42 Comments on What’s the deal with Volunteers winning PBA?

The Ca t on Sun, 28th Sep 2008 1:21 am


We have the meeting of the minds. If the awardees, organizers and bloggers are indebted to the volunteers, how come their names were not even mentioned. There is really injustice to the hardworking volunteers. I can see that the list last year was published, therefore what will prevent them from publishihg the new ones.

It is not a sin to recognize the efforts of the organizers but it is not appropriate to give the awards in return for their sevitude. Besides, there are only a few of these awards that are available and so other volunteers will be left emptyhanded. IS that the reason why there was To borrow the word of one volunteer last year…hulaballoo in the awarding ceremony?

What they could have done is to come up with a separate badge and a trophy for those who selfishly served without remuneration to make the affair a success. Mas credible di ba.

Yes, DISCOVERY of some facts may shock you like a blogger/volunteer/sponsor whose blog captured the special awards duly awarded by other sponsor. Ano yan, payback o naniningil ng contribution niya?

If that is the case, anyone can apply as sponsor in return for some favor like bagging the award.

Hindi lang ito walang dekicadeza. Uber dishonorable pa.

The Ca t’s last blog post..Paul Newman and Cirio Santiago

maxi on Sun, 28th Sep 2008 2:34 am


sabi ng lola ko, kung sino man ang pumutak ay sya ring nangitlog! I had been observing these hullabaloo’s for quite sometime already. I find it so annoying especially those who point fingers to others when caught sumtin’- sumtin’. Bakit ka umaray kung wala ka naman ginawang masama? Bakit kelangan i-defend ang iyong pagkapanalo or sumtin if you never knew any magic associated to your winning? Why resort on personal assassination when asked/questioned rather deal the issues being raised.It could have been better if the concerned individuals should deal directly to the issues being raised. Or should I say its their way of twisting the truth?

Eugene on Sun, 28th Sep 2008 4:09 am


Just a bit of correction. You said that “Eugene kept saying na mas serious pa raw ang flaws last year.” Regarding last year’s PBA I only said the following recently:

1. “There?s actually a helluva lot more controversy about last year?s awards than this year’s” (in a comment on this blog)

2. “actually, mas maraming issues last year compared to this year” (in a plurk comment)

So I don’t know where you got that I “kept saying” that there are “serious flaws” last year. Controversy does not equal serious flaw.

I said that there’s more controversy last year because there was actually a lot more heated debates and discussions that appeared on a whole lot of blogs and not just concentrated on several blogs like this years. The impact on the Pinoy blogosphere of those debates was comparable to the Desperate Housewives issue.

And just because there’s a controversy does not automatically mean that there are serious flaws. To illustrate this point, let’s take the most recent Philippine political controversy. The “double insertions” in the 2008 Philippine Government budget and the fact that Sen. Lacson is raising hell over it is definitely a controversy. But whether the insertions are legitimate, or a product of procedural oversight, or a malicious case of corruption remains to be seen. I.e., the double insertion is not necessarily a flaw just because there’s a controversy over it.

My bad Eugene. I apologize. I edited the wording and did not delete the original mistake so readers would know. Here’s the edited version: “Curious ang lola kasi Eugene kept saying said na mas serious pa raw ang flaws last year (edited by Reynz - apologies to Eugene) mas maraming issues last year compared to this year.”

reynz on Sun, 28th Sep 2008 5:05 am


Ewan ko ba ba’t I completely forgot to double check your line samantalang I made sure na meron akong source below which was the last on my checklist. Clearly my mistake and I again I apologize. No malicious intent whatsoever, Eugene. That statement actually ignited na mag-research ako. Thank you.

Eugene on Sun, 28th Sep 2008 5:37 am


It’s ok, Reynz. It’s no biggie and thanks for the edit. I also had my share of misquoting someone and being called out for it.

reynz on Sun, 28th Sep 2008 5:49 am


Thank you. I was focusing more kasi in trying to find the names=blogs of these bloggers because some of the “ABOUT” are blank or something else, which of course I could understand because ganun din ako.

reynz’s last blog post..What?s the deal with Volunteers winning PBA?

The Ca t on Sun, 28th Sep 2008 10:07 am


“Controversy does not equal serious flaw.”

I am working on more on the broken window theory. Last year, if the volunteer-award winner hoopla was dismissed as mere inggit-sourgraping-pikon -accusation by sore losers just like what’s happening today, the same flaw surfaces today.
It is not only delicadeza which we are talking about. It is ignoring the conflict of interest rule that is being ignored like in the case of sponsor-volunteer-winner and now organizer. BIG TIME.

Broken Windows theory, which holds that ignoring the little problems creates a sense of irreversible decline that leads people to abandon the community or to stay away.

Will the winners feel proud of carrying the badge? Will the awards morphed into a BIG JOKE that when you are a winner, they would suspect you that are a friend, a friend of a friend or another friend.

Will the hypersensetive/intellectual bloggers/winners lose their composure and lose their good reputation in the blogosphere.

Will conscience-stricken bloggers who were involved in the awards just walk away to avoid being identified with the award body?

And just because there is a small crack in the window which instead of changing the window pane itself, they chose to cover it with a “cardboard.”

In the awards ek ek, the “cardboard” is represented by the following:

1. non-publication of the names of volunteers
2. incite the winners to make a defense…right or wrong
3. encourage coffee talk and gossips in the social network like twitter and plurk especially on people who would not care whether their statements are with sense or not.

The broken window is getting bigger and bigger especially that the award committee was incorporated to be able to accept donations. Money and goods are coming in. How were they disbursed and disposed? Who’s auditing? Transparency seems to be a problem which further clouds objectivity.

Reynz is an accountant/auditor and so am I. That’s the reason we are working on the same wavelength on this issue.

The Ca t’s last blog post..Paul Newman and Cirio Santiago

colegialagirl on Sun, 28th Sep 2008 11:24 am


Para sa akin po naman ay there is always a room for improvement. Pero dapat ang kalakaran dito ay pasulong hindi paurong. Mabuti rin iyong may pumupuna at nakikita ang mali, ngunit sa pagpuna naman ay kaakibat ng mga suggestions kung papapano nating isaayus ang mga hindi gaanong epektibong sistema sa pagpili at paggawad ng mga awards. Transparency is a must at dapat may mga datus na ipinapakita kung papaano nahirang ang isang blog para manalo. Alam ko ginagawa na po ninyo ito at sana ay ipagpatuloy at lalo pa itong pagibayuhin. Mabuhay po kayong lahat.

['teng! This is REYNZ: I will pick up the word TRANSPARENCY. I heard they are a NON-PROFIT. Dapat lang na ipublish ang Financial Statements.]

colegialagirl’s last blog post..?Lead us not into temptation?(Basta driver/conductor sweet lover)

chuvaness on Sun, 28th Sep 2008 12:58 pm


ahahhaha. ayuf. Philippine Bolunteer Awards! Hahaha. Ano ba kabisyoooo! Anong kasunod nito? Philippine Bopis Awards? LOL

back in college, sa youth org, mahilig kami mag conduct ng raffle for students. Of course, the officers and all other staffs were not qualified to join. I’m sure you know why.

chuvaness’s last blog post..Owning a Franchise vs Building Your Own Business

Eugene on Sun, 28th Sep 2008 7:06 pm


First of all, the Broken Windows Theory is just that: a theory. The most high-profile application of this theory is its use in supposedly helping the New York City Transit Police decrease crime rate in New York in the early 1990s. The thing is, sociologists and political scientists still disagree whether the “zero tolerance” policy (an application of the theory) is actually the crucial factor in why New York City became one of the most safest cities in the U.S.

Second, assuming that the theory is still valid, it’s takes quite a bit to stretch the metaphor of the Broken Windows Theory to the PBA. Who are the vandals who made the cracks? Who is the law enforcement? Who are the criminals? The Broken Windows Theory says that you ruthlessly fix the errors done by others, but in the PBA issue, you’re saying that the organizers themselves have to fix their own errors. So applying the letter of the theory to the PBA issues is kinda weird.

So let’s go to the spirit of the theory, not the letter, still assuming that the theory is valid: fix the issues, no matter how small. The thing is, not all of the issues people raise are valid. And whether there is really an issue or not is in the eyes of the beholder (cf. my example on Ping Lacson raising hell over the supposed budget insertions). Also, you cannot fix every little issue there is unless you have all the time, resources, etc., in the world. So by constraints, fixing every little “flaw” is an ideal that cannot be done.

Since you’re bringing up your being an accountant/auditor, let me give an example from my software engineering and software quality assurance background. In a software project, there are always bugs in the system. And as is usual in a software project, you have a tight schedule. So unless there are some really big showstopper bugs, you analyze the impact of each bug and the cost of fixing the bug and do an various quality analysis to determine the order and priority of fixing the bugs. Often, (based on the 80-20 principle) 20% of the bugs have 80% of the impact and you’re wise to concentrate your effort into fixing these 20% (or a bit more).

While I agree that there are valid issues raised (like consistency in the application of the eligibility rules), I personally think (and I think that there is a rough consensus) that the delicadeza issue you two are raising with respect to the volunteers is not that big a deal. As I’ve commented before (and have given a personal example), the organizers are quite aware of delicadeza so it’s not as if that they are ignorant.

The thing is, there are only a comparatively few people who think that volunteers winning per se is a bad thing.

chorvalaisever on Sun, 28th Sep 2008 7:31 pm


Reynz wag mo nang pag aksayahan ng panahon itong mga losers na ito. Love and support sa yo ang maraming tao sa blogosphere. Pabayaan mo na yung mga taong nakiki-ride on sa popularity nyo, di sila worth ng korona nyo! All da best ikaw pa rin ang da queen!

The Ca t on Sun, 28th Sep 2008 8:48 pm


Second, assuming that the theory is still valid, it’s takes quite a bit to stretch the metaphor of the Broken Windows Theory to the PBA. Who are the vandals who made the cracks? Who is the law enforcement? Who are the criminals? The Broken Windows Theory says that you ruthlessly fix the errors done by others, but in the PBA issue, you’re saying that the organizers themselves have to fix their own errors. So applying the letter of the theory to the PBA issues is kinda weird.

Good googling but not accurate enough. Too literal.
Very kindergarten analysis.

When I use broken window theory I am referring to it as a damage control strategy…working on small problems that may grow out of proportion and can no longer be solved because the people are in denial and or cover up each and everyone like the big BAILOUT.

You have bee saying that there are valid issues…then start with the valid issues …solve it or people should look into it.
It is just like at the sign a small problem which is commonly igno

It seems you are applying the broken window literally.

In simple language. broken window

The Ca t’s last blog post..Interview with Sarah Palin

The Ca t on Sun, 28th Sep 2008 8:59 pm


you cannot fix every little issue there is unless you have all the time, resources, etc., in the world. So by constraints, fixing every little ?flaw? is an ideal that cannot be done.

===========

I am disappointed with you. If you are my subordinate. I would fire you without thinking.

Little flaw can grow big.

A small dot or a decimal point in an eight digit figure in a financial statement can mean disaster to publicly traded corporations.

To a marketing firm, a wrongly worded, not politically-correct advertsiement can bring civil suits for the company just because a person forgot to check what the word meant for other culture.

What’s difficult of following the standards set. What’s difficult with publishing the names of the volunteers.

What’s difficult with making the guidelines and criteria clearer?

What’s difficult publishing how each and every category were selected and not only based on one general standard.

The Ca t’s last blog post..Interview with Sarah Palin

The Ca t on Sun, 28th Sep 2008 9:05 pm


While I agree that there are valid issues raised (like consistency in the application of the eligibility rules), I personally think (and I think that there is a rough consensus) that the delicadeza issue you two are raising with respect to the volunteers is not that big a deal. As I?ve commented before (and have given a personal example), the organizers are quite aware of delicadeza so it?s not as if that they are ignorant.
================

Ignorant is not the word, it is thick skinned is more approproate word. Did you see the comment here about the youth who was sponsoring the raffle and they inhibit themselves from joining?

Young as they are, they already know what is right and what is wrong. They were just high school students, no fancy degrees but they have that moral sense of nakakahiya.

We do not have to get the consensus of anybody.

It does not mean that when an issue is not popular because it criticizes some gods in the cyberspace, then it is wrong.

The Ca t’s last blog post..Interview with Sarah Palin

The Ca t on Sun, 28th Sep 2008 9:12 pm


The thing is, there are only a comparatively few people who think that volunteers winning per se is a bad thing.
========
So what about a sponsor, a volunteer winning a blog award.
Isn’t that a conflict of interest, Walang delicadeza di ba.

Because If someone knows that the award body allows that then anybody can apply as sponsor and get an award too?

Di ba sa mga contest ng mga kumpanya kung saan sila sponsor, pinagbabawal ang pagsali ng mga kamag-anak?

YOu asked me to name names at the onset of our discussion, now that reynz has provided the names, why are you not justifying the winning of volunteers of the awards.

Youtr move SEAV.

The Ca t’s last blog post..Interview with Sarah Palin

reynz on Sun, 28th Sep 2008 10:41 pm


Your bringing up the 80/20 Paretto principle in essence is really materiality to us. I?m no stranger to materiality. We use it in audit testing all the time, more specifically on pre-audit engagements to determine what areas we are going to focus our audit so we could come up with an efficient plan and engagement strategies.

Interestingly enough, although the software/accountant?s certification have possibly similar approach to efficient testing (your Paretto ? our materiality), I believe the comparison stops there because at any given level where even the slightest mistake that appears to a third-party as nothing (re: immaterial to affect an opinion or audit findings) will appear to an auditor as leading to an audit investigation.

End game for your software example is a bug-free software, for accountants, their license and credibility, for PBA? Credibility. It?s a bit different but comfortably the same, I guess.

I?ll give you a very simple example.

In accounting, balanced books do not necessarily mean correct books. In one of my audit engagements in Memphis, a Business Manager has clean, sparkling set of books. Even bank reconciliations were balanced. In about 6 operating accounts (read: checking accounts), there was one account where she did not use and book the check sequence. The year-end audit provided an unqualified opinion (read: clean books). The check sequence did not pass with me. Paretto? Not applicable. The CPA?s issued an unqualified opinion. Materiality? If I tell it?s a petty cash bank account, you?ll probably laugh. So, yes, forget about materiality. Result of my audit? I?ve just uncovered a Business Manager using company funds from car maintenance to utilities to personal effects and paying her credit cards through this account. How did she hide this? By using different sets of check numbers to make them difficult to find. This is a true story which was actually one of the reason why I would eventually be promoted at our company.

Then, there?s the awareness factor. In other words, a conscious acceptance decision on PBA?s part that even though this was wrong, it?s ok because according to your Paretto analysis, it?s not going to impact much anyway on what?s at stake with PBA, that is, credibility.

Eugene, I am more inclined to tell you that you are wrong than by disagreeing.

PBA?s awareness of the fact that they were risking their credibility is already an acceptance of a wrongdoing and by giving out the awards to volunteers because few people complained, that?s under the pretext that nobody will know and nobody will find out. (Pinoy bloggers should be happy; we are here to fight for truth, justice and equality!)

Justifying that this is acceptable because as you say ?only a comparatively few people who think that volunteers winning per se is a bad thing? is wrong. (You know what?s on my mind? Yong mga nag-nanakaw nang mga office supplies.) You cannot bring this to a mere level of percentage of comparisons. What?s at stake is credibility. Even if it?s only myself, bluepanjeet, cat, jepoy and GameOps who are making fuss about this, the impact of the action will still be the same even if only one person heard the boom or a thousand people heard the boom. There are a lot of reasons why bloggers in Manila would prefer to be silent about the issue. Silence does not necessarily mean, they’re all in agreement that no wrongdoing was done. You know that. Worse, the impact of the action will still be the same for years to come. So, let me make a prediction based on those principles you laid out, they?ll do this again in 2009.

I?m not convinced Eugene. Sorry.

reynz’s last blog post..What?s the deal with Volunteers winning PBA?

Eugene on Mon, 29th Sep 2008 4:18 am


Not really googling. I read Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point so that’s why I have some familiarity with the theory.

Also, that’s why I analyzed your application of the theory in both letter (i.e., literal) and spirit. I’m a bit disappointed that you think my analysis is “kindergarten”.

Eugene on Mon, 29th Sep 2008 4:28 am


I’ll stand by what I said. Fixing every flaw is an ideal that cannot be done. Fire me if you want.

Everyone makes mistakes. But not all mistakes are equal in importance or impact. That’s why we do quality analysis. We determine which errors or bugs are important to fix or not. Part of the analysis is identifying which “small” errors can become big; i.e., that’s the impact analysis part.

For example, there are two bugs in a financial software. One is using plus where a minus should’ve been. The other is a confusing chapter in the user’s manual. The first is a “small” error (only one character). The second is larger since it involves rewritting, proof-reading, etc. Upon doing impact analysis, the project manager determines that the small error is more important because it does the wrong calculation in a critical feature, while the confusing chapter is about a little-used feature of the software.

My simple point is, we should analyze the errors and see what needs to be prioritized given the constraints.

I did not mean the “little” in “little flaw” to mean a literal “little” (e.g., one character or one decimal point). I used it to mean low-impact error; one that can be put aside for the meantime while you fix the big errors.

Eugene on Mon, 29th Sep 2008 4:37 am


And that’s why the organizers and the judges are disqualified from getting any awards in the PBA.

Now the question is whether volunteers should be disqualified too. In that point I don’t agree that they should be disqualified.

As for the sponsors. You said that there’s a sponsor that won an award? Really? I did a quick comparison between the winner list (except sponsor awards, because the sponsors make their own criteria) and the sponsor list and I don’t see it.

Eugene on Mon, 29th Sep 2008 4:45 am


I disagree that volunteers should be disqualified from entering the awards. The awards does not have enough sponsors to justify paying for an events organizer or full-time/part-time staff and so it relies on volunteers to help create audio/visual, man the registration booth, be stage managers, be emcees, etc.

It actually helps that you know that bloggers themselves are the ones doing the awards and not some disinterested third-party entity. The PBA is an event that is quintessentially for-bloggers-by-bloggers and that is a good thing. To mitigate the conflict of interest, only the organizers and the judges themselves are barred.

As for the sponsors, please see my previous comment.

Eugene on Mon, 29th Sep 2008 5:06 am


“End game for your software example is a bug-free software”

…is an *ideal* that is actually not achieved at all for all but the simplest type of software. EVERY software you use is bug-ridden. The important thing is to fix as much errors as possible with that have the most impact.

Even then, even if computer science is a science, not all “bugs” are actually bugs that should be fixed (i.e., it’s not a case of binary 0 or 1, black or white, right or wrong, error or not in error). That’s the reason why there’s an inside joke in software engineering that some bugs are actually “features”.

—
“Then, there?s the awareness factor. In other words, a conscious acceptance decision on PBA?s part that even though this was wrong, it?s ok because according to your Paretto analysis, it?s not going to impact much anyway on what?s at stake with PBA, that is, credibility.”
—

Credibility is in the eyes of the beholder. If most people think that the awards is credible, then it’s credible. Just because there are detractors (and really, what event has no detractors?) does not mean that the event is automatically in-credible. One needs to analyze the points raised by the detractors and see for oneself whether the event as a whole is credible or not.

Just because there’s an issue raised does not mean that that is automatically a wrong that should be corrected.

—
“There are a lot of reasons why bloggers in Manila would prefer to be silent about the issue. Silence does not necessarily mean, they?re all in agreement that no wrongdoing was done.”
—

Oh, you are quite wrong. Pinoy bloggers are collectively vociferous and will speak their heart out when they feel that something is wrong. Just look at the various issues that exploded in the Pinoy blogosphere last year (e.g., Desperate Housewives, Malou Fernandez, Carl Ocab, etc.). You’re not giving bloggers too much credit.

The Ca t on Mon, 29th Sep 2008 7:46 am


Oh, you are quite wrong. Pinoy bloggers are collectively vociferous and will speak their heart out when they feel that something is wrong. Just look at the various issues that exploded in the Pinoy blogosphere last year (e.g., Desperate Housewives, Malou Fernandez, Carl Ocab, etc.). You?re not giving bloggers too much credit.
++++++++++++++++++++++

Oh yes and you’re naive not to see my names among those who joined nick tingog in condemning Malu and Teri Hatcher.

And I was one of those who commented in yuga’s blog that children whould not be subjected to interrogation in whatever form when some gods in the internet waited for the father to leave the 13 year old blogger to gang him up?

But again, you are comparing orange from apple. There is no award involved. Walang delicadeza’ng involved.

The Ca t’s last blog post..Career Change-Prayers really work

The Ca t on Mon, 29th Sep 2008 7:55 am


I disagree that volunteers should be disqualified from entering the awards. The awards does not have enough sponsors to justify paying for an events organizer or full-time/part-time staff and so it relies on volunteers to help create audio/visual, man the registration booth, be stage managers, be emcees, etc.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I am disappointed. You keep on harping with enough bullets to support your allegations. What’s those big time companies
doing?

http://www.philippineblogawards.com.ph/category/philippine-blog-awards-2008/page/3/

No sponsors? What’s these?

thank our sponsors for supporting local Pinoy bloggers.

Co-Presentors
Level Up! Games
San Miguel Corporation
Nokia
Blog Bank
Smart Communications
Josiah?s Catering
Toshiba
Geiser Maclang
San Miguel Corporation

Gold Sponsors
Rsun My Technology Store
Yahoo
2go
Belo Medical Group
XFM 92.3
Buddy Gancencia Reality TV
Ultravision Photo and Video
Click Booth
Aloha Board Sports
Sheero Media Solutions
YourPinoyBroker.com
PLDT
Red Box
Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf
Havaianas
California Pizza Kitchen
David and Goliath

Media Partners
Inquirer.Net
ROAM Magazine
flippish tv

And your point is…to award the volunteers for their jobs done?

Kaya nga change the title to Philippine Volunteers Awards.

The Ca t’s last blog post..Career Change-Prayers really work

anonymous on Mon, 29th Sep 2008 7:57 am


Ang daming satsat nakakairita na sila! Yung isang winner/volunteer nanalo pero hindi naman sumunod sa rules ng special awards. Hindi pa ba obvious yan? O bulag talaga lang talaga kayo?

Yun yun eh!

-anonymous sa lahat pero kay reyna elena hindi

The Ca t on Mon, 29th Sep 2008 8:16 am


As for the sponsors. You said that there?s a sponsor that won an award? Really? I did a quick comparison between the winner list (except sponsor awards, because the sponsors make their own criteria) and the sponsor list and I don?t see it.
=======================

Because you come with prejuduce that we are just detractors. SO you trust so much your intelligence and googling skills to debunk whatever is written here. But if you are serious in defending the body, don’t insult our intelligence by coming with I-do-not-know, flip flopping,nitpicking style of argument.

COme with some evidences.

If you don’t see it, this is the screenshot of the major sponsors last year.

http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h175/apokorin/pbasponsors.jpg

and here is the link in the Philippine Blog Awards page.

Any justification again. Are you the spokesperson?

What is the name of aboutmydiscovery.com doing in the major sponsor list, volunteer list and blog awards list.

Even if it special awards, they can’t win if they are not nominees. The more they should not be joining because they have the hand in choosing nominees.

And I do not think this is true for all sponsors because yuga was said to have been disqualified from getting awards because he is among the major sponsors according to one blog last year. What gives?

Is this the reason why some profile high profile bloggers are absent in today’s PBA?

The Ca t’s last blog post..Career Change-Prayers really work

The Ca t on Mon, 29th Sep 2008 8:19 am


And here is the link where you will see the names of the major sponsors last year. Check it out with the lists of volunteers/winners above.

http://www.philippineblogawards.com.ph/category/philippine-blog-awards-2007/

The Ca t’s last blog post..Career Change-Prayers really work

reynz on Mon, 29th Sep 2008 8:56 am


@eugene,

First, let?s get this computer thing out of the way.

I SAID:

?End game for your software example is a bug-free software?

YOU SAID:
?is an *ideal* that is actually not achieved at all for all but the simplest type of software. EVERY software you use is bug-ridden. The important thing is to fix as much errors as possible with that have the most impact. Even then, even if computer science is a science, not all ?bugs? are actually bugs that should be fixed (i.e., it?s not a case of binary 0 or 1, black or white, right or wrong, error or not in error). That?s the reason why there?s an inside joke in software engineering that some bugs are actually ?features?.

I SAID:

SO, what?s the point? Ideal is the most that could be achieved, true in accounting, in science and to quite possibly sum’tin sum’in else. Isn?t it that the final end-game objective for your software is to have a complete, precise and fully functioning bug-free software? So, not to have a bug-free software by fixing the bugs in your software? Leave it as a ?feature??

reynz’s last blog post..4th & final job interview in Chicago and the Presidential debate

reynz on Mon, 29th Sep 2008 9:24 am


On the Malu/DH comparison:

I said:

?There are a lot of reasons why bloggers in Manila would prefer to be silent about the issue. Silence does not necessarily mean, they?re all in agreement that no wrongdoing was done.?

You said:

Oh, you are quite wrong. Pinoy bloggers are collectively vociferous and will speak their heart out when they feel that something is wrong. Just look at the various issues that exploded in the Pinoy blogosphere last year (e.g., Desperate Housewives, Malou Fernandez, Carl Ocab, etc.). You?re not giving bloggers too much credit.

My response this time?

PBA - No vociferousness. Just me, cat, bluep, jepoy & gamopps.

Malu/DH - Big time.

Your conclusion? - Because Malu/DH were vociferous they’re right and because we don’t make that much commtion - we’re wrong.

So, this too, let me get this thing out of the way. In all of your arguments, you’ve literaly brought them down to a numbers game. Why do I dis-agree with you a lot more this time?
(My main point is coming up next…)

reynz’s last blog post..4th & final job interview in Chicago and the Presidential debate

reynz on Mon, 29th Sep 2008 9:36 am


Credibility issue

You said:

I personally think (and I think that there is a rough consensus) that the delicadeza issue you two are raising with respect to the volunteers is not that big a deal. As I?ve commented before (and have given a personal example), the organizers are quite aware of delicadeza so it?s not as if that they are ignorant.

To justify: You said:

The thing is, there are only a comparatively few people who think that volunteers winning per se is a bad thing.

I said:

?Then, there?s the awareness factor. In other words, a conscious acceptance decision on PBA?s part that even though this was wrong, it?s ok because according to your Paretto analysis, it?s not going to impact much anyway on what?s at stake with PBA, that is, credibility.?

And now: You said

Credibility is in the eyes of the beholder. If most people think that the awards is credible, then it?s credible. Just because there are detractors (and really, what event has no detractors?) does not mean that the event is automatically in-credible. One needs to analyze the points raised by the detractors and see for oneself whether the event as a whole is credible or not.

I say: (First on the analysis point - credibility at the bottom)

I don?t know what more detailed analysis you could ask for what we (cat, blue, jepoy, gameops) have raised. We want the names of the volunteers and who won. Jepoy made a pretty good presentation. Likewise, we even raised some technical independence issues that even if we don?t, delikadeza concept is very, very much in our society?s culture and political veins.

You said:

Just because there?s an issue raised does not mean that that is automatically a wrong that should be corrected.

I say:

Tell me about it.
You just said that PBA was aware, and is conscious of awarding the volunteers. We kept raising the independence issue, the delicadeza. Issue,. Your original justification. Paretto. A very sophisticated concept. You said, it is acceptable given that there were only few detractors. I responded ? the boom thing. Now you are responding with - Just because there?s an issue raised does not mean that that is automatically a wrong that should be corrected.- You are getting very circuitous in here, Eugene. If you and the PBA people can?t seem to understand that there?s something wrong with delicadeza, don?t hate me by what I am going to tell you: but you are one big candidates for a corrupt government official.

You said:

?Credibility is in the eyes of the beholder.? (Alam mo, pipingutin ko na ang singit mo! Hahaha, pero matino pa rin ang response ko! Saan mo to na-google? Hehehe)

Ok, I?d say ridiculous. I?d say, palusot ka pa. I?d say, whatttt??? Hahaha!

It?s like this, Eugene.

Credibility is the reason behind the $700 billion bail-out that?s rocking my dear United States impacting the whole world. What started at the very bottom that led to the $700 billion discussion was never ?in the eyes of the beholder? because there were way too many people who got fooled by ?enhanced stocks? or ?high-growth stocks? investment certificates sold by blue-eyed, blond-hair, good-looking guys (read: credible investments sold by credible guys). Got me? Now, that?s one ?eye of the beholder? and they use that in Wall Street to give ?credibility? to all these subprimes. Read my subprime entry. I hope you?d get something from it.

Next, credibility is the reason why Arthur and Andersen is dead. In the eye of the beholder? Working for Arthur and Andersen was the most coveted job by new college graduates. Being connected with that name makes you golden. Familiar with Arthur and Andersen? Ask people from SGV. Arthur and Andersen were once the world?s powerhouse in management consulting.

Next, credibility is the reason why PRC continues to have licensure examinations. Graduating from accounting and talking CPA lingo, even if you appear like an accountant does not make you a CPA. You need to pass the licensure. That?s credibility, not in the eye of the beholder.

Eugene, I could go on and on and on.

Reading your arguments you?ve honed it down to a numbers game. Even pulling the sophisticated Paretto to justify them. It?s not in the numbers. It?s in the boom thing where I said, ?the impact of the action will still be the same even if only one person heard the boom or a thousand people heard the boom?


Your first argument was nicely presented (I said nice, not right), the second response ? done hastily to a point where you seem pointless and circuitous. That?s why in the first argument, I said, I was more inclined to tell you you?re wrong than disagreeing. This time around, I will tell you, you are wrong and i hope you guys fuilly understand the negative impact of the delikadeza concept (independence) to one’s credibility because you are one good and talented individual and I don?t want to see you someday as corrupt.

reynz’s last blog post..4th & final job interview in Chicago and the Presidential debate

anonymouse on Mon, 29th Sep 2008 10:01 am


wow….battle of the brains hahahahha…wag mo masyadong awayin si eugene…crush ko na sya LOL

reynz on Mon, 29th Sep 2008 10:03 am


we’ve discussed this point already in lengt before. the issue raised by them was about: IT WAS TAXING TO REVIEW THE BLOGS, which really kills the juice in the awards.

one solution which I suggested was to have a screening committee. another commenter from Canada suggested: why not ask the person nominating the blog to come up with what they think as the 5 best entries. this way there is independence. and then - the judges could do their work.

so to Eugene, to bring the issue again that there were not enough sponsors (which by the way, there were indeed) is a non-justification.

reynz’s last blog post..4th & final job interview in Chicago and the Presidential debate

reynz on Mon, 29th Sep 2008 10:19 am


LECHE KA! hahaha!

In fairness to Eugene, he is cute. He’s not only cute, he is very talented and of course, you guys could see he is intelligent. I’ve said that in my previous comments that he’s different from the pack. And I believe, he’s one of the winners that deserves that award.

And get this: (one final slam dunk social climbing hahha)

EUGENE IS NOT A ROCK STAR! hahahaha!

reynz’s last blog post..4th & final job interview in Chicago and the Presidential debate

Eugene on Mon, 29th Sep 2008 2:23 pm


I would like to apologize regarding the sponsor-as-winner point. I was in the 2008 PBA frame of mind and it is this year’s list of sponsors and winners that I compared. Hindi ko inisip na pati yung mga sponsor at nanalo nung 2007 kailangang pang ungkatin sa partikular na puntong ito.

As for the other points, I will no longer try to rebut. What I’m seeing is that we are all possibly missing each other’s points and I’m tired already to try to organize my comments so that I can present my points more clearly. I guess it’s in the nature of the commenting system that various points of argumentation are intertwined into a non-linear set of comments that makes arguments seem like nitpicking already.

I have my particular beliefs regarding the PBA and you two have your own. Let’s just leave it at that.

The Ca t on Mon, 29th Sep 2008 2:44 pm


I would like to apologize regarding the sponsor-as-winner point. I was in the 2008 PBA frame of mind and it is this year?s list of sponsors and winners that I compared. Hindi ko inisip na pati yung mga sponsor at nanalo nung 2007 kailangang pang ungkatin sa partikular na puntong ito.
======

your allegation is not exactly true when you mentioned that there are not a lot of sponsors so they have to ask for volunteers. You were referring to PBA 2007 when there was just a handful sponsors. That was the time when even some winner/volunteer felt that winning the award was just a consuelo de bobo for having volunteered.

if you are talking about 2008, then you could have looked into the page where the list of sponsors. At hindi yan patakbuhing sponsors.

Kailangang ungkatin kasi patuloy ginagawa.

The Ca t’s last blog post..My WATPT Moments on Golden Parachutes and Breast Implants

mlq3 on Mon, 29th Sep 2008 4:53 pm


Eugene asked me to read this entry and give him my opinion since I was a judge and I might as well repeat the points I essentially made, to him, here.

The question of whether volunteers should be entitled to win awards is a valid one. Personally, this seems to me more of a case of a potential credibility-killer emerging after the fact, with no one thinking it possible beforehand. A simple logistical reason for this: in the preparations leading to, and the crunchtime immediately before, and during, the event, i don’t see how much opportunity there might have been to probe ethical questions this deeply. not least because the whole operation was a volunteer effort, from the incorporators to those they roped in at all levels. the point that volunteers/organizers etc should not be qualified for awards thus seems one of those so obvious basic things that it’s not surprising it was overlooked. for example, a similar disqualification has been in place for the judges (if you judge, you cannot be nominated for any award, etc. this has been the case since i started judging last time).

which introduces a sour note into this year’s awards but opens up a necessary reform to the rules so it will be a clear criteria next year. that’s how awards are improved and enhanced.

you have here the problem that the hard work and toil behind the glitz is not only unseen, but unrecognized and really, shouldn’t be recognized or rewarded after all -it was volunteerism, after all. but the learning-as-you-go, essentially ad hoc nature of this undertaking should be some sort of mitigating factor, if not much. all awards and award-giving bodies (national artists, palancas, toym etc) invite controversy whether motivated by ill or the purest motives.

one problem is that the community is going through teething problems negotiating the shift from a fairly small cohesive group where everyone knows everyone and thus the integrity of individuals is often taken for granted as widely known and thus, unimpeachable because obvious, to a larger effort involving a community that will remain strangers to each other even at the venue. in that case the rules have to be clearer and the criteria more iron-clad.

however one thing worth noting is that unlike many other awards, the basis of the awards are there, permanently, for all to see and evaluate. for example, in any category the finalists are listed and since the criteria are also announced, it’s quite possible for the public, if it wants, to go through the nominees and their entries and gauge for themselves whether the results are implausible or the results make sense. i don;t think any anomalous is there in terms of the results.

the question of sponsored awards is a separate consideration altogether. as is the level of disclosure that ought to be expected from both organizers and sponsors concerning funding, prizes, etc. and how this translates into logistics and even compensation -it may be that a professional events firm should be hired because it would make possible a professional secretariat instead of people risking their health and career to make an event happen like this one. it will cost money to audit the judges’ results, for example, which is something that will surely be expected next time around, based on these suggestions above.

Since two CPA’s have weighed in, and since I know of one CPA who had to work three days without sleep on the collaterals for the awards ceremony, then what this calls for is even more volunteerism. It would be a great help to the organizers, the judges, any volunteers (if there will be any, after this year) and bloggers who think the awards are a good thing, if Cat and Reyna come up with an awards code of ethics for consideration by the PBA as well as volunteering to serve as a team to set up a nominations, vetting, judging, tabulation, and accounting process for next year’s awards.

reynz on Tue, 30th Sep 2008 1:19 am


mlq3,

thank you for visiting. i have one very quick clarification question before i respond fully. thank you.

you said:

“The question of whether volunteers should be entitled to win awards is a valid one.”

Valid according to?

reynz’s last blog post..The search is over! World Peace!

mlq3 on Tue, 30th Sep 2008 6:49 am


reyna, valid according to the whole principle surrounding the awards, that it’s meant to recognize excellence among pinoy bloggers. therefore, every blogger has a stake in the credibility of the awards. as you and cat pointed out, there are widely-accepted principles for the handling of the selection, nomination, awarding etc and it involves those involved in the process being ineligible for the awards.

reynz on Tue, 30th Sep 2008 1:08 pm


mlq3,

thank you for your response. i thought i would highlight your visit/response and make it as my current entry as you will see it live in a few minutes.

it’s a great pride for me of course to have been visited by you. many thanks! really.

empress maruja on Tue, 30th Sep 2008 2:46 pm


Suggestions ba kamo?

* Let the bloggers themselves nominate their own blogs. How they would be judged is still open to discussion. I still prefer na may limited number of entries ang isumite ng mga nais sumali.
* The judging should be peer-based. Judges for Best Fashion Blog, for instance, should be judged by fashion bloggers.
* Dapat hindi pabagu-bago ang award categories. Bawal magdagdag ng award category just for that year, especially if they have a blogger in mind na pagbibigyan ng award.
* Do not allow sponsorships in award categories. Sa event mismo puwede.
* Tapos para mas bengga, ang winner ng bawat category maglalaban-laban for Blog of the Year.

empress maruja’s last blog post..Karina Montefalcon (Part 9)

reynz on Tue, 30th Sep 2008 11:32 pm


The link:
http://reynaelena.com/2008/09/30/world-peace-in-pinoy-blogosphere/

benj on Wed, 1st Oct 2008 9:56 pm


Personally, I agree with most of the choices this year. There were around 2-3 that made me scratch my head a bit but that’s an improvement from last year’s.

The sponsor awards are just that - sponsor awards and not meant to be taken as seriously as the other awards. I do think that they made the program a bit tacky for a couple of minutes while they were handing them out. They were meant to be funny for the most part so I don’t know what to make of them.

The volunteers were on board even before the list of nominees were out. A lot of the volunteers were finalists because those who volunteered had a deep commitment to blogging and were willing to give their time for the success of the event. Obviously, it would be inevitable that the big names (who have the time) will also be the people who would take time to help out. I mean, who can question the finalist status of these people?
Coy of http://thisiscoy.net
AJ of http://baklaako.com
They made waves this year! Their impact was undeniable.

I’m all for criticizing and improving the PBAs. HECK, I DID IT LAST YEAR. But I don’t think that making assumptions and atrocious links cuts it at all. Awards ARE JUST awards. They don’t make our blogs any better when we win them or any worse if when we don’t. The judges are humans and since it’s practically a literary contest, the judging can be quite different if the body had a different set of jurors.

It’s great that MANOLO himself posted here. Any criticism against the PBAs directly reflects on him since he was a part of the judging committee.

How to clean up Pinoy Blogosphere | reyna elena dot com on Sat, 13th Dec 2008 10:03 pm


[...] TWO Hello PBA 2008 Blog Awards?! [...]

Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!