MD Awards 2011 - "24h" Discussion

[Grido]

Since someone pointed out to me that this is mildly behind schedule currently (suggestions of categories to vote on started 16th Nov last year) this discussion will last approx 24h, might be a little earlier/later, whenever I happen to go to sleep Monday night, or it may well be Tuesday afternoon.


The [url="http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/8745-md-anual-awards-feedback/"]feedback from last year[/url] suggested that people had an issue with in-land voting, so whilst I'd like to give plenty of time to discuss various options, we're rather lacking in time for the issue.

Here are two proposed options, if you make a comment about one, please also make a comment about the other. If you believe you can propose another idea and have it accepted in this "24h window" then feel free. Both options take into account that you cannot nominate for those of your own land.

1. Completely deny the option to vote for those of your own land.

2. Use a mathematical formulae to reduce the point score that any votes for the same land receive; votescore/2 or votescore-3 (whichever results in the lower number) or such.


Other things to note;
I (and whoever I rope in to help me with the awards) will add people to each category as we find appropriate, if multiple (number yet to be defined) people request a name to be removed, it will be. This will hopefully do something to counter "obvious" candidates being left out due to shyness or such.

There will be a uniformed number (value to be defined) of candidates per category. If a category lacks, then I point to the previous note. If a category has too many, then if multiple people ask for names to be removed, they will be, if there are still too many by the time nominations end, the Award organisers will reduce the number of candidates - it is in the public's interest to reduce the candidates to a suitable number without interference from the organisers, whilst we will aim to be neutral regarding the choices, I can imagine the comments that may be received after-the-fact if we remove certain people.

The number of categories will be reduced, and limited to 15 (maximum, please discuss). There were 18 last year, the reduction is to limit certain overlaps the categories have.

Winners of categories will not be able to win that category again for 5 years (in theory this ~won't~ create a loop of 5 people, but time will tell) This rule will backtrack, so someone winning it 2 years ago will have to wait another 3 to win it.
Should individual exceptions, like me not winning Helper (if that still exists this year), be removed in place of this?

There will be more than 100 voters allowed, I believe that they went in a day or two last year. "More" is not defined yet.


All of the above is welcome to be discussed.


I wrote this quickly so have not spoken to the other Award organisers from last year and so don't know if they're interested to help again this year. If anyone is interested in helping, let me know - there will be a limit of 3/4 people organising and vote counting.

Previous years threads[spoiler]2008
[url="http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/2740-md-end-of-year-award-cermony/"]http://magicduel.inv...-award-cermony/[/url]
[url="http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/2828-magic-duel-awards-nominations/"]http://magicduel.inv...ds-nominations/[/url]
Can't seem to find the voting thread, pm me a link if you do please
[url="http://md-archives.com/articles/1st-annual-md-awards.html"]http://md-archives.c...-md-awards.html[/url]


2009
[url="http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/5794-md-awards"]http://magicduel.inv.../5794-md-awards[/url]
[url="http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/5852-md-award-nominations/"]http://magicduel.inv...rd-nominations/[/url]
[url="http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/5875-md-award-voting/"]http://magicduel.inv...d-award-voting/[/url]
[url="http://md-archives.com/articles/2nd-annual-md-awards.html"]http://md-archives.c...-md-awards.html[/url]


2010
[url="http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/8403-md-awards-2010-suggestions/"]http://magicduel.inv...10-suggestions/[/url]
[url="http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/8457-md-awards-2010-nominations/"]http://magicduel.inv...10-nominations/[/url]
[url="http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/8600-md-annual-awards-2010-voting-has-started/"]http://magicduel.inv...ng-has-started/[/url]


2011
[url="http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/10995-md-awards-2011-24h-discussion/"]http://magicduel.inv...24h-discussion/[/url]
[/spoiler]

LE: btw, the late start shouldn't matter overly, as it turned out last year we had tonnes of extra time for the voting, allowed for 3 weeks, done in about 3 days.

Edited November 27, 2011 by Grido

[Eon]

"Winners of categories will not be able to win that category again for 5 years"

Why give awards to those who don't deserve them? If someone isn't the best quester than they don't deserve an award for being the best. The same goes for Elite Evil Villain, Champion fighter, Best Spell Caster, most influential, and every other possible spot I can't remember right now.

I also feel people from the same land should be able to vote for each other if they feel like it.

Edited November 21, 2011 by Eon

[Grido]

Please read the linked Feedback thread. If you wish to argue against the point, please argue against what has been put in that thread (albeit argue it here, rather than there).

[awiiya]

Comments:

1. I think that the organizers should not be able to be voted for. It seems to have caused some uncertainties in the past - and certainly since we see precisely who people vote for, there may be some influence to vote towards the people who see whether or not you're being loyal. This, to me, causes a skew in the votes away from the actual winners. I, as an organizer last year and a hopeful organizer for this year, think that we/they should be disqualified from winning.

2. I think the uniform number per category should be 4 or 5. Why? If it's any more than 4 or 5, I think the voting becomes too divided to accurately portray who most people would agree is the best winner for that category. If it's as many as 7, likely people will choose the candidate they know best, and not the one they think would be best. I would even, if possible, limit it to 3 or 4, but I recognize that people want to at least see the people they feel strongly should win nominated, and MD is divided enough in these days that more than 3 or 4 distinct groups exist. I.e. lands, as Grido brought up earlier.

3. I think this year we shouldn't use the votepower that we used last year. It gave some depth to the voting, but still again introduced unnecessary skew. I think the best formula would give you power equal to the number of days out of the last year you were active. Aka: if a person logs on for 365 days out of 365 they get 365/365 = 1. If they log on for 100 days they get 100/365 vote power. Since this ceremony is supposed to award based on the last year of activity, it doesn't make sense to award those who have been active for two or more years.

4. I think that there can be repeat winners, same as last year. To me, it would be the case that a truly deserving winner is awarded twice more times that it would be the case that a non-deserving winner is awarded twice based off of familiarity. My intuition points me in the direction that familiarity should maybe even be considered a part of what helps people win, and not a disqualifying element.

5. Not sure about the Land votes... Always people vote disproportionately for the more familiar name, but again... that may do more good than harm in discerning who is truly influential.

Awi

l.e. added reasons for 2, 4

Edited November 21, 2011 by awiiya

[Peace]

It was about time!!

My thoughts on this.

[quote name='Grido' timestamp='1321841830' post='96304']
Here are two proposed options, if you make a comment about one, please also make a comment about the other. If you believe you can propose another idea and have it accepted in this "24h window" then feel free. Both options take into account that you cannot nominate for those of your own land.

1. Completely deny the option to vote for those of your own land.

2. Use a mathematical formulae to reduce the point score that any votes for the same land receive; votescore/2 or votescore-3 (whichever results in the lower number) or such.[/quote]

1. This does sound reasonable cause if you look at the land population of each lands, you could see who has the advantage and who doesn't. Not suggested.

2. This one could be done if we could apply the same voting system we did for the Kings/Queens elections. Score is counted by AD, Land affiliation, reputation of player voting the nominees etc. Suggested.


[quote name='Eon' timestamp='1321843473' post='96305']
"Winners of categories will not be able to win that category again for 5 years"

Why give awards to those who don't deserve them? If someone isn't the best quester than they don't deserve an award for being the best. The same goes for Elite Evil Villain, Champion fighter, Best Spell Caster, most influential, and every other possible spot I can't remember right now.
[/quote]
I second this. Why someone who deserves the same award fairly for a second year in a row shouldn't receive it? If there is indeed a candidate who can steal that title from a previous winner by being better than him then do award him, but don't pass the award 'just' because last year's winner isn't in the candidate list anymore.

Aside from those, I also believe it is best that the nominations are given from the people as a starting point and then the organisers could decide about the number of nominees, who should be in the category or not etc.

Edited November 21, 2011 by DarkPriestess

[Kyphis the Bard]

[quote name='awiiya' timestamp='1321843658' post='96307']
Comments:

1. I think that the organizers should not be able to be voted for. It seems to have caused some uncertainties in the past - and certainly since we see precisely who people vote for, there may be some influence to vote towards the people who see whether or not you're being loyal. This, to me, causes a skew in the votes away from the actual winners. I, as an organizer last year and a hopeful organizer for this year, think that we/they should be disqualified from winning.

2. I think the uniform number per category should be 4 or 5.

3. I think this year we shouldn't use the votepower that we used last year. It gave some depth to the voting, but still again introduced unnecessary skew. I think the best formula would give you power equal to the number of days out of the last year you were active. Aka: if a person logs on for 365 days out of 365 they get 365/365 = 1. If they log on for 100 days they get 100/365 vote power. Since this ceremony is supposed to award based on the last year of activity, it doesn't make sense to award those who have been active for two or more years.

4. I think that there can be repeat winners, same as last year.

5. Not sure about the Land votes...

Awi
[/quote]
Agree to points 1 and 3

I am interested to know how you are going to calculate the vote power, or is this going to be calculated by the system useing the formulae you devise? (as I said, I like Awiiya's suggestion)

On point four, I would like to submit an addendum: Past winners are permitted to win, however if there are too many legitimate entrants to a category whoever won the most recently is the first candidate removed, before community opinion is considered.

On point five, I don't entirely see why it matters what land you are from. I prefer to assume that people will be mature enough to vote based on who they genuinely believe deserves to win, rather than who they like best. [sub][sup]Yes, I enjoy my naivety[/sup][/sub]

[Chengmingz]

I think that, just in my opinion. It would be unfair to disqualify winners from past years. If in fact they deserve it, then they should get it. That is not to say we shouldn't give chances to newer players. We could add catagories such as biggest improvement in etc. or cutest avatar. Now that is just in my opinion. Also, as for the Land votes, I think there should not be a handicap nor should they not be allowed to vote. There should be trust in the validity of votes and the bias of votes means that not everyone is going to have the same amount voice as others and unless I am wrong, democracy is to insure the equality of everyone and the fairness of all decisions. (Of course I'm not sure if we are a democracy... With all the monarchs and all.) But nevertheless, that is where my opinion stands. Cheers.

[Pipstickz]

There's always the more complicated option of having each voter submit an argument with their votes.
Also, Chengmingz: the elections are still done by votes, and the power ultimately rests with the people, so I'd say we're closer to democracy than monarchy.

[Chewett]

[quote name='awiiya' timestamp='1321843658' post='96307']
1. I think that the organizers should not be able to be voted for. It seems to have caused some uncertainties in the past - and certainly since we see precisely who people vote for, there may be some influence to vote towards the people who see whether or not you're being loyal. This, to me, causes a skew in the votes away from the actual winners. I, as an organizer last year and a hopeful organizer for this year, think that we/they should be disqualified from winning.
[/quote]

I would disagree, But i have seen some people's cowardly nature recently, who frankly i was surprised at, and guess it might actually make a difference.

[quote name='awiiya' timestamp='1321843658' post='96307']
2. I think the uniform number per category should be 4 or 5. Why? If it's any more than 4 or 5, I think the voting becomes too divided to accurately portray who most people would agree is the best winner for that category. If it's as many as 7, likely people will choose the candidate they know best, and not the one they think would be best. I would even, if possible, limit it to 3 or 4, but I recognize that people want to at least see the people they feel strongly should win nominated, and MD is divided enough in these days that more than 3 or 4 distinct groups exist. I.e. lands, as Grido brought up earlier.
[/quote]

I agree with this, makes it much fairer and much more diverse mix, but does all in voting to skew it more.

[quote name='awiiya' timestamp='1321843658' post='96307']
3. I think this year we shouldn't use the votepower that we used last year. It gave some depth to the voting, but still again introduced unnecessary skew. I think the best formula would give you power equal to the number of days out of the last year you were active. Aka: if a person logs on for 365 days out of 365 they get 365/365 = 1. If they log on for 100 days they get 100/365 vote power. Since this ceremony is supposed to award based on the last year of activity, it doesn't make sense to award those who have been active for two or more years.
[/quote]

And how do you tell how many days they logged on last year? I would be intrested in your methods to calculate this.

[quote name='awiiya' timestamp='1321843658' post='96307']
4. I think that there can be repeat winners, same as last year. To me, it would be the case that a truly deserving winner is awarded twice more times that it would be the case that a non-deserving winner is awarded twice based off of familiarity. My intuition points me in the direction that familiarity should maybe even be considered a part of what helps people win, and not a disqualifying element.
[/quote]

some awards lend themselves to be given to the same person each year, and it seems a tad unfair, but you and eon bring up a good point that it should not be given to someone just because everyone else couldnt be voted for.

[quote name='awiiya' timestamp='1321843658' post='96307']
5. Not sure about the Land votes... Always people vote disproportionately for the more familiar name, but again... that may do more good than harm in discerning who is truly influential.
[/quote]

In voting always occurs, more in specific lands than others. Is it fair? No. Can you stop it? without blankly forcing them, which seems unfair, no you cant.

[Shadowseeker]

Another option to me seemed to simply reduce the votes to 5 major ones.

4 main, 1 neutral (everyone else), and this way if the votes are low/high, the majority will compensate. However, I would say it should be a minimum of 3 votes for each, else it can't really be called a land vote. The total score would then be based upon the average.

We might want to change categories as well though...not sure if we want to keep the old ones 100%.

EDIT:

Okay, I finished writing my thoughts, so here the suggested changes:
Superior Orlator seems hard to determine for me, and ultimately based upon forum? I never was sure how this category was determined, but I think we might want to change that..how, not sure. Maybe just keep it.

Most influential- I suggest changing to most informed.
Influence seems very subjective, but it is really funny to notice how many people never get informed properly, or overlook things. Information is power or so one says. This is also not a very sure option, we might just keep it as it is.

Best quote- how are we going to determine this even, has anyone kept ANY? I think we will miss many nice ones if we hold it, and lack them amountwise. If not, keep it, I am however inclined to believe we will lack some.

Best Artist- sorry to all the artists out there, but namely I can think about a handful of artists. Will we even fill the requirements? I suggest we merge this with the best papers and create best improvements to display (rename to something better), because of the art and papers provided.

Best Spellcaster- to me, this always would be based upon Inner Magic. Since we somehow always were basing it off outer magic, fine, but...should we really reward it? (I'm saying this as someone who won it once, I never felt it was that great)

Edited November 21, 2011 by Shadowseeker

[(Zl-eye-f)-nea]

I am not impressed by the suggestion of a time delay on people receiving rewards, or banning the same people getting rewards. I used to race when I was a kid and a teacher once told me to run slower, so the other kids could win the races. I found it then, and now, ridiculous.

As for nominations....how about we just do what pretty much every award ceremony in the world does and do it based on number of votes or ranking numbers (so if there are 5 people to vote for you give one person a 1, one a 2, one a 3 etc)? Maybe I'm missing something.

Z

[ZenTao]

Would it be so terrible for others to win quests? Of course the people who always win become much stronger, so againsed a less experienced person it doesn't take long to figure out who will win. What if someone who does not have godly stats, a great writting gift and does not hold knowledge in the history of MD, what if they have given all they could to try and contribute only to be passed over time and time again. Deemed not the "best"- How can anyone really judge who deserves what? All those contests which speak of old people who played and left the game log ago, what newer player knows how to answer that? Here's a solution- make contests which need no vote, ones that you can either win or loose, make them fair and ballanced for all people participating, by not basing them off things only a vet would know, if that is not possible divide the newer from the older players and have seperate contests, all the voting starts to become a popularity contest.

[Chewett]

[quote name='ZenTao' timestamp='1321936271' post='96366']
Would it be so terrible for others to win quests? Of course the people who always win become much stronger, so againsed a less experienced person it doesn't take long to figure out who will win. What if someone who does not have godly stats, a great writting gift and does not hold knowledge in the history of MD, what if they have given all they could to try and contribute only to be passed over time and time again. Deemed not the "best"- How can anyone really judge who deserves what? All those contests which speak of old people who played and left the game log ago, what newer player knows how to answer that? Here's a solution- make contests which need no vote, ones that you can either win or loose, make them fair and ballanced for all people participating, by not basing them off things only a vet would know, if that is not possible divide the newer from the older players and have seperate contests, all the voting starts to become a popularity contest.
[/quote]

Isnt it already a popularity contest? Why do you think grido is suggesting that you cant vote for someone in your land, its to reduce the effect of voting for your friends.

As for the MD award ceremony, you cant win or lose it, it needs to be something where one person wins, and has been held annually each year, i dont really see any other way to hold it other than a vote.

[dst]

I need to remind you all one thing: the nominations will be done by Mur this year. Or at least this is what he has said last year.

[Grido]

[b]Previous Winners[/b]
Due to the contrary opinion of players currently, to that of the opinions held (before and) after last years awards, no such exclusion on previous winners will take place.
Saying that, certain people will be excluded from certain awards [color=#ff0000](Mur for everything, ?Ren for Top Techy?, previous fossils, probably a couple others).[/color]

[b]Nominations[/b]
I have now spoken with Mur. The nominations will be done as I have stated in the initial post. Names will be put forward by the public, added to these names will be ones that I believe should be in the category, I will also send an email out to both Mur and the Council asking if there are any players they would like to be considered for a particular category. The number of people per category will be 4 or 5, I had this range in my head already, so that it was suggested as well and taken on by others suits me.
For someone to be nominated to a category, 2 (or more) people must post suggesting they be added, with reasons. For someone to be removed from the nomination list, 1 more person than voted for the person to be included must post their reasons why the removal. So if 3 people wanted the player on the list, 4 others would have to speak against it, or convince the other 3. At the end of the time for nominations, if there are more people than places, the award organisers will discuss who to remove.
You may only nominate one person per category.
You may not nominate those of your own land (this not only means hard-coded, but also those people considered part of certain lands).

It has been suggested that organisers should not be able to be nominated for categories due to potential skewing of the vote as we see who votes for who. Currently 2 people have stated that they are for this restriction, and 1 against (albeit loosely). [color=#ff0000]Please discuss further so that there is a more public consensus.[/color]


[b]Voting[/b]
It has been suggested that we do not use vote power this year, please make alternative suggestions. (The activity over past year is difficult/not possible to find out, the ranking 1-5 comes under issue if a player has no opinion on someone, if they just don't know) I would prefer a single option picked by the player, as before, but if we are to use a different process than last year, an appropriate formulae would have to be devised - [color=#ff0000]suggestions?[/color] Please also state if you would like the vote power to continue being used for this.

As for the hindrance to voting of members of the same land, there hasn't as of yet been much discussion on it for me to make a fair judgement based off your opinions. There will be a hindrance, of some form, the discussion is meant to decide what shape that hindrance is in. Please continue this discussion over the next 3 days - [color=#ff0000]I would like to see a consensus [/color]before the categories thread closes and nominations open.


In [color=#ff0000]red [/color]are points I feel warrant further discussion.

[Jubaris]

I believe that the voting should be 1 vote point per each person, the winners should be representatives of the whole public, not just the elite.

Regarding limiting the nominations... Sounds good to have only 4 candidates, but, what would be the ground to limit just those 4? "the faster someone candidates you, higher chance you get to be a candidate" obviously is not good. Perhaps the jury should determine which 4 of the nominated people get to be candidates, but again, leaves too much space for corruption...
So, limit the nominations on 4 people, dependent perhaps on the number of nominations by the public?
example:
A gets 2 nominations
B gets 1
C gets 3
D gets 3
E gets 2


Candidates:
A, C, D and E.

Edited November 28, 2011 by Rhaegar Targaryen

[Pipstickz]

I don't see the problem with having more choices, even if they're only going to get a few votes. If I believe Joe is the best skydiver, but nobody but me has seen him skydive, so everybody thinks he doesn't skydive and disagrees with me, then I'm not going to vote for Walter, just because he's the next best option who happens to be more popular.

[Grido]

Princ I already stated what would happen, but possibly not that clearly.

People nominate as many people as they want (1 per person), others can vote for them to be removed from the nomination lists. If there are more names than places at the end of the nominations, the co-ordinators will reduce this number. That is why it is in the public's interest to reduce the number themselves.

Also please accommodate some sort of hindrance to those of the same land into your formulae, as there will be one.

[Jubaris]

If we remove the option for land citizens to vote for other citizens of their homeland, let's make Friendlists too.

Grido cannot vote for his best buddies: player A, B and C.
Grido Hates Player D, so if he votes for Player D, he doubles his vote actually...



It's kinda wrong to enter in the "corruption" possibility seas and to stop on the first checkpoint. There will never, or rarely, be true "winners" of these categories, and if you try to limit it to force out some kind of "proper result" it will only turn bad.
Make it fair, and let the mass pick whom ever it wants to pick.

[Tarquinus]

[quote name='Rhaegar Targaryen' timestamp='1322500020' post='96773']
It's kinda wrong to enter in the "corruption" possibility seas and to stop on the first checkpoint. There will never, or rarely, be true "winners" of these categories, and if you try to limit it to force out some kind of "proper result" it will only turn bad.
Make it fair, and let the mass pick whom ever it wants to pick.
[/quote]
I couldn't agree more. The revelation that weight was given to certain voters in a previous election or elections was very unsettling to me - it seemed to me that a ruling clique of veterans wished to dictate the course of the awards. I don't know how realistic this is to suggest, but ideally I think we should have one vote per player ([u]not[/u] per character/account) and no more. A restriction on minimum active days makes sense to me, but apart from that, I say formulaic determinations of vote counts should be avoided.

[Grido]

Princ, it is not compulsory to vote for all the categories, if you disliked player D, but couldn't vote for A B or C, you would not have to vote for D, you would just move onto the next category.

Tarq, as for per player, rather than account, last year accounts were checked if they were alts, and if they proved to be their votes were excluded from the count.


I currently see no consensus on the matter of voting for those of your own land, please continue this discussion.

Is there any objection to Mur and Ren not being nominated?
Should Innocence be an eligible nomination? - They won an award last year and rejected it, giving it back to me.

[Shadowseeker]

I'd say anyone who rejects it should not be eligible- so if someone nominated refuses to take part, we remove them.

It is entirely in their right to do so, though I personally don't see why not.

[Princess Katt]

Whose decision was it to not be able to nominate from one's own land? Did this come from Mur or the council?

I object to this since there are people I felt deserved to be nominated and now I can't.

[Seigheart]

I feel that putting limitations on those who you can vote for is redundant.

People will always vote for who they think are the best option, the criteria they vote for is the only non constant in this situation.

Their votes will always be skewered by personal opinions and will always be subjectified.

Why not remove this silly restriction?

[Grido]

I question that if nobody from other lands think enough to nominate them are they truly deserving to be? (I'm not saying they aren't, just that I'd question it). There are 4 days left of nominating, plenty of time for people from other lands to nominate those you suggested.

The decision was made based on the response from last years awards, and that no objection was raised to it before nominations went live.