The Song Fight Bulletin Board

I havn't posted here in the past and I don't plan on posting much in the future, however, I recently read a thread where there was some discussion about the possibility of adding a longer-duration fight or an additional fight to the site. I have a question for the admins:

HYPOTHETICALLY
If we got a half dozen to a dozen artists that all wanted to take part in a songfight together and they got all of the songs together in accordance with whatever rules they'd decided to run a competition under, would the admins be willing to let us benefit from the greater exposure available if the admins hosted the vote (and only the vote) for the fight on songfight?

Oracle wrote:I havn't posted here in the past and I don't plan on posting much in the future, ....HYPOTHETICALLY
If we got a half dozen to a dozen artists that all wanted to take part in a songfight together and they got all of the songs together in accordance with whatever rules they'd decided to run a competition under, would the admins be willing to let us benefit from the greater exposure available if the admins hosted the vote (and only the vote) for the fight on songfight?

I don't think the issue was with storage. But what you are describing is a sanctioned sidefight and I don't see that much difference between that and having a third official fight. If you have somewhere else to store these mp3s then designing your own voting script shouldn't that difficult, so perhaps an irregular off-site page of yr own might be a better idea. I don't think it would interfere with SF. Sharing Machine didn't. (though, note the past tense)

I know you addressed this to the admin, which I'm not. Just offering my impressions. Curious why you didn't post this to the longfights thread - oh, and you're forgiven, despite your rather portentious name

HYPOTHETICALLY
If we got a half dozen to a dozen artists that all wanted to take part in a songfight together and they got all of the songs together in accordance with whatever rules they'd decided to run a competition under, would the admins be willing to let us benefit from the greater exposure available if the admins hosted the vote (and only the vote) for the fight on songfight?

1. Hosting the vote and only the vote on the front page would require some changes to the front page voting scripts.

2. Where would the results be posted?

3. People would be asking the fightmasters ad infinitum what happened to the fight: Where are the results? Later: Why isn't it in the archive?

4. Assuming we posted the links, and later went ahead and put it in the archive, we would be in danger of the links breaking if people took their songs down.

Sounds like a bunch of headaches to me.

Which all means that it should be either.

1. A sidefight in which you:
a. start a thread assessing interest and discussing the idea.
b. someone posts a title and a deadline
c. people post their links.
d. you start a poll
e. you declare a winner after a week (or perhaps longer, in keeping with the length of the fight)

2. A regular fight, hosted and sponsored on the front page.

Please note that there is a ten-day fight going on right now. It could happen. Particularly if the fightmasters find themselves going on vacation, sick, or drafted into military duty. However, I am quite sure that some would not be happy with one time. There would be clamor for more. "I missed it", "That was great, let's do it again", "how about six weeks", "all the fights should be three weeks", etc.

In general, we run on a simple rule around here. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

In my opinion, it ain't broke.

I have to admit, when there are a good number of people talking about how much they'd like something not changed, but given alternatives regarding (the length of the fights, for example) I feel that there is in fact something "broken". This tends to indicate someone should at least experiment with "fixing it". Because the admins seemed so disinterested in changing anything I considered that this may be because the issue was going to be the amount of work they would need to invest in the experiment. I then considered that the only reason thier participation was really needed was enhanced exposure that would be generated by an up-front relationship with the site. If the scripting is such that the site would not have any problem easily hosting additional fights, I must instead ask, why the resistance? If it is only a matter of fixing that which is not broken I personally feel the admins should turn over that responsibility to the songfight community at large.

As a related note:
I had read the longfight thread, and I guess I should apologize for not posting this on the longfight thread.

You could always start your own site... Hmm?

Okay then. Let's formally propose a long fight - say of one month. Give it it's own thread as a sidefight. Participants host their own entries - if some have no space, I'd be happy to host. If no one wants to set up a voting script on their site, we can use the thread for voting as well as discussion.

The SF admins would have no part in it. But if it's a great success and people express a desire for more of the same, we're in a good position to suggest than longfights become part of the main SF site. Without evidence that longfights are popular, we're in no position to make any suggestion.

Oracle wrote:I have to admit, when there are a good number of people talking about how much they'd like something not changed, but given alternatives regarding (the length of the fights, for example) I feel that there is in fact something "broken".

Keep in mind that for every person that has posted some remark in the other thread, there are several other, less vocal fighters who feel the system should stay true to its roots, and that unnecessary additions or changes would be stupid. The fact that songfight.org exists isn't preventing anyone from making their own knockoff with their own rules.

Oracle wrote:If the scripting is such that the site would not have any problem easily hosting additional fights, I must instead ask, why the resistance? If it is only a matter of fixing that which is not broken I personally feel the admins should turn over that responsibility to the songfight community at large.

I fail to find a point in them doing so. To me, there is little difference between hosting a sidefight on the front page and putting up banner ads. You can deny the stigma of advertising by showing how tied it is to musicians, but, given that other options exist (create your own competition site, make it a sidefight and use a message board poll, etc.), the only reason you have to put it up on songfight.org is for greater exposure, as you've stated. Personally, I do not find that to be enough reason. The admins are known to post links on the front page to other community-related events (hell, Spud once offered to put a news post about my band having a show, and I find that rather insignificant); while I am not an admin, and do not guarantee the option, if you're solely looking for exposure, you could go that route instead, rather that ask the admins to put in extra time for your convenience.

Finally, to state that the admins should pass on their responsibilities to others, when they are already working so diligently to keep the site running smoothly, is insulting in my eyes. I do not speak for them, mind you, but if I was an admin, I would be offended by that remark.

Oracle, admins here are fronting the whole thing...space, bandwidth, production of site.

As you may have read, we already experienced change...there used to be only ONE fight...then two, then three...now we are back to two.

Anything that the admins here do should be appreciated... they have done it on their own time outside of their day jobs. We should respect that.

they have made necessary changes... and will in the future as well...they have actually made this site 300% better than it was originally.

With that said, I don't want to sound like I'm coming off as the authority end all be all... You should sidefight... folks would be interested I'm sure.

Oracle wrote:I have to admit, when there are a good number of people talking about how much they'd like something not changed, but given alternatives regarding (the length of the fights, for example) I feel that there is in fact something "broken". This tends to indicate someone should at least experiment with "fixing it".

Perhaps that person should be you. Create a website that sponsors a songwriting competition more to your liking. The two people who invest their time and money into making this website run should have the final say in how their website is designed.

You know, I think calling yourself Oracle (unless it is a Catwoman/database reference) brought out the recalcitrant in me. I thought 'oh, here we go. Another new person who thinks they know best / has some great blinding insight that hasn't occfured to anyone else in the history of time ever.' But then I thought 'we're all entitled to our opinions, so I'll treat you accordingly, and be polite.' Unfairly dismissive, perhaps, but that's what i thought.

Then I read your second post, and realised you are just gooberoo with better control of the English language.

If you don't get the reference, then I guess that makes my original point perfectly.

Oracle wrote:I have to admit, when there are a good number of people talking about how much they'd like something not changed, but given alternatives regarding (the length of the fights, for example) I feel that there is in fact something "broken". This tends to indicate someone should at least experiment with "fixing it". Because the admins seemed so disinterested in changing anything I considered that this may be because the issue was going to be the amount of work they would need to invest in the experiment. I then considered that the only reason thier participation was really needed was enhanced exposure that would be generated by an up-front relationship with the site. If the scripting is such that the site would not have any problem easily hosting additional fights, I must instead ask, why the resistance? If it is only a matter of fixing that which is not broken I personally feel the admins should turn over that responsibility to the songfight community at large.

As a related note:
I had read the longfight thread, and I guess I should apologize for not posting this on the longfight thread.

They're uninterested, not disinterested. Disinterested means they have no opinion or interest in the process or outcome. I'm disinterested in the verdict of Jones vs. Smith, so I could be a juror. I'm uninterested in forming a law practice because it's a lot of work and I don't have a law degree.

Anyway. Spud's been pretty plain, here. The format of SongFight! is one week or so, ordained by the FightMasters. You're free to start your own SongFight-like site; godspeed if you do, the FightMasters didn't originate the idea, we wish you the best of luck, but the format is as it is, and three weeks is pretty long. I personally don't think it would help many people. Already, one can make a song based on two-week-old titles and post a link to it in the review thread, if you want, and maybe some folks will listen to it and give you their thoughts; you could post it to SomeSongs if you want. If there's a three-week deadline most people will still only do their song in a few days, or do it in the last week, or the last few days. Do one thing, and do it well; recently we've moved back to two fights per week, off of three, because there was a decline in entries. We could have ten or twenty fights, each with its own tab, on the front page, with rotating deadlines, some a year off, some tomorrow, some three days from inception, some closing when they have five entries, but it's simpler and I think preferable to have one deadline for all fights, and have as few fights as necessary.

Oracle wrote:I have to admit, when there are a good number of people talking about how much they'd like something not changed, but given alternatives regarding (the length of the fights, for example) I feel that there is in fact something "broken".

you claim to have read the thread where this was discussed.
did you not notice that when the idea was suggested, 98% of the responses were overwhelmingly negative?

Neither thread has yet convinced me that anything is "broken." What is broken? Why does it need fixing? How could it be fixed? And more importantly than that, where is my flying car?

Oracle wrote:I have to admit, when there are a good number of people talking about how much they'd like something not changed, but given alternatives regarding (the length of the fights, for example) I feel that there is in fact something "broken".

god, shut the fuck up already. how many site administrators would even take the time to answer you as thoroughly as spud has? i can guarantee you that the previous administrator would not even acknowledged your concern or even read your post.

i haven't always agreed with everything these guys decide, but i have never doubted that their decisions are based wholely on maintaining the integrity of the site and that they are deliberate and considerate.

in closing, you are broken!

Ironic how apropriate my signature turned out to be...

First of all, when I said I felt they should give something over to the songfight community at large I was attempting to imply a vote on the need for change.

Second of all, as I said... my opinion is that it's broken because people (even if a minority) would like an alternative that is not currently there.

Third of all, I do appreciate that the admins have taken time to answer my post at length and in a timely manner.

Fourth of all, Oracle refers to an inside joke. Please overlook it. It was in no way intended to imply I was the bearer of a massive supernatural truth.

Fifth of all, I'd love to get people involved in a longer-than-normal fight... perhaps I will attempt the fight-thread with poll sudgestion. In the past I never frequented the sidelined songfights. If I do so, how many artists should I expect to enter?

This whole thing has a simple answer. Start a side fight in the side fight thread. How hard is this to understand? Why all the discussion? Just do it. Call it the Nike fight if you want. I have noticed that often a sidefight will even get props on the main songfight.org page... just do it, stop talking about it cause it's pointless....more posts in PRAISE THE MASTER!!!!!

Oracle wrote: I'd love to get people involved in a longer-than-normal fight... perhaps I will attempt the fight-thread with poll sudgestion. In the past I never frequented the sidelined songfights. If I do so, how many artists should I expect to enter?

Cool, glad to have you as a new member. We do anticipate that you will be an accepted friend here in our community. Your orignal post may used terminology that was confusing and naive to our community. We don't want to come off as a bunch of A-Holes, only half of us are actual A-Holes. Your original post, based on lack of knowledge of our community, came off wrong.

Now, if you start a sidefight, you may get one to 50 participants. It just depends on how unique or appetizing your package offer is. By that I mean, the incentive. I don't necessarily mean anything tangible as much as I mean, how original or captivating your idea is. If you already have some folk who want to get involved, cool..you can even make your sidefight a poll in the thread. Deadlines, ideas, even tangible outcomes will determine how popular your sidefight is. Most sidefights are themed or have some interesting challenge as incentive...so go for it do0der.

I'm not much of a sidefighter, heck, I'm struggling to come up with time for the regular fights.

Oracle wrote:First of all, when I said I felt they should give something over to the songfight community at large I was attempting to imply a vote on the need for change.

Second of all, as I said... my opinion is that it's broken because people (even if a minority) would like an alternative that is not currently there.

Songfight is not a democracy. If someone gave you that impression, that person was misleading you.

The fact that some people may want to participate in a competition that is different from Songfight does not mean that there is anything wrong with Songfight.

15-16 puzzle wrote:

Oracle wrote:First of all, when I said I felt they should give something over to the songfight community at large I was attempting to imply a vote on the need for change.

Second of all, as I said... my opinion is that it's broken because people (even if a minority) would like an alternative that is not currently there.

Songfight is not a democracy. If someone gave you that impression, that person was misleading you.

Songfight is a truly global oligarchy run by the ultra cool trumvirate of Spud, JB and the highly mysterious Deep Throat.

Oracle,

I'm the one who originally suggested the longer fight idea. I agree with others who say there should be a sidefight to try the idea out. Since it was originally my thing, I'll start it on a new thread.

For those of you who claim that nothing is broken (Generic) let me reiterate why for me, and for potentially many others, it is quote-unquote "broken".

I can't participate very often. The only reason for this is that I'm a busy person and in one week's time I'll be lucky to come up with 6 hours where I can work on music projects. More often, it's closer to 3 hours a week. This isn't enough time to do a a song worthy of wasting people's time and bandwidth on. I think it's selfish to throw together some POS in an evening and expect everyone to download/listen to/form an opinion of/review it just because it's out there. I appreciate the value in other people's time, and I don't waste it lightly (at least, not intentionally! (-:).

Of course, if I had a lot of discretionary time, Songfight would not appear "broken" at all. Please put yourself in the shoes of someone whose time is expensive.

On the other hand, I'm willing to entertain the idea that I'm being too critical and am perfectly capable of penning a masterpiece in 3 hours. To that end, I'm submitting this week. (It's a longer fight, but I'm already done with it, as I'll have no more time before the deadline.) But it's not the best I can do. I'm not terribly proud of it. It's something, at least, and if people end up loving the crap out of it, maybe I'm wrong.

I guess NaNoWriMo is broken, since I can't write a novel in a month.

-craig

starfinger wrote:I guess NaNoWriMo is broken, since I can't write a novel in a month.

-craig

That's alright dude..I hear JOS started a NaNoWriYear so you're covered.