Grido Posted January 7, 2012 Report Posted January 7, 2012 This thread which due to various other bits going on, I forgot to make till now, is for discussing issues with the MD Awards 2011 in the hopes of improving it for next year. All aspects of the awards are up for discussion. I would note that the delay between the nominations closing, and voting going up wasn't intended and was due to the co-ordinators being unable to communicate with each other for a period. I would also note that whilst issues have been aired in other threads for this year, I may forget to check them when it comes to arranging next years awards, so please state them here even if they have been stated elsewhere. This is meant to be a constructive topic, so if you wish something to be changed please state why you would like it changed, and if appropriate and you have thoughts, what you would like something to change to.
Peace Posted January 7, 2012 Report Posted January 7, 2012 I wasn't much around for the ceremony due to RL issues. Having the awards during the holidays can be bothersome for most people. So, no comments on that. My only comment would be about organisation. I hope next year we are better prepared and better scheduled, so that there won't be any delays and such.
Passant the Weak Posted January 7, 2012 Report Posted January 7, 2012 I find the rule for being nominated Rookie of the year a bit unfair: I was lucky to start the game last year in February, thus being quite well known when December comes. Someone who started in November had no chance for 2011 Rookie and will not be eligible in 2012 if the rule is not changed. My suggestion (assuming teh award ceremony is in December 2012): - are eligible for the 2012 Rookie of the Year award, players who have started the game after 2011 June 1st. I don't see the need of adding a limit in AD.
Root Admin Chewett Posted January 7, 2012 Root Admin Report Posted January 7, 2012 I would agree with this sentiment. Also, perhaps add on the addition that if they are nominated in the first year, they cannot be re nominated (since they were known enough to be nominated in the first year)
Grido Posted January 7, 2012 Author Report Posted January 7, 2012 That could have been raised when discussing the categories, but shrug, it wasn't so nevermind. And yes, the intention is to hold the ceremony every December, the exact dates will vary year on year though. I would personally consider a player to not be a rookie if they had more than a year AD, that's why the age limit was in place. If this were done though, I would strongly object to June as being the cut point....6 Months is plenty of time to be considered as rookie of the year, for that year I mean. Extending it to October/November I could understand, but as far back as June really necessary? The above post is only my opinion on the matter, as always, if more people agree with the suggestion, than disagree, it will be accepted and used. I welcome healthy debate on the subject but will note whatever the conclusion from the debate here I will raise it when discussing categories for he 2012 awards.
Fyrd Argentus Posted January 8, 2012 Report Posted January 8, 2012 Rookie of the year should go to somebody who did the most in their first X months (3? 6? 9? 12?) even if they accomplished more after that time. So I'm suggesting you could get the rookie award for Jan-June activities, and some other award for July-December activities. Eligible if you hit X active days during the year. Of course somebody with a low ad % would be unlikely to win. I don't like the abruptness of cutting off & restricting nominations. I think that if there are too many nominations, there should be a preliminary round of voting to reduce the long list to a shorter list with what is considered an acceptable length. There should be no restrictions on who can nominate whom under this system. Chewett, Kyphis the Bard, Prince Marvolo and 1 other 4
Root Admin Chewett Posted January 8, 2012 Root Admin Report Posted January 8, 2012 (edited) I think the restriction based upon land was an interesting one because as Rheagar said, if someone is not well known outside their land, then surely they do not deserver said award based on what it is? How can the best questor, be the best questor if they are only known as a good questor in their land. I feel this new facet of voting means that it removes a bit more land biased so that it means a person has to be well known in lands other than their own. Edited January 8, 2012 by Chewett
Grido Posted January 8, 2012 Author Report Posted January 8, 2012 Fyrd, for rookie, you suggest doing proper voting for Jan - June, and again in December? Or for people to think about when the players have made their mark in the December voting? And have two awards then for it? My opinion is against either, 1st for the extra work it would involve, and 2nd because people will find it difficult to distinguish when people have done things (this has happened before when someone was nominated for a quest they'd made the year before). I'm very open to thoughts about altering the Rookie in some way though to make it more inclusive. If there were to be a preliminary round of voting to reduce the number of nominees for the actual vote, this would be done on the forum, rather than in game (so that it's very clear it's not the actual vote). The votes through the forum would have to be checked by a forum admin (probably Chewett) to ensure people aren't alt voting. As Chewett has pointed out, the restriction on nominating is to reduce the effect of land bias. The alternative I may offer to counter the land bias is to restrict it on the voting itself, this however has other difficulties a few of which were raised in regards to restriction of the nominating; How can you be sure of a players land allegiance? As an example Azull has recently been a member of a Golemus alliance, but I'm sure would consider himself Necrovion - meaning they'd have to be manual checks, which delays counting of votes, and are also prone to be wrong. The above post is only my opinion on the matter, as always, if more people agree with the suggestion, than disagree, it will be accepted and used. I welcome healthy debate on the subject but will note whatever the conclusion from the debate here I will raise it when discussing categories for he 2012 awards.
Fyrd Argentus Posted January 10, 2012 Report Posted January 10, 2012 (edited) What I was trying to say is, define an eligible rookie as somebody who hit 180 active days (for example) during the calendar year. They should be judged for the rookie award based solely on what they accomplished during those 180 days. If they won some other award for something done after that, fine. Just an idea. I think avoiding land bias is like fighting the wind. I think you'd do better getting ALL the eligible names on the table, narrowing them down by forum poll, then running the vote on the last few. If the goal is to make sure every eligible candidate gets considered, who better to make sure they get nominated than their peers? Anyone known to only a small circle will fail to win the vote - no reason to worry about it during the nomination process. Edited January 10, 2012 by Fyrd Argentus
awiiya Posted January 10, 2012 Report Posted January 10, 2012 Really? That's too complicated. I have a hard enough time trying to remember who joined in the last year, let alone forcing myself to remember only what someone did in the further away part of the year. For fairness, that would be ideal, but practically.... it can't be done. Sure, it gives rookies who joined in the early months an edge, because they have longer. I'm fine with that. Also - I strongly believe that a player can make a huge impact in a small amount of time, and if someone was active in January/February and died out by the time the awards rolled around, that would act against, rather than for them. I would say leave as is. Awi
Recommended Posts