-remixer, non-direct-posted pov, direct posts look a bit sus. No specific suggestion on how to improve here. Regarding album tracks, especially regarding those selected for an initial remix flood, they've been discussed internally on an album eval thread... Could that thread be made public after the album is released? In part so the remixers get to read about their tracks, which is nice and/or useful, but also to add transparency to the process, even if it isn't during the process. I think it could be made more clear what a resub is. Have it in the submissions standards/guidelines/instructions/recipe and/or in a sticky in the judges' decisions subforum. For those unaware, a resub is a re-submitted track, one that has already been rejected by the judges. To have the improved version go through the entire judging process is a waste of time and energy, when all it takes is for the same judges to revisit their previous points and see if the new version has solved the problems without introducing any big new ones. Hence why resubs get fast-tracked to the panel. I'm not sure a resub has to be given a "no, resub" vote to get to be a resub. That too could be clarified. The waiting time. Argh. An automated system would be nice, one that takes in the tracks and creates the appropriate judging threads and updates some page or forum thread about the progress of them all. Initial eval, views, posts, maybe also votes. But that's a big coding challenge. Not to mention the initial eval might be a form rejection, simply a statement that the track clearly doesn't meet the standards, vague as they might be. I suppose a possible solution for this is to give people viewing access to the subforum overview or whatever, the names of threads and the number of replies on each. Might be what OP suggested, just using the wrong words. Having the entire community be the judge negates the need for a panel in the first place, and lets every beginner with a posse overrule more experienced folks. Not a good idea. And it would create an imbalance in attention even if the crowd doesn't get to vote. There'd be a lot of attention on Zelda and Final Fantasy remixes, while other games would be largely ignored. And that assumes the remixers are cool with their possibly rejected tracks being scrutinized by everyone. I don't think the remixers usually want rejected remixes to be available to people, so them being removed by default is reasonable. Remixers can always opt-out of this default, opt-in to having the link left in. When submitting something that's more of an experiment and not being sure it's fit for ocr but wanting to try submitting anyway, that makes sense. When planning on resubbing if rejected, link removal makes a lot more sense. Submissions standards might be a misnomer. Unless standards can work in reverse, and the standards list things that are cause for quick and easy rejections, while tracks that don't fail those standards are more closely evaluated. That's how I'd interpret how they work. Is standards the best term for that? Dunno. Finally: Quoted for irony. Possibly intentional. I do think OP's greater point about transparency and feedback is a valid one. I've been staff, I've seen some of the staff subforums, I'm on and very occasionally check staff discord. So I have some amount of insight here, something not everyone has. And I remember my frustration with a community I greatly enjoyed but with a staff that walls itself off to make a lot of decisions in private. I've ranted about the feedback checklist and a bunch of things, often because there was little involvement with the community before those things were brought out. The things themselves weren't necessarily bad, but presented in a decree-from-on-high kind of way. I think there's a failure or unwillingness to leverage the strengths of the community, which is that it's actually a community. So maybe there's a few points here worth talking about. edit: forgot to mention mastering. do we count preparing a mix for ocr as mastering? because if so, it's all fine. otherwise maybe a bit of pedantry on that point is in order.