Zephyr

TL;DR: Deulos outlines concern about a feature implemented on the test server. Alex says the feature was actually mistakenly implemented and reprimands Deulos for paying attention to things. Sir Scarfalot defends Deulos' reasonable concern. Prefontaine swoops in to remind everyone he's relevant, and lecture us about how totally trustworthy he and Alex are. Close thread - ?

Activity in the Alliance Affairs forum: Last 3 days: 1 new thread, 1 active Last 7 days: 1 new thread, 4 active Last 14 days: 6 new threads, 10 active Last 21 days: 11 new threads, 16 active Last 28 days: 29 new threads, 32 active Some of those were just alliances telling us to enjoy Christmas/New Year's Eve. Then there's the post-war FA/treaty changes presumably also making it a higher activity period for the forum. Still, it averaged just over 1 new thread each day in the last 28 days. January itself isn't moving quick either, seeing only 11 new threads or 0

I understand what has been said, I simply reject that future intent excuses the shortcomings witnessed. It needs to be recognised that the flawed processes have robbed valid nominations of fair consideration in the voting, and that's simply not good enough for an awards event that is supposed to represent the community. ...Or it may have changed the results. Thanks to the flawed short-listing system we have no way to know, making this entirely meaningless conjecture. This is a fair point and I'll concede reactions themselves cannot determine a winner for this category (and Kram

And yet I chose to contribute to discussion about how the awards can be improved in the future. This is dismissive of my very valid and reasoned criticisms, but not unexpected from you as it seems to be a 'go to' when you don't like what people are saying. If you can see past your narcissism you'll realise I don't need your permission to participate in this discussion thread and your methods for running the awards are not above fair criticism. You're the one that engaged me. I think there may be a few categories that could be approached like this, such as best fighter.

Excellent, thanks.

Talk about cherry picking, you've offered a refutation to only one of the points made. Also, upon reviewing the previous awards threads, none of these offer the community opportunity to review and suggest change to the process itself, instead these threads communicate authoritatively dictating what the terms are. For clarification, what I'm suggesting is that the way in which the awards function is reviewed on this forum by the community prior to conducting the awards, with the alliance reps (if that's deemed appropriate or something similar) using a Discord with publicly readable channels to

This is an excellent point. Perhaps fewer awards, especially, as Roberts says, those most prone to strong bias or just ignorance of the internal workings of other alliances. We need to ask ourselves what would an average player be reasonably aware of in order to participate meaningfully in the voting. Also, I think a lot more of how the awards works needs to be opened up to the community to examine and change. I feel like we hear who's running the awards, then get told how it's going to work, how to nominate, then we vote. There's a lot happening between these steps that I'm not sure is a

Could you instead just clip the display values to integers instead of actually rounding them? Personally I think this would be better as rounding is deceptive when attempting to sell off a resource. For example, 237.6 coal currently displays as 238 coal, but if I try to make a trade offer for that amount it will be rejected because I don't actually have 238 coal. You could say, "But Zeph, just remember the rounding and make a trade offer for 1 less", to which I'd say "Yeah, but rounding doesn't always apply so I might still be left with an ugly 1 coal". As this feature seems to appeal to more

What reasonable alternative are you suggesting you expected with this comment? Are you suggesting you most expected to see people complain that they didn't nominate anything and that the thing they didn't nominate wasn't included? Obviously one would notice the absence of their nomination, so it makes sense they would be the one most inclined to make a complaint about its absence. Alternatively maybe you're suggesting you most expected to see people complain about nominations they didn't make, care about, or even notice being made? This also makes no sense though. I wasn't talking

That makes it a problem of the system. That's my entire point, the selection left for us to vote on is obviously too controlled by alliances in the short-listing process when as I demonstrated, a popular nominated post was not included, while much less popular ones were. If the assumption is the awards attempt to identify the best fit per category (in some process resembling some kind of fairness), then having a process which allows alliances to remove obviously popular choices is obstructive to that goal and gives them exceptional power to undermine the vote.

Fair point on the comparative value point, but you can still see the point stands. There's literally a Phoenyx post in the offerings that was at its time, less popular than my own (by a whole 50 positive reactions). Surely you can see a problem there? You're a top 20 alliance leader who'd have had comfortable representation of choosing in the closed door short-listing process, I can't imagine you have many problems with an awards process that gives you more opportunity of control than a mere commoner like myself.

Those are nice words that do nothing to resolve the current problems. It also fails to address how less valued posts were included in the final vote than more valued and nominated posts, or why this wasn't spotted and corrected for? I've also seen similar complaints for other categories. I mean, are you literally just shrugging off these massive oversights with "Well, that's how the system is rigged. Oopsies"?

Basically Alex has now put on public record that if you're gonna bot, make the minimum response time 27 seconds. Maybe we should really apply CAPTCHAs to all war actions, trades and anything else abusable by automation. I'd rather a little more inconvenience to ensure we're not being taken advantage of by bots. EDIT: Oh, this is a game report. Sorry. Please delete?

This is honestly disappointing, and does not instil confidence about the process behind these awards. All of these posts except one have fewer positive reactions than my own nominated post: Cooper's post - 43 positive reactions (1 Like / 5 Haha / 37 Upvote) Alex's post - 113 positive reactions (14 Like / 7 Thanks / 5 Haha / 87 Upvote) Prefonteen/Partisan's post - 38 positive reactions (7 Like / 8 Haha / 23 Upvote) Phoenyx's post - 4 positive reactions (1 Haha / 3 Upvote) Another Prefonteen/Partisan post - 18 positive reactions (1 Like / 1 Haha / 16 Upvot

When it's displayed on nation pages the image link uses png (doesn't work) instead of jpg (works).