Auctor Posted December 30, 2019 Share Posted December 30, 2019 Not sure what's sadder, short bus awards or complaining that someone wants to waste their time drawing them with crayon and markers. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrienne Posted December 30, 2019 Share Posted December 30, 2019 1 minute ago, Leonard J Crabs said: I don't know how to change anything about GOONS perspective since we joined in September. How am I supposed to vote for and nom events that happened before I was in the game? That's fair but not every in your alliance only joined then and they said that. And even for those of you who joined later, yourself too, iirc, said that the choices that we did have were limited/dumb. I'd like for that to not be the case. 2 minutes ago, Leonard J Crabs said: I don't know how to change anything about GOONS perspective since we joined in September. How am I supposed to vote for and nom events that happened before I was in the game? The nominations were one person one vote, and just like every democratic system in the entire world, it's dependent on organization and driving out the vote. I really don't see how one person one vote to the nominations is in any way unfair. If you're saying you don't think the minority of players was represented accurately, well that's how minorities work. I don't support any system in which the people do not vote for the nominations, awards, and who is able to participate. Are you confusing nominations and votes? We're not looking to completely eliminate the people's vote, just to restate that. The majority of what hope has posted about here pertains to nominations, not votes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowthrone Posted December 30, 2019 Share Posted December 30, 2019 23 minutes ago, Princess Adrienne said: The loudest opponents to how this year's awards were conducted came from your side so please stop making this about in-game politics when it's not. Not really. It most definitely is about in-game politics. You lost the awards, so the system is now broken. 23 minutes ago, Princess Adrienne said: Get involved in the process and help shape it into something that can be better enjoyed by the entire community and is a better representation of this game and the year. No one's trying to penalize anyone and, again, there will still be a popular vote aspect to the awards based on hope's vision. If, after you guys hear it out, you have suggestions for improvement, say them. Be a part of the decision-making process. I'm starting to sound like a broken record so I'm done arguing this out with you here. Just, please keep an open mind and send someone from NPO to discuss ideas with us. We want your side to be included, in both the discussion over how to organize the awards and the voting. I have 0 reason in changing the present system of one person, one vote since its the most fair, least exclusionary and most enfranchising system that one can get on deciding Community Awards. Anything else is open to subjective biases, especially a jury/secret cabal of IC political leaders. I mean come on, do you seriously expect me to think you would suddenly be objective and no bias whatsoever would turn up in your decisions with that kind of power? I don't think anyone here can willingly state the same. The present system works best, I've been saying this for years now and I see no reason to change it whatsoever. 23 minutes ago, Eva-Beatrice said: As a member of Coalition B, I can say that the current awards are nothing more than a circlejerk between the major alliances on our side. Every year, it's the same. "@everyone, be sure to vote for X members/alliances so we can win!" It's made the yearly awards a joke, and I'm sure others agree with me when I say I don't care about them. It seems like alliances such as NPO and GOONS are wholeheartedly defending the current system because it's seemingly the only thing they're good at organizing and coming together for, basically guaranteeing their side the win every year. Their members will blindly vote for whomever their leadership tells them to without thinking about who actually deserves it. Nice try. False. 23 minutes ago, Eva-Beatrice said: I guarantee you if the situation was reversed, and Coalition A members were dominating the awards, it would be Coalition B alliances trying to devise a new system. The system was reversed for a couple of years. Guess what we stepped up and ensured that within the present system things change. It isn't particularly hard, given how the system is far fairer than any other secret cabal. 24 minutes ago, Eva-Beatrice said: ou have the other side trying to work with you to create a fair voting system, but are shutting them down because things went your way this year. It's pretty sad. @hope and everyone else, this is a great suggestion and I agree with it 100%. I appreciate the effort even if no one else on my side does. Lol. There is no fairer system than one person one vote. But good try trying to call the disenfranchisement of people as a "fair system". 8 minutes ago, Princess Adrienne said: The IC aspects? Not so much. Most non-gov membership is not as invested in the politics of the game and I know your side would agree with that specific statement at least, because I've heard them say it many times. That doesn't mean that the people who won some of the IC awards from the ones Roberts did don't deserve them. There are a great many that do and I think those that do will have that reflected in this proposed new system as well. It would be interesting to see how these stack up with the previous ones, if nothing else. Regardless of whether or not you agree with me though, this system isn't just about the voting part, it's also about trying to invite a better system of nominations all around. Like I mentioned earlier, one of the biggest complaints was that the choices available were terrible and that they didn't reflect the full year. GOONS was one of the most outspoken about that and that's one of the things we'd like to see improve as well. No. Again wrong. Any exclusionary cabal of folks deciding who deserves something isn't how something should be decided. The choices available weren't particularly terrible and if anyone had problems with it, they were free to nominate choices as they saw fit. See that's the great thing about a simple, open for all, fair system. It's the same rules for everyone, and nothing is exclusionary about it. Any change to that is something you believe would help your side win more awards. Its absolutely silly to paint it as anything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard J Crabs Posted December 30, 2019 Share Posted December 30, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Princess Adrienne said: That's fair but not every in your alliance only joined then and they said that. And even for those of you who joined later, yourself too, iirc, said that the choices that we did have were limited/dumb. I'd like for that to not be the case. Are you confusing nominations and votes? We're not looking to completely eliminate the people's vote, just to restate that. The majority of what hope has posted about here pertains to nominations, not votes. I don't in general support a system where a group nominates and decides who is in it and who is not in it. Roberts put up a thread and we all nominated who we wanted and the categories. One person, one vote. I object to an invitation to limited individuals to decide on anything. The only process I will support is a completely democratic option for every step of the way, and we've had those last week. Edited December 30, 2019 by Leonard J Crabs 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowthrone Posted December 30, 2019 Share Posted December 30, 2019 7 minutes ago, Leonard J Crabs said: I don't support any system in which the people do not vote for the nominations, awards, and who is able to participate. Hey! A secret cabal of folks are by far the best deciders of who deserves stuff. It's clearly not filled with bias, completely objective and extremely participative! You heard it here first! Next time someone tells you that disenfranchisement is a great idea because they know better, it has nothing to do with the entitlement they believe they deserve. Its all to be fair and protect the rest of us! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Curufinwe Posted December 30, 2019 Share Posted December 30, 2019 (edited) You know, if you guys spent half the time mobilising your membership to nominate and vote for candidates (and it's not hard - anyone who has volunteered on a political campaign can probably explain the basic tenets to you) as you did trying to fiddle with the format to get the results you want, this 'issue' would have been resolved years ago. Like it or not, the one member, one vote format that has traditionally been used is the fairest and most inclusive way to conduct a poll - anything that intentionally tips the balance towards a particular group (which people from what is currently the coalition A side of the web have been pushing for since 2017) is inherently exclusionary and should be avoided. Same deal with nominations - the open nomination system currently in use allowed anyone to put forward a candidate and then allowed voters to decide on the merits of their candidacy. How exactly would empowering a self selecting cabal to decide who is worthy of a nomination improve on that? There was already ample opportunity to nominate whoever you wanted - it's not the fault of the guy who ran it that 'some people' were dissatisfied with the results. The fact that we're having this conversation about fiddling with the awards to privilege certain parties for the third year in a row is honestly kind of pathetic, as is the idea that the open and democratic awards just conducted should be subject to a redo because the 'wrong people' won. That's not how fair votes work and it's kind of sad that that has to be explained to various people every year. Edited December 30, 2019 by Curufinwe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevanovia Posted December 30, 2019 Share Posted December 30, 2019 6 minutes ago, Curufinwe said: You know, if you guys spent half the time mobilising your membership to nominate and vote for candidates (and it's not hard - anyone who has volunteered on a political campaign can probably explain the basic tenets to you) as you did trying to fiddle with the format to get the results you want, this 'issue' would have been resolved years ago. Like it or not, the one member, one vote format that has traditionally been used is the fairest and most inclusive way to conduct a poll - anything that intentionally tips the balance towards a particular group (which people from what is currently the coalition A side of the web have been pushing for since 2017) is inherently exclusionary and should be avoided. Same deal with nominations - the open nomination system currently in use allowed anyone to put forward a candidate and then allowed voters to decide on the merits of their candidacy. How exactly would empowering a self selecting cabal to decide who is worthy of a nomination improve on that? There was already ample opportunity to nominate whoever you wanted - it's not the fault of the guy who ran it that 'some people' were dissatisfied with the results. The fact that we're having this conversation about fiddling with the awards to privilege certain parties for the third year in a row is honestly kind of pathetic, as is the idea that the open and democratic awards just conducted should be subject to a redo because the 'wrong people' won. That's not how fair votes work and it's kind of sad that that has to be explained to various people every year. Apparently you and everyone else keep missing the memo that an individual from your coalition is the one that started this idea. Imagine !@#$ing about someone trying to do a community event for fun. For shit’s sake, how petty and pathetic can someone be. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard J Crabs Posted December 30, 2019 Share Posted December 30, 2019 I sincerely doubt this idea came only from one person Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrienne Posted December 30, 2019 Share Posted December 30, 2019 (edited) 41 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said: Not really. It most definitely is about in-game politics. You lost the awards, so the system is now broken. I have 0 reason in changing the present system of one person, one vote since its the most fair, least exclusionary and most enfranchising system that one can get on deciding Community Awards. Anything else is open to subjective biases, especially a jury/secret cabal of IC political leaders. I mean come on, do you seriously expect me to think you would suddenly be objective and no bias whatsoever would turn up in your decisions with that kind of power? I don't think anyone here can willingly state the same. You are the only one here trying to make this about politics. The rest of us here are literally trying to reach out to you all and get you to join in on making the system better, which would also have the side effect of counter-balancing any supposed power that we have. While you personally may not think there's anything to be improved upon, that is not representative of your alliance and, to be quite honest, I don't think it's representative of your actual opinion either. If the concern you actually have that you're not saying is over in-game awards, you can relax. 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. There won't even be negative awards besides Worst Alliance Leader, which we all know exists just for @TheNG (?). 51 minutes ago, Princess Adrienne said: The tl;dr on all this is that we have concerns about how the awards are run and I know you do too. So please, work with us on making them better. The process isn't set in stone, so join, give your opinions and help us finalize a process, and let's try for a better awards ceremony altogether. Join or don't. We'd love to have you get involved and have Coalition B represented but if you want to make your ally's idea to try and facilitate a better, more balanced awards system into some conspiracy to have Coalition A retcon awards, that's your prerogative. These concerns are not new or influenced by the outcome of the awards nor are they only from Coalition A... From Teaspoon (GOONS) on the Community Awards Quote What the hell are these poll options? This is terrible. From Comrade Milton (GOONS) on the awards in general Quote Might as well just run an alternate poll that includes things like the entire year, rather than the last few months, is purged of questions where the answers are so terrible there's no reason to even vote on it, etc. Mad Max (also not Coalition A): All of those were well before the award results were ever decided or revealed. Regarding a "secret" cabal, it's not secret. Everyone's aware who's on the panel and there are some guards in place to try and maintain objectivity. The current idea is to include literally about 60 alliances all across Orbis, all the results are going to be publicly viewable, and alliance leaders can't nominate or vote your own alliance. Transparency is absolutely a valid concern and that's why everything all throughout this process is going to be as visible as possible. It's also not a cabal as there is still a part of this process designed to include general membership. Also, this is still a working idea. There is still room for movement and ideas to be weighed, considered, and added. 11 minutes ago, Leonard J Crabs said: I sincerely doubt this idea came only from one person Hope came up with the idea and just reached out to all of us today. This literally just got started. We're working on refining his idea with him and would like you guys to be a part of that process as well. Edited December 30, 2019 by Princess Adrienne 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hope Posted December 30, 2019 Share Posted December 30, 2019 7 minutes ago, Curufinwe said: You know, if you guys spent half the time mobilising your membership to nominate and vote for candidates (and it's not hard - anyone who has volunteered on a political campaign can probably explain the basic tenets to you) as you did trying to fiddle with the format to get the results you want, this 'issue' would have been resolved years ago. Like it or not, the one member, one vote format that has traditionally been used is the fairest and most inclusive way to conduct a poll - anything that intentionally tips the balance towards a particular group (which people from what is currently the coalition A side of the web have been pushing for since 2017) is inherently exclusionary and should be avoided. Same deal with nominations - the open nomination system currently in use allowed anyone to put forward a candidate and then allowed voters to decide on the merits of their candidacy. How exactly would empowering a self selecting cabal to decide who is worthy of a nomination improve on that? There was already ample opportunity to nominate whoever you wanted - it's not the fault of the guy who ran it that 'some people' were dissatisfied with the results. The fact that we're having this conversation about fiddling with the awards to privilege certain parties for the third year in a row is honestly kind of pathetic, as is the idea that the open and democratic awards just conducted should be subject to a redo because the 'wrong people' won. That's not how fair votes work and it's kind of sad that that has to be explained to various people every year. Hi Curu, thanks for ignoring everything I posted. As someone who leads a protectorate of GOONS (Not Col. A), my goal is not to "redo" the Yearly Awards as I've stated in DMs with people, you would have known this if you reached out to me instead of making strawman arguments on the forums. My goal instead has been to make an Awards that is nominated by and voted on by people who are experienced in this game, and the majority of those who are experienced in this game are in alliance government. The top 50 metric of deciding who is allowed is to prevent people who are new and just made a micro alliance to vote on the awards. I've been told multiple times by people that we are making a "Secret Cabal" of people who nominate and scheme regarding the awards and this is also false; you would know this if you spoke to me or Adrienne instead of projecting on the forums. I've brought in people from plenty of backgrounds to help moderate this event, including myself, Adrienne, Sval, deadmeat, and Redarmy. We are not replacing the current awards, I just wanted to try and do something different. While I appreciate the current format and it is a fair way of doing the Yearly Awards, I've found that the winners arent necessarily what the community at large thinks and are just based on who can get the most people out to vote for them. We've also eliminated voting for your own alliance, which I find to be a way to prevent people from just nominating themselves. I'd still love and appreciate if BK/NPO sent someone to represent them, and if you had actually chosen to speak to me about this instead of whine on the forums you'd find out we're always willing to listen to new ideas and improve our event. It's also really frustrating to be called "pathetic" by someone who's an ally of your protector, perhaps read and learn about a forum topic before responding to it? This will be my last response on this topic. Please reach out to me before commenting on something you know nothing about, thanks 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard J Crabs Posted December 30, 2019 Share Posted December 30, 2019 (edited) Anything that isn't fully democratic I don't support. I don't support the community awards section of this years awards, because GOONS was disenfranchised over it and the counters skipped all GOONS votes. I also didn't vote in them because of it. Edited December 30, 2019 by Leonard J Crabs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowthrone Posted December 30, 2019 Share Posted December 30, 2019 1 minute ago, Princess Adrienne said: You are the only one here trying to make this about politics. The rest of us here are literally trying to reach out to you all and get you to join in on making the system better, which would also have the side effect of counter-balancing any supposed power that we have. While you personally may not think there's anything to be improved upon, that is not representative of your alliance and, to be quite honest, I don't think it's representative of your actual opinion either. If the concern you actually have that you're not saying is over in-game awards, you can relax. 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. There won't even be negative awards besides Worst Alliance Leader, which we all know exists just for @TheNG (?). Imagine reaching out after the fact you announce an entire system made up of TKR, OWR and CoS. Yes. But I mean I don't even care enough who makes up the team or not. The awards are already within a fair framework open to everyone in the game. That is most definitely representative of my alliance, and to be quite honest, representative of my actual opinion. You and your lot have for the better part of three years tried your best to disenfranchise change a completely fair system the moment TKR started losing out on it. That's just something as Curu pointed out, normal behaviour from quite a few folks who find it easier to blame a completely fair/open system and arguing it needs to be closed down in favour of them. I'd love to buy your arguments of objectivity but its quite doubtful to expect leaders to be "objective" about any of this lol. I do enjoy you quoting CM/Teaspoon. Simply put all they had to do was participate in it. It's not really that hard. Thats why this format is far better than most other things. Also its cute you think a transparent system that one can't vote for themselves somehow can't be gamed. Friends vote for friends, regardless and this system only further skews that to backroom circle jerks. It delegitimises the rest of the game so that Coalition A can finally win what you believe you are entitled to. 6 minutes ago, hope said: I've found that the winners arent necessarily what the community at large thinks and are just based on who can get the most people out to vote for them. We've also eliminated voting for your own alliance, which I find to be a way to prevent people from just nominating themselves. The community at large I daresay disagrees. A circle jerk of leaders disagreeing doesn't somehow delegitimise all of those who turned up to vote. 7 minutes ago, hope said: My goal instead has been to make an Awards that is nominated by and voted on by people who are experienced in this game, and the majority of those who are experienced in this game are in alliance government. This is so screwed up on so many levels its not even funny. So a group of people decide the performance for everyone else? And this system some how isn't prone to be gamed by those leaders who are friends with one another to further skew awards? This is laughable at best. 8 minutes ago, hope said: We've also eliminated voting for your own alliance, which I find to be a way to prevent people from just nominating themselves. Yeah just have friends vote for you, and vice versa. This is totally a better system. 9 minutes ago, hope said: 'd still love and appreciate if BK/NPO sent someone to represent them, and if you had actually chosen to speak to me about this instead of whine on the forums you'd find out we're always willing to listen to new ideas and improve our event. It's also really frustrating to be called "pathetic" by someone who's an ally of your protector, perhaps read and learn about a forum topic before responding to it? There is nothing here that needs any improvement. I don't see why I'd have to join a predefined circle jerk to state the same things I can confidently say publicly. There is nothing to improve in the present system. It's the fairest, most diverse, open system. Your ideas of excluding everyone else in the nominating process, disenfranchising voters and the 9950 other players who play the game, and leave the power to decide things in the hands of people who just happen to be game "leaders" is inherently wrong in a community event. By closing it off, and trying to build a cabal of circle jerks to decide for everyone else on how the year went, is by far one of the more absurd ideas I've heard. I didn't know taking time post serious responses about this is now whining. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrienne Posted December 30, 2019 Share Posted December 30, 2019 1 minute ago, Shadowthrone said: Imagine reaching out after the fact you announce an entire system made up of TKR, OWR and CoS. Are you forgetting GOONS and Heaven's Gate? Or the fact that this whole idea came from your ally in Heaven's Gate as well? Also, I've spent the better part of three hours literally trying to convince you to join and bring BK with you. Your entire argument is invalid because you won't join or try and get involved and are convinced that this is a Coalition A plot against you. Have a good night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowthrone Posted December 30, 2019 Share Posted December 30, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Princess Adrienne said: Are you forgetting GOONS and Heaven's Gate? Or the fact that this whole idea came from your ally in Heaven's Gate as well? Also, I've spent the better part of three hours literally trying to convince you to join and bring BK with you. Your entire argument is invalid because you won't join or try and get involved and are convinced that this is a Coalition A plot against you. Have a good night. My entire argument is invalid because I don't see a problem with the present system and literally explained it out here? Glad to hear! The circus of the absurd seems to be getting more absurd day by day. I don't see problems with the system to spend time trying to find a "fairer" or better solution. None exists that isn't inherently exclusionary. I don't see the point joining a discord server to say these exact same lines. I mean if you want to argue for the sake of opposing me feel free. Maybe you'll read this post and see why it's preposterous to think there's some better system than a completely open one as done presently. Nice to see your veneer of "fairness" and "objectivity" finally slipping though. Edited December 30, 2019 by Shadowthrone 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noctis Anarch Caelum Posted December 30, 2019 Share Posted December 30, 2019 If they go through with these, that will be 3 separate awards done. Maybe after people can decide which get in-game awards, if any. Main problem with first one was I wasn’t included in most player categories nominated, so wasn’t accurate due to that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrienne Posted December 30, 2019 Share Posted December 30, 2019 On 12/3/2019 at 1:20 PM, Edward I said: The reason they are politicized is because they're "official." They have their own dedicated subforum here and the results are displayed in-game. We're never going to achieve a "fair" or "objective" outcome by changing the process unless that change makes the awards unofficial - not held in their own special subforum, and not recorded in-game. If those aren't being considered (and it appears they aren't), then I'll say what I say every year: host these in-game or here on the forums, and use a directly democratic voting process for all the awards. That's closer to "fair" than any other method. 1. You'll notice I upvoted/agreed with him. 2. 31 minutes 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. There won't even be negative awards besides Worst Alliance Leader, which we all know exists just for @TheNG (?). I'm not the lead on this, just someone hope asked to help him out and my frustration and annoyance with you as an individual has nothing to do with my "fairness" or "objectivity". It's with you politicizing what we're trying to promote as a fun unofficial/OOC event. If you continue to do that, I'm done engaging because clearly, this conversation will go nowhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Curufinwe Posted December 30, 2019 Share Posted December 30, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Kevanovia said: Apparently you and everyone else keep missing the memo that an individual from your coalition is the one that started this idea. Imagine !@#$ing about someone trying to do a community event for fun. For shit’s sake, how petty and pathetic can someone be. Looks like the majority of the committee is from Coalition A affiliates and the Goons guy may have misunderstood the underlying intent of what you are apparently trying to do (based on earlier comments). Thanks for coming out though. 1 hour ago, hope said: Hi Curu, thanks for ignoring everything I posted. As someone who leads a protectorate of GOONS (Not Col. A), my goal is not to "redo" the Yearly Awards as I've stated in DMs with people, you would have known this if you reached out to me instead of making strawman arguments on the forums. My goal instead has been to make an Awards that is nominated by and voted on by people who are experienced in this game, and the majority of those who are experienced in this game are in alliance government. The top 50 metric of deciding who is allowed is to prevent people who are new and just made a micro alliance to vote on the awards. I've been told multiple times by people that we are making a "Secret Cabal" of people who nominate and scheme regarding the awards and this is also false; you would know this if you spoke to me or Adrienne instead of projecting on the forums. I've brought in people from plenty of backgrounds to help moderate this event, including myself, Adrienne, Sval, deadmeat, and Redarmy. We are not replacing the current awards, I just wanted to try and do something different. While I appreciate the current format and it is a fair way of doing the Yearly Awards, I've found that the winners arent necessarily what the community at large thinks and are just based on who can get the most people out to vote for them. We've also eliminated voting for your own alliance, which I find to be a way to prevent people from just nominating themselves. I'd still love and appreciate if BK/NPO sent someone to represent them, and if you had actually chosen to speak to me about this instead of whine on the forums you'd find out we're always willing to listen to new ideas and improve our event. It's also really frustrating to be called "pathetic" by someone who's an ally of your protector, perhaps read and learn about a forum topic before responding to it? This will be my last response on this topic. Please reach out to me before commenting on something you know nothing about, thanks Hi Hope, Apparently you don't understand how fair and open votes work (I seem to recall we had this conversation back in 2017 when IQ 'stole' the awards then too, by the way, so I guess that didn't stick) so allow me to enlighten you on a few things. The voting process is precisely how 'the community' at large decides who is suitable to win an award - that's how a democratic vote works. Now, based on your comments, it appears that some subset of the 'community' that you are a part of feels that the 'wrong people' have won, but privileging the viewpoint of what is by definition a minority of players is inherently undemocratic and exclusionary, which is something that a notionally inclusive community such as PW should seek to avoid. I'd also take issue with the notion that the 'experienced' players (or alliance leadership, for that matter) should be given preferential treatment and that newer players should be discriminated against by biased organisers. The implicit presumption that just because someone less 'experienced' (however that is determined) they are unable to cast an informed vote is absolutely absurd, as is the idea that the votes of some members should be worth less than others, which by the way is what your one AA, one vote formula would achieve. Finally, the fact that this proposal was rolled out 3 days after the voting closed suggests a pretty clear intent to retcon the results of the previous vote, especially given that the rationale for them is the fact that 'some people' were unhappy with the democratic vote we just held. Given that proposals such as this have been advanced every year to limit the democratic nature of the voting process, it's not unreasonable to observe that it's rather pathetic that we have to explain this to proponents of anti democratic measures every year, a group that apparently includes you, notwithstanding your status as a GOONS prot. Thanks. Edited December 30, 2019 by Curufinwe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astryl Posted December 30, 2019 Share Posted December 30, 2019 1 hour ago, Princess Adrienne said: That's fair but not every in your alliance only joined then and they said that. And even for those of you who joined later, yourself too, iirc, said that the choices that we did have were limited/dumb. I'd like for that to not be the case. Are you confusing nominations and votes? We're not looking to completely eliminate the people's vote, just to restate that. The majority of what hope has posted about here pertains to nominations, not votes. No you're trying to change the majority of the vote to only account for 20% of the total vote, basically stripping away the views of the voters (ODsphere) to give yourselves a competitive advantage for a 25x25 pixel award. 1 Quote Queen of Chaos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowthrone Posted December 30, 2019 Share Posted December 30, 2019 6 minutes ago, Princess Adrienne said: You'll notice I upvoted/agreed with him. So you agree with him, by suggesting a closed off cabal that decides for everyone else. Interesting. 7 minutes ago, Princess Adrienne said: I'm not the lead on this, just someone hope asked to help him out and my frustration and annoyance with you as an individual has nothing to do with my "fairness" or "objectivity". It's with you politicizing what we're trying to promote as a fun unofficial/OOC event. If you continue to do that, I'm done engaging because clearly, this conversation will go nowhere. A fun exclusive OOC event that is somehow meant to be held in a vacuum over IC events of the past year and retain all objectivity. That's some interesting logic there. I mean joining your server and stating these same points for tokenism is fine and dandy or you know pointing out the issues in your official post does literally the same thing. I've engaged with you in telling you how exactly creating an exclusionary event does not promote fun or inclusive anything. It's literally done three days after because some of you are unhappy at losing stuff, and it comes out every year after the players who do turn up to vote are now suddenly meant to be penalised for doing so. If the goal is to penalise everyone who did turn up to vote because they did so, and it was more than those from your alliance/allies, this sounds like a great idea. I mean the very next post in that thread I linked has Partisan suggesting the same thing I am, and a host of us agree with. Simple, transparent, open nominations, open voting, and longer discussions of stuff is such a simpler, fairer system than some complicated effort at suppressing the community at large, to suit your own ends. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prefonteen Posted December 30, 2019 Share Posted December 30, 2019 10 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said: So you agree with him, by suggesting a closed off cabal that decides for everyone else. Interesting. A fun exclusive OOC event that is somehow meant to be held in a vacuum over IC events of the past year and retain all objectivity. That's some interesting logic there. I mean joining your server and stating these same points for tokenism is fine and dandy or you know pointing out the issues in your official post does literally the same thing. I've engaged with you in telling you how exactly creating an exclusionary event does not promote fun or inclusive anything. It's literally done three days after because some of you are unhappy at losing stuff, and it comes out every year after the players who do turn up to vote are now suddenly meant to be penalised for doing so. If the goal is to penalise everyone who did turn up to vote because they did so, and it was more than those from your alliance/allies, this sounds like a great idea. I mean the very next post in that thread I linked has Partisan suggesting the same thing I am, and a host of us agree with. Simple, transparent, open nominations, open voting, and longer discussions of stuff is such a simpler, fairer system than some complicated effort at suppressing the community at large, to suit your own ends. Please don't invoke my name in whatever the frick this new toxic flare up is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowthrone Posted December 30, 2019 Share Posted December 30, 2019 10 minutes ago, Prefonteen said: Please don't invoke my name in whatever the frick this new toxic flare up is. But for once I'm supporting something you wrote, friend. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrienne Posted December 30, 2019 Share Posted December 30, 2019 14 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said: So you agree with him, by suggesting a closed off cabal that decides for everyone else. Interesting. A fun exclusive OOC event that is somehow meant to be held in a vacuum over IC events of the past year and retain all objectivity. That's some interesting logic there. I mean joining your server and stating these same points for tokenism is fine and dandy or you know pointing out the issues in your official post does literally the same thing. I've engaged with you in telling you how exactly creating an exclusionary event does not promote fun or inclusive anything. It's literally done three days after because some of you are unhappy at losing stuff, and it comes out every year after the players who do turn up to vote are now suddenly meant to be penalised for doing so. Just as you claim I'm ignoring your points, you repeatedly ignore mine. I've explained multiple times how it's not a closed off cabal (it combines the "cabal", as you call it, and popular vote methods) and it's open to changes/suggestions but you continually ignore that. No one cares about the outcome of the last awards either, that's just you continually trying to push your expectations for why we might want to change the awards on us based on this, despite multitudes of people agreeing that the structure of awards doesn't work. You can have your awards for this year, keep them. I don't expect the results for this year to significantly change either, in all honesty, and that's not the point of this. But we might actually get more well rounded nominations and there are proposals for additional fun categories. 14 minutes ago, Shadowthrone said: If the goal is to penalise everyone who did turn up to vote because they did so, and it was more than those from your alliance/allies, this sounds like a great idea. I mean the very next post in that thread I linked has Partisan suggesting the same thing I am, and a host of us agree with. Simple, transparent, open nominations, open voting, and longer discussions of stuff is such a simpler, fairer system than some complicated effort at suppressing the community at large, to suit your own ends. So join the discussion and suggest that instead of just saying nothing's wrong with them just because you're happy with how this year's went (see, your argument goes both ways ). I'm not the sole arbiter of this process and I can't claim credit for this idea either - it's hope's and I, along with others, am just trying to help refine it. If what you outlined here is what you think would make for a better award process, go get involved and help us refine it. This process isn't set in stone. Either way, no one's forcing you to participate. We'd certainly like you to but that's your decision. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowthrone Posted December 30, 2019 Share Posted December 30, 2019 4 minutes ago, Princess Adrienne said: No one cares about the outcome of the last awards either, that's just you continually trying to push your expectations for why we might want to change the awards on us based on this, despite multitudes of people agreeing that the structure of awards doesn't work. You can have your awards for this year, keep them. I don't expect the results for this year to significantly change either, in all honesty, and that's not the point of this. But we might actually get more well rounded nominations and there are proposals for additional fun categories. More well rounded than folks actually being able to nominate anyone? Interesting logical leap there again. 4 minutes ago, Princess Adrienne said: So join the discussion and suggest that instead of just saying nothing's wrong with them just because you're happy with how this year's went (see, your argument goes both ways ). I'm not the sole arbiter of this process and I can't claim credit for this idea either - it's hope's and I, along with others, am just trying to help refine it. If what you outlined here is what you think would make for a better award process, go get involved and help us refine it. This process isn't set in stone. Either way, no one's forcing you to participate. We'd certainly like you to but that's your decision. As I recall, that's literally the present system and it works just fine. I've joined the conversation here and pointed out how any new system suggested simply doesn't work. Feel free to keep brushing it off, doesn't make your system any less exclusionary or disenfranchising/penalising the community at large though. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Micchan Posted December 30, 2019 Share Posted December 30, 2019 When I see You've chosen to ignore content by ******** every 2 posts I know another shitfest started and I stop reading @Alex we need another server, can't be like this every time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Expects Posted December 31, 2019 Share Posted December 31, 2019 No thanks, awards are done, you can stick these awards where the sun don't shine. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.