Jump to content

Some thoughts for next year


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Roberts said:

However, the number one complaint every year seems to be that things turn into a popularity contest.

What do you think awards shows are? Democracy is a popularity contest...

 

If you're going to expand the nominations, for goodness sake, cut down the categories. Like, really, does anyone care how big Adrienne's e-peen is?

  • Haha 4
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, zigbigadorlou said:

If you're going to expand the nominations, for goodness sake, cut down the categories. Like, really, does anyone care how big Adrienne's e-peen is?

Is this where I tell you we already did cut down some?

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Adrienne said:

Is this where I tell you we already did cut down some?

"Adrienne, i can't hear you". 

"Oh I can hear her, she said..., wait, adri, can you come again?"

lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Roberts said:

 

However, the number one complaint every year seems to be that things turn into a popularity contest. After seeing some of the (preliminary) results, I can definitely see where they're coming from. The best war declaration winner (as of this text) has one broken image, one MS-Paint photoshopped image, and one sentence - just as an example I think it's obvious this was chosen because of the context instead of the content and I'm definitely not salty that my masterpiece is in last place. There are multiple other examples but I'm using this one because it made me salty enough to post lmao.

Next year, for whoever runs things, we should really consider a "curated" section where we get a small group of [biased] people to choose content that is actually worth winning an award. No offense to the literary genius who typed up a sentence for Hedge Money's DoW. I also noticed quite a few vote-splits that probably just made it in due to democracy - something that could be addressed better in a curated awards section.

As the person who just threw it up there for the sake of it since I knew Swamp had this unholy wall of text, I completely agree with you. It didn't warrant any recognition and it annoyed me that it was shortlisted. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Lord Tyrion said:

The alliances with more members will obviously vote for themselves where they can, and also purposely snub those they might be at odds with.... I think the representative will generally vote for those they are allied to, to support an ally versus who may actually be most deserving.

See, you would think and there are people that vote for their allies ofc and we can't know if it's because they really think they deserve it (and there's a natural bias in them being who they interact with the most, not even necessarily intentional) or they just want to vote for their ally because they're their ally, but you'd actually be fairly surprised, I think. There's quite a bit of voting for people outside their spheres from alliances, which I'm really happy to see to be honest. More than you might think at the very least.

30 minutes ago, Lord Tyrion said:

In a perhaps ideal situation there would be a neutral panel that would review actual resumes or metrics (this person raided x amount of loot, this AA had this war performance, this AA's score raised/fell this much, etc) and come up with a less democratic selection process, taking out the biases of people voting party lines.  That's a bit idealistic though, as true neutral observers in a game like this would be difficult.  

We did actually toss around the idea doing something like this but it's a difficult thing to figure out how to measure, I think, and there were concerns it would take away somewhat from the community voting aspect/fun of things. It's not impossible but it would be a lot of work and difficult to get right potentially. I'm not necessarily opposed though, so if you have some ideas, feel free to DM me.

42 minutes ago, Lord Tyrion said:

but the few major awards perhaps in the future there could be a little write-up as to some resumes as to why they were nominated and what might be considered (stats, opinions, etc) and have them be more prestigious to win (badge to add in-game from Alex, etc)

@Mayor actually had some similar thoughts, in that it'd be nice to know why people were nominating them and I agree with that. I'm not actually quite sure what you mean by resumes though.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean best fighter for example is literally nothing but raiders and then theo, lol. 

There's STILL Alex nominations because people think they're funny or clever (hi, you know you are! You're neither, sincerely - everyone) and then there's some that just don't make sense.

Guardian made the cut for milcom but then gets basically no votes? I get why they aren't getting votes, Guardian and Grumpy milcom together and have members well beyond experienced enough to not really need an actual department to direct them, it's a bit silly to even nominate them at all though.

People giving reasons would be helpful, it might also be a manpower thing, auditing nominations and making sure they make any actual logical sense at all is time consuming, and as always risk to bias. 

 

But like, TCW, in the run for alliance of the year? C'mon now 😛

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Roberts said:

Hello. I know how annoying it is to run the yearly awards, everyone complaining and hating on any effort you put in. I like that this year we got a little creative and let the alliances have reps to vote on things separately, that was a good addition I think.

However, the number one complaint every year seems to be that things turn into a popularity contest. After seeing some of the (preliminary) results, I can definitely see where they're coming from. The best war declaration winner (as of this text) has one broken image, one MS-Paint photoshopped image, and one sentence - just as an example I think it's obvious this was chosen because of the context instead of the content and I'm definitely not salty that my masterpiece is in last place. There are multiple other examples but I'm using this one because it made me salty enough to post lmao.

Next year, for whoever runs things, we should really consider a "curated" section where we get a small group of [biased] people to choose content that is actually worth winning an award. No offense to the literary genius who typed up a sentence for Hedge Money's DoW. I also noticed quite a few vote-splits that probably just made it in due to democracy - something that could be addressed better in a curated awards section.

 

Special shoutout to Krampus who should've won best gov, Murtaza who should win best raider, borg for best new community addition, and Partisan for most influential despite anyone's best efforts... And Adrienne, Changeup, and others who worked really hard this year to make the awards happen. Y'all did great.

That's why we should have somebody to organise another years awards but with some kind of jury and publish it in orbis central. Nominations could go with a good explanation why they were nominated and the winners could be described by jury why this one has been choosen. You just need to get people who are here for a long time and are willing to participate in choosing the winner. I would keep PnW awards like it is but I don't mind making another one which will focus on quality and being less  biased by audience.

Adrienne don't get me wrong I like changes to current PnW awards but hey more awards means more chances to make me win one :D 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Adrienne said:

@Mayor actually had some similar thoughts, in that it'd be nice to know why people were nominating them and I agree with that. I'm not actually quite sure what you mean by resumes though.

I am fine voting for other people in different alliances, but when I don't know any of the choices I usually just default to who I know (if I have to vote) or just ignore that choice. Obviously I know why Roq would be a villain, Partisan making best OC posts, or DtC have huge e-peen, but many others I don't know anything. Most of my own nominations as well would be Oblivion/Rose focused and many others on the forums would not know why I nominated them either. If there was an excerpt  about what people did to get nominated I could then choose who I thought best should win. Kind of how the best War Dec/forum post suggestions works.

However I think keeping everything open to public and not private is still the best option for final results. I don't think I would be a fan on curated awards but it really depends on how the awards would be implemented specifically in the end.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Get rid of people being able to vote via a forum poll and force people to actually explain why they are selecting an alliance. Maybe then this won't be what it always has been, a competition to see who be bothered getting members on here to click some vote options.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hola amigos,

Primero, muchas gracias to everyone who takes time to make this happen. Segundo, congratulations to all nominees. Regardless of outcomes, you are all #1 in my hearts. 

Now, let's get to the nitty-gritty: If a goal is to avoid the awards from turning into vanity and false prides, consider a few player categories as less about opinion. For example, best raider can be awarded to whoever looted the most in the year. Best fighter can be for quantity and win/loss ratio during large scale wars over the year (not raiding). Maybe add damage dealer or net damage as it's own category to give lower tiered people a chance for best luchador. 

For alliance awards, a solution here is make alliances eligible for only a few awards. Maybe uno... or dos... or tres... dis way, a handful of alliances are not nominated for basically every category. That may get alliances to actually campaign for specific categories and not rub creams and lotions on their own alliance for every award possible.  

I think the overall process was muy bueno, just a bit rushed. It works well as open to everyone to do nomination (kind of just discussion), make a shortlist (more of representatives campaigning for categories), then do a final vote.

Maybe, much of December is the nomination time. Then do a few weeks in January for curating a shortlist. If we want more community involvement and voting, the whole process could be about 6 or so weeks long. 

That's just my two pesos. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Akuryo said:

I mean best fighter for example is literally nothing but raiders and then theo, lol. 

There's STILL Alex nominations because people think they're funny or clever (hi, you know you are! You're neither, sincerely - everyone) and then there's some that just don't make sense.

Guardian made the cut for milcom but then gets basically no votes? I get why they aren't getting votes, Guardian and Grumpy milcom together and have members well beyond experienced enough to not really need an actual department to direct them, it's a bit silly to even nominate them at all though.

People giving reasons would be helpful, it might also be a manpower thing, auditing nominations and making sure they make any actual logical sense at all is time consuming, and as always risk to bias. 

 

But like, TCW, in the run for alliance of the year? C'mon now 😛

I unironically voted for Alex's NPO cheating scandal post as best propaganda because there was no better propaganda this year lmao.

I think categories like best milcom / econ / ia / FA / etc should be removed as they're prone to either extreme bias or extreme ignorance. How can anyone who isn't in Guardian or GOB ever know how well their milcom does? You can't. So those votes are inherently a popularity vote or at best they're a "who won the war" vote.

22 hours ago, Adrienne said:

Yeah, I've spent last night and this morning looking through the nominations and considering things and as I mentioned before, I do think the main issue behind the complaints came from opening up the nominations to everyone. Just to be clear, I'm not saying being more inclusive with the nominations was the issue but rather that because of that, there were so many more nominations that Top 5 wasn't enough anymore with some categories and it did become what you mentioned here, so that's one possible avenue for improvement.

I very much still feel that shortlisting is a good idea because many, if not most, of these categories would contain 20+ nominations otherwise and that would make an already long poll all the longer and more inaccessible to a majority of players here, given that that's another regular complaint that's made. Considering that the individuals involved in that process cover such a wide base of alliances and interests, the group itself doesn't create any more significant a bias than the general player base does but it does equalize large member alliances such as TKR, Rose, and t$ with smaller member alliances like Aurora, The Coal Mines, and Alpha, which was the goal. That being said though, I would be in support of expanding to include more than just the Top 5 nominations and after looking at things, I believe that would have resolved the vast majority of complaints made already this year. And I do see their point, I think we simply got the Top # wrong because we didn't realize how receiving more nominations would change things. Hindsight is 20/20 as they say.

I was also considering something similar to what you suggested here as a check on the nominations. Where possible, we tried to combine things that were similar and make sense of sometimes somewhat confusing nominations, but obviously missed some things that would have been good to do, like your suggestion regarding combining NPO/GPWC. Having a few individuals with eyes unmarred by days of staring at spreadsheets could be beneficial for catching things we missed. And then I'll likely change up the schedule a bit because the way we sorted it this year did not at all leave enough time to be able to really spend significant amounts of time doing much else besides sticking to the process. I didn't realize just how much additional work opening up nominations to the general public would be and a day and a half turn around from nominations to shortlisting was barely enough to complete compiling all the nominations and was only achieved because I didn't do anything else besides nominations those days. It turned out to be a bit too ambitious a timeline that didn't allow the time to really look at the shortlisted nominations making it through and make adjustments mid-process if necessary.

Anyways, these are very much still preliminary thoughts so definitely open to further feedback and consideration but I do hope it gives some clarity at least on how things went behind the scenes this year and shows you that we are actually listening to and considering the comments made to continue to improve on this process.

Yeah you thought I was joking when I said I literally would not have gotten things done without you last year on the awards... It's a boatload of work and I don't blame any of the organizers for any slips. This year is one of the best run that I can remember, but I think we just need to consider a major shift instead of a minor tweak. See below...

19 hours ago, zigbigadorlou said:

What do you think awards shows are? Democracy is a popularity contest...

touché lmao 

4 hours ago, Keegoz said:

Get rid of people being able to vote via a forum poll and force people to actually explain why they are selecting an alliance. Maybe then this won't be what it always has been, a competition to see who be bothered getting members on here to click some vote options.

I think there should be a community element to the community awards - that being said, I think the community-voteable categories should be extremely slimmed down.

Things like alliance of the year, player of the year, and highlight/controversy of the year should be publicly available I think.

 

As mentioned though, slimming down categories would cut down on work for those running the show but also free up people to make memes, campaign around a bit, chat it up, etc.

 

Another thing I think the awards suffer from is the post-war / post-holiday lull in activity. We should consider making this a summer / spring / fall affair.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Roberts said:

[read his whole post you snob]

I cannot express my support of this. It's, in essence, a combination of everyone's grievances solved. Roberts is the pogchamp of the day.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Roberts said:

I think categories like best milcom / econ / ia / FA / etc should be removed as they're prone to either extreme bias or extreme ignorance. How can anyone who isn't in Guardian or GOB ever know how well their milcom does? You can't. So those votes are inherently a popularity vote or at best they're a "who won the war" vote.

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 actually made public or even offered for discussion before it begins. If these awards are actually supposed to represent the community, then the community needs to have a lot more opportunity to participate in helping design and supervise the system instead of a few players telling us how it is.

Next, if there's going to be a short-listing process with alliance reps, this needs a major overhaul. Firstly there's no accountability, this happened in secret behind closed doors without any opportunity to examine who is doing what or why. Make a Discord with channels available to everyone to read and follow the discussions. Secondly, the 2020 short-listed results have made it quite apparent the alliances have thoroughly abused their power to eliminate nominations unpopular with their biases despite being popular nominations in the community. This is an obvious abuse that undermines the community's participation, and more insultingly when we question the fairness of this we simply get told 'tough luck, that's how the system's rigged', and vague promises of making it better in future, which is entirely unhelpful for those shafted in the current awards and whose nominations will be irrelevant in the next awards. Organisers need to be capable of making adjustments to ensure that all relevant nominations are included for voting and not unfairly dismissed in the alliance reps short-listing. I myself was shafted. It makes no sense that less popular posts were included while my own much more popular nomination got cut due to alliance biases. While my category is somewhat unimportant and no doubt nobody else cares about my dilemma, it does make it abundantly clear how easily the current process is abused by alliance rep biases and that we need a major overhaul to protect not just myself but other nominations in other categories moving forward.

Either these awards are about the organisers who dictate how they've decided to rig the system, or it's representative of the community. I must assume it's the latter given Alex's endorsement and the fact the awards are to be included in-game. As such this process needs to become a lot less mysterious and secretive, and thoroughly examined and designed by the community instead of a select few players dictating the terms and giving occasional lip service to save face when valid criticism arises about the way the system is rigged.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zephyr said:

snip

There is a discord and we've been giving the link with every post. The process is not secretive either, it was detailed in our opening post a month before anything even began.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Adrienne said:

There is a discord and we've been giving the link with every post. The process is not secretive either, it was detailed in our opening post a month before anything even began.

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 discuss and justify the nominations they support (though really it should be viable and not too difficult for the mods to make a read-only sub-forum and give alliance reps a role with posting permissions).

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Zephyr said:

Talk about cherry picking, you've offered a refutation to only one of the points made.

Some of the others have already been addressed in my prior posts and, if I'm being frank, I don't see much value in discussing things with you at the current moment given that it seems you don't actually want to discuss things, you just want to be mad and hurl insults. Which I can understand because I know you're unhappy and can handle, just don't expect me to have much enthusiasm to engage with you because of it.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Zephyr said:

We need to ask ourselves what would an average player be reasonably aware of in order to participate meaningfully in the voting.

Ch'you and Roberts make fantastic points for a few categories. If FA/MA/IA/EA are elbow dropped from awards, then okay, no problema. It is prone to extreme bias. If FA remains a category, maybe only FA leaders vote based on who they find diplomatic, responsive, and made 'good' moves for the year. Maybe don't allow votes within own bloc/spheres? I see how MA,IA,Econ could go away since no juan really knows the inner workings of other AAs. At best, maybe Econ could be shortlisted to 10 or so by using a metric like AA trade profit for the year. MA could be similar by using metrics like net damage /war profits to determine top 10 or so. I'm sure there are a few other metrics to use in those categories for a better picture. Not sure how to make IA work without that being polling of satisfaction from members of any given alliance. There will still be bias in final voting, obviously, but something like this kind of eliminates bias in nomination processes. 

Just some corn to chew on.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Adrienne said:

...it seems you don't actually want to discuss things...

And yet I chose to contribute to discussion about how the awards can be improved in the future.

18 hours ago, Adrienne said:

...you just want to be mad and hurl insults.

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.

18 hours ago, Adrienne said:

...just don't expect me to have much enthusiasm to engage with you because of it.

You're the one that engaged me.

9 hours ago, Nacho said:

Ch'you and Roberts make fantastic points for a few categories. If FA/MA/IA/EA are elbow dropped from awards, then okay, no problema. It is prone to extreme bias. If FA remains a category, maybe only FA leaders vote based on who they find diplomatic, responsive, and made 'good' moves for the year. Maybe don't allow votes within own bloc/spheres? I see how MA,IA,Econ could go away since no juan really knows the inner workings of other AAs. At best, maybe Econ could be shortlisted to 10 or so by using a metric like AA trade profit for the year. MA could be similar by using metrics like net damage /war profits to determine top 10 or so. I'm sure there are a few other metrics to use in those categories for a better picture. Not sure how to make IA work without that being polling of satisfaction from members of any given alliance. There will still be bias in final voting, obviously, but something like this kind of eliminates bias in nomination processes. 

Just some corn to chew on.

I think there may be a few categories that could be approached like this, such as best fighter. However, although the nominations should be able to be logically reduced, there would be room to argue which stats exactly are most valuable in determining what constitutes 'best fighter'. Is it most damage dealt? Damage dealt comparative to their own size? Most wars? Most wars won? A mix of these? At least I think the short-listing should be able to be logically reduced based on assessing such stats and hopefully avoiding the need for alliance reps to come in and unfairly snipe away valid nominations based on personal biases (or a much more robust rep system that avoids the abuses we saw with the 2020 awards).

I think this sort of approach could be applied to other categories. For example, my own nomination. Arguably at the very least any nominations that were equally or more popular than the least popular short-listed by the alliance reps should have been included for fairness. After all if they suppose a lowly Phoenyx post with 4 positive reactions is good enough for voting, it is only fair to include any others of equal worth as already evaluated by the community with the reactions system.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Zephyr said:

I think there may be a few categories that could be approached like this, such as best fighter. However, although the nominations should be able to be logically reduced, there would be room to argue which stats exactly are most valuable in determining what constitutes 'best fighter'. Is it most damage dealt? Damage dealt comparative to their own size? Most wars? Most wars won? A mix of these? At least I think the short-listing should be able to be logically reduced based on assessing such stats and hopefully avoiding the need for alliance reps to come in and unfairly snipe away valid nominations based on personal biases (or a much more robust rep system that avoids the abuses we saw with the 2020 awards).

I think this sort of approach could be applied to other categories. For example, my own nomination. Arguably at the very least any nominations that were equally or more popular than the least popular short-listed by the alliance reps should have been included for fairness. After all if they suppose a lowly Phoenyx post with 4 positive reactions is good enough for voting, it is only fair to include any others of equal worth as already evaluated by the community with the reactions system.

It should be a lot harder (if not near-impossible) for any nominations to be sniped when they broaden the shortlisting results next year, as Adri stated they will~

You might feel robbed this year and that’s valid, but going back now to change things isn’t really an option. I don’t think most of us want to recast our votes again and it might not have changed the results for your category anyway...

Also I would not measure popularity or quality with reactions. I noticed recently in the war name poll that VietQuack as a nomination got no reactions, but is currently one of the lead runners in the poll, whereas ones that got comparable reactions to Leaky Faucet War are far lacking in votes. People don’t see every post to be able to react to them, and there’s probably more reasons beyond that too. The point is, quality and popularity are determined by the voters at the end of the day.

(By the way not hating on VietQuack, it’s actually one of my favourite ones yet ^_^)

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Zephyr said:

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.

"rigged" "cherry-picking" "lip service" "biased" "abuse" "shafted"

There's valid criticism, which I have acknowledged you do include in your posts and have considered and reflected on in my posts, all which you've so casually dismissed as being nothing other than lip service. And then there's being deliberately rude and inflammatory because you're angry, which you seem to greatly enjoy doing in your posts with no acknowledgement or recognition of the sheer time and effort that goes into running any of this. And you wonder why I react the way I do? We did not have to spend two months of our lives planning and organizing these awards and I've had zero issue engaging with anyone else's criticisms besides your own. I initially engaged you to try and talk to you and get your perspective and have been consistently met with little more than derision. It's not narcissistic to want to be treated with basic respect. You might want to reflect on your posts and ask yourself what makes your posts so different than the others I've also been engaging with.

I'll avoid responding to you further so as not to further derail what has been a very productive discussion, your posts included when you're not busy making jabs.

Edited by Adrienne
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Adrienne Will alliance nominations be shared with us in a completely transparent manner, so that every vote is accountable for so as to not leave way for any suspicion as to how they were cast and by whom? Like what alliance nomimated whom in which category?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Marzipan said:

@Adrienne Will alliance nominations be shared with us in a completely transparent manner, so that every vote is accountable for so as to not leave way for any suspicion as to how they were cast and by whom? Like what alliance nomimated whom in which category?

Not which alliance nominated what but all the nominations themselves and all the steps afterwards, yes. I have a full spreadsheet showing all the alliance nominations, the player nominations, the shortlisting responses, the counting, the final alliance rep votes, and the final voting results and it'll be published and viewable alongside the results. The only reason which alliance voted for what won't be shown is because we promised representatives anonymity. Ideally, they should be consulting with their alliances and some alliances are more sensitive than others about having their FA thoughts published so blatantly and also we also wanted to remove the possibility of external pressure from friends/allies ("why didn't you vote for me for this?", "why did you vote them for that?", etc) as much as possible.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.