Venny and Slota have not submitted, but it is four days past due. Voting will end December 7th.
You may now submit votes for the roynd 3 entry which was best, followed by second best, and third.
You may also voice your opinion on the rules for RA round 4.
I propose a requirement that presentations, like many academic presentations, must have an auditory component. That is to say, you must read out your essay and post the audio to YouTube (visual component optional).
The benefits: 1. Greater presentation practice 2. Greater (limited) exposure to new audiences 3. Greater review and focus on quality (if something sounds meandering or pretentious, that will be more obvious when you read it aloud) 4. Greater comradery and personalization. Better simulation of an academic community.
Cons: If you have a unique voice and you want to preserve anonymity, you might feel the need to use a voice changer.
Frankly I feel that this is a necessary change in our model, however, it does require your consent and participation. Let me know your thoughts.
1) Ken contrasts emotionalism, aesthetics and asceticism and shows how these ideals have influenced different people and culture. I think that the West has the best aesthetics out of any other civilization and so ken may be right when he said "to be Western is to be aesthetic. To be western is to hold aesthetics as your highest ideal." I think that an aesthetic revolution or the pursuit of aesthetics can be a good survival strategy for the dissident right.
2) Napoleoff's post was detailed with a lot of history and background as to why a certain aesthetics was formed. "The Baroque is a prime example, perhaps 'the' prime example, of the success of a very hierarchical civilization in producing a cultural environment conducive to artistic and spiritual progress and human achievement."
3) Ainsworth - I think Ainsworth post was great in that he showed how morality and art can be blended together. The pictures he presented covered ideas ranging from a humble and poor Christ to a women's need for a man. Ainsworth did a great job in showing how a group of like minded artists can have an impact on culture. The dissident right can use these ideas to further the goals of our movement.
I constructed a rudimentary rubric. Like Aarvoll was saying, a rubric is a good idea. I think that if we agree upon certain requirements for what constitutes a good post, then the quality of the work being produced will increase.
example of a Rubric that I will use to grade people for rightest art #3
content and ideas
Nothing new. Rehashed ideas. Copy pasta from history book or website. Does not try to extrapolate meaning or ideas from a subject.
Familiar subject and ideas but also new stuff as well. extrapolate meaning or an idea from a subject
Youtube or some other form of communication is used.
Use of language
Errors in grammar are prevalent. Oddly worded and not smooth reading. excessively long or meandering.
Some grammar mistakes. Smooth reading. Can be a bit excessive or long.
No grammar mistakes. Smooth reading.
Evidence of research
No links provided. No easy way to verify where the information was gathered from.
Some links provided but with some research can find out if what is said is true
Links are provided. Easy to verify if what is said is truthful or backed with reasonable evidence or sources.
So based on my rubric 1) ken 2) Napoleoff 3) Ainsworth
I think this rubric is a great idea because I have been grading people with my feelings using no concrete standard. when I originally ranked people based on my feelings the order was different. Now that I have some sort of standard I am able to more accurately judge people based on what they have presented. There are a few issues with my rubric. A lot of requirements were combined together when they should have been apart. So over time I will improve my rubric and judge people on that in the coming rounds. Please feel free to critique my rubric as I want to use the most accurate criteria possible to judge people work.
As for posting audio on YouTube, I think that this is a really great idea. I have actually recorded a few videos of me talking about stuff so that I can clear my head. All of the benefits you listed are good reasons and i'm all for this.
Post by Napoleoff (INTP) on Dec 5, 2018 22:43:00 GMT
Ken: I am for mandating an auditory component in our presentations.
My scores for everyone:
1: Ken first for originality and detail + reading out his essay on Youtube complete with diagrams in the video explaining the concepts of the three civilizational genres.
2: Ainsworth for a good exposition with a lot of information about the lovely paintings and the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood.
3: Flimp for a well-structured and interesting outline of the development of Greek sculpture complete with well-chosen photos to illustrate what you were talking about. Only last because it was too short and ended abruptly just when I was getting into it (it was interesting so I wanted to learn more).
Flimp: I think some sort of rubric could be useful and even necessary. There are a few things that could be moved around in it and a few additions and/or subtractions that could be made. But I think the weighting of the different elements should be adjusted in favour of content and exposition. I did not use your rubric to rank the submissions in this round. Here is the result that I got using your rubric:
3 2 2 content and ideas
3 3 3 organization
3 1 1 dissemination
3 3 3 use of language
1 3 1 evidence of research
13 12 10 totals
However, though your piece was well-sourced and well-organized I felt it was simply too short to merit a higher score than Ainsworth's. Your thesis was interesting and that was precisely why I wanted you to get into a bit more detail in terms of the exposition of what was a good thesis. Your essay was 400 words versus Ainsworth's 1300, my 1600 and Ken's 1100. In view of this, maybe we could add a bit to the rubric that ranks you in terms of how adequate your exposition is of your chosen subject, whether it is too short or whatever. Certainly we should not be judging based on length but at the same time I strongly feel that each subject needs a reasonably full exposition. This is why I downranked your otherwise great submission. If your essay had been at least 800-900 words with instead of 400 I would definitely have ranked your submission higher. Let me know what you think of this or if you think it is unfair.
Finally, to Ainsworth and Ken, please remember to vote by Friday 7th.
Flimp and Napoleoff -- I'm happy to hear that your future submissions will have an auditory component. Flimp, great job with the rubric. It's a simple thing but will be immensely helpful going forward.
3 2 2 content and ideas 3 1 2 organization 1 1 1 dissemination 3 1 2 use of language 2 2 1 evidence of research ------------------------- 12 7 8 totals
Totals: Ken=6 Napoleoff=5 Ainsworth=5 (minus 3 for not voting) Flimp=2
By not voting, Ainsworth's score is artificially "relatively" higher (since if Ainsworth voted, everyone else would gain votes necessarily and he would gain nothing.) Had Ainsworth won, this would have had to been taken into account. Therefore, I subtract 3 points from Ainsworth's score.
If we divide the scores by 6 (the possible max score), we get: Ken+1 Napoleoff+0.83333333333 Ainsworth+0.33333333333 Flimp+0.33333333333