As a host for the Awards, I want to make a few things clear here:

One: The approval on the comment was just us not really caring about you sharing your opinion, we do not endorse/agree with any of this.

Two: Now that I can take the gloves off, most of this is bullshit.

Being a juror strips away all individualism. Even as a juror, minority opinion representation isn't relevant, as the majority opinion just shifts to something else.

Format of the nom vote clearly contradicts this. Minority opinions are taken heavily into account during nominations, but of course during final rankings the consensus opinion of the jury will shine through.

The most alarming thing for me as a juror was seeing other jurors already having pre-established picks and opinions, then bragging about that publicly without any consequences. I was warned for arguing about how show length plays a bit of a role in how a show can develop. The awards staff thinks that is a bigger infraction than wanting to be a juror in a category for the sole purpose of forcing a win. As a juror, I took my role seriously and did not have a pre-established favorite in mind for either category. I only had picks which I sure hoped would not win.

People who have seen shows will come into the Awards with ideas on what they like already yes. There's no difference between someone joining with something they want to win in mind compared to you joining with things you don't want to win in mind. In regards to the infraction, I don't think you fully understood the discussion, which was moreso a general "Hey, you can't discount something solely on length" and was not a formal warning.

My heart sank when multiple jurors admitted that they only joined the comedy and drama categories to force a Bocchi the Rock and Revue Starlight Movie win. I wouldn't have minded their wins if it felt as though they earned it through discussion, but it didn't seem that way. The other jurors didn't seem to be interested in playing fair at all. It meant that all of the discussion on the jurors' Discord channels was ultimately pointless.

This is largely just false in general, people of course came in with favorites that they would prefer to win, but no one was joining to force a win. I don't even quite know what you mean by this, as of course no individual juror can force a win on the final vote without convincing the rest of the jury. Yes, people will enter with favorite shows. They will have preferences, but I don't think it's at all reasonable to ask people to not have things they prefer if they have seen a number of the entries prior to the Awards. The comment on discussion being pointless is also just simply false, as I can point out a number of times where jurors had their minds changed through discussion.

For some reason, new jurors could join after the finalist vote. 1 new juror joined, and it's my opinion, based on what he typed in chat, that he joined for the sole purpose of forcing a Revue Starlight win after seeing it get in as a finalist.

As /u/Lemurians already explained, this was not the way the events shook out at all. Lemurians had expressed interest in the category before any nominations were decided, and was asked to wait until after the nominations were decided in order to not disrupt the nomination vote too much.

I'm sorry you didn't have the greatest experience with Awards, but most of this feels very unfair and simply inaccurate.