NTF Challenge Voting System: Let's go back!

[rapick]

It is my turn to give an opinion on this.
I rememebr that the voting system was changed because people found
it difficult to give just three votes, when many entries were very
good.

After experience, I find MORE difficult to draw a ranking of 10! And I see many agree, here...

It seems that the quality of entries is decreased after changing
the voting system; it should be from when I started submitting,
perhaps.....

Ha! Ha! No, your RED POWER was my champ!

To select 10 shots can be dificult at time, but certainly it is not
a major point that can keep people far from the Challenge (IMHO).

Maybe not, if you accept voters to be limited to submitters (those who feel involved (btw: a reason for a submitter to vote is to be allowed to view "real time" results, that has been a really addicting experience, sometimes). But reliability of results is assured by a number of voters as large as possible (far beyond the number of submitted pics).

With the new system, it is possible to give the yealry stats based
on the votes and not only on the top three...

I have seen this argumet repeated several times, but never understood the gain! One who participates 4 times and scores 10 each time is a better photographer than another sending 12 pics and getting 5th place in the mean. Or not?

The new system can be corrected giving the possiiblity to vote less
then 10 shots, so if I feel that only N (N
can vote only these.

Won't that just create confusion? As I asked before, how to weight votes?

In conclusion: whichever the voting system, the Challenge is fun. I
do not believe that the voting system can affect it soooo much.

I wait to see what the old, wise people running the Challenge will
decide. And, as an Italian comic actor said "non capisco, ma mi
adeguo" (I don't understand, but I comply).

Yes, but there is little fun in saying "mi adeguo"!

Ciao

Giovanni

I voted the last Challenge. (didn't send a pic, though). Well, the
experience with the new 10 to 1 ranking was very negative. Easy for
me to choose the first three, but after that... so difficult, and
boring, and definitely useless to decide if to put (let's say) at
the 9th place a technically not-so-bad but rather out-of-theme, and
less-than-average composed pic, or the other one pretty well in
theme, but thechnically flawed and...
The old 1-2-3 voting system was replaced to encourage newbies to
participate. The new one didn't help for that (IMHO) and is
discouraging (at leat me) from voting!
Do you agree?
--
Rapick
Old Glory Ninetynine-five
PBase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/rapick

--
Giovanni
http://www.pbase.com/giovanni_u

--
Rapick
Old Glory Ninetynine-five
PBase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/rapick

 

[jjdesanto1]

Hmm... it is a tradition of all competitions (starting from the
Olympic Games) to have the first 3 on the podium and award them
(gold-silver-bronze medals). To consider the best ten makes some
sense only where single results are added to form a season
championship ranking (such as in Ski World Cup, or in F1 car
racing).

And that is exactly the case right now. There is a yearly total based on two different sets of criteria: Top third finishes and total points. The first challenge vote of the year was based on the old 1-2-3 method. The rest have been based on the 10 votes method. If we change the voting process in mid-stream, absolutely no one will be able to catch Kaj E who is now about 200 points in front on the total point list!

Someone would have to go back and retabulate the entire list!

--
John DeSanto
View my galleries at:
http://www.pbase.com/jjdesanto1/galleries
C P 5 7 0 0 - Mac 0SX 10.3 - PBase Supporter

 

[rapick]

and put out answer to the....

Poll of the week

The NTF Challenge admin are thinking to change the voting format. What do you think may improve it?

• The ability to vote for the 10 best pictures.
• The ability values all pictures. (Ex: from 1 to 10)
• Don’t change anything.
• The Ability to vote for six best pictures
• Top 3 1st, 2nd or 3rd

Thanks to the Challenge Site Admin for setting it up so quickly!

--
Rapick
Old Glory Ninetynine-five
PBase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/rapick

 

[Sid Daley]

I lost interest in the challenges a while back, but am a believer in the keep it simple school. To cast ten votes when the 5th to 10th are probably not really great shots is diluting the purpose of the challenge. The Olympics only rank the top three winners as do most competitions. In major sports their is only one winner. A top three finish is a prize to be proud of and should be a "challenge"..

Sid

 

[elias]

and put out answer to the....

Poll of the week

The NTF Challenge admin are thinking to change the voting format.
What do you think may improve it?

• The ability to vote for the 10 best pictures.
• The ability values all pictures. (Ex: from 1 to 10)
• Don’t change anything.
• The Ability to vote for six best pictures
• Top 3 1st, 2nd or 3rd

Thanks to the Challenge Site Admin for setting it up so quickly!

Actually the poll was running for about three or four of last months, since we discussed the transition to the 10-vote system. Now we would want to re-run it with updated set of options, mostly based on opinions in this thread. That old poll has just been suspended by Jose, and closer to weekend we would prepare to re-run it.

Until then, everybody please add your opinion here if different from was said earlier! TIA

--
Regards. Ilya 'Elias' Buchkin.

 

[elias]

I lost interest in the challenges a while back, but am a believer
in the keep it simple school. To cast ten votes when the 5th to
10th are probably not really great shots is diluting the purpose of
the challenge. The Olympics only rank the top three winners as do
most competitions. In major sports their is only one winner. A top
three finish is a prize to be proud of and should be a "challenge"..

Sid,

I do not argue your right to like the "top three" system, but your analogy with Olympics does not seem quite right: in Olympics they award medals to top three at the end, but in the process every judge gives marks to every participant. Eg: figure skating, gymnastics. I have never seen a single judge pick their top three (or ten). Not that it has to impose anything on us...

--
Regards. Ilya 'Elias' Buchkin.

 

[Muriel S]

Definitely go back to First, Second and Third. Then the others with only one vote (or none) won't feel badly. With only three pix selected, the others will work harder to get in the top three. Keep it simple.
--
Muriel - 4 5 0 0, 9 9 5, 3 1 0 0, W C-6 3, T C-2 E
DPR and Pbase supporter
FCAS Charter Member

 

[Philippe Roger]

Definitely go back to First, Second and Third. Then the others
with only one vote (or none) won't feel badly. With only three pix
selected, the others will work harder to get in the top three.
Keep it simple.
--
Muriel - 4 5 0 0, 9 9 5, 3 1 0 0, W C-6 3, T C-2 E
DPR and Pbase supporter
FCAS Charter Member

Muriel,

You can't be serious that people are not trying their best, if there are trying at all, by entering the challenge that is. Let's be fair, shall we? By that argument, we should only have one vote and one winner, then everyone (except Kaj of course) would try harder!

Besides, as I explained a while back, unless the number of votes to be distributed is large, the tendency is to cluster the results: if we have one vote and one vote only, you'll see one picture far ahead of any other one, it won't even be a contest, close or otherwise. With 3 votes, there are usually 3 pictures that receive far more points than all the others. As a parallel, in real life elections, how come that when there are 2 candidates to vote for, the electorate is usually split 50-50, with a difference seldom larger than 45-55? In fact a victory by 60-40 is considered a "pleblicit". I haven't seen a scientific or statistical analysis of this phenomenon, but I believe it to be true.

Muriel, you comment plus Rapick's initial comment "Easy for me to choose the first three, but after that... so difficult, and boring,..." is making me seriously re-think my willingness to participate in the challenge, not that I had too many chances lately...

In a nutshell, since I never placed in the top 3 (and I am not the only one by a long shot), you guys are telling me that my stuff sucks and is boring and that on top of that, I am not trying hard enough! I doubt that this is what you are really saying, but it sure sounds like that.

Enough said.
--
Philippe
http://proger.home.netcom.com
http://proger.smugmug.com

 

[rapick]

and put out answer to the....

Poll of the week

The NTF Challenge admin are thinking to change the voting format.
What do you think may improve it?

• The ability to vote for the 10 best pictures.
• The ability values all pictures. (Ex: from 1 to 10)
• Don’t change anything.
• The Ability to vote for six best pictures
• Top 3 1st, 2nd or 3rd

Thanks to the Challenge Site Admin for setting it up so quickly!

Actually the poll was running for about three or four of last
months, since we discussed the transition to the 10-vote system.
Now we would want to re-run it with updated set of options, mostly
based on opinions in this thread. That old poll has just been
suspended by Jose, and closer to weekend we would prepare to re-run
it.

Until then, everybody please add your opinion here if different
from was said earlier! TIA

--
Regards. Ilya 'Elias' Buchkin.

--
Rapick
Old Glory Ninetynine-five
PBase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/rapick

 

[rapick]

Muriel,

You can't be serious ...

Hey, Philippe! As it is about a game for having fun, and not struggle for power, I'd suggest to avoid that kind of approach, otherwise someone else could feel authorised to define you arguments as "ridiculous".

Besides, as I explained a while back, unless the number of votes to
be distributed is large, the tendency is to cluster the results: if
we have one vote and one vote only, you'll see one picture far
ahead of any other one, it won't even be a contest, close or
otherwise.

Sorry, but I can't see anything negative in all that! Each voter expresses his/her own aethetic preference, each time among a different set of anoynimous photographs. The "top" choices won't change if he has to express a rank of 10 instead of one of 3. It is the "spread" of different tastes among the votesr to buid the final result (lucky we are not to live under the 3rd Reich or the Stalin's Soviet Union, where just one "taste" was allowed).

With 3 votes, there are usually 3 pictures that receive
far more points than all the others.

The good, as everybody can see loking at the NTF Challenge history, is that the top three changed each time. Many times the 1st place happened to be an absolute "outsider".

As a parallel, in real life
elections, how come that when there are 2 candidates to vote for,
the electorate is usually split 50-50, with a difference seldom
larger than 45-55? In fact a victory by 60-40 is considered a
"pleblicit". I haven't seen a scientific or statistical analysis
of this phenomenon, but I believe it to be true.

May I feel authorised to consider this parallel as not so much appropriate, and a little... ehm... US-centric? In different countires, different voting systems are used, and it can happen that governments are elected by a majority of "51" or by one of "75". The only unaccetable majority is ... 99.9!

Muriel, you comment plus Rapick's initial comment "Easy for me to
choose the first three, but after that... so difficult, and
boring,..." is making me seriously re-think my willingness to
participate in the challenge, not that I had too many chances
lately...
In a nutshell, since I never placed in the top 3 (and I am not the
only one by a long shot), you guys are telling me that my stuff
sucks and is boring and that on top of that, I am not trying hard
enough! I doubt that this is what you are really saying, but it
sure sounds like that.

Isn't it that you are a little misunderstanding the "meaning" of NTF Challenges? IMHO, it is about choosing the (whatever number) best photo(s) shot on a specific "theme" and during a given period of time. It is on that SINGLE shot, not on the skill of a given "submitter" as a photographer. So if your scope is to "win", or at least to be ranked among the n best (where n varies from 2 to whatever you like) your first thought should be to send a "product" able to capture attention, and meet the tastes, of the voters. The voting system has little, if none, weight on that!

--
Rapick
Old Glory Ninetynine-five
PBase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/rapick

 

[Jim]

...Even call it a challenge? Ten places? Of course my pic in the last challenge didn't even garner top ten, but still, calling it a challenge seems like a misnomer if we're gonna recognize ten places. Keep it simple...and keep it a real challenge. Just my opinion.

--
God Bless,
Jim
CP995, CP800



icq#47512307
http://www.pbase.com/jrj02

 

[ISOMatrix]

Unfortunately for any one interested in watching stats (total points accumulated over the year etc.).....the vote change may once again have an effect here and would likely artificially skew the numbers.

Just my 2cents worth.

--
C P 5 0 0 0, S B 5 0 DX, O M - 2n(s),

 

[elias]

Let me do my try to build an analogy for our voting system.

Someone mentioned Formula 1 already, and I will use that too even though I have not followed with it lately and may be off on some numbers. I believe conceptually it remained same. So:

• One year of Formula 1 = one single monthly NTF Challenge. (Please allow me ignore our "year stats" which unofficial so far.)
• Each year F1 has 25 drivers competing in 18 races = each month we have 30 images competing for attention of 40 voters.
• Top eight cars finishing in "Cup of Monaco", "Cup of Brazil", etc earn points = top ten (or three) images earn them in "Cup of Rapick", "Cup of Elias".
• F1 determines a year champion by sum of points = we do same within one monthly Challenge.

My analogy makes sense so far? Let me assume "yes", and take it further:

• In F1 now it is eight drivers with points in each race, it was six drivers ten years ago. My point: top three, or top six, or top ten -- is all matter of agreement, basically. There is no "universal truth" in one number being better than another.

• What happens if in a particular race only four cars finish, or even qualify?(Imagine lots of rain, or just a very difficult course.) I believe only these four cars/drivers would get points.

E.g. in "Cup of Elias" 15 out of 25 cars would finish but of course only top eight would get points. At the same time, "Cup of Rapick" might happen to be a really difficult course, and only three cars would qualify for points... I hope I did not get carried away too much.

Projecting that to our situation, I suggest:
------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. We adopt a voting scheme similar to F1: 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1, or 10-7-5-3-2-1, or... you name it.

2. Any voter should be allowed to stop giving points whenever they want to. (This sugggestion appeared earlier in this thread too.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, am I any clear? Shall we add this option to our poll?

--
Regards. Ilya 'Elias' Buchkin.

 

[elias]

...Even call it a challenge? Ten places? Of course my pic in the
last challenge didn't even garner top ten, but still, calling it a
challenge seems like a misnomer if we're gonna recognize ten
places. Keep it simple...and keep it a real challenge. Just my
opinion.

Jim,

what do you call "recognition" - the final results table posted here on NTF, or a single vote cast?

--
Regards. Ilya 'Elias' Buchkin.

 

[rapick]

Hy, Elias and everybody here...

Hmm... taking a pic and submitting to NTF challenge, isn't it much more similar to making a movie and sending it to Venice or Cannes, or having it in competitoion for the Oscar Prizes, than racing a F1 Grand Prix?
Isn't photography (a form of) art rather than a game of (athletic) fitness?

Now, all Movie Festivals work with a Jury panel awarding the Gold Lion, or Gold Palm, or Oscar statue, etc. to just one movie, and eventually another prize (the "silver" one, or a "Special Mention" to a second one. They never mind to publish a full ranking of all the movies submiteed.

Our voting is just to substitute the Jury decision, at it is impossible for us to meet and discuss. And the only justification for showing the full "ranking" and make public who-voted-who, is to demostrate the honesty and trasparency of the whole process. Otherwise, detailed ranking in art work is pure nonsense!
Continuing with the "movie festival" analogy:

• Why not, inside each challenge, and with dedicated votes, choosing:

--- The best Subject
--- The best Technique
--- The best Composition
with, of course
--- The best Photo
being the highest recognition?
Just an idea... meanwhile I stay with "simple is good": 3-2-1!
Ciao

--
Rapick
Old Glory Ninetynine-five
PBase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/rapick

 

[PowerPet]

OK, this is what I think:

I think we should keep the 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 point system for this reason:

You take the time to participate in the challenge. You set up your photo, you edit in Photoshop etc. Then you sure as heck also have time to look at the other participants pictures and grade them. Not just pick out the top 3, but the top 5 and the top 10.

Since I'm from Sweden I might have another point of view here, but to me it's HARD to pick out 10 good pictures. Not because there's not 10 good pictures, but because there's more than 10 pictures that DESERVES points. It can be points for most clever intrepertation of the topic or technique. It might not be the image that appeals to most eyes (be honest, a few "winners" has not really been true to the topic, but won because it was a pretty picture), but most true to the topic.

If we should keep a 1-2-3 system, then we also should be a lot more hard on the rules. No pretty picture can win just because it's pretty, but because it fills all the requirements: 1. Follows the topic, 2. Looks good, 3. Well executed, etc, etc.

I think that we need to learn more about voting before we change the voting system - once again.

Maybe go half way and have a top 5 list. But it also means that all the rules has to be followed when you vote for the image. Not just vote for it because it's pretty.

I know this might be considered silly to keep rambling about "pretty". But I've noticed that it's not always the best image that wins, it's the most pretty one. When I vote I take a lot more into consideration than a "pretty picture".

I try to follow the challenge rules when I take my picture and that means I also follow the challenge rules when I vote for a picture.

Where lies the challenge if only the pretty pictures win, regardless if they follow the topic or not? I find THAT pointless and not how many points we give out.

I find that most pictures that follow the challenge topic is the ones that also get less points. WHY?? Should we just give up the idea of a topic and just send in a picture that's pretty instead?? What do we learn from that?? NOTHING... well maybe that if you have a pretty picture, you are more likely to win, even if you don't follow the topic.

OK, I'm done rambling!

--
Petra -- owner of a 5 7 0 0 & 9 9 5

 

[Philippe Roger]

Muriel,

You can't be serious ...

Hey, Philippe! As it is about a game for having fun, and not
struggle for power, I'd suggest to avoid that kind of approach,
otherwise someone else could feel authorised to define you
arguments as "ridiculous".

I didn't say "ridiculous" and it was as much tongue-in-cheek as anything else (do you remember John McEnroe, of tennis fame, arguing with empires all the time? He's favorite starter phrase was... "You can't be serious!..." before launching in his tirades...)

I agree that it is not a struggle for power. In fact, in the challenge, the challenging part is to take the picture, not what does or does not follow. However, if the goal is to make people share and progress in their art/craft, you have to interest them and recognize their effort: that is what most of the "nice pic" comments on this forum really are.

Besides, as I explained a while back, unless the number of votes to
be distributed is large, the tendency is to cluster the results: if
we have one vote and one vote only, you'll see one picture far
ahead of any other one, it won't even be a contest, close or
otherwise.

Sorry, but I can't see anything negative in all that! Each voter
expresses his/her own aethetic preference, each time among a
different set of anoynimous photographs. The "top" choices won't
change if he has to express a rank of 10 instead of one of 3. It is
the "spread" of different tastes among the votesr to buid the final
result (lucky we are not to live under the 3rd Reich or the
Stalin's Soviet Union, where just one "taste" was allowed).

I think I didn't explain this clearly enough. Indeed, the top choices will change, at least the race will be closer, with 10 ranks instead of 3! That's the whole point: if you can only chose 1, you'll vote for the less controversial, more predictible choice and so will every one else... With more choices come more freedom to recognize other ways to do things. It is a natural thing.

With 3 votes, there are usually 3 pictures that receive
far more points than all the others.

The good, as everybody can see loking at the NTF Challenge history,
is that the top three changed each time. Many times the 1st place
happened to be an absolute "outsider".

I didn't imply that the results were rigged, just that some decent pictures were totally ignored in the process, with many people commenting that if they only had more votes to distribute, they would have. QED.

As a parallel, in real life
elections, how come that when there are 2 candidates to vote for,
the electorate is usually split 50-50, with a difference seldom
larger than 45-55? In fact a victory by 60-40 is considered a
"pleblicit". I haven't seen a scientific or statistical analysis
of this phenomenon, but I believe it to be true.

May I feel authorised to consider this parallel as not so much
appropriate, and a little... ehm... US-centric? In different
countires, different voting systems are used, and it can happen
that governments are elected by a majority of "51" or by one of
"75". The only unaccetable majority is ... 99.9!

I was not referrring to the US elections, not even the last one. Many countries have democracies (I was born in one, which is not the US) and when the winner is declared with 50% + 1 vote (simple majority), the average winner is very often declared with close to 50-50 (could be 53-47 for example), why is that?

Muriel, you comment plus Rapick's initial comment "Easy for me to
choose the first three, but after that... so difficult, and
boring,..." is making me seriously re-think my willingness to
participate in the challenge, not that I had too many chances
lately...
In a nutshell, since I never placed in the top 3 (and I am not the
only one by a long shot), you guys are telling me that my stuff
sucks and is boring and that on top of that, I am not trying hard
enough! I doubt that this is what you are really saying, but it
sure sounds like that.

Isn't it that you are a little misunderstanding the "meaning" of
NTF Challenges? IMHO, it is about choosing the (whatever number)
best photo(s) shot on a specific "theme" and during a given period
of time. It is on that SINGLE shot, not on the skill of a given
"submitter" as a photographer. So if your scope is to "win", or at
least to be ranked among the n best (where n varies from 2 to
whatever you like) your first thought should be to send a "product"
able to capture attention, and meet the tastes, of the voters. The
voting system has little, if none, weight on that!

I see that I can't convince you. As I said before, the challenge is to take the picture. The rest is a game of recognition and of course the voting system has absolutely something to do with it. By the way, I am not advocating this for myself: rather, I am thinking about lots of folks who are not entering the challenge simply for fear of not being ACKNOWLEDGED: do you know anything about the Maslow pyramid of the human needs? Google for it...

--
Rapick
Old Glory Ninetynine-five
PBase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/rapick

Ciao.
--
Philippe
http://proger.home.netcom.com
http://proger.smugmug.com

 

[Philippe Roger]

OK, this is what I think:

I think we should keep the 10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 point system for
this reason:
You take the time to participate in the challenge. You set up your
photo, you edit in Photoshop etc. Then you sure as heck also have
time to look at the other participants pictures and grade them. Not
just pick out the top 3, but the top 5 and the top 10.

Since I'm from Sweden I might have another point of view here, but
to me it's HARD to pick out 10 good pictures. Not because there's
not 10 good pictures, but because there's more than 10 pictures
that DESERVES points. It can be points for most clever
intrepertation of the topic or technique. It might not be the image
that appeals to most eyes (be honest, a few "winners" has not
really been true to the topic, but won because it was a pretty
picture), but most true to the topic.

If we should keep a 1-2-3 system, then we also should be a lot more
hard on the rules. No pretty picture can win just because it's
pretty, but because it fills all the requirements: 1. Follows the
topic, 2. Looks good, 3. Well executed, etc, etc.

I think that we need to learn more about voting before we change
the voting system - once again.

Maybe go half way and have a top 5 list. But it also means that all
the rules has to be followed when you vote for the image. Not just
vote for it because it's pretty.

I know this might be considered silly to keep rambling about
"pretty". But I've noticed that it's not always the best image that
wins, it's the most pretty one. When I vote I take a lot more into
consideration than a "pretty picture".

I try to follow the challenge rules when I take my picture and that
means I also follow the challenge rules when I vote for a picture.

Where lies the challenge if only the pretty pictures win,
regardless if they follow the topic or not? I find THAT pointless
and not how many points we give out.

I find that most pictures that follow the challenge topic is the
ones that also get less points. WHY?? Should we just give up the
idea of a topic and just send in a picture that's pretty instead??
What do we learn from that?? NOTHING... well maybe that if you have
a pretty picture, you are more likely to win, even if you don't
follow the topic.

OK, I'm done rambling!

--
Petra -- owner of a 5 7 0 0 & 9 9 5

--
Philippe
http://proger.home.netcom.com
http://proger.smugmug.com

 

[jjdesanto1]

and Philippe.

We all take the time to enter the contest and then to look at the results. How much longer then, does it take to rank 10 photos rather than three? Two minutes maybe?

Does it happen that sometimes the seven through 10 votes cast may have a drop off is quality? Sure. Do those photograhs deserve to be ignored? Absolutely not!

I'm happy with the Challenge the way it is. In the last two results every image received at least one vote and that's a good thing. It encourages people to participate further.

However, I can see a compromise is in order. I believe the one that Elias has proposed is a fair one. So change the voting to 10-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 (or some such thing) and allow people to vote for however many images they feel is worthy.

Flexibility is the answer.

--
John DeSanto
View my galleries at:
http://www.pbase.com/jjdesanto1/galleries
C P 5 7 0 0 - Mac 0SX 10.3 - PBase Supporter

 

[elias]

Hy, Elias and everybody here...
Hmm... taking a pic and submitting to NTF challenge, isn't it much
more similar to making a movie and sending it to Venice or Cannes,
or having it in competitoion for the Oscar Prizes, than racing a F1
Grand Prix?........
...... And the only justification
for showing the full "ranking" and make public who-voted-who, is to
demostrate the honesty and trasparency of the whole process.
Otherwise, detailed ranking in art work is pure nonsense!

It will take me time to think through this part, so I will try to comment on that later.

Continuing with the "movie festival" analogy:

• Why not, inside each challenge, and with dedicated votes, choosing:

--- The best Subject
--- The best Technique
--- The best Composition
with, of course
--- The best Photo
being the highest recognition?

Understood. That's cool, we might think of this. Seriously!

Just an idea... meanwhile I stay with "simple is good": 3-2-1!

Okay, here you stated your preference once again, and others would need to do what -- re-state theirs? This takes us nowhere. I suggested a system that might work for all -- people willing to give only 3 votes as well as people willing to take more effort during the vote.

Could you at least comment if my suggestion would work for you as a voter? Or do you insist on being limited to top three for every voter?

--
Regards. Ilya 'Elias' Buchkin.