Jump to content

Some thoughts for next year


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Adrienne said:

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.

Well, so basically no accountability, since we have no way of really knowing if those votes were even cast in the way they were put down in the spreadsheet.

And why anonimity? We are not electing the President, anonimity just means that basically whoever made the spreadsheet/gathered the Alliance votes can just cast them at they see fit with no oversight. Im not talking about you, but i think you understand this basically means what i just said it means. 

'I promised them anonimity' isn't doing anyone any favors, not even the alliance representatives, since they are players as well, who can never know how these votes were even cast in their name.

Not surprised really, just a bit dissappointed. 

Edited by Marzipan
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Marzipan said:

Well, so basically no accountability, since we have no way of really knowing if how those votes were even cast in the way they were put down in the spreadsheet.

I'm not sure what you mean by this? You will be able to see every single response, exactly as it was input into the form and the way everything was counted.

3 minutes ago, Marzipan said:

And why anonimity? We are not electing the President, anonimity just means that basically whoever made the spreadsheet/gathered the Alliance votes can just cast them at they see fit with no oversight. Im not talking about you, but i think you understand this basically means what i just said it means. 

'I promised them anonimity' isn't doing anyone any favors, not even themselves, since they are players as well, who can never know how these votes were even cast in their name.

They're not meant to be players. They are meant to be alliances. What oversight are you looking for,  verification their responses weren't tampered with? No one from the awards has any reason to touch their responses, as the form automatically places their answers into the sheet. All the counting is done on a new sheet. The individuals themselves should be able to check if their responses were input correctly using their receipt from the form and checking if they match. What reason could you have for needing to know how TI or Grumpy or Rose or TKR votes specifically? You can see all their responses and be able to see how they were counted to be able to judge that. I see no reason other than curiosity for anyone other than the individual who input the responses needing to know who said what.

 

Also, we should probably move this discussion elsewhere. This thread is for future awards, not answering questions about the current ones.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So I like awards, in that they give recognition to people who were overlooked. I wish it was something like the Oscars, where most of the winners were things nobody ever heard of. At worst, it's like the Grammys, where the awards just recognize meh songs with the most playtime. Most of the time, the pnw awards ends up just a propaganda campaign. I wish it was a popularity contest. But this year has been much better than the past years, closer to the Grammys.

Democracy is reallly not a good way to do this, because most people are just not paying attention most of the time. The average person looks at those sexy ads and flags and don't even know who made them. They'll know stuff within their alliance, and stuff the alliance talks about, but not much more.

Open nominations are great because they bring up stuff everyone overlooks. Especially if it's like obscure, like best propaganda post. I don't really see the point if the best nominations are getting filtered out, but I doubt they'd win in a democracy anyway. 

So like I think the best way to get quality, Oscar-style awards is for a small panel to do it. Maybe even the same panel who brought you these awards. Votes here are kinda rushed, like everyone thinks for 10 seconds who should win, and then votes. And so you'll end up with like t$ winning best econ. When a small panel might have like 5 min to think about it, and discuss things like who got the most growth, or does banking and retention better, or little things like raid efficiency. Like when someone wins an award, it should be clear why they did.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/14/2021 at 12:41 PM, Hime-sama said:

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 understand what has been said, I simply reject that future intent excuses the shortcomings witnessed. It needs to be recognised that the flawed processes have robbed valid nominations of fair consideration in the voting, and that's simply not good enough for an awards event that is supposed to represent the community.

On 1/14/2021 at 12:41 PM, Hime-sama said:

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...

...Or it may have changed the results. Thanks to the flawed short-listing system we have no way to know, making this entirely meaningless conjecture.

On 1/14/2021 at 12:41 PM, Hime-sama said:

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.

This is a fair point and I'll concede reactions themselves cannot determine a winner for this category (and Krampus has previously made a fair point about the comparitive value of posts), however I'd argue posts still reflect to some degree how the community values a post. For instance, my nomination had 53 positive reactions in a propaganda thread where the next best post in the same thread had 25 positive reactions. Arguably these posts both had equal or very similar opportunity of exposure to forum users as they were posted in the same thread, and yet my own was deemed more than twice as valuable than the next best post in that thread. We should also note that all of the nominations that made it to voting were actually opening thread posts, which I think anyone would concede get the most exposure to users as they are the most relevant in guiding discussion in the thread, whereas my own post was not a thread opener and more vulnerable to being skipped. We should also note that 53 or more positive reactions is not common for P&W forum posts and should not brush off its signficance.

Considering these points, can you honestly tell me you believe my post should not have had the opportunity to be voted on by the community?

On 1/14/2021 at 12:41 PM, Hime-sama said:

The point is, quality and popularity are determined by the voters at the end of the day.

And my point is that I was robbed of the opportunity to have my popular nomination fairly assessed by the voters.

 

 

On 1/14/2021 at 12:43 PM, Adrienne said:

There's valid criticism...And then there's being deliberately rude and inflammatory because you're angry, which you seem to greatly enjoy doing in your posts...

This is literally just you saying you don't like my writing style. To each their own, but your insistence on bogging down the thread with a focus on how naughty I am for defending my position using your least favourite words is once again making the thread all about you which is an unnecessary distraction from the actual discussion.

On 1/14/2021 at 12:43 PM, Adrienne said:

...with no acknowledgement or recognition of the sheer time and effort that goes into running any of this...We did not have to spend two months of our lives planning and organizing these awards...

More nonsense about you in a thread that isn't about you. Or are you implying I'm indebted to silence given your voluntary service? I thought the premise of the awards was to reflect the community, but say so if it's just about you and I'll stop having an opinion on it.

23 hours ago, Adrienne said:

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.

So this sounds like it's just alliance gov determining what makes it to voting. There's a lack of accountability here in that the alliance members actually have no way to know what their "representatives" really voted for.

23 hours ago, Adrienne said:

...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.

Personally I don't think this should be a concern when organising the awards, I would think transparency and thus community confidence in fairness more valuable. If an alliance thinks participating in the process is problematic for their FA, they could simply not participate. Ideally they shouldn't be participating if they have difficulty rationalising their vote to their friends and allies. This seems like it encourages thoughtless and dishonest voting with no accountability, and the detriment of reduced community confidence in the fairness of the awards being conducted with reps hiding their votes.

16 hours ago, Adrienne said:

Also, we should probably move this discussion elsewhere. This thread is for future awards, not answering questions about the current ones.

The thread is basically about identifying how the awards can be improved, I would argue understanding the failings of the current one are perfectly relevant to that goal.

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

So I like awards, in that they give recognition to people who were overlooked. I wish it was something like the Oscars, where most of the winners were things nobody ever heard of. At worst, it's like the Grammys, where the awards just recognize meh songs with the most playtime. Most of the time, the pnw awards ends up just a propaganda campaign. I wish it was a popularity contest. But this year has been much better than the past years, closer to the Grammys.

Democracy is reallly not a good way to do this, because most people are just not paying attention most of the time. The average person looks at those sexy ads and flags and don't even know who made them. They'll know stuff within their alliance, and stuff the alliance talks about, but not much more.

Open nominations are great because they bring up stuff everyone overlooks. Especially if it's like obscure, like best propaganda post. I don't really see the point if the best nominations are getting filtered out, but I doubt they'd win in a democracy anyway. 

So like I think the best way to get quality, Oscar-style awards is for a small panel to do it. Maybe even the same panel who brought you these awards. Votes here are kinda rushed, like everyone thinks for 10 seconds who should win, and then votes. And so you'll end up with like t$ winning best econ. When a small panel might have like 5 min to think about it, and discuss things like who got the most growth, or does banking and retention better, or little things like raid efficiency. Like when someone wins an award, it should be clear why they did.

I agree with this sentiment. I'd really like to see there be more diversity all around, with more alliances and players being recognized, instead of it being more of a popularity contest. It's a bit difficult to figure out how to get there though. Last year, I thought we did a better job of that. This year, it feels a lot more like a popularity contest to me and I wish it weren't so much. I do like the idea of it being more discussion based. @Roberts suggested something like that too. That has potential, I think, for maybe getting us a bit closer to having our awards be like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2021 at 1:40 PM, Lord Tyrion said:

doing fa for too long goes heer

i think its been suggested many times over the years to like justify ur nominations it never happens 😧

On 1/12/2021 at 7:21 AM, Nacho said:

whoever looted the most in the year.

biggest booty*

21 hours ago, Rin said:

discuss things like who got the most growth, or does banking and retention better, or little things like raid efficiency.

hold up retention is defs ia and yea we should collapse milcom into econ... as i keep saying war is economics with explosions

rawr

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, katashimon13 said:

hold up retention is defs ia and yea we should collapse milcom into econ... as i keep saying war is economics with explosions

I mean like if you build nations up and then they join an alliance on the opposite side, that's bad econ too. I guess I think of it as being good at investing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Rin said:

I mean like if you build nations up and then they join an alliance on the opposite side, that's bad econ too. I guess I think of it as being good at investing.

everything is ~~cake~~ ~~bears~~ econ

rawr

Edited by katashimon13
rawr
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just gonna note they lied to Alex about the nomination process. He reprimanded them for being bias against particular alliances (some of their team tried to prevent this and were shut down). And they refused to allow him to confirm who alliances voted for :D. No transparency whatsoever, this falls squarely at the feat of the organizers and not the admin or people participating.

Have a nice day everyone!

Edited by Epi
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Epi said:

Just gonna note they lied to Alex about the nomination process. He reprimanded them for being bias against particular alliances (some of their team tried to prevent this and were shut down). And they refused to allow him to confirm who alliances voted for :D. No transparency whatsoever, this falls squarely at the feat of the organizers and not the admin or people participating.

Have a nice day everyone!

👀

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Epi said:

Just gonna note they lied to Alex about the nomination process. He reprimanded them for being bias against particular alliances (some of their team tried to prevent this and were shut down). And they refused to allow him to confirm who alliances voted for :D. No transparency whatsoever, this falls squarely at the feat of the organizers and not the admin or people participating.

Have a nice day everyone!

None of that is true actually. We were not reprimanded for bias, although he would have appreciated us excluding profanity and so we did from the remainder of the responses before releasing the spreadsheet and told Alex we'd make sure it didn't happen again in the future. No one lied to @Alexeither (Changeup had some details incorrect, which was later corrected through further discussion) and Alex was told we'd tell him but we asked him not to pass that information on because we didn't feel the awards should cause drama between alliances, along with the reasons stated earlier in this thread. They're meant to be a fun OOC event. Following that explanation, he declined to know, as the information wasn't for him, but a player, which I assume was you. And given your response, I stand by that decision.

Edited by Adrienne
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Epi said:

Just gonna note they lied to Alex about the nomination process. He reprimanded them for being bias against particular alliances (some of their team tried to prevent this and were shut down). And they refused to allow him to confirm who alliances voted for :D. No transparency whatsoever, this falls squarely at the feat of the organizers and not the admin or people participating.

Have a nice day everyone!

I'm amazed how you can spew this drivel and believe it, honestly. You gotta stoop to new lows to be so salty that you will bash (slander with nothing but lies) an event that's meant to be fun and engaging for the whole community just because your alliance got a nomination you didn't like. 

This is why we can't have nice things. Just gonna note; this salt, peddling a false narrative and slander are coming from a Camelot gov member, are we surprised? I can see why your alliance got the nominations it received. 

 

Edit: I'm not going to bother pointing out the obvious lies in Epi's post as that was already done by Adrienne above, scroll up for those wondering. 

Edited by Krampus
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, katashimon13 said:

btw... can we ban admin from player specific categories at least 😕

and have like preferential/ranked or sumthin

rawr

I may have already added the former to my ongoing list 😶 What do you mean by preferential/ranked?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Adrienne said:

I may have already added the former to my ongoing list 😶 What do you mean by preferential/ranked?

Lets say you've got 5 nominees.

In normal voting like we did, we have one choice per.

In ranked/preferential, we've got multiple votes that are weighted differently. So I'd put my number one choice as 1, it'd have the most weight, 2nd as 2nd, slightly less weight, and so forth.

 

 

Gotta agree with Kata on this one - ranked voting is >>>>

Edited by Dionysus
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dionysus said:

Lets say you've got 5 nominees.

In normal voting like we did, we have one choice per.

In ranked/preferential, we've got multiple votes that are weighted differently. So I'd put my number one choice as 1, it'd have the most weight, 2nd as 2nd, slightly less weight, and so forth.

 

 

Gotta agree with Kata on this one - ranked voting is >>>>

Hmm, okay. That could be a good option/might solve a few other issues I'm trying to figure out (maybe)....

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Adrienne said:

-snip-

I would argue against the event being OOC since alliances are making nominations. I would never campaign against any of you in that sense. I was initially presented with incomplete information and messages I'd seen from Alex contradicted what you've said in your reply. But new information has come to light and with a full and proper view of everything, I understand you were doing your best and that there was no ill intent. I apologize for my remarks.

I'm against the use of profanity but I now know that was unintentional. The debate about alliance-nomination transparency is important considering we want to ensure the fairness and legitimacy of the awards, I'll be giving this a lot of thought now and help with getting feedback to make sure we don't have to pick up from square one for next year.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/16/2021 at 1:53 AM, Krampus said:

I'm amazed how you can spew this drivel and believe it

obligatory fake news joke goes heer

On 1/16/2021 at 9:42 AM, Adrienne said:

I may have already added the former to my ongoing list 😶 What do you mean by preferential/ranked?

https://www.cgpgrey.com/politics-in-the-animal-kingdom

have fun

rawr

  • Like 1
  • Haha 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.