MD Awards 2015 - It Begins (Rules Discussion)

[Grido]

It. Is. Time. The year has rolled around once more and it is time to think about what everyone has done over the past year and who deserves special merit in certain categories.

 

I asked around previously if anyone wanted to run these awards as there have been timing issues the previous couple of years (primarily down to myself). Unfortunately only the one person stepped forward to offer their services, however because of a few different factors (such as time scale) they have now opted to not run it this year, but may in the future. They have also opted not to assist in running this - as a result I am looking for two more people to aid the running of the awards as necessary, which will definitely involve counting votes in the few days before the ceremony itself, so please make sure you are available for that, even if nothing else.

If you would like to assist in these awards, please PM me.

 

For those newer amongst us that are unaware - we hold these MD Awards at the end of each year and whilst the organiser (that's me) sets time scales and prompts here and there along the line, all the decisions are down to you, the community. There will be a time for refining the current rules, picking the categories themselves, then who should be eligible for voting on, before the voting itself occurs, and so long as you have a forum account you can directly participate in all of it.

 

The timeline as proposed by me is below, I have allowed approximately 10 days for each segment which should hopefully be sufficient time, along with an intentional gap between nominees being finalised and the voting beginning to allow for setting up the voting page. Additionally an intentional gap is left between voting ending and the Ceremony to give time for the votes to be counted.

 

Schedule of Events:

 

Friday 30th October - It Begins (Rules Start) Here

Sunday 1st November - Categories Start Here

Monday 9th November - Rules End

Friday 20th November - Categories End

Saturday 21st Monday 23rd November - Nominees Starts Here

Tuesday 1st Wednesday 2nd December - Nominees Ends

Friday 4th Sunday 6th December - Voting Begins

Monday 14th Wednesday 16th December - Voting Ends

Friday 18th December - MD Awards Ceremony

 

 

The ceremony date is not yet fixed, any point between then and Thursday December 24th would be acceptable for me currently, however over that weekend would be preferred. The time of the awards is yet to be set, please discuss it in this thread. The time date should be determined within the same period as the rules.

 

I would like to commission an artist to draw pictures for the medal items given out, please get in touch if you feel you would have time available to do this. You would have from when the categories have been finalised, 21st Nov, until roughly when the voting begins on 4th Dec - this holds some flexibility though. We can negotiate some compensation for your efforts if you would like some, certainly I can sort something out for you.

 

For each segment I will list how it stood last year, so for this thread I list last year's rules below. It is up to you lot to decide which rules should stay or go, which might need to be modified, and if any new ones should be introduced.

 

 

[log=Rules]- The previous categories will be listed in a thread, and players can then argue for different ones to be added/removed - if players agree, then it will be so.
- Certain categories have relevant restrictions on them, these can be changed/created/removed, but only prior to nominations opening.


- There will be 3 people counting votes and organising this. These people will not be able to be nominated, however they are able to vote.
- You may not nominate those who belong to the same land as yourself (this not only means hard-coded, but also those people considered part of certain lands). "This is an MD awards event, if a person deserves one of the awards, it is on the global level, not on local level, however capable the person is, which justifies the ban of the land nominations , possibly votes too".* If you note nominations slipping through this, please let an organiser know.

- There will be a minimum of 3 players nominated for each category, no maximum.
- Past winners will be allowed to be nominated again
- You may only nominate one person per category. If you nominate multiple people, none will be added.
- You may not nominate yourself, or another account you play.
- No editing posts in the nomination thread - purely because I'll potentially get confused.


- We will ideally use the in game voting system.
- There's no restriction on voting for those of the same land.
- There will be no restriction on the amount of voters, there will however be a limited timeframe to vote in as specified in the outline.
- You do not have to vote in each category (though it's preferable).
- If you vote for yourself in anything, all your votes will be discounted.
- If players that have voted are detected as alts of each other, all associated votes will be discounted. (If you have multiple accounts, you're fine, but only vote once per person please), they will also be disqualified from any nominations your accounts may have.
- Players under 20 AD will be unable to vote.


I can't think of any other particular details currently, please ask if you think I've missed anything (in addition to discussing various points). If you are against any aspect with how it's set to run, please raise it and suggest alternatives.

 

*[log= Associated Land Definition] Associated to a land includes being part of an alliance or a citizen, as well as those on temporary absence from them, but is not exclusive to just that mechanical association. It also extends to a player who feels they belong to a certain land, or who through largely exclusive association or actions is viewed as of a certain land. Those who since those actions visibly associate themselves with another land would then no longer be thought of as with the former.
Alliance hoppers, or those that take alliances without intended association with the land the new alliance is a part of are exceptions and will be treated based on perception, rather than mechanical.[/log][/log](The above is mostly copied from last year, so there may be some inaccuraces - please point them out)

 

All previous MD Award threads can be found via the topic-tagging system under "MD Awards" if you don't know how to get to that, look just below the title of the thread and click on the words below the Started by.. line.

Edited December 6, 2015 by Grido

[Grido]

There was an occurrence last year where JOHN SMITH was nominated for various categories, as there is an actual playername of that in MD it was acceptable within the rules last year, however that account is not active and did not have many AD. I would propose a rule to combat this happening again however I leave it up to the community to determine how exactly to impose this.

[Chewett]

>>- The previous categories will be listed in a thread, and players can then argue for different ones to be added/removed - if players agree, then it will be so.

Where? I seem to have missed them.

>>- Certain categories have relevant restrictions on them, these can be changed/created/removed, but only prior to nominations opening.

I assume this is in the other thread?

>>- There will be 3 people counting votes and organising this. These people will not be able to be nominated, however they are able to vote.

Three?

>>- There will be a minimum of 3 players nominated for each category, no maximum.

Why 3 minimum? Surely it should be decided on a case by case basis. E.g. if someone is really deserving then they should get it, or if its not that great of a category, remove it.

[Aethon]

>>- The previous categories will be listed in a thread, and players can then argue for different ones to be added/removed - if players agree, then it will be so.

Where? I seem to have missed them.

 

I think it will be the same topic that will be opened when voting for categories start? At least, it makes sense to have the post there and then in my opinion.

[Chewett]

I think it will be the same topic that will be opened when voting for categories start? At least, it makes sense to have the post there and then in my opinion.

Last year we had a week of very little comments with the rules then suddenly a load of discussion on categories and how the rules apply to them. It would probably make more sense to run them at the same time to not allow confusion and complaints later.

[Kyphis the Bard]

Agree - while I understand that managing discussions on two fronts is time consuming, as the understanding, interpretation and applications of the rules is dependent on the actual categories those rules apply to, it is best to run them at them same time.

Otherwise it can be akin to developing rules for a new sport, only to find when we get ready to play that no one has accounted for a ball being involved.

[Grido]

>>- The previous categories will be listed in a thread, and players can then argue for different ones to be added/removed - if players agree, then it will be so.

Where? I seem to have missed them.

>>- Certain categories have relevant restrictions on them, these can be changed/created/removed, but only prior to nominations opening.

I assume this is in the other thread?

Last year we had a week of very little comments with the rules then suddenly a load of discussion on categories and how the rules apply to them. It would probably make more sense to run them at the same time to not allow confusion and complaints later.

Agree - while I understand that managing discussions on two fronts is time consuming, as the understanding, interpretation and applications of the rules is dependent on the actual categories those rules apply to, it is best to run them at them same time.

Otherwise it can be akin to developing rules for a new sport, only to find when we get ready to play that no one has accounted for a ball being involved.

 

Indeed that was the original intention, to have it all in another thread, opening when the outline indicates, however seeing as the public has asked (and the logic makes more sense than not) I will open the discussion  earlier than intended, likely later today.

 

 

 

>>- There will be 3 people counting votes and organising this. These people will not be able to be nominated, however they are able to vote.

Three?

>>- There will be a minimum of 3 players nominated for each category, no maximum.

Why 3 minimum? Surely it should be decided on a case by case basis. E.g. if someone is really deserving then they should get it, or if its not that great of a category, remove it.

Three counting votes would indeed be the ideal, yes - odd is good for any discrepancies (which shouldn't exist), three is better than one, and five unnecessary. Currently it's just me however so am looking for others to assist.

 

Two years ago there was a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 5 nominees, last year this was discussed and the maximum was removed, however the minimum retained. I believe there was a statement something along the lines that if the category was so specialised that less than 3 people were nominated, it shouldn't be a category at all.

The discussion thread for last year is here, you opened up the discussion on this point last year as well.

[Chewett]

Indeed that was the original intention, to have it all in another thread, opening when the outline indicates, however seeing as the public has asked (and the logic makes more sense than not) I will open the discussion  earlier than intended, likely later today.

Thank you Grido :)
 

Three counting votes would indeed be the ideal, yes - odd is good for any discrepancies (which shouldn't exist), three is better than one, and five unnecessary. Currently it's just me however so am looking for others to assist.

Im not convinced even three are needed. The system literally lists out who has voted where, I could probably spend 5 minutes to make it autocount if that helps? Its just one query.

Two years ago there was a minimum of 3 and a maximum of 5 nominees, last year this was discussed and the maximum was removed, however the minimum retained. I believe there was a statement something along the lines that if the category was so specialised that less than 3 people were nominated, it shouldn't be a category at all.
The discussion thread for last year is here, you opened up the discussion on this point last year as well.

I always open discussions on points :P, makes it more interesting. You need someone to start fighting a rule generally before others will question it. Its just we are innately set out to obey them (generally).

I think you need a combination of categories and the actual numbers. Some categories are quite specific but quite important. Hence why asking for the categories above.

[Grido]

Category thread opened - http://magicduel.invisionzone.com/topic/16867-md-awards-2015-categories/

[Grido]

Any more discussion regarding the rules? Any further comment on what Chewett has raised on a minimum amount of nominees?

 

 

Thoughts on ceremony date?

Friday 18th December - MD Awards Ceremony

Happy with date? Preferred time?

[Jubaris]

I tend to agree with what Chewy said about the minimum amount of nominees, although I like the argumentative value of your explanation. :P

Sometimes the award holds some traditional value that transcends the current circumstances of no competition in this year.

 

For instance, Rookie of the year. Let's say this year there's only two nominated rookies. Fine, vote between them, don't cancel the award. Next year there will be more.

Perhaps we should define the hardcore awards that must be present every year, and some optional ones depending on the competition, eh?

Which ones make MD awards really the MD awards?

[Chewett]

Some awards by giving the award away just demean the value of it. Its not really a reward. It needs to be decided case by case surely.

[Ivorak]

1. I believe players should be able to nominate those from their own land. It's more expedient and prevents mistakes where someone breaks this rule and the mistake is not caught until the end of the nomination period, and then that player is not eligible because no one else thought to nominate them a second time (because they had already been nominated).

2. I would propose that all categories go to vote, even if only a single nomination. But I would also allow a null vote and require a minimum percentage of votes to be attained.

3. Agree that a player should not be able to nominate themself, but feel strongly that they should be able to vote for themself. Definitely disagree with invalidating all of their other votes because of this.

[Grido]

1. I believe players should be able to nominate those from their own land. It's more expedient and prevents mistakes where someone breaks this rule and the mistake is not caught until the end of the nomination period, and then that player is not eligible because no one else thought to nominate them a second time (because they had already been nominated).

If such a thing occurs that it's only noticed at the end of the nomination period then I would defer voting for 12-24 hours with the express comment of an option for someone else to nominate that person. The reason not to allow this outweighs the reason to allow, in my opinion.

[Chewett]

If such a thing occurs that it's only noticed at the end of the nomination period then I would defer voting for 12-24 hours with the express comment of an option for someone else to nominate that person. The reason not to allow this outweighs the reason to allow, in my opinion.

Typically in the past, in these cases, random people nominate that person just because.

Similarly, when someone has been close to not being able to win a category due to too few people, random people have suddenly been nominated.

[Grido]

1. I believe players should be able to nominate those from their own land. It's more expedient and prevents mistakes where someone breaks this rule and the mistake is not caught until the end of the nomination period, and then that player is not eligible because no one else thought to nominate them a second time (because they had already been nominated).

2. I would propose that all categories go to vote, even if only a single nomination. But I would also allow a null vote and require a minimum percentage of votes to be attained.

3. Agree that a player should not be able to nominate themself, but feel strongly that they should be able to vote for themself. Definitely disagree with invalidating all of their other votes because of this.

 

Or with regard to a minimum number of nominees

[Grido]

Rules are scheduled to finish discussions tomorrow, I would appreciate further feedback on this.

 

 

Also:

Thoughts on ceremony date?

Friday 18th December - MD Awards Ceremony

Happy with date? Preferred time?

[dst]

Friday is never a good time as people usually leave for week-ends or are too tired after a long week.

[Grido]

The allocated period for the rules discussion has now ended, however there are some pending things that need a resolution on them, and we have a bit of leeway. So without any new discussions arising, we need to discuss the following items please.

 

There was an occurrence last year where JOHN SMITH was nominated for various categories, as there is an actual playername of that in MD it was acceptable within the rules last year, however that account is not active and did not have many AD. I would propose a rule to combat this happening again however I leave it up to the community to determine how exactly to impose this.

 

----

 

Should we have a minimum amount of nominees? Or for particular categories only?

I tend to agree with what Chewy said about the minimum amount of nominees, although I like the argumentative value of your explanation. :P

Sometimes the award holds some traditional value that transcends the current circumstances of no competition in this year.

 

For instance, Rookie of the year. Let's say this year there's only two nominated rookies. Fine, vote between them, don't cancel the award. Next year there will be more.

Perhaps we should define the hardcore awards that must be present every year, and some optional ones depending on the competition, eh?

Which ones make MD awards really the MD awards?

Some awards by giving the award away just demean the value of it. Its not really a reward. It needs to be decided case by case surely.

 

----

 

 

1. I believe players should be able to nominate those from their own land. It's more expedient and prevents mistakes where someone breaks this rule and the mistake is not caught until the end of the nomination period, and then that player is not eligible because no one else thought to nominate them a second time (because they had already been nominated).

2. I would propose that all categories go to vote, even if only a single nomination. But I would also allow a null vote and require a minimum percentage of votes to be attained.

3. Agree that a player should not be able to nominate themself, but feel strongly that they should be able to vote for themself. Definitely disagree with invalidating all of their other votes because of this.

 

----

 

 

 

 

 

Additionally, with regard to when the ceremony is going to be. Dst has requested it not be on Friday 18th, do we agree with her that it's a bad day? Do we prefer Sat 19th, or a different date? Preference on time?

[Chewett]

For dates you mean December yes?

[Grido]

For dates you mean December yes?

Sorry yes, I do indeed mean December.

[Grido]

Judging by no further activity on this thread since I last asked, I assume there is no further input regarding changes to the rules? If the assumption is correct, then the below will come to pass.

 

-----

In occurrence with my wanting to make sure that nominees are genuine, and no objections being made to my more general statement about it throughout this, I will be adding the following rule, unless objections are raised or alterations to it made before the rules close.

To be nominated a player must be active, they must have had an observable presence within/throughout the year.

-----

Unless people start suggesting a minimum amount of nominees on a case by case basis for the various categories, it looks like there will remain a 3 person minimum for each category to proceed to voting. A null vote will also be in place, as was last year, if you do not want to vote for any of the options.

-----

Players will remain unable to nominate people from their own land.

-----

You will remain unable to vote for yourself.

-----

 

 

 

We are currently looking at Saturday 19th December for the ceremony. Does anyone object to this?

[Chewett]

>We are currently looking at Saturday 19th December for the ceremony

I have something on that night so won't be there.

[Grido]

3 hours remaining until the rules discussion ends.

 

 

 

Ceremony date/time is fine to continue discussion however.

I have added a poll to this thread to cover the whole of that weekend, please mark when you are free, intention would be one of the dates listed, however if you are unable to make any of them then please choose another date here and post here with preference.

[Grido]

Categories have now closed. Nominations are open here.

 

Currently we are tied on ceremony date, between Friday 18th and Sunday 20th, six people for each, so I'll give it a few more days for one to hopefully outweigh the other, so voting will close for it 2359, Thursday 26 November.

 

Along with date, time needs to be considered. Out of personal preference 2100 on Friday would be fine (and indeed anything later), however if it was on Sunday, the preference would be later. I am however fairly flexible on Sunday so can do other times without too great a difficulty. If anyone has a suggestions on time, please state them here, particularly if you are in more easterly timezones.