Let me quickly please respond to the comments from MC077
regarding disqualifications, and criticism on the rules
TheLordRudman wrote: ↑
Wed Jun 23, 2021 22:43 CEST
I just saw that I'm disqualified because I'm new here and you can't see my forum username or download my file. I know that is your page and your rules. But, I think they are very rude rules and you disqualified people without hear their mix or only because missing something.
As per the well established Rules and Guidelines
, and as pointed out in the PDFs, your entry was tagged as "technically disqualified"
because of two main issues:
- no documentation to your mix (you just posted your file, wrote " I hope the file is in compliance with the rules. Good LUCK to all of us.", then moved on)
- not the same username as on the forum (LuisRudman on the WAV file, TheLordRudman on the forum, technically your entry could still be associated, but the file naming template is: MC077__Keystone_Angel__Afterglow__ForumUsername.wav ).
The bigger mishap was the lack of documentation, which is mandatory
for every participant.
TheLordRudman wrote: ↑
Wed Jun 23, 2021 22:43 CEST
Like I said before is your page and rules. And, I think that you need to change a little bit those. At least in the Mix round 1 send a email or in the same pdf let them know to your participants what their are missing and fix it so you can at least hear the mix and not disqualified just because something is missing without your participants knows.
The PDF clearly states what went wrong (in the shortest form possible, given the layout). There is nothing that needs to be changed. We have established rules
, and by joining the game you agreed to adhere to them. By now arguing that "they are very rude rules"
, while being so rude in breaking the (agreed on) rules yourself and trying to get this quashed, this argument has turned invalid.
You also don't seem understand the concept of the Mix(ing) Challenge. We are simulating a "client to business" scenario, where even slight mishaps can result in severe repercussions. This is a learning experience through the backdoor of "running a game". I am merely acting as a foreman, upholding and enforcing rules (important for the learning factor!), and tagging files that went out of specs. I don't need to listen to the material in minute detail, neither are the entries "blocked" for the Song Provider.
The Song Provider will still listen to your entry. The Song Provider might or might not
offer you a second change through the help of a "Wild Card" (see here
for an explanation of this mechanic
). I can (in most cases) not overrule that.
However, would your entry was wrongly tagged (forum username) - one out of two participants - and in fairness to all other participants where each entry could be properly associated, I can not make an exception to what has been established in April 2021 with the "Wild Card mechanic
Up until April 2021, you were disqualified with no chance to redeem yourself. I am sorry for the inconvenience, but please take this as a learning experience and pay more attention to detail for the next game.
(thank you @White Punk OD
for also bringing this up and explaining the situation)
Ronson79 wrote: ↑
Wed Jun 23, 2021 23:26 CEST
I´ve seen that I´m disqualified. It was my first time participating in the challenge. Life goes on but I will have to say that it shouldn´t be a problem to write the specs of -16 Lufs und -1 dBTP in the general information post about the song as you mentioned the other stuff like samplerate and bitrate as well. How could I know that I have to look further into a rule guideline and then into another document to find this important information.
But it is what it is.... maybe next time.
Thank you for the feedback. But it really doesn't need to be mentioned at all, since there are several links to the rule set
in the two first posts of each thread.
It is difficult enough keeping the introduction threads "on point" and participants reading the premise. Though I agree, there is (sadly still) no "TL;DR" version of the Rule Set. I am but one person running this whole endeavor, and my time is limited. But other than that, everything is explained in minute detail.
Rules for participants of the Mix Challenge wrote:
Upload and Submission Guidelines
- the final mixdown / export must not undershoot -24 LUFS ILk (Integrated), neither exceed -16 LUFS ILk (Integrated), while the maximum digital signal strength must not exceed -1.0 dBTP (True Peak) - NO (Pre)MASTERING. Recommended measurement specifications are ITU-R BS.1770-2+ (ideally ITU-R BS.1770-4) or EBU R-128
Your entry has been "tagged disqualified" due to the fact that both the LUFS (ILk) and dBTP values exceeded their maximum allowed values. This is however considered "a minor mishap", so you might have the option to advance through the help of a "Wild Card
". Should you be selected for Mix Round 2, please address that overshot by pulling back the volume on the summing bus to not exceed -16,0 LUFS ILk and -1,0 dBTP (can be as simple as a gain plugin after your summing bus processing, or just pulling down the master fader by a couple of dB), and double check with a LUFS measurement tool like Youlean Loudness Meter 2 (e.g. ITU-R BS.1770-4 preset)
If you're not selected, please take this as a learning experience for the next game.
Thank you everyone for understanding.