MD Anual Awards - Feedback

[dst]

As the title says, I want feedback: what was good, what was bad, what needs to be improved, what needs to be kept.

At the end I will post my own opinion as well.

Edited January 3, 2012 by Grido

[Chewett]

Certain groups have "in" voting, where they pick who they want to win and thus that person has a much greater chance.

Popularity contest

Nominations leave out some quite obvious candidates that should have been there, just because of their shyness.

Nominations had many candidates in some catagories, giving a greater effect to point 1

some categories not properly defined, Meaning quite different opinions of what they are actually voting for.

Im sure i can think of more reasons why MD awards are pointless, But good work to the people who organised it this year.

[Metal Bunny]

What Chewett said +1, especially in the case of nominations.

But also in the case of awards now that I think of it. There are too many that are similar, when you look at who were the winners. Perhaps it would be better to make previous winners no longer eligible for future awards in the same category, for certain categories, much like the fossil category.

[Curiose]

I have to agree with Bun Buns.

If someone won the award the year before, they should not win the award again. To me, it adds to the fact of it being a popularity contest, and [to me], decreases morale.

As for nominations, perhaps there could be a minimal number of contestants?

[Mya Celestia]

[color="#8B0000"][font="Palatino Linotype"]I'm with Bunny about repeat winners. Once you've won, you shouldn't be able to win again in the same category.

Instead of asking categories, the awards committee should offer well-defined categories. [/font][/color]

[Grido]

People might rather categories got stated, rather than up for discussion and public decision? Interesting

Suggestions on which categories not to have repeat winners, or just global?

[Metal Bunny]

Any type of category which is clearly a case similar to that of the fossil case, or categories that overlap each other, for instance, and this is just an example;

Rendril got best techie award, but simply, by sheer definition and by what he mostly does for MD, he is already going to get a sizeable amount of votes, if not win every year, much like the fossil award. It would be the equivalent of being able to nominate Mur for 'best contributor to MD'. While people may vote otherwise, and while Mur may not always do stuff just for MD, but also just hang around and loiter, it is hopefully, clearly evident that Mur would win, regardless, each year, over and over.

Then there is the overlapping, there is a lot more subjectivity and nuance to this, for instance, while you may stop letting Rendril win the award for best techie each year, it would be harder to define so for best contributor. To allow repeat winners in this category would make sense, in the way that Rendril would now be competing against everyone who contributed, and not just contributed in a very specific manner, such as techie, which is his job.
However, simply by the nature of this category, combined with the relatively low population we have, we would then continuously see a repeat nomination of people who contributed to MD.
Instead of a monopoly, we'd get an oligopoly. Even if we would stop previous winners getting a nomination in the next year in specific categories, such as just Rendril for the techie award, Grido for helping, Chewett for forum (there is none, but I am making a point), Dst for having no social life and doing to many quests, we would then instead have;
A constant to and fro motion amongst these four (just an example), in the category 'best contributor'.

I think it should become a lot more like the HC. Previous winners can still be best at something, but they already had recognition and it /could/ (not necessarily), discourage newer players from trying to become more important. While this may seem entirely selfish, almost all of the categories are set in such a way that the winners cannot do anything but have contributed massively in the past. Except when it is a villain, but that depends on your point of view .
I can think up of more arguments, but I am tired.

*edit*
By doing so, you could also create a new category which would allow for repeat winners, but it's nomination requires massive contribution towards MD.
For instance, most adepts at any point in time in that year.
This category may allude to a manageable monopoly system, in which a player could repeatedly become number 1 each year. But the sheer amount of effort required to do this is so disproportionate to the actual reward given, that no one would actually do it, just for the reward.
Besides that, the actual net income that MD gets from this (higher amount of newbies staying), would, in my opinion, mitigate any kind of malcontent concerning a monopoly system. (seriously, it's ridiculously hard to get and maintain adepts. I had 72 at one point and 110-ish worshippers and then just thought, meh, scr*w it, and let go of mp6).
It then also no longer becomes a popularity contest, nor a matter of nomination based on recommendations by friends. One simply serves him or herself up to be measured via screenshot or otherwise.

Edited December 21, 2010 by Metal Bunny

[asryn]

Just a minor thing, but perhaps the time of the awards ceremony could be posted clearly a bit further in advance? I had hoped to attend, but didn't see the announcement until later that evening after the festivities had ended.

[Pipstickz]

I agree with asryn, I read the topic and only saw "sunday" or "saturday" or whatever, wasn't so sure about the specific day, and the only reason I was present was because I happened to log in at the right time.

[Grido]

yeah, that was entirely my fault, I apologise about that, it was meant to go up sooner but i kept getting distracted and forgetting

again, apologies

[Aysun]

I agree with everything that's already been said, so I'll just go ahead and add the time consumption issue- It was projected that the awards ceremony would take up two hours, and I was prepared for that, but instead it ended up running for near three full hours and mostly because people wanted to goof off in a setting with a large audience and undercut the awards staff, which was neither fair to grido, dst, and the others, nor to the rest of the audience who was very quietly waiting for things to proceed- often times taking over five minutes to get to the next category after the acceptance speech was made. Perhaps something should be made for the suppression of superfluous comments during the ceremony- as in the location becomes a forced silence one where only the award givers and the receivers can speak at the appropriate times, in order to fall within the proper allotted time and not go over or waste time in the future.