Jury voting 2023

Judges should provide scores based on objective characteristics of the performance, taking into account their subjective impressions. Scores should be substantiated to ensure a fair and just decision on the winner of the Simsovision contest.

The scoring scale from 0 to 10 represents a range in which the judges can assign scores for each criterion.

Voting date until September 24 inclusive.

— Minimum score: 0 — The performance does not align with the criteria at all.

— Maximum score: 10 — The performance perfectly aligns with the criteria and impresses on all levels.

  1. Artist and Participant Stage Presence:

— Description: Evaluation of how well the images of the artists and other participants in the performance are developed and correspond to the character and style of the musical piece.

— Grounds for lowering the score: Unjustified discrepancies between the image and the character of the music, insufficiently thought-out image, violation of style and theme.

  1. Impression from the Performance:

— Description: Evaluation of the overall impression of the performance, including emotional appeal, originality, and the quality of execution.

— Grounds for lowering the score: Lack of originality, lack of emotional connection with the audience, poor choice of musical material.

  1. Use of Animation Poses:

— Description: Evaluation of how well the animation movements and poses of the artists and other participants are developed and realistic.

— Grounds for lowering the score: Severe errors in animation, unnatural or illogical character movements.

  1. Stage Setting:

— Description: Evaluation of the level of detail and alignment of stage decorations, lighting, and other stage elements with the musical performance.

— Grounds for lowering the score: Mismatch between decorations or lighting and the musical performance, insufficient attention to stage details.

  1. Recording Quality:

— Description: Evaluation of the technical quality of the performance recording, including image clarity, proper framing, and adequate lighting.

— Grounds for lowering the score: Blurred image (except for intentional use of blurring), poor lighting, improper framing, significant technical flaws.

  1. Editing Quality:

— Description: Evaluation of how well the video is edited, including transitions between shots, use of special effects, and synchronization with the music.

— Grounds for lowering the score: Rough transitions, illogical editing decisions, mismatch between the editing and the musical composition.

  1. Relationship Between Performance and Song:

— Description: Evaluation of how well the musical composition aligns with the concept of the performance and how it complements the animation movements and artist images.

— Grounds for lowering the score: Inappropriate song choice for the performance, mismatch between the musical material and animation movements or artist images.

  1. Artist and Participant Stage Presence:

— 0: Complete lack of developed images, no correspondence to the performance’s theme.

— 5: Artist images somewhat align with the musical composition, with some elements developed.

— 10: Perfectly developed images, complete alignment with the performance’s style, outstanding costumes and makeup.

  1. Impression from the Performance:

— 0: The performance elicits negative emotions, total misunderstanding, and disappointment.

— 5: Mixed emotions from the performance, some interesting moments, but overall impression is ambiguous.

— 10: The performance is impressive, evokes positive emotions, leaves a strong and unforgettable impression.

  1. Use of Animation Poses:

— 0: Poorly executed animation, characters’ movements look unnatural.

— 5: Some poses appear realistic, but there are animation flaws.

— 10: Animation poses are executed perfectly, character movements appear highly realistic.

  1. Stage Setting:

— 0: Stage setting doesn’t match the performance’s theme, poorly chosen decorations.

— 5: Some elements correspond to the performance’s theme, but the overall setting doesn’t convey the intended concept.

— 10: Decorations, lighting, and stage elements create a perfect match with the theme and mood of the performance.

  1. Recording Quality:

— 0: Recording quality has numerous technical flaws, is unreadable, and has poor lighting.

— 5: Recording quality is satisfactory, but there are areas that need improvement.

— 10: Outstanding recording quality, clear image, proper lighting, and framing.

  1. Editing Quality:

— 0: Editing is done carelessly, with glaring errors.

— 5: Some good editing work, but there are illogical transitions and editing choices.

— 10: Editing is flawless, transitions and special effects harmonize with the music and create an impressive presentation.

  1. Relationship Between Performance and Song:

— 0: Complete mismatch between the performance and the chosen song.

— 5: Some elements of the performance align with the song, but there are inconsistencies.

— 10: Perfect alignment between the performance and the musical composition, they complement each other seamlessly.


Stage Presence

Impression from the Performance


Stage Setting

Recording Quality

Editing Quality

Performance - song ratio


1. Al-Simhara

2. Aurora Skies

3. Bridgeport

4. Britechester

5. Copperdale

6. Evergreen Harbor

7. Forgotten Hollow

8. Granite Falls

9. Midnight Hollow

10. Moonlight Falls

11. Oasis Springs

12. Roaring Heights

13. Selvadorada

14. Shang Simla

15. Sixam

16. Strangerville

17. Strangetown

18. Sulani

19. Sunlit Tides

20. Sunset Valley

21. Takemizu Village

22. Tartosa

23. Windenburg

24. Zabroshchensk

By clicking the "Submit Vote" button, I confirm that I vote honestly and follow all the rules, realizing that for violations of the voting rules, penalty points will be awarded to me.

Questionnaire «Feedback for organizers». Without filling out this form, your vote will not be counted.

Voting is closed!

Seraphinite AcceleratorBannerText_Seraphinite Accelerator
Turns on site high speed to be attractive for people and search engines.