Serial Monogamy

I’m not impressed with Serial Monogamy.

Call it what it is. You’re messing with someone, and then you’re not.

It’s interesting how some people pride themselves on only hooking up with people they’re in a relationship with… but then… getting into or out of a relationship with them is basically instantaneous. Sure… EVERY relationship ends instantaneously…. It’s ON and then it’s OFF. I’m just saying that it’s a trip how serial monogamists front like every time they’re in a relationship, it’s going to last forever, and then it doesn’t, and then the next one’s supposed to last forever. Meanwhile, they have their psychological excuse for hoing (male or female).

I was first introduced to this concept when I was around 13. Not the technical definition, of course, but the behavior as it pertains to dating. I remember asking a friend of mine about some girl, and he basically informed me that they had broken up, and now he was dating this other chick we knew. That lasted about a week, and then he was dating another chick, but meanwhile other friends of ours had switched off as well. The effect of this was that at some point, ‘everyone’ dated ‘everyone’. What was interesting about this was that there weren’t any politics involved. Politics arrived later, around 16, when people started worrying about status and popularity.

By “no politics”, I mean that there wasn’t any drama involved with a guy, friend or foe, going out with a girl you just broke up with the other day. There wasn’t any drama when she’d break up with that guy and go BACK out with some guy she dated before, or start messing with some new guy. There wasn’t any possessiveness over chicks at all. It was just you were dating someone, or you weren’t.

Once politics became involved, there was a form of status attributed to exclusive ownership of a particular person. There was also a stigma attached to people that messed around, but weren’t in relationships. As usual, because we live in a patriarchal society, the females caught the worst of this, being called hoes, tramps, sluts, easy, etc. For the guys, it’s all sport. How many chicks (if you’re interested in more than one at a time) can you keep in ‘Deep Check’ simultaneously? How many numbers can you pull? How many chicks can you screw?

The addition of politics/drama to the dating scene created the environment in which serial monogamy thrives. From the chicks’ side, they don’t want the stigma of being “loose”… by either definition, hahaha, um, anyway… so they make being in a relationship a requirement for hooking up. This way, no matter how many guys they mess with, they were always in a relationship, so it’s sanctioned, and they can’t be criticized for giving some to their boyfriends (even if she was only with each guy for a month or less… week or less?… day or less?).

Meanwhile, the guys evolved with the girls. Eventually, it became clear that this relationship thing was getting in the way of getting on, so guys learned that it was easier to lie and feign being in a relationship with a chick or three in order to keep them useful. This is one reason why relationships break up suddenly, and it seems like the guy had a ‘change of heart’. He goes from faking being in a relationship with her to not caring about her at all, instantaneously. If his incentive was sex, then as soon as he’s not interested in having sex with her anymore, or he’d much rather hook up with one of his other girlfriends, his entire demeanor towards her changes.

The worst-case scenario of this is the combination of a guy that wants a one night stand with a girl that only wants to give it up to “the right guy” or “the one”. The woman thinks she’s an excellent judge of character, so as he jumps through the hoops, she validates him. Once she decides he’s legit and “the one”, she finally gives it up… then he disappears… or, at least stops taking her calls. This doesn’t even get to the stage of serial monogamy, because his entire goal was to hit it one time… Once. There’s no way she could have known that, because there’s no way he would have TOLD her that.

For some odd reason, women think they can judge this in guys. It’s completely unfounded. How many times have you heard a woman say that she was surprised that some dude hit it and quit it? 😀 Compare that to the number of times that you’ve heard of a woman telling a guy she knew he was just trying to have sex with her and he admitted it.

So now, we live in this evolved culture. People still want to do what they want to do, but they don’t want to be talked about like dogs, so they find ways around their behaviors. They utilize serial monogamy to act like they’re just poor judges of character and that their relationships continually FAIL, to their great surprise and dismay. Meanwhile, to them, “significant other” simply means “the person that they publicly admit to having sex with at this point in time”. There’s nothing wrong with that, but since THEY see something wrong with it, they use these mechanisms to put up a front.

Another unbalanced aspect of serial monogamy is that women eventually face biological clock issues. The timing of this is critical, because if she’s currently dating a serial monogamist and decides she wants to have kids, there could be positive or negative consequences as a result of flipping the script. It’s entirely possible that the guy had no intentions EVER of having kids with her or moving in with her or even having sex with her once she got out of shape. Suddenly, he has the choice of honestly breaking off the relationship, as Laure suggests, or lying and acting like he’s interested in what she’s interested in so he can keep tappin’ that.

In a perfect world, he would ‘release her from her contract’ so she can go ‘get her biology on!’ 😀 … Then again… In a perfect world, people would Stop Frontin’ and do what they wanted to do without hiding behind meaningless titles in the first place.

Who Are You?

I’ve had some really interesting experiences as of late, which all revolve around the question “Who Are You?”. Not the absolutely unknowing question, as in “Who IS that over there?”, but the arrogant question “Who are YOU?”.

Let’s get it straight off the bat. “Who you are” is relative and completely subjective.

Am I an Emmy Award-Winning video editor? Yes I am. Have I been a National *and* International Emmy Awards Judge for several years? Yes I have. Does that have *ANYTHING* to do with how I interact with people? No, it does not.

2007 International Emmy Award JudgingBill Cammack & Elizabeth Hummer 1999-2000 New York Emmy Award WinnersDave & Bill @ NYNATAS - Emmy Judging

This is because what I’ve accomplished is NOT “who I am”. Similarly, what other people have NOT accomplished is NOT “who they are”, either. To take that one level further… Not knowing that someone’s accomplished something does not make them NOBODY or INFERIOR. Learning that someone HAS accomplished something doesn’t automatically make them SOMEBODY or SUPERIOR, either.

I touched on this topic peripherally in “How’s your logo working for you?” when I mentioned meeting Nathan Freitas. To expand… We had just come from a great frisbee game, and a bunch of us headed out to celebrate and socialize afterwards. I had played against Nate, and I thought he did well, and I hadn’t met him before, so I introduced myself to him. He didn’t recognize my name, and I didn’t recognize his, but he knew of ReelSolid.TV, and he and I had actually had text-based interaction way before meeting IRL because he had commented on a video I did about men’s suits. Interestingly enough, even though I knew NOTHING about Cruxy.com at the time, I knew I had a picture with Mike Hudack while he was wearing a Cruxy shirt. Nate immediately and adamantly informed me that I was mistaken, at which time I turned on my camera and produced said picture:

Bill & Mike

The point that’s relevant to this particular post is that I didn’t go from “nobody” to “somebody” when Nate figured out “who I was”. I went from “a person” to “a person that Nate had heard of, and whose work he had seen”. Same thing with me. For me, Nate went from “a frisbee opponent” to “someone I’ve met who runs a site where artists can upload their work and get paid for it”.

Most people who meet me have no idea “who I am”, and I like it that way. They have no idea that I’m an MIT graduate. They have no idea that I’m DatingGenius.

Limor, Phil & Bill
Brass Rats: Phil, Limor, Bill

I like it that way, because people are REAL when they don’t have a reason to sweat you. I love being “judged” by what people see when they look at me. 😀 I love it when people play themselves, because there’s no returning from that. It’s like “Before you knew who you were talking to, you acted totally differently towards me”.

Anyway… I’ve had several interesting interactions over the last three weeks, revolving around the question “Who are YOU?”

I ended up at this party, and I saw this random chick hanging out with three of my homegirls. Out of the goodness of my heart, I decided to introduce myself to her. What I intended to do was say hello to her and move on to hanging out with my actual friends. So I say “Hi. I’m Bill”, and her response is “You sent me a friends request on Facebook, and I declined it”. HAHAHA So I’m like ?????? because this is a totally new situation for me. Usually, when chicks don’t accept you on Facebook, that’s because they don’t want to talk to you AT ALL, so when they’re around you, they don’t say jack to you. So I’m like “Wait a minute… Let me get this straight. You just informed me that I friended you on Facebook so you could tell me that you didn’t accept it? :D” and she’s like “Yeah… Who the hell are YOU?”

So, this was really funny, considering that I have over 500 Facebook contacts and over 280 Linkedin contacts and over 650 Twitter contacts and over 600 MySpace contacts, not to mention people that know “who I am” all over the planet, from Hawaii to the U.K. to Tokyo to The Netherlands to California to NYC. Meanwhile, I introduced myself to this chick “cold”, not recognizing her face or body from anywhere, and not recognizing her as someone that I sent a Facebook friends invite to. In the future, when I figured out “who she was”, I realized that I had friended her because I saw that we had 17 mutual friends. There was nothing interesting or appealing about her. Similar to what happened IRL, I was extending the hand of friendship to someone who was friends with friends of mine.

So I found the question “Who the hell are YOU?” to be ridiculous, because it was as if she was requesting for me to audition to be her Facebook friend when I didn’t give a damn about her in the first place. It was like *I* had something to gain from it. Meanwhile, I could have ignored her completely and interacted with my actual friends and my day would have been exactly the same, except for a funny story to tell about how people get souped up and think they’re worth knowing for some odd reason. 🙂

Another interesting reaction I got recently was at a party. At some point, I took a picture with some chick that I had met that night. About 22 hours after I posted the picture to my flickr stream, I got an email from her with some sob story about the reason why she was asking me to take it down. I didn’t believe a word she said, but I gladly made it private, because every picture I take and post is with people that want to take pictures with me. Just the fact that she was asking me to remove it was grounds for removal. The question here is… Why the hell are you taking pictures with people and not expecting those pictures to arrive on the net? The only uneducated guess I can come up with is that because she had never seen me before, she didn’t figure that a picture she took with me would end up anywhere of note. According to her sob story, she didn’t want certain people to see her partying. The question becomes a) Why were you partying in the first place, and b) Why were you taking pictures with people if you didn’t want to be spotted partying?

Last week, I approached this chick who’s active in social media and is always asking her ‘fans’ for things. When she sends out mass emails, she’s all friendly and acting like she knows who it is that she’s interacting with and cares about them. However, when I arrived, not only was she completely disinterested in who I might be, but she failed to even state what her name was. I didn’t bother asking her because I already knew her name and what she does. I found it funny how someone could be such a beggar in social media, yet totally didn’t promote herself IRL. What sense does it make to make contacts with people via computer and then alienate them in person?

OTOH… There are lots of people that I met during PodCampNYC or at various Twitter Meetups or Meetup Meetups that are either AS GENUINE as they appear online or even MORE SO. 😀 A lot of what we experience of people on the net is merely the characters they’re portraying in their “shows”. When the cameras aren’t rolling, and it’s down to one-on-one communication and interaction, that’s where people really shine or they don’t. That’s where you get to see how people act when there’s nothing in it for them. No audience. No revenue-sharing. No business deals. Just you and them. Person to Person. Face to Face. What’s it like for you to be around them? What’s it like for them to be around you?

Bill & PhilAnnie, Patty, Joe, Roxanne & ChristineKathryn, Christian & Bill

Ultimately, the question “Who are you?” is unimportant. What’s important is how you carry yourself and interact with others. On the spur of the moment, when you meet someone, how do you react to them? How do you interact with them? Do you act differently based on their accomplishments or who they know? Can you have a good time with people that are willing to have a good time with you? What’s the threshold above which you’re willing to interact with someone standing next to you? Someone that sends you a social media ‘friends request’? Someone that’s a friend of a friend of yours, but you haven’t had personal contact with yet?

Is social media merely a networking tool for you, or are you looking to enrich your life by meeting interesting and intelligent people and cultivating relationships with them?

Connections (Passing it On)

Christian Payne aka “Documentally” is a photographer and blogger who was commissioned by the UNHCR to photograph the plight of Iraqi refugees in Jordan.

I edited Christian’s work into a video that we’ve recently completed, and he posted this video, thanking me as well as others for what we’ve done:


Seesmic Member Link | Non-member Link

Initially, this post was going to be called “Thanks for the Thanks”, because I definitely appreciate Christian’s authenticity and heartfelt statements. 😀 “Cheers for that”, as they say over there in the U.K. 😀

However, that’s really a private communication between Christian and myself that happened to be expressed on a public medium (both his video and my text, above). What I think would be more useful to my 40 readers, according to Technorati (minus however-many registered search engines :p) is to talk about the process of creation, in this case, dealing with video, and the difference that it makes when you’re actually emotionally invested in what you’re doing. Also, I wanted to give Christian some more background on how we ended up working together.

I’m a video blogger, which essentially means I film videos and put them on the internet. We have our own little “echo chamber” of friends and colleagues. I first became aware, sort of, of Phil Campbell on Dan McVicar’s social site “Late Nite Mash”.

Bill Cammack & Dan McVicarBill & Dan in NYC
In November, 2006, Dan collected music pieces from Phil and other members and made a “mash-up” with video footage I sent him of New York City nightlife:

I say “sort of” aware of Phil because at that time, social media wasn’t advanced enough for people to get to know more about each other than what they typed on a page or a picture or video they posted. At this point, we not only have the technology to do our own video shows, like Phil’s “The Gravity”, but there are more and more live services popping up… Ustream, BlogTV, Yahoo! Live, LiveVideo, new services all the time, where we get to see a lot more about people than we used to.

So anyway, I got to know Phil Campbell as a quality guy who STAYS on top of the game when it comes to social media and is simply a treasure trove of good ideas. 😀

Next in order, Andrew Lipson gave me an invite to this (at the time, invite-only) video-messaging application called Seesmic while I was an audience member of the Jeff Pulver Show. I checked it out, but it really wasn’t my type of conversation going on between the beta-testers, so I just watched Seesmic like a television show instead of participating in the watercooleresque banter.

There were a couple of people there with strong personalities and methods to their madness. The most animated and volatile of them was this character named “Documentally”. 😀 Most people, once you’ve seen four videos of them, you know their range… or at least the range they’re willing to bring to the world-stage which is Seesmic or any other site where you post videos that people can watch from NYC to Zimbabwe. With Documentally, you never really know what was going to happen in one of his videos. He might say something intelligent and serious. He might say something batty and off the wall. He might say nothing at all. He might roll his truck and videotape the situation as if he’s the first reporter on the scene! 😀 It was clear from the “Documentally” character that Christian Payne had A LOT of range to his personality, and there was a lot of entertainment value in his videos.

So being a morning person, I tend to chat with the European folks (who are 5/6 hours ahead of us) before the Americans wake up. I’m chatting with Phil Campbell and he mentions that his friend Christian had a project he was working on. I let Phil know I was aware of Documentally and was willing to chat with him about the project. In skypeing with Christian, I got to meet the “hang out at the pub” version instead of the “Seesmic character” version. He’s a nice guy, and as he put it in the video, he’s “someone I’d like to call a friend”. 🙂

I really meant to talk about the actual project, but I’ll do that some other time. This ended up being a post about connections. One of the benefits of social media is that people get to learn about each other at their own pace and according to their own level of interest. Another benefit is that we have checks and balances inside our “echo chamber”. For example, Dina Kaplan and I have 102 “Facebook Friends” in common! :O … Even if you spit that into 50 friends and 50 acquaintances, that means there are *50* people that I can contact right this second and ask them a question about Dina. I’d probably get 15 responses back, and they’d all be approximately the same, because that’s how Dina carries herself. She’s consistent.

Liz Gannes, Bill Cammack & Dina Kaplan
Liz Gannes, Bill Cammack & Dina Kaplan

Through social media, and also by meeting in person @ Adam Quirk‘s event named Vloggercue in Brooklyn, I developed an impression of Phil Campbell as a stand-up guy and a good judge of character. For Phil to bring up Christian’s project to me, I’m automatically *infinitely* more inclined to hear more about it. Yes, it helped A LOT that Christian already had a strong social media presence. Yes, it helped A LOT that the photos he shot for the project are rich and full of emotion, intimacy and meaning. However, the *main* thing is connection… passing it on. Social media offers us the opportunity to get to know each other, asynchronously… and then follow up to find out how the real person matches up to his or her online persona.

2007 International Emmy Award Judging

Screening 2007 International Emmy Award DVDs

Friends, Acquaintances & Contacts

Kristen “Kroosh” Crusius wrote a post the other day about what’s going on in her “Friendiverse”… her universe of friends. Her post reminded me that I had intended to comment about Robert Scoble‘s videos about how social networks’ “friends lists” really work.

Part I of Social Graph Based Search. 14:41 minutes.

Part II of Social Graph Based Search. 15 minutes.

And a bonus round III. 6 minutes.

I didn’t get around to writing that post because I’ve been incredibly busy for the last two months.

I think the term “Friends”, as automatically used by several social sites is an unfortunate and misleading label. This is especially true when there are no other choices. You’re forced into a binary system…. Accept or Decline… Yes or No… 1 or 0… My-Friend or Not-My-Friend. Unfortunately, as Scoble pointed out in his videos, reality doesn’t work like that. There are different levels and flavors of relationships between people. Business relationships, Family relationships, Intimate relationships, Adversarial relationships… I think linkedin has it right with the generic term “contact”. How many ‘contacts’ do you have? They’re not (your friends) by default, nor are they (not your friends) by default. Still, in linkedin, there are several types of business relationships, including people that you have worked with personally… people you have not worked with personally, but you trust whomever recommended them to you… people you have not worked with and you have no professional recommendations for, but you vouch for them as a person, so you are happy to recommend them to someone who’s looking to fill a position…. people you have no intention of recommending to anyone, but you will still accept them as a contact… people that you are in contact with specifically so you can set them up with other people….. ALL of these are thrown in together under the title ‘contact’.

Because of the misnomer “friends”, some people have selected this to mean their ACTUAL friends and will only add people that they actually know. Here, I agree with Scoble’s assertion that this is an incorrect usage of social networks. How are you supposed to expand your circle of CONTACTS or “sphere of influence” if you limit yourself on the internet to only the people you know IRL? How are you supposed to learn about new people that might have similar interests or ideals if you deny them connection to you? What’s the point of being on a social site if you’re only going to get in touch with the same people you’re already in contact with? I think that if they had levels of acquaintance on these sites, a lot more people would be connected to each other, because the categories would make sense to them. You would be able to see at-a-glance what level each person had placed their contacts on, and make a better assessment of their actual interaction with each other.

Looking at it from the other direction… It’s not fair that someone that sends you a friends request out of the blue has the exact same status as someone you collaborate with or work with or highly respect or go out for drinks with or climb mountains and eat pancakes with. Both the random person and the IRL friend are marked down as “Friend”. There’s no meritocracy. Even with facebook‘s relationship qualifiers, that’s a SECONDARY trait. It’s like having everyone in your military with the rank of ‘Private’, and you have to go to each Private and ask them what their actual importance is in order to determine who out-ranks whom. No. It doesn’t work like that. You can tell from the bars or whatever emblem on their shoulders who’s running the show and who’s going to be digging the trenches.

In the absence of actual distinctions, I think the best approach to accepting/rejecting social site “friends” is innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around. It’s always a good thing when you can see the applicant’s friends list in order to tell who might know them that YOU know and whose judgement you trust. When I know certain people don’t like jerks, and those people are “friends” with someone, I’m more likely to take my ACTUAL friend’s word that this other person is cool. That would seem to go against what I was saying earlier, because what if my friend is using the same “innocent until proven guilty” style that I am? 🙂 I would be accepting an untested “friend”. However, checks & balances will come into play. If the untested person actually interacts with the community, they’ll start getting “reviews” which will help you decide whether you want to keep them as a friend or not. Ultimately, the circle polices itself.

I was thinking about Kroosh’s “Friendiverse” yesterday, while I was watching Drew‘s live stream from PodCamp Philly. It’s a much more intimate format… giving personal, “hand-written” recommendations of places to go, people to see and things to do. I saw many people from MY Friendiverse on Drew’s stream yesterday… Kathryn, Eric, Jackson, Jonny, Steve, Grace, Charles… and ran into others in the text chat who were also watching the stream.

Ultimately, I’ve been inspired to focus more time & energy on the upper echelon of my own personal Friendiverse. In the game called “keeping up with the net”, it’s very easy to miss out on telling the people that matter to you how cool you think they are. 🙂

Bill Cammack • New York City • Freelance Video Editor • alum.mit.edu/www/billcammack

Check out her moms!!! :O

Fellaz…

If you actually intend to spend more than a couple of days with the same chick, check out her moms. ASAP. NOOOOWWW! 😀 TO-DAY! :O

This is vital. Make sure you see what her moms looks like so you know what you have to look forward to (or run away from) in the future. How do they say?… “The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree”? 😀

Granted, styles of eating and ideas about working out, etc, have changed since her mother was in prime condition in her heyday, so you have to factor that in to her mother’s current condition. It’s much easier for women to stay in shape these days… now that they are allowed to join gymnasiums and work outside of the home.

If she looks better than her moms…. like, TODAY… that’s a good thing. If they look about the same, that could be good or bad. If her moms could be mistaken for her sister, that’s good. Props to her mom, and to good genes! 😀 If she could be mistaken for her moms, that’s bad. 🙁

In case you can’t judge for yourself, let the professionals decide. Take them both out to a bar that has a doorman. If the doorman lets your girlfriend in, but cards her mother, it’s time for a new girlfriend.

We can assume, here in NYC, that your girlfriend’s mother is at least 13 years older than she is. There is NO EXCUSE for her mother to be more attractive than her… NONE! 😀

As usual, make sure you factor in your girlfriend’s personality and character before ditching her. If she’s into staying in shape because she likes the way she looks to herself when she’s in shape, there’s a good chance she won’t “fall off” anytime soon. If she’s one of those “stay in shape until she gets a man” chicks, you’ll be completely dependent upon genetics. Just keep an eye on the ratio between when she picks up a snack and when she picks up the entry card to her health club.

Also, pay careful attention when your girl gets depressed. Chicks love to eat when they’re feeling down. If you suspect foul play in the kitchen, find a way to trick her into getting on the scale on a regular basis. Make a game out of it. 🙂 Play “I bet I ate more dinner than you” with her on the pretense of determining weight before and after a meal, then make sure you keep daily and weekly stats like blog metrics.

Also, pay attention to your girl’s mother’s work ethic. If she likes to spend money more than she likes to MAKE money, she probably passed that on to your girl as well. If she took your girl to department stores more than she took her to “bring your kid to work day” at her job, your girl’s priorities may be irretrievably skewed.

You get the picture. Make sure you compare your chick to her mother, giving her moms write-offs for the extra years she’s had to stay in shape to avoid becoming a has-been. On the off-chance that the moms REALLY SHINES compared to your girlfriend…

find out if her moms is single. 😀

DatingGenius

2007 Broadband Emmy Awards

NATAS + MySpace = 2007 Broadband Emmy Awards

National Television Academy press release

LOS ANGELES – January 8, 2007 – MySpace, the world’s leading lifestyle portal, and the National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, presenters of the coveted Emmy® Awards, today announced they have joined forces to honor premium broadband content on the Internet. MySpace will serve as the exclusive online partner of the Broadband Emmy Award submissions, empowering video producers and filmmakers to submit self-generated content for consideration through the official MySpace Emmy profile at http://myspace.com/MyEmmy.

The National Academy of Television Arts & Sciences debuted its first Emmy Award for content distributed via broadband and portable delivery last year and honored creators in four categories. This year, The Academy will triple the number, honoring creators in 12 categories in four content areas: Entertainment, Sports, News & Information, and Public & Community Service. In addition, high school students are eligible for the National Television Student Awards for Excellence for broadband-delivered content in all seven student categories. Read entire NTA press release…

Now THIS is going to be interesting. 😀

[Full Disclosure: I am a NATAS Emmy Judge as well as an International Emmy Judge]

There are several ongoing debates within the community of people and groups who make videos and post their created content on the Internet. One of them is “what is and what is _not_ a video blog”. There’s another debate about videos posted in “closed” environments vs those posted in ways that make them accessible to whomever happens to be searching the net for video content. A MAJOR debate is what aggregators should and should not be doing with RSS feeds from either content creators or hosting sites.

Yet another daily debate is “what is QUALITY content?” or perhaps “what makes a show popular” or “what makes a show _good_”. The problem, IMO, with making distinctions about what constitutes a popular show is that depending on where you look and how you look at it, shows that get similar amounts of hits can be spun to look like either one is more “successful”. There is no agreed-upon site that can actually track site date consistently and accurately.

This makes sense, because there’s no bottleneck… Meda that goes to the internet goes straight out. It doesn’t have to go through EPs, producers, editors, quality control, legal, studios, stations, channels, local distribution points, cable boxes, televisions. There’s nowhere you can go and say “this show delivered 80,000 units through here and that show delivered 50,000 units, so the first show has more viewership for this period.

On top of that, there are several ways to get data from a site. If someone goes to my web site, they might view a page and then not view the video. They might open the page but not read anything on it at all. They might bypass the main page because they linked to a permalink for one post. They might not hit my site’s pages at all if they subscribe to my videos in RSS. They might not hit the RSS more than once if they are downloading the videos and watching them offline. So… if one site uses page hits to judge popularity and another site uses video downloads, they’re going to see things completely differently, even looking at the exact same site. If you have to have a particular widget installed to count in the rankings, you can forget it entirely as far as accuracy. Anyone who hits the site without being “part of the program” doesn’t count in the stats.

Anyway, I doubt the 2007 Broadband Emmy Awards will have anything to do with page hits and downloads. The Emmys in general are about quality content and quality production values. That’s what makes this contest interesting. MSM (Main Stream Media) is now getting involved in putting clips on the internet in mass quantities. All of a sudden, there are videos on MySpace with laugh-tracks. :/ All of a sudden, a “new” show appears with 30 episodes uploaded on the same day! :/ Reading the eligibility requirements for the MySpace contest, “Repurposed material originally produced for traditional media is not eligible”. That’s good, because cutting three minutes out of a professionally produced, shot and edited piece shouldn’t put you in position to compete with someone that made their video specifically for the internet. That doesn’t mean the internet piece isn’t well done or professionally produced, but it’s apples vs. oranges.

The first category open for submissions is “Entertainment”. It’s open right now, and “News & Documentary” opens on Feb. 26th. They both close on March 26, and finalists will be notified in April.

As usual, make sure you read the fine print in contests or even when you choose a hosting service to upload your videos to. Check out these terms of service in The Rules of the MySpace My Emmy contest:

By entering the Contest, you grant Sponsors a perpetual, fully-paid, irrevocable, non-exclusive license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, distribute, display, sub-license, exhibit, transmit, broadcast, televise, digitize, otherwise use, and permit others to use and perform throughout the universe the Material (including without limitation, the underlying intellectual property therein to the extent necessary to exploit Material) in any manner, form, or format now or hereinafter created, including, but not limited to, on the Internet, and for any purpose, including, but not limited to, advertising or promotion of Sponsors and their services, all without further consent from or payment to you. The completion, expiration and/or termination of the Contest shall not affect Sponsors’ rights regarding Materials or Sponsors’ other rights hereunder. Sponsors shall have, forever and throughout the universe, the right to use such Material in any manner as determined by Sponsors in their sole discretion, including without limitation, the right to make changes, alterations, cuts, edits, interpolations, deletions and eliminations into and from such Material and the right to package such Material with those rendered by other Entrants in connection with the exploitation of such Material, all without further consent from or payment to you.

That’s fantastic! Look how progressive those terms are! Throughout the universe! 😀 Wow! They must know something we don’t know about pending space travel. Anyway… here’s the link to the Broadband Rules from MyEmmy.TV. If you’re willing to pay the $400 entry fee, you can skip all the TOS shenanigans and soul-selling.

The MyEmmy.TV page also includes the Judging Procedures & Criteria:

JUDGING PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA:

Content, Creativity and Execution are the primary standards for judging. Each criterion is given equal weight.

Judges will focus on the clarity of presentation of information, as well as the visual impact of the entry. Judges can also give weight to the entrant’s utilization of “broadband” capabilities, (e.g., interactivity, and viewers’ choice of images). Although any entry originally produced for “broadband” transmission is eligible to compete, the more the web’s capabilities are demonstrated in the production, the better the chances may be for winning.

Advocacy and presentation of strong points of view are eligible for award consideration. “Self-published” work by individuals as well as production entities is also eligible for consideration.
All “Broadband” entries/URLs will be viewed at home and judged in one round to determine the nominees and winner. Judging panels will consist of content experts rather than technicians. There will be separate panels for each category, although there may be an overlap with some judges serving on more than one panel. Judges vote via secret ballot using a scale of 10 for the highest and 1 for the lowest rating in each area (Content, Creativity, and Execution), for a total of 30 possible points.

OK… So I see what’s going on now. 🙂 Myspace is holding a contest in which the winners will be sponsored to the official Emmy competition. There are going to be two levels of judging. You can skip one level altogether by paying the entry fee and going straight to http://www.myemmy.tv/ . If my understanding after skimming the official entry rules is correct, as long as you made your content specifically for the internet, any level of professional involvement, time or money spent on the project is fine.

I’ll be interested to see what MySpace promotes to entrance in the actual Broadband Emmy Awards. Let’s see if any of the “mom & pop” user-generated content gets the nod over studio-produced work. I’ll refrain from mentioning any shows that I think could compete favorably… VERY favorably in the competition, just in case my region is involved in the judging and asks me to participate.

Either way, I think both the MySpace contest and the official Broadband Emmy Awards are fantastic ways for content creators to gain exposure and/or accolades. It’s definitely worth considering entering… whether it’s a video that was already done (since March 2nd, 2006) or one that you’re planning up until April 2007.

Bill Cammack • New York City • Freelance Video Editor • alum.mit.edu/www/billcammack

re: Tricia Wang

re: Tricia Wang’s “Web 2.0 Vigilante”

Interesting points, Tricia.

First of all, I think the “fact” that Ryanne is white (she looks white, so I’ll assume she’s white) is less important here than you make it out to be. “Jim Crow” is about “you are black, so don’t interact with white chicks”. IMO, this situation would have gone the exact same way if the construction workers had all been white. I have no reason to assume that Ryanne would have let white guys slide, so there’s the immediate difference between “Jim Crow” and this situation.

I also have no reason to believe that she KNOWS anything about “black culture” in order to “ignore” it, as you called it. Ignoring it implies an understanding of the differences and then not applying that understanding to your judgement. Having said that, you’re absolutely right that there’s a different dynamic in minority neighborhoods where chicks are “holla’ed at” all day, every day, going to and from work, the store, the gym, wherever. I’m not saying this is a good thing. I agree with you that whatever was being said was probably in some form of social jest, whether positive or negative. As someone pointed out in the comments on the original post, we don’t get to hear what was actually said. We hear Ryanne’s account of what she heard, which was “woof woof” and “hey slim”. Depending on the context, those remarks could be an indication that they thought she was attractive or that they thought she was unattractive. Either way, she felt disrespected, and it’s clear on the tape that she’s affected and upset. I’m sure there are quite a few minority women that get game kicked to them all day, every day that are more sick of it than she is, and would like to do the same thing, if they thought it would do them any good.

The signal of future punishment was clear. Again, I think the construction guys being black isn’t as important as you make it out to be. If she had taped Italians in Bensonhurst, you wouldn’t have written this article at all.

As far as web 2.0 vigilantes, you bring up some good points. I hadn’t heard of gaettongnyeo before today. I think that’s a fine example of retribution getting out of hand. Did the girl deserve to be shamed? Of course. She let the dog “make a mess” on the subway, and then refused to clean it up as if it wasn’t her fault. According to reports, there were “elders” around, who told her to clean it up, and she STILL didn’t (major error #2). So they took her picture and she got embarrassed. That’s good for her. She won’t be pulling stunts like that in the future. 🙂 However… There are at least two problems with the HollaBack technique… well… three, if you count the one you bring up at the end of your post.

Problem #1 is for the harasser, or in this case, the harassers. In the cases where guys do egregious stuff like they outline on the HollaBack sites, they’re getting what they deserve. I think there should definitely be some way that women can make themselves feel more safe or make habitual harassers known to others in the neighborhood so they can be aware. There are other situations where women didn’t like being called “baby” or being looked at from across he boulevard. I’m not sure that all the offenses warrant the same treatment/cagegorization. By posting these guys’ (I can say guys, because I didn’t see any pictures of lesbian harassers on those sites) faces to the net, they’re being seen as ‘guilty’ merely on the say-so of the poster. What happens now if someone’s boss’ wife goes on the site… or if their boss happens to be a woman and goes on the site herself and sees him and the description of whatever it is he’s supposed to have done? What if he gets fired because he tried to meet a chick he thought was attractive in the street, and thought he was kicking it to her in the expected fashion by calling her beautiful or asking if he can walk with her? What happens if this guy’s married and his wife sees what was posted about him and his relationship gets messed up? What happens in a group situation like in Ryanne’s video? What if one or more of the guys in the shot didn’t have jack to do with the harassment, but there they are on tape with everyone else? What happens if the boss sees this and decides to sanction everyone there, since there’s no telling who said what? You might be saying “So what? If extra stuff happens to them, that’s what they get for harassing!”… Well… “So what?” is Problem #2.

Problem #2 is for the woman taking the picture. What if the guy you take a picture of is on parole and wasn’t supposed to leave VA, but you take a picture of him in NYC? What if the guy doesn’t want his wife to see him on the net… or his boss to see him on the net? What if the guy just plain doesn’t like the fact that you took a picture of him and decides to do something about it?

Problem #3 is what Tricia states towards the end:

Sites like hollabacknyc.blogspot.com/ are passive in the documentation and function to empower the woman who posts a picture of her cat caller. The cat caller is never truly confronted for his behavior, therefore it’s not really effective in preventing harassment as there is no true confrontation.

This is true. The cat caller isn’t confronted at all. From the women’s own reports, most of the time there’s some yelling, or maybe someone gives someone the finger. Other than that, nothing happens. Sometimes, they say to the harasser that they’re going to put him on the net. Some of the pictures are from very far away or the back of some guy’s head or a picture of his car that’s parked somewhere… The sites are more for venting than anything else, and that’s very useful for women who don’t want to feel like they’re the only ones stuff like this happens to. The reason this is a problem is that the end may not justify the means if the taking of the picture makes a bad situation much worse than it originally was for the picture-taker. It certainly doesn’t justify the means if the camera’s confiscated by the harasser.

Anyway… Everybody knows women are going to be shouted at as they’re passing construction sites. It’s a pastime as much as having a beer or watching sports. That doesn’t mean Ryanne has to accept that for herself. The guys in the video, black, white, whatever, are not hanging out on crates in front of a closed storefront. They are working. This means they have a supervisor, and that supervisor has a supervisor and that supervisor has a supervisor. Somewhere along the line, there’s someone with the ability to impose sanctions on those guys for “misrepresenting” the construction company… even if the owner is the most sexist guy out of all of them. 🙂 I think the workers have more of a responsibility to know that they could get in trouble for yelling either compliments or insults at a woman walking by the site more than Ryanne has a responsibility to understand minorities’ different style of being friendly or socializing.

Bennchoumy wins “Go Hard or Go Home” Hip-Hop battle

Article reposted from HaitiXchange.com: [link]

Creole Hip-Hop triumphs at the ultimate underground Hip-Hop battle. We first met Bennchoumy several years back when he was part of a group called The Shepherds. He has since branched out on his own, and has recently taken home the gold at the “Go Hard or Go Home” Hip-Hop battle held at the Remote Lounge in New York City. While everyone was doing the regular, English, Hip-Hop stuff, Bennchoumy let loose some Creole that most people didn’t understand… and still won.

A judge told him that even though they didn’t understand a word he was saying, they gave him the prize because his showmanship, performance, and skills were absolutely extraordinary.

Bennchoumy believes that there is a future for Creole Hip-Hop in the music industry. Even though people are always telling him to put more English into his rhymes to make it more convenient for the American mainstream, he does not believe that is necessary. He says that Reggaeton took off even though many people do not understand the Spanish lyrics, and that as long as music is good and can be felt, people will accept it.

What Bennchoumy won: Ring tone deal, several mix-tape deals, he will be in several magazine spreads, and cash prize (he would not reveal the exact amount.)

Congrats to my friend, the extremely talented Bennchoumy! Hopefully, we’ll have a ReelSolidTV interview with him soon to go with his HaitiXchange interview! 😀