Also it's not only not sustainable to ignore reviews, it's rude and damages the reputation of the authors -- On the other hand, when reviewers ignore summary of changes that may have been submitted and don't explain why they may be asking for even more or different things, this is also not helpful.

Thanks for writing this.
What I would add to the post is that changes don't always strengthen the fundamental contributions but how they are communicated. It's an important learning experience to think about how to better frame one's work.

I have had a TVCG paper rejected for off topic, too 😊.

Scenario two was highly preferred with scenario one coming second. Issues of hubs we discussed were intellectual silos, forcing people to attend their closest hub (because the whole point is to save CO2), measures to take to ensure better networking options for ecrs.

Yes you guessed it :-). Intellectual silos were an interesting dystopia we discussed in this regard (but we had some ideas to combat this issue as well)

It would be a fun experiment to assign them the PCS test submission and see what happens

Touchy sufficient is great 😉.

Congratulations to the old and new VIS fellows.

Awww