Suggested new YC Policy: Ban on "grading" systems

Wow, you are blowing this insanely out of proportion. My views are dangerous, and I am making dangerous assumptions here? Wow. That's a little extreme, don't you think? Please explain to me how my ideas are physically, emotionally, or otherwise harmful to anything around here. Answer: they're not, because it's precisely that emotional harm that I'm trying to help other young, ambitious composers avoid around here. And yet you have the audacity to call my ideas dangerous.

:P

Yes, yes I do have the audacity to call your ideas dangerous. If you will not think about the possible consequences, why can't I?

No, a grade is not a means of conveying any idea that is worth anything at all here.

Assumption. All numbers are representations of opinion that can be converted easily into text.

If a person wants to express distaste for my music, it is absolutely absurd to post "2/10." Don't be lazy.

No, no it isn't. It's absolutely absurd to tell them they can't do that. They are going to express opinion one way or another. Do you want '2/10' or 'Damn dude, you suck?'

Tell me why you didn't like it. Tell me what you would have improved, or what was so objectionable about it. Removing a meaningless way of conveying a meaningless idea helps to ensure that reviewers will actually give thought to the music they are reviewing and make meaningful comments.

No opinion is ever meaningless. The course of action here is not to remove any type of review or, essentially, any means of conveying opinion but instead demanding a quality control of sorts. Not on length, of course, that's just as foolish as your idea. Instead just make sure people are clearly articulating their opinions. Replies such as "1/10," "Pretty good," and "I like it, keep it up" are what you should be protesting against instead of focusing all your attention on something that isn't the problem at all.

Sure, why don't we all just label all the great pieces of the classical repertoire with a 10/10 and leave it at that? Don't discuss them. Don't try to understand them beyond a number. Keep it "simple." Don't dare think about what makes them great pieces in the first place. A number is all we need to grasp the greatness of a Mahler symphony or a Mozart sonata.

Yay! I love people who can't figure out what I'm talking about!

Do not try to logically extend my argument past the point of where it can truly go. This is a low blow. You understand full well what I am suggesting, and no extension of my suggestion would involve dumbing or paring down reviews. In fact the effect of my suggestion would be to encourage richer, more detailed reviews in place of the artificial and useless simplicity of the grade.

Oh no, on the contrary, I think it is you who have not given enough thought to your opinion here.

Well, I would argue against you, but you just did it for yourself all in one paragraph. It's precisely as you said it! The grade given in a composition lesson is more for progress and effort than the final product. But grades given as part of reviews are grades of the product -- not of the process or the improvement made by the composer. If you had read what I wrote more carefully, you would see that it is you who are assuming that I am making a dangerous assumption.

You still can't see your assumptions can you? Oh no, it's ok, many people can't.

Be careful of what you accuse people of if you haven't first carefully considered their opinions. You can make a lot of enemies that way.

It is of no consequence to me whatsoever what anyone's opinion of me is. It's rather simple, really.

lol you people get so heated. Why not improve the scoring idea?

eg.

Use of texture 1 - 5

Expression 1 - 5

and so on... but use 1 - 5 to give tighter opinion

lol you people get so heated. Why not improve the scoring idea?

eg.

Use of texture 1 - 5

Expression 1 - 5

and so on... but use 1 - 5 to give tighter opinion

The problem with that is that everyone has their own scale

1 - No use

2 - limited use

3 - Achieved

4 - Good

5 - Impressive

Thats why I suggested the 1 -5 scale, if so many people grade this way, the composer will have an idea of where to improve

1 - No use

2 - limited use

3 - Achieved

4 - Good

5 - Impressive

Thats why I suggested the 1 -5 scale, if so many people grade this way, the composer will have an idea of where to improve

you miss my point. People look at things differently, I might think that Mozart is awful. But you might think that Mozart is great. Same thing for reviews

you miss my point. People look at things differently, I might think that Mozart is awful. But you might think that Mozart is great. Same thing for reviews

You think Mozart is awful? :D

*Runs away*

Nah, I get your point.

Galt, I've grown extremely tired of watching you argue simply for argument's sake over and over again on here. Almost without fail, you rush in, over-complicate things, begin derailing the thread and ultimately reduce the worth of the discussion.

Please desist. This behaviour is of absolutely no use to YC. If you have an actual opinion to share, by all means go ahead. If you're just in need of a little drama, take your business elsewhere.

Judging by what I was able to extract from your posts, you believe that aerlinndan wants to ban negative reviews altogether. You state that there would be no point in banning "2/10" if "this sucks" were to still be permitted.

This is not what he said, and I think you know it.

There are a few members posting on our boards here who continue to think that posting a numerical "grade" or "score" as a review of someone's piece of music somehow constitutes a legitimate, thoughtful, helpful review.

This absolutely outrages me every time I see it. Music composition is not the ----ing high dive. These scores do nothing but indicate a (usually self-satisfied) opinion of whoever is posting the "review" and in general I find them poor substitutes for thoughtful reviews that consist of a mix of praise and criticism.

It is for this reason, therefore, that I propose a new policy at YC: a ban on any sort of grading system for pieces posted by young composers looking for comments on their pieces. This policy would obviously not apply to anything submitted as part of a contest.

You later say that the solution is not what aerlinndan has proposed, but "a quality control of sorts". This is exactly what he has proposed!

montpellier, I'm at a loss as to why you regularly insist that the primary motivation when we considering a policy shift is "politics". The only reason we ever think about changing the rules is because we want to improve some aspect of this place. If someone in opposition to the proposal at hand makes their voice heard and we agree with it, we drop the proposal. This has happened on a few occasions now.

And I think it just might happen here. But not because of Galt's space-wasting invective, but because of the point Chris Shaver has raised about any and all comments being valuable to the composer in some respect. I think this is quite compelling, especially since people should count themselves lucky to have access to any feedback at all on their work. Of course, it can be just as easily shot down by aerlinndan's point about a cold numerical rating being demoralising and/or useless (which, by the way, should remain impervious to the "suck it up" counterargument; if you can actually gain something from meaningless criticism, good for you, bad for everyone else who can't).

I think a palatable solution would be to add a snippet into the rules discouraging numerical ratings (especially where there is little to no explanation behind them), but not banning them altogether. How does that sound?

There should be no universal scoring system. Everything is fine the way it is. The reviewers know what they're doing... This topic should be locked.

My opinion is very simple. A person should be able to give a review that isn't a numerical review.

Even if a person lacks little music training a simple, this part appeal to me and this part did not is much better than saying, I think this piece is a 3.

As a community, we should be willing to help each other out. A little effort to write a review for someone does help increase the chance that someone will do the same for you.

But don't reviewers already do this?

Mike, I like your solution for now. An amendment to review guidelines stating that numerical reviews are strongly discouraged, along with a reason or two why they don't help. We'll see if that does anything.

montpellier, I'm at a loss as to why you regularly insist that the primary motivation when we considering a policy shift is "politics". The only reason we ever think about changing the rules is because we want to improve some aspect of this place. If someone in opposition to the proposal at hand makes their voice heard and we agree with it, we drop the proposal. This has happened on a few occasions now.

Don't specially want to raise this publicly but you've made a public statement so....

I can't recall asserting let alone insisting that "the primary motivation when we considering a policy shift is "politics"."

'Politics' is (or are). Here, to refer to the prevarication on this thread (and elsewhere on occasion, when resolution is in fact simple). Sometimes the "politics" catch my eye. . .Institutionalism - the occasional indications that attendance is more important than presenting/ composing music or helping others in pursuit thereof.

I'm no internaut but it's probably the same on many sites.

= = = = = = = =

Edit: I decided to side with Aerlinndan because I've met very few people here with the seasoned ability to pass useful judgement as a score out of 10 (or whatever) on someone's creative efforts - I am not among them - which means that many such judgements can't be taken seriously so will be of little instructive benefit to the recipient.

If anyone is in doubt, have a look at the examiner requirements/qualifications for any worthwhile music institution.

Having said that, people must do what they must....

Mike, you're just egging him on. If you want him to stop, just stop posting.

That might work in this one instance, yes, but I'd like for it to extend further than that.

Don't specially want to raise this publicly but you've made a public statement so....

I can't recall asserting let alone insisting that "the primary motivation when we considering a policy shift is "politics"."

I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I only said that because I recalled you having made a few weighty mentions of politics in the past. Having just done a quick search, it seems it was only on one other occasion, so perhaps my statement was inaccurate, yes.

'Politics' is (or are). Here, to refer to the prevarication on this thread (and elsewhere on occasion, when resolution is in fact simple).

As far as I'm concerned, this thread exists for three main reasons:

• So that aerlinndan may suggestion the adoption of a new policy that would, in his eyes, improve some aspect of the board.
  
• So that others may air their thoughts/suggestions.
  
• So that we may come to a mutually- (or at least majority-) agreeable solution.

Again, I really can't see how you are reading further into this.

Institutionalism - the occasional indications that attendance is more important than presenting/ composing music or helping others in pursuit thereof.

If for any reason you don't want to raise something publicly, you can always PM me, by the way.

Anyway, I've gone ahead and amended the board rules in light of this discussion:

http://www.youngcomposers.com/forum/faq.php?faq=board_rules#faq_post_related_etiquette

Ok, Mike. Cheers.

"Prevarication" was perhaps reading too much in to what's probably best said as argument then!

Quote:

Institutionalism - the occasional indications that attendance is more important than presenting/ composing music or helping others in pursuit thereof.

In my mind, you could be referring to any one of a multitude of different things here.

I trod more carefully here, avoiding the word "admin" in case you took this as a jibe at yourself and the moderators, which it was not. As long as you accept this, then I'd have said that the admin (engaged in by the members) sometimes becomes the objective rather than one of the means.

regards,

Montpellier.

Hello all,

I think its a little late to state my opinion. But I agree with several of the proposals, couched in my own words:

1) That the merit of numerical posts absent of any explanatory or illuminating discursive and/or reasoned comments is questionable, and as such should be discouraged;

2) That despite this, there should not be an 'absolute' ban on such posts or need to moderate/delete such posts because such action would be contrary to the aims of this forum, which is arguably to promote and maintain a liberal multi-opinionated discourse on composition.

3) Alternatively, the implied need for there to be freedom of communication and expression in forums should be encouraged, so that members do not feel their opinions, desires, or beliefs or method of expression are going unnoticed or unheard, or deliberately discriminated against.

4) That in principle, there is nothing inherently wrong in using a ratings system, as it is a method of expression and this should be respected. While rating systems have the guise of an objectived assessment of the merit of the composition, they still remain subjective opinions, which are for the most part, no person's jurisdiction other than one's own.

5) However, In extreme circumstances, where there is a repeated and heinous disregard for the general ethos of this community, which is arguably to promote the positive (i.e. rational/reasoned) criticism or discourse on music mentioned above, there may be the need for intervention and/or moderation of such opinions. Arbitration, however, is a job exclusively entrusted to the moderators of this forum, who are already doing an fine job as it is.

That's my current status. I've enjoyed this discussion and look forward to any policy changes that may occur as a result. All the best,

Regards

Pravin