PnW Academy Awards

[Adrienne]

4 hours ago, Edward I said:

The awards are politicized because they are political. They are political because they have in-game representation in the form of player/alliance badges and de facto administrative sanction in the form of both those badges and this subforum.

These awards will not have in-game representation. I can't help the "defacto administrative sanction" with regards to the forums but, as I said earlier...

22 hours ago, Princess Adrienne said:

No one on this team cares about the awards going in-game and we're not looking to make this into a Coalition A circlejerk to have us get positive awards/you get negative awards.

They are supposed to be for fun and have no bearing on the game. If you guys don't want to be a part of it, that's fine. But stop kicking up a storm if you don't want to be involved and help out because these literally will have no impact on your in-game experience.

@Chief Wiggum, if you'd be so inclined, go ahead and move this thread to Orbis Central

[Astryl]

17 hours ago, hope said:

this is literally an unofficial community event, how hard is it to participate. nobody has OOC beef with you and everyone wants you to show up so im not really sure why you're dying on this hill

 

I have OOC beef with everyone because they play nation sims, checkmate.

[Zei-Sakura Alsainn]

6 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

The point isn’t whether we’re invited or not. It’s literally the premise of closed nominations and some weight age system to undo an open nomination/polling system. That’s literally exclusionary when it’s a cabal of leaders who are somehow better positioned to decide IC awards. 
 

But nice to see that point fly over everyone’s head and think this is about the NPO or something.

Considering the average member of anywhere is near clueless on 97% of OOC happenings, they literally are more qualified. Hell my own low and high gov only know maybe 65% of anything thats happening. At BEST. 

They are literally, by simple empirical data and logic, the most qualified to decide. My members don't have much idea what happens outside the AA, they only alliance they'd recognize nominated is their own and maybe it's allies. The only person they'd recognize nominated is yours truly, right here, so guess how they vote?

[Leonard J Crabs]

I've played 20 years of gaming with GOONS to take down aristocracies. It happens every game I've ever played, and I won't support any attempts to have aristocracies.

[Edward I]

1 hour ago, Princess Adrienne said:

These awards will not have in-game representation. I can't help the "defacto administrative sanction" with regards to the forums but, as I said earlier...

@Chief Wiggum, if you'd be so inclined, go ahead and move this thread to Orbis Central

The official imprimatur can be removed, more or less, by getting as much stuff out of this subforum as possible. I'm glad you agree, and I applaud the request to move the thread.

 

Quote

They are supposed to be for fun and have no bearing on the game. If you guys don't want to be a part of it, that's fine. But stop kicking up a storm if you don't want to be involved and help out because these literally will have no impact on your in-game experience.

We criticized these for a couple of reasons:

First, because these look and smell suspiciously like the myriad, perennial complaints that the awards would be oh so much better if they were "objective" (whatever that even means) and not "rigged" by people actually, you know, voting in them (lol). The timing immediately after the actual awards didn't help, even if it was, as you said, a prime motivation for creating these.

Second, because these are ultimately designed to produce another set of winners. Fun or not, that's still something of social and propagandistic value, so we're taking note.

Third, because these were in this subforum. I've posted at some length about why I object to the setup, and you seem to agree (even if only to shut me up ) so I won't go into more detail.

Lastly, because the idea that full participation in community activities should be restricted by anything beyond having a nation is anathema to our vision for the community and for the metagame:

On 12/13/2019 at 5:03 PM, Edward I said:

In practice, a successful implementation of what I outlined would tend to put power in the hands of groups that have the highest "aggregate activity." By that, I mean a combination of the absolute number of players a group has plus however much they collectively go above and beyond the daily floor on effective activity.

 

These suggestions ... would very likely force incumbents (older, well-connected players and players with larger nations) to cede some of their de facto power to newer, more numerous players

 

Quote

They are supposed to be for fun and have no bearing on the game. If you guys don't want to be a part of it, that's fine. But stop kicking up a storm if you don't want to be involved and help out because these literally will have no impact on your in-game experience.

I've helped out by offering several suggestions to improve both the ethos and process of these. Obviously whether or not that advice is heeded is up to you guys, not me.

However, we believe that many things which happen outside the game are intrinsically linked with and strongly impact the game itself. Because of that, and because we think the mentality behind these is ridiculous, we'll continue to criticize and/or ridicule them.

[Chief Wiggum]

2 hours ago, Leonard J Crabs said:

I've played 20 years of gaming with GOONS to take down aristocracies. It happens every game I've ever played, and I won't support any attempts to have aristocracies.

sips tea

I will be waiting.

[Adrienne]

1 hour ago, Edward I said:

I've helped out by offering several suggestions to improve both the ethos and process of these. Obviously whether or not that advice is heeded is up to you guys, not me.

Your advice is appreciated and it'll be considered. That's partly what I've been inviting you all to do for about four pages now, so thanks.

My issue with your alliance's criticism is the insistence that this is inspired by a discontent with the results/that people are trying to retcon the awards. There were issues with the awards this year but the outcome wasn't one of them. Furthermore, the insinuation that this is another Coalition A/Coalition B situation is ridiculous. The idea didn't even originate with us, we were simply asked for our input and invited by hope to participate, same as you guys. I don't appreciate having what's supposed to be something for, ideally, the entire community to enjoy and participate in reduced down into yet another wartime sh*tshow.

The issue with this year in particular's was the short nomination and voting periods. Prior years had weeks for both, not just a few days directly before and after Christmas. As I pointed out, there were a multitude of people from all over talking about the lack of choices this year and I repeatedly stated on these forums - before the awards came out - that there was a lack of participation during the nominations, particularly in the community category, that contributed to that. I do think there are other issues with the structure of awards as well. I don't know if this is the absolute best solution either but why not try it out and see how it goes? 

Anyways, thanks for your response. If you guys want to be an active participant in these awards and to help shape what they look like, you're still welcome to join the server and get involved.

[Joi]

25 minutes ago, Chief Wiggum said:

sips tea

I will be waiting.

sip tea

short circuits

*BZZT* This one thinks everyone should get an award this year.

[Buorhann]

Most Lame Alliance Government Representation:  NPO and BK

 

There’s my nomination.

[Adrienne]

1 minute ago, Supreme Master Joi said:

sip tea

short circuits

*BZZT* This one thinks everyone should get an award this year.

Agreed. Let's call it the "I made it through 2019 without doing myself in because of this game" award. I'll make badges. They will be awful because I suck at graphics but it's only fitting.

[Limbuwan]

[Cooper_]

On 12/30/2019 at 4:31 PM, Leonard J Crabs said:

You literally can't get more fair than one person, one vote.

This is only true in the ideal case.  That is for the meta and in real-life.  I think it's nearly unanimous that each participant in the game should actively voice their opinion on who they believe should the be the nominees and the winners of each award category.  

The problem is that in either case the ideal isn't possible.  This is the whole reason why we have (or need) protections in place to ensure a better functioning Democracy.  Unfortunately, the sad fact is that in real-life, there is "Democracy" but not democracy at least by the definition that people express their opinions.  Consider the influence that lobbyism, money and partisanship play in determining one's opinions.  I mean people are more likely to side with their partisan view than even their ideology or what policy actually benefits them.  A lot of that can be explained by John Zaller's RAS model, which is quite interesting but I won't further discuss for the sake of political-science-nerding y'all.  

The same dynamic is mirrored in the game where many governments, such as NPO or BK, tell their members who to vote for.  And you know what–that is fine.  The problem though is that others then hold up the awards as some representation of popular will when it's actually decided by a few Discord Group messages between a handful of people.  They tell their memberships who they decided, and then they win in virtue of their memberships size and/or activity levels irregardless of the engagement, knowledge nor interests of each individual member.  I believe that each of these members, if given the chance, could have the agency to make an informed decision or at least their own decision, yet this system is more reflective of a indirect oligarchy that we deem "Democracy" due to the fact that there is a vote.  Understand that democracy isn't defined by elections.  Look at Russia, Turkey or even the United States in the Gilded Age under the control of party bosses like Tweed in Tammany Hall.  Democracy is government by the will of the people.  And to respond to @Shadowthrone, the way in which y'all influence your members makes the process very exclusionary.  Instead of having the opportunities to form their own opinions, they are subject to the overriding stimulus of their gov's opinions (irregardless of whether it is due to lack of care, loyalty or having a non-attitude).  The authority structures present in Orbis make it nearly impossible to have a straight popular vote and deem it "fair."

So to get back to the point here, "one person, one vote" is an excellent standard if what we had here was a true expression of the popular will of Orbis.  Instead we are actually dealing with the shoddy reality that Democracy in its true form isn't achievable, not with the current dynamic of voting nor influencing.  If we want to have fair awards, then I think a mix between alliance representation and the popular vote is a way to do that.  Neither method is perfect, but averaging both together we can have some advantages of each while lessening the impact of the inequities.  And there are ways to make even this system better.  For example, we could try ranked-choice voting.  But the best we can hope for is to approximate the actual popular will instead of the facsimile of the will of just a few people mass-messaged to their members we see in the status quo.  

And I'll end this with two notes.  First, I don't really care too much about the awards and have considered them illegitimate before this whole debacle began, but it seems a bit hypocritical to me when a lot of the people who first complained about the awards are now the people defending them and calling them "fair."  Second, I really do hope we can find a better system so people can actually consider more than a sham (on both sides), yet I know that requires for people to be constructive and hash out the ideological conflicts.  

[Leonard J Crabs]

9 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

This is only true in the ideal case.  That is for the meta and in real-life.  I think it's nearly unanimous that each participant in the game should actively voice their opinion on who they believe should the be the nominees and the winners of each award category.  

The problem is that in either case the ideal isn't possible.  This is the whole reason why we have (or need) protections in place to ensure a better functioning Democracy.  Unfortunately, the sad fact is that in real-life, there is "Democracy" but not democracy at least by the definition that people express their opinions.  Consider the influence that lobbyism, money and partisanship play in determining one's opinions.  I mean people are more likely to side with their partisan view than even their ideology or what policy actually benefits them.  A lot of that can be explained by John Zaller's RAS model, which is quite interesting but I won't further discuss for the sake of political-science-nerding y'all.  

The same dynamic is mirrored in the game where many governments, such as NPO or BK, tell their members who to vote for.  And you know what–that is fine.  The problem though is that others then hold up the awards as some representation of popular will when it's actually decided by a few Discord Group messages between a handful of people.  They tell their memberships who they decided, and then they win in virtue of their memberships size and/or activity levels irregardless of the engagement, knowledge nor interests of each individual member.  I believe that each of these members, if given the chance, could have the agency to make an informed decision or at least their own decision, yet this system is more reflective of a indirect oligarchy that we deem "Democracy" due to the fact that there is a vote.  Understand that democracy isn't defined by elections.  Look at Russia, Turkey or even the United States in the Gilded Age under the control of party bosses like Tweed in Tammany Hall.  Democracy is government by the will of the people.  And to respond to @Shadowthrone, the way in which y'all influence your members makes the process very exclusionary.  Instead of having the opportunities to form their own opinions, they are subject to the overriding stimulus of their gov's opinions (irregardless of whether it is due to lack of care, loyalty or having a non-attitude).  The authority structures present in Orbis make it nearly impossible to have a straight popular vote and deem it "fair."

So to get back to the point here, "one person, one vote" is an excellent standard if what we had here was a true expression of the popular will of Orbis.  Instead we are actually dealing with the shoddy reality that Democracy in its true form isn't achievable, not with the current dynamic of voting nor influencing.  If we want to have fair awards, then I think a mix between alliance representation and the popular vote is a way to do that.  Neither method is perfect, but averaging both together we can have some advantages of each while lessening the impact of the inequities.  And there are ways to make even this system better.  For example, we could try ranked-choice voting.  But the best we can hope for is to approximate the actual popular will instead of the facsimile of the will of just a few people mass-messaged to their members we see in the status quo.  

And I'll end this with two notes.  First, I don't really care too much about the awards and have considered them illegitimate before this whole debacle began, but it seems a bit hypocritical to me when a lot of the people who first complained about the awards are now the people defending them and calling them "fair."  Second, I really do hope we can find a better system so people can actually consider more than a sham (on both sides), yet I know that requires for people to be constructive and hash out the ideological conflicts.  

and in that "better functioning democracy", every representative is elected by a majority of their district and state (in America), not some bullshit aristocracy council that chooses who is apart of it.

Edited January 1, 2020 by Leonard J Crabs

[Cooper_]

9 minutes ago, Leonard J Crabs said:

and in that "better functioning democracy", every representative is elected by a majority of their district and state (in America), not some bullshit aristocracy council that chooses who is apart of it.

As far as I know, America uses similar systems.  Consider the Senate or the Electoral College.  I am not personally a fan of either institution, but in Orbis at least we don't really have another choice given the previously noted authority structures.  It's a loss less aristocratic than having 4 alliance leaders decide all of the awards.  

[Leonard J Crabs]

2 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

As far as I know, America uses similar systems.  Consider the Senate or the Electoral College.  I am not personally a fan of either institution, but in Orbis at least we don't really have another choice given the previously noted authority structures.  It's a loss less aristocratic than having 4 alliance leaders decide all of the awards.  

I disagree, it was one person, one vote. It's not my fault you can't get your players to bother to vote.

The only problem I have with this years award is that the person counting the noms in the community awards section skipped every GOONS poster, effectively disenfranchising us

Edited January 1, 2020 by Leonard J Crabs

[Edward I]

16 minutes ago, Cooper_ said:

The same dynamic is mirrored in the game where many governments, such as NPO or BK, tell their members who to vote for.  And you know what–that is fine.  The problem though is that others then hold up the awards as some representation of popular will when it's actually decided by a few Discord Group messages between a handful of people.  They tell their memberships who they decided, and then they win in virtue of their memberships size and/or activity levels irregardless of the engagement, knowledge nor interests of each individual member.  I believe that each of these members, if given the chance, could have the agency to make an informed decision or at least their own decision, yet this system is more reflective of a indirect oligarchy that we deem "Democracy" due to the fact that there is a vote.  Understand that democracy isn't defined by elections.  Look at Russia, Turkey or even the United States in the Gilded Age under the control of party bosses like Tweed in Tammany Hall.  Democracy is government by the will of the people.  And to respond to @Shadowthrone, the way in which y'all influence your members makes the process very exclusionary.  Instead of having the opportunities to form their own opinions, they are subject to the overriding stimulus of their gov's opinions (irregardless of whether it is due to lack of care, loyalty or having a non-attitude).  The authority structures present in Orbis make it nearly impossible to have a straight popular vote and deem it "fair."

This strawman argument again?

NPO and BK members form their own opinions every day, just like TKR members do. They chose to join and choose to remain in their respective alliances. If they listen or talk to NPO's and BK's governments, that's their choice. If they vote the same way their government does, that's also their choice. If they choose not to subscribe to the propaganda information from TKR or any other source, that's their choice. It isn't your, TKR's, or anyone else's right to have equal access to and equal consideration from our members. They are, after all, our members. And that is, again, their choice, and the result of their popular will.

[Noctis Anarch Caelum]

Since these rewards are always rigged, seems pointless to make a fuss out of me being dis-included in almost every Category I had the highest chance to win in; so I had no motivation to encourage anyone to vote.

Although complaining about them seems pointless, although so do the in-game rewards. Although I don't care if people get them to make themselves feel a little special. /shrugs

(Although I have no reason to think these will be less rigged; just as the "micro" awards also dis-included me from most nominations)

Edited January 1, 2020 by Noctis Anarch Caelum

[Shadowthrone]

8 hours ago, Cooper_ said:

They tell their memberships who they decided, and then they win in virtue of their memberships size and/or activity levels irregardless of the engagement, knowledge nor interests of each individual member.  I believe that each of these members, if given the chance, could have the agency to make an informed decision or at least their own decision, yet this system is more reflective of a indirect oligarchy that we deem "Democracy" due to the fact that there is a vote.

To insinuate that our memberships are somehow less free, and have less knowledge because they think and act differently to your opinions is an interesting insinuation. I did not know you had access to how the NPO and our internals function. Our members are free to hold their own opinions and act in any way they see fit. They are not less free just because they are not in TKR. 

8 hours ago, Cooper_ said:

If we want to have fair awards, then I think a mix between alliance representation and the popular vote is a way to do that.  Neither method is perfect, but averaging both together we can have some advantages of each while lessening the impact of the inequities.  And there are ways to make even this system better.  For example, we could try ranked-choice voting.  But the best we can hope for is to approximate the actual popular will instead of the facsimile of the will of just a few people mass-messaged to their members we see in the status quo.  

The inequities being? That some alliances have members who like to vote/participate, while some don't have that. So penalising people who turn up to take part in an open awards process is alright, as long as Coalition A wins stuff. Got it. 

9 hours ago, Princess Adrienne said:

My issue with your alliance's criticism is the insistence that this is inspired by a discontent with the results/that people are trying to retcon the awards. There were issues with the awards this year but the outcome wasn't one of them. Furthermore, the insinuation that this is another Coalition A/Coalition B situation is ridiculous. The idea didn't even originate with us, we were simply asked for our input and invited by hope to participate, same as you guys. I don't appreciate having what's supposed to be something for, ideally, the entire community to enjoy and participate in reduced down into yet another wartime sh*tshow.

It pretty much is an attempt to retcon, however you try to package it. You folks believe that somehow an open voting, open nomination system is flawed and are trying your best to cut that down so your friends and yourselves can set up exclusive "community" awards. Feel free to host a Coalition A awards thing if you want to win stuff that badly. Just do not try to claim that any exclusionary system devised by you folks is the fairest representation for the rest of us. 

9 hours ago, Princess Adrienne said:

The issue with this year in particular's was the short nomination and voting periods. Prior years had weeks for both, not just a few days directly before and after Christmas. As I pointed out, there were a multitude of people from all over talking about the lack of choices this year and I repeatedly stated on these forums - before the awards came out - that there was a lack of participation during the nominations, particularly in the community category, that contributed to that. I do think there are other issues with the structure of awards as well. I don't know if this is the absolute best solution either but why not try it out and see how it goes? 

Because as we've pointed out, any process that tries to undo or change a completely open process is a legitimisation of the exclusionary nature of what you're trying to do here. 

[Aero]

My thoughts on these are probably meaningless and to some from both sides won't be truly liked but here ya go:

When I joined the server I did ask around for the point behind them because my initial thoughts were basically "This seems kinda..... Salty and upset". Not that I thought the people running it where such but that the ideas behind them were more going for that if they couldn't have it there way officially they were gonna have it their way anyway. 

Once I started talking and reading more inside the server I did see that they knew these were "meaningless" and were more so just to have Abit of fun their way. Which isn't necessarily bad in anyway. 

The argument can be made that they're "testing the waters" so next year they can push for it. I saw this argument and this is correct. But ultimately it really doesn't matter. Atleast to me. The awards in general to me are kinda meh official or unofficial. It's just some fun at the end of the day. 

I really hate that alot of us, on both sides, can't seem to have fun with the game these days. And even if you don't know the person, the AA they associate with are all it takes for you to think you know the character of said person. For example me, I just came back from leaving the game in 2016 and I rejoined Polaris because of my history with them. I will meet someone for the first time and because of my AA I will get shut out or shat on on an OOC level. Some of the best friends I've made in this game do fall on the opposite side of my AA which is the main reason I decided to take part in these awards. Because at the end of the day, they are just for Abit of fun and the fact that they aren't "official" or you don't like the format of how they're being done, it shouldn't cause anymore of a rift. If you don't wanna partake, don't. There's no need to continuously cause grief on the fact. Let those that wanna have fun do it. 

 

Sorry for the monologue. I don't post much but there is a really big issue in this world and I'd really like to see it dissaper. And BOTH sides are causing it. Not just 1 side or 1 AA. For there to be a conflict you need more than 1 person or side.... Lets just get back to what this is... A game we play for fun

[ComradeMilton]

10 hours ago, Chief Wiggum said:

sips tea

I will be waiting.

It'll be done within the rules. No worries.

[Noctis Anarch Caelum]

53 minutes ago, ComradeMilton said:

It'll be done within the rules. No worries.

So we will do it with a fair vote and all the nominations then? Or you want to stick with the broken one?

I think we might as well do it right, where everyone can vote and be included in the nominations. Open Process.

Edit: Although doesn't matter if no in-game awards, but I think those who think they won fair should want a fair vote for the awards.

Edited January 1, 2020 by Noctis Anarch Caelum

[Kevanovia]

5 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

To insinuate that our memberships are somehow less free, and have less knowledge because they think and act differently to your opinions is an interesting insinuation. I did not know you had access to how the NPO and our internals function. Our members are free to hold their own opinions and act in any way they see fit. They are not less free just because they are not in TKR. 

The inequities being? That some alliances have members who like to vote/participate, while some don't have that. So penalising people who turn up to take part in an open awards process is alright, as long as Coalition A wins stuff. Got it. 

It pretty much is an attempt to retcon, however you try to package it. You folks believe that somehow an open voting, open nomination system is flawed and are trying your best to cut that down so your friends and yourselves can set up exclusive "community" awards. Feel free to host a Coalition A awards thing if you want to win stuff that badly. Just do not try to claim that any exclusionary system devised by you folks is the fairest representation for the rest of us. 

Because as we've pointed out, any process that tries to undo or change a completely open process is a legitimisation of the exclusionary nature of what you're trying to do here. 

Everyone Else > Hello! We are doing a fun community event. Everyone is invited!

Keshav > These awards are awful and are malicious

Everyone Else > Uh? How? We’re trying to do a community event for fun. You’re also invited! Won’t it be nice to take a break from shit-slinging?

Keshav > You are a bunch of exclusionary !@#$! Trying to get rid of the other awards? How dare you!!! You are out to get me!

Everyone Else > Uhm...? Perhaps you misread. These awards don’t invalidate the other awards. It’s just something extra to participate and have fun in. You are invited  Everyone is! A bunch of your allies and friends are already here! Should be a good time! 
 

Keshav > You are the devil! These awards are malicious! You’re out to get me with these awards! Typical Coalition A!

 

Everyone Else > 

Edited January 1, 2020 by Kevanovia

[Miller]

5 hours ago, Shadowthrone said:

Our members are free to hold their own opinions and act in any way they see fit.

Then why did you make one of your members leave our discord? 

[Shadowthrone]

23 minutes ago, Miller said:

Then why did you make one of your members leave our discord? 

I'm sorry didn't know official diplomatic policy should be allowed by TKR now? Would you folks get over your entitled high horse? 

 

@Kevanovia cute. I didn't know Coalition A represents the community now.

[Adrienne]

15 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

I'm sorry didn't know official diplomatic policy should be allowed by TKR now? Would you folks get over your entitled high horse? 

He asked a question, relax. You do you when it comes to "official diplomatic policy".

16 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said:

@Kevanovia cute. I didn't know Coalition A represents the community now.

It's not Coalition A. Currently, it's approaching just about everyone but you/BK/UPN because you refuse to join.

15 hours ago, Princess Adrienne said:

Furthermore, the insinuation that this is another Coalition A/Coalition B situation is ridiculous. The idea didn't even originate with us, we were simply asked for our input and invited by hope to participate, same as you guys. I don't appreciate having what's supposed to be something for, ideally, the entire community to enjoy and participate in reduced down into yet another wartime sh*tshow.

You were invited. Your presence would further balance out any current concerns you have about this being Coalition A heavy. If you don't want to join, that's fine and completely your decision, but you kicking up a storm about it and making wild accusations only serves to paint you and the alliance you represent in a negative light. NPO is better than that.