My problem is that you think that reputation judging a sport is a good thing.
Yes, human beings are as they are, but I find it boggling to defend a system that encourages it.....because that leaves us open to the kind of corruption at Salt Lake City and devastating embarrassments for the sport. The whole point is to get the most unbiased judging as humanly possible, while accepting that "what is good/excellent" is an international concensus.
I disagree that the Oscars or Academic prizes are comparable. Both are awards by professional associations that measure in part how large an impact the particular film or research has had. So encouraging members of the association to get to know the material and discuss its value is part of the whole point.
Lastly, the difference between skaters might be more noticeable if IJS valued things differently. I will never critique the Eteri skaters for maximizing what they can get under the current SoV and bullet points. I do nonetheless critique things that I see regularly that I do not want encouraged. I think that it's perfectly fair to say this isn't the way I want skating to progress, and this isn't the model I want the young skaters in our family to follow. These things include travelling spins or spins where the vertical leg is not 90 degrees from the ice, pre-rotation, murky edges on take offs, mini jumps, pumping arms to get take-off, lack of speed etc.
Different people value different things. A group of people value A, B, C. Another group value D, E, F. They each try to convince others that things they value are superior. So the compromise is that all of A, B, C, D, E and F are equally rewarded. But one group will still lobby to change the rules to favor A, B, C not D,E,F and the other group lobby to change the rules to favor D, E, F, not A, B, C. I feel fans in this forum act this way too. Many fans just keep arguing that A, B, C is better than D, E, F because they only value A,B,C and other fans keep arguing that D,E,F are better than A, B, C because they only value D,E,F. If there is a skater who can do all of A, B, C, D, E, F well, you won't even need to argue for that skater. It's precisely because most skaters can only do well in some aspects, not in every aspect, so fans argue all the time and repeat over and over again that things they value don't get more credit than the things they don't value. (If you want to win convincingly, be the best in everything, and execute the most difficult layout, then nobody will question your victory.)
Some people only think jumping big is valuable and small jumps are unacceptable. But many people with skating experience said doing jumps after steps make jumps exponentially more difficult. Some people just can't accept that there are other features that make jumps more risky or equally risky other than jumping big. But that doesn't mean the other qualities/features are less valuable to other people. The fact that tanos/rippons, preceding steps, delayed rotations are rewarded means there is a significant number of people in the skating community that appreciate these qualities and features.
I think lobbying in oscar and noble prize is the same as in figure skating. They are lobbying to try to convince the professional members that their movie/research are better than others, so they can win, i.e. their A, B, C are superior. They are not doing it for the goods of the society.
Reputation judging based on consistency means the skaters needs to be consistent and work hard to earn the reputation. Some reputation judging is only based on the name of certain skaters and they get the reputation inflation without showing consistency. That's different.
I think I've said enough in this thread.
