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.

* 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)

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.

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!

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.

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

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.

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

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

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