Bioware Archive

Bioware Archive V2 => General Discussion => Topic started by: Legacy_AndarianTD on August 03, 2011, 12:11:29 pm

Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_AndarianTD on August 03, 2011, 12:11:29 pm


               The Academy for Modding Excellence is pleased to announce the finalists for the 2010 Community Contribution Award for Neverwinter Nights!
  • The Neverwinter Nights Podcast -- The only podcast devoted to the Neverwinter Nights roleplaying games, it does absolutely invaluable work in creating a sense of a community that is still thriving, still producing things, and still worth getting excited about.
  • NWNCQ by Chico400 -- This amazing piece of work completely revamps most of the default Bioware tilesets. An essentially "drop-in" update, it allows modders to quickly, easily, and radically update and improve the look of areas built using them the default game resources.
  • The Custom Content Challenge -- This outstanding contribution has breathed new life into the NWN community, inspiring and encouraging both CC veterans and beginners alike to produce custom content on a regular, nearly monthly basis for themed compilations of brand new, high quality work.
Congratulations to all of the finalists! The finals review for this category should be complete and the winners announced at the end of September.

The Academy for Modding Excellence is actively recruiting for new members to help us in our mission to give recognition to the content creators who keep this great community alive. Thanks to those of you who have already answered our Call for Volunteers, four of our NWN1 2010 Awards categories have now been able to enter the finals: Community Contribution, Veteran Author (Modules), Veteran Author (Custom Content), and Best Tileset. In the coming days and weeks we'll be posting the rest of the finalists for those awards, new categories as they are identified, and, of course, the winners.

We do, however, need just a little more help. In particular, we could really use a few more active players of NWN1 modules to reach the "critical mass" of voters and nominators required to get those awards fully back on track again. So if you are an avid NWN1 player, modder or reviewer, and think you might be interested in helping with the AME's mission, then please feel free to contact me (andarian at ame-gda dot net) about joining or learning more about the AME panel.

Andarian
Chairman, the Academy for Modding Excellence (AME)
               
               

               


                     Modifié par AndarianTD, 03 août 2011 - 11:18 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_olivier leroux on August 05, 2011, 05:08:43 pm


               The Academy for Modding Excellence is pleased to announce the finalists for the 2010 Veteran Author (Modules) Award for Neverwinter Nights!
  • Baldecaran -- Author of the highly acclaimed Hall of Fame modules "The Cave of Songs" and "Honor Among Thieves", he's been providing the community with quality modules since 2003. His chef-d'oeuvre, the continueing "Prophet" series, features one of the most clever and intriguing plots ever seen in a NWN module, the equivalent of a perfect page-turner.
  • Fabien Cerutti -- His genuinely original and extensive series about "The Bastard of Kosigan" (translated from French by Ginni Swanton) steeps in a real knowledge of and appreciation for European history, with lots of complex ideas, roleplaying opportunities and witty dialogue. He's seriously committed to the series and his enthusiasm and dedication shine through in all of his work.
  • Andarian -- "Sanctum of the Archmage" is not "only" an ambitious story within a rich setting that's heavy on character interaction and believable romance - another of its prominent features is the ongoing support and high level of polish. Although further installments of the series are still in the works, Andarian constantly upgraded and also completely overhauled the available chapters over the years with the inclusion of some of the community's best custom content available.
Congratulations to all of the finalists! The finals review for this category should be complete and the winners announced at the end of September.

The choice isn't easy, of course, as all candidates deserve to win the award - and every vote counts. So if you're familiar with these module authors and have an opinion who should be the Veteran Author of 2010, you can help us give them their due by joining the AME now!

Olivier Leroux,
Team Leader NWN, the Academy for Modding Excellence (AME)
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_NWVaultQSW on August 15, 2011, 08:47:07 pm


               The Academy for Modding Excellence is pleased to announce the finalists for the 2010 Veteran Author CC Award for Neverwinter Nights!

  • Lord of Worms is widely recognized in the NWN community as one of the finest CC builders in its long and illustrious history. He's a three time GDA finalist for:Undersea Tiles in 2006Seasonal Forest in 2007,



    LOW's Creature Pack in 2008, and winner of the NWN 2007 Best Tileset GDA for his legendary Seasonal Forest tileset.

  • Six_Six_Six –Gavin "Sixes Thrice" Jones is in the forefront of excellence of tileset building in NWN. He works tirelessly and diligently to produce the finest work in NWN and is the author of:





    Wildwoods, Wildlands & Wildlands Winter



    Undead Redux 2



    Colossal Arena / Spectral Woods / Rural Interior



    Dwarven Chasms / Catecombs / Dwarven Lands / Deep Dungeon /

    Undercity Sewers

  • Helvene –Helvene has shared her work with the NWN community since 2006 - a lot of it tileset-related (original, reskins, merges and fixes) but also placeables (very nice texture work0. Her 2006 reskins of (and additions to) BioWare's Castle Interior tileset, namely White Marble Castle and Arcanum Castle. Her Maze (2006) is a limited set with few tiles but it's the best looking maze we've seen so far, with beautiful mosaic textured walls, and she also offers a version with a mini map of empty squares that prevents the players from cheating their way out.



    Among other things, she is the author of the famous Wood Elven Interiors tileset (2006/07) that's also

    part of CEP 2 now and you might have come across the Suspended City (2008/09) tileset, too.

Congratulations to all of our finalists! The finals review for this category should be complete and the winners announced at the end of September.

The Academy for Modding Excellence is actively recruiting for new members to help us in our mission to give recognition to the content creators who keep this great community alive. Thanks to those of you who have
already answered our Call for Volunteers, four of our NWN1 2010 Awards categories have now been able to enter the finals: Community Contribution, Veteran Author (Modules), Veteran Author (Custom Content), and Best Tileset. In the coming days and weeks we'll be posting the rest of the finalists for those awards, new categories as they are identified, and, of course, the winners.

We do, however, need just a little more help. In particular, we could really use a few more active players of NWN1 modules to reach the "critical mass" of voters and nominators required to get those awards fully back on track again. So if you are an avid NWN1 player, modder or reviewer, and think you might be interested in helping with the AME's mission, then please feel free to contact (andarian at ame-gda dot net) about joining or learning more about the AME panel. :)


QSW (Queenilverwing) AME Member.
               
               

               


                     Modifié par NWVaultQSW, 15 août 2011 - 08:03 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_AndarianTD on August 23, 2011, 01:03:46 pm


               Wow -- tough crowd. ;) No one has any thoughts or feedback? Suggestions for new nominees or thoughts on new categories, perhaps?

We've tried to come up with some new one-time "Special Recognition" categories that open up the field of nominations to works published in previous as well as recent years. After our finalists for Best Tileset are posted (coming soon), We'll share some of those categories with you. In the meantime we'd be interested in hearing suggestions for such categories from the rest of the community. What would YOU like to see as a new "Special Recognition" category for NWN1?
               
               

               


                     Modifié par AndarianTD, 24 août 2011 - 01:21 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_FunkySwerve on August 23, 2011, 11:16:14 pm


               Well, since you asked...I kept my mouth shut when you posted this, but I was quite surprised that AME considers its own members, which seriously undermines the credibility of the outfit. The Academy would like to thank the Academy... This would be less an issue if voting was by the public, naturally.

Funky
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_AndarianTD on August 24, 2011, 02:17:51 pm


               

FunkySwerve wrote...

Well, since you asked...I kept my mouth shut when you posted this, but I was quite surprised that AME considers its own members, which seriously undermines the credibility of the outfit. The Academy would like to thank the Academy... This would be less an issue if voting was by the public, naturally.


Since I did ask for feedback, let me try to address these points.

First, regarding "voting by the public" -- we've never turned down a request from a member of the community to join the AME and participate in the awards process. You could offer to join and participate, for example, and it's not as though we haven't been plastering the forums with calls for volunteers. If anyone thinks the process would be better served by greater participation from the community, then why not participate?

There are plenty of options for what you're probably thinking of as more "public" voting already in the community, including the Vault voting system and the MOTYs. Those systems have both well-known advantages, and also well-known problems, which I doubt that anyone needs me to elaborate on here. The AME was formed was to provide a complementary alternative to those systems, and to the Reviewer's Guild, one in which members who take NWN modding seriously enough to participate in a structured awards nomination and voting process can do so.

Part of the reason I've been posting threads here on the BSN for months now was to solicit -- in addition to new members -- ideas, thoughts, and suggestions from the community regarding possible nominees. Then there are our forums, which have been online for years and on which anyone can post feedback or suggestions as well. Despite those efforts, we've seen little or no activity or feedback at all so far. So I do hope that anyone who thinks that our activities are insufficiently "public" will consider helping us in our attempts to address this.

Regarding the nomination of other members for their work: that's been a feature of the AME since its inception, and we have very stringent procedures in place to prohibit conflicts of interest in that regard. Any of our current or former AME members will tell you that we take those procedures very seriously. (Members may not nominate or vote for themselves, and must immediately recuse themselves from further participation in any category for which they are nominated as soon as they are.) The AME has nominated and awarded individuals who have served on the panel for years, ever since Ragnarok_MR4 won Best Custom Content for his ACP animations back during our very first cycle.

If you soberly consider the fact that our core mission is to try to recognize the best work produced by the modding community, you may see that it would be problematic to try to accomplish this without at least allowing for members to be nominated for their work. The AME panel consists of a synergistic mix of experienced players, builders, and reviewers, all of whom bring their own particular skills, knowledge, and perspectives to the awards process. That is one of the core things that makes the AME what it is, and without which we would not have the experience mix needed to undertake such a mission.

The AME's current and former membership list includes some of the finest builders in the community -- people like BGPHuges, Ragnarok_mr4, Sixesthrice, Pstemarie, Quillmaster, Carlo One, Qkrch, Bannor Bloodfist, nereng, and Estelindis, just to name a few off the top of my head. If such award-caliber builders were not eligible, then what would our awards really mean? "Here's the best Tileset of 2011, except it's not because the really best tileset happened to have been made by someone who was on our voting panel so we couldn't nominate it?" I wouldn't take such an awards announcement seriously, and I wouldn't expect anyone else to do so either.
               
               

               


                     Modifié par AndarianTD, 24 août 2011 - 01:27 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Pstemarie on August 24, 2011, 02:24:48 pm


               To Funky...

Having been involved as a panel member for a brief time (leaving only because of time constraints), I can vouch for the AME, when Andarian says they take careful measures to endure that an AME panelist nominated for an award has NO say whatsoever in who receives the final accolade.
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_WebShaman on August 24, 2011, 02:33:48 pm


               I can actually understand what Funky is pointing out - I don't think that he was suggesting that the AME is biased, but by allowing it's own members to be nominated and win does leave that open to question, doesn't it?

Sometimes, appearances are more important than what is actually taking place.

It would be like if someone won an Oscar, and was on the panel that decides who wins...not a pretty picture, regardless of whether or not the integrity of the panel is top-notch.

By not allowing such, one is above such accusations, of course.  Which tends to lend a more...importance to the award, does it not?
               
               

               


                     Modifié par WebShaman, 24 août 2011 - 01:34 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_AndarianTD on August 24, 2011, 03:02:43 pm


               

WebShaman wrote...

It would be like if someone won an Oscar, and was on the panel that decides who wins...


Why do you think that a member of the Academy for Motion Pictures can't be nominated for an Oscar?

In any event, let me stress that no one who is nominated for a GDA is allowed to be on the panel that decides who wins. AME members can't nominate themselves, and those nominated are excluded not only from voting for themselves, but from any further participation in the entire category they were nominated for.

I do understand the question, though, which is why the AME has always placed such a strong emphasis on maintaining the integrity of our procedures and our membership, and explaining them to the community when asked.
               
               

               


                     Modifié par AndarianTD, 24 août 2011 - 04:52 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Quillmaster on August 24, 2011, 07:57:46 pm


               The Academy for Modding Excellence is pleased to announce the finalists for the 2010 Best Tileset Award for Neverwinter Nights!

Wild Woods by Sixesthrice -- This is a truly extraordinary NWN tileset, both in terms of visual quality and creative use of effects. Wild Woods is gorgeous, effective, and has an efficient design that doesn't try to be everything -- allowing for greater depth to the design as a result.

Senemenelas' Underdark Tileset -- This tileset package brings Terror back to BioWare's tamed Underdark, along with both claustrophobia and agoraphobia. Vast halls and caverns or deep dungeons, large or narrow staircases, well of souls and irradiating mushrooms - Senemenelas' tileset finally offers us a convincing impression of what the Underdark really must feel like.

Roman City Tileset by Zwerkules -- Part of the November 2010 Custom Content Challenge, this tileset looks good and has a number of original features in it. Zwerkules tilesets excel not just in how they look, though, but how well they play. Form and Function are well linked in his work.

Congratulations to all of the finalists! The finals review for this category should be complete and the winners announced at the end of October.

The Academy for Modding Excellence is actively recruiting for new members to help us in our mission to give recognition to the content creators who keep this great community alive. Thanks to those of you who have already answered our Call for Volunteers, four of our NWN1 2010 Awards categories have now been able to enter the finals: Community Contribution, Veteran Author (Modules), Veteran Author (Custom Content), and Best Tileset. In the coming days and weeks we'll be posting new categories as they are identified, and, of course, the winners.

We do, however, need just a little more help. In particular, we could really use a few more active members to reach the "critical mass" of voters and nominators required to get our awards fully back on track again. So if you are an avid NWN1 player, modder or reviewer, and think you might be interested in helping with the AME's mission, then please feel free to contact Andarian (andarian at ame-gda dot net) about joining or learning more about the AME panel.

Quillmaster
Member, The Academy for Modding Excellence (AME)
               
               

               


                     Modifié par Quillmaster, 24 août 2011 - 06:58 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_WhiZard on August 24, 2011, 10:28:29 pm


               

WebShaman wrote...

I can actually understand what Funky is pointing out - I don't think that he was suggesting that the AME is biased, but by allowing it's own members to be nominated and win does leave that open to question, doesn't it?

Sometimes, appearances are more important than what is actually taking place.


Then there is also the problem when a great contributor and member of the awards outlet, may, even quite unintentionally, create standards based on his excellent contributions.  The greatest parts of these excellent contributions would be looked into for future nominations, and the lesser parts of the excellent contributions may well be ignored or devalued when looking into future nominations.   It is easy to evaluate when the standards for quality are locked in stone, but, when they are locked, it is hard to re-evaluate the standards to see if they fairly reflect quality in all circumstances.
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Bannor Bloodfist on August 25, 2011, 12:07:20 am


               Actually, as a former member of the Academy, we argued this entire subject out for months.

Should a member be allowed to submit his/her own works for consideration?  NO, was the final answer.

Should a member be allowed to vote in the category that one of their submissions was considered?  NO, was the final answer.

Should a member be EXCLUDED from any consideration for submission?  NO, that would be completely unfair to that member.  By volunteering to HELP the community,, why should they be excluded from contributing content to that community?  Why should their content be excluded?

Higher standards for Custom Content is what the AME is all about.  No one gets excluded from those standards simply because their work doesn't measure up either, each bit of content is reviewed, tested, and compared with the general content that is released by the community at large... ALL of them.  Do they all deserve a 10?  Surely not.  Do they all deserve a Zero?  Again, surely not.

The purpose of the AME was to help raise the standards a bit, and to congratulate those folks that spend the extra effort to make BETTER content.  Shoot, take a real look at CEP.  That hak pack is loaded with stuff that no one uses anymore, simply because it was all that was available when the CEP first started.  Does all of it deserve a high score?  Absolutely not.  Does a large portion of it deserve a high score?  Absolutely.  If we, as a community, were to individually vote on each and every item, placeable, creature, etc, in the CEP, a large portion of it would be removed at this stage of things, since our own standards has risen as a community in general.  Our computers are better, they can handle a bit higher poly count etc.  Better texture artists have contributed to the vast array of textures available for use by CC folks in general.  Most of the stuff being released in the past 2 years far exceeds the quality of stuff that came out when NWN was first released.

The AME is attempting to help alleviate the fanboy vote status on the vault.  They have raised the minimum standards by a large extent, but only by the extent that MOST cc folks can accomplish if they actually spend the time to do so.

The AME is a small group of folks volunteering a huge amount of time to review works created by the community, and they have to have certain minimum standards for creations to even be considered.  I know I can slap a mod together in just a few hours.  It would suck for sure, but it would be a working mod.  Would something created that quickly, with the few skills I have in scripting etc, be worthy of a Golden Dragon?  Absolutely not.  Most especially when there are folks out there that have spent months/years working on a module or series of modules, that have spent the time to create/write an excellent story line, filled in custom NPC comments, spent the time to search for OR create, that special tileset/group/feature to make their story come alive, and give each of us a special joy in playing.  THAT person(s) deserves the credit, attention, AND award given by the AME much more than something that was slapped together in a few hours using stock content, dialogs etc.  

In my particular case, I stepped down from AME membership when CTP was being considered for the first release we made.  To avoid the possible conflict of interest that some would perceive or state.  I can tell you though, that the current members of AME are beyond reproach.  They stick by their own, internal rules (which have been posted on their forums) and they observe strict, VERY STRICT, adherence to the belief that a member can not vote on the entire category that is being considered, if that member has anything of their own in the submissions list.

Anyway, my fifty cents worth of comments can be taken or left behind, but I do believe, 100%, that the members of the AME are beyond reproach in how they handle things.  Most especially considering that no one is getting paid for all the vast amount of time that is spent reviewing content.  Heck, I can remember doing spell checking on modules that were being considered.  Minor thing, sure, but in the huge amount of dialogs in a given module, it can take a large amount of time.  Checking for visible gaps in any given mdl, be it placeable, creature, tile etc, things that are fairly easy to fix, but get ignored by folks when doing things too quickly.  These, and many other things are tested, reviewed, and considered in a given submission.
               
               

               


                     Modifié par Bannor Bloodfist, 24 août 2011 - 11:07 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_ffbj on August 25, 2011, 12:23:29 am


               Congratualtions to all the nominees, and yes that is a tough crowd.  Not to get into the if, ands, or buts, but I would just like to express my personal thanks to the AME for all the difficult, great work they have done over the years.  Maybe you guys should just give yourselves an award.  I think you have accomplished, and continue to accomplish, what you set out to do, which is to draw attention to some of the best works done in many areas over the years, by outstanding contributors.
Thanks.
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_FunkySwerve on August 25, 2011, 07:55:26 am


               Nothing I've seen posted in response to my remark has much bearing on it. It still looks like self-dealing, unavoidably so.

AndarianTD wrote...

Part of the reason I've been posting threads here on the BSN for months now was to solicit -- in addition to new members -- ideas, thoughts, and suggestions from the community regarding possible nominees. Then there are our forums, which have been online for years and on which anyone can post feedback or suggestions as well. Despite those efforts, we've seen little or no activity or feedback at all so far. So I do hope that anyone who thinks that our activities are insufficiently "public" will consider helping us in our attempts to address this.


It's not your 'activities' I think are insufficiently public, it's your nomination and selection process. And I *am* helping you to address it, by raising the issue. Simply joining the AME would NOT address the issue, because it'd do nothing to relieve the appearance of self-dealing. Not that I would have any interest in joining an organization that operated in such fashion.


Bannor Bloodfist wrote...


Should a member be EXCLUDED from any consideration for submission? NO, that would be completely unfair to that member. By volunteering to HELP the community,, why should they be excluded from contributing content to that community? Why should their content be excluded?


They wouldn't excluded from contributing content. They would be exluded only from giving themselves an award for it. Oh, while we're on the topic: I've decided to start up my own award-granting organization: The Higher Ground Acedemy for Persistant World Excellence. Guess who won this year?

More seriously, I understand the difficulty you face - the skills needed to evaluate contributions overlap those needed to make them in the first place. Still, though, I think the community is perfectly capable of making their own evaluations - unlike you, apparently, based on your remark about correcting for 'fanboy' votes. I guess that's where we fundamentally disagree - you set this up as an alternative voting system NOT for the public. Small wonder that you're having trouble attracting interest or feedback, as Andarian bemoans. Really, though, you've replaced one flawed system - the Vault's - with another. Why not revise the voting system instead, and solicit votes? I once emailed Max about revising their system as a 'vote for' instead of the current setup, by adding the rating, rather than ranking on average rating and max votes. That setup avoids a number of pitfalls of their system, and lacks the self-dealing issue as well. It might well help in drawing more feedback, as well.

Funky
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Bannor Bloodfist on August 25, 2011, 08:18:44 am


               

FunkySwerve wrote...

Nothing I've seen posted in response to my remark has much bearing on it. It still looks like self-dealing, unavoidably so.

Bannor Bloodfist wrote...


Should a member be EXCLUDED from any consideration for submission? NO, that would be completely unfair to that member. By volunteering to HELP the community,, why should they be excluded from contributing content to that community? Why should their content be excluded?


They wouldn't excluded from contributing content. They would be exluded only from giving themselves an award for it. Oh, while we're on the topic: I've decided to start up my own award-granting organization: The Higher Ground Acedemy for Persistant World Excellence. Guess who won this year?

Simple reply to the troll post that this actually was.

It has been stated, over and over again, that ANY submission by an AME member EXCLUDES that AME member from beign able to affect the voting in any way.  They are completely excluded from voting on ANY content in that particular category.
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_FunkySwerve on August 25, 2011, 09:30:43 am


               

Bannor Bloodfist wrote...


Simple reply to the troll post that this actually was.

It has been stated, over and over again, that ANY submission by an AME member EXCLUDES that AME member from beign able to affect the voting in any way.  They are completely excluded from voting on ANY content in that particular category.

You shouldn't ask for input if you don't want any. I wasn't trolling, merely pointing out a serious problem of appearances. There is a very good reason that you don't see self-nominating Academies out there in the real world. If you want to pretend otherwise, go right ahead. But don't call me a troll for giving asked-for input. Small wonder you get so little...

Funky
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Elhanan on August 25, 2011, 10:19:35 am


               

FunkySwerve wrote...

You shouldn't ask for input if you don't want any. I wasn't trolling, merely pointing out a serious problem of appearances. There is a very good reason that you don't see self-nominating Academies out there in the real world. If you want to pretend otherwise, go right ahead. But don't call me a troll for giving asked-for input. Small wonder you get so little...

Funky


As I have no dogs in this hunt, it appears that the members cannot submit their own works, or vote on said works; just are allowed to win for said works. This appears to be no different than a member of the film Academy winning on a night they might be presenting or hosting awards which does occur.

Seems fair to me.
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Pstemarie on August 25, 2011, 10:46:08 am


               

FunkySwerve wrote...

There is a very good reason that you don't see self-nominating Academies out there in the real world. If you want to pretend otherwise, go right ahead.

Funky


Umm, if you are an AME panel member then you cannot nominate yourself for anything. Another member can nominate you, which then precludes you from voting on that category or having any further involvement with it. Its not a self-nominating process - never has been, never will be. Andarian and Tybae have gone to great lengths to ensure the integrity of the AME awards and the panel members.

However, I can see where you're coming from regarding holding up appearances and getting the Community more involved in nominations and voting. But, such an action would make the AME so much like the Vault voting system that it would become a useless endevour. TBH, the Vault voting system is useless. So many people download stuff and never vote, making me wish you could disable voting without disabling comments. If the AME went public, I'm sure it wouldn't be much better - the same lack of community involvement. Really - referring to the Vault now, how hard is it to revisit a page and vote on something you've used?
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Elhanan on August 25, 2011, 01:45:22 pm


               

Pstemarie wrote...


Umm, if you are an AME panel member then you cannot nominate yourself for anything. Another member can nominate you, which then precludes you from voting on that category or having any further involvement with it. Its not a self-nominating process - never has been, never will be. Andarian and Tybae have gone to great lengths to ensure the integrity of the AME awards and the panel members.

However, I can see where you're coming from regarding holding up appearances and getting the Community more involved in nominations and voting. But, such an action would make the AME so much like the Vault voting system that it would become a useless endevour. TBH, the Vault voting system is useless. So many people download stuff and never vote, making me wish you could disable voting without disabling comments. If the AME went public, I'm sure it wouldn't be much better - the same lack of community involvement. Really - referring to the Vault now, how hard is it to revisit a page and vote on something you've used?


Actually, to cast an informed Vote in the Vault can be somewhat problematic, at least for myself.

For Haks, and those things that are tech related, I am admittedly clueless on many occasions as to the exact details and scope of said funtions. These are often left without votes, though I do try and provide feedback when it is possible.

For mods it becomes somwhat easier, as I can offer both an objective eye to flaws noticed in the game (eg; typos, mis marked maps, etc), and subjective opinions on the game design itself. One issue that occured for me is that at one time when an offering of 8 was offered as general praise became less praiseworthy fairly suddenly, and I had to make needed adj in past and current Votes. And again, I tried to offer comments as possible.

However, I view this evolving, sliding method of casting opinions to be flawed, and open to abuse (eg; say hello metacritic). So I prefer to scan votes for known Voters;  DM's, Players, and associates that have earned respect and credibility fir their comments, and gather recommendations from that field when available.

Sorry; rambling. Blame it on my meds.... Posted Image
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_AndarianTD on August 25, 2011, 01:46:22 pm


               

Elhanan wrote...

FunkySwerve wrote...

There is a very good reason that you don't see self-nominating Academies out there in the real world.


As I have no dogs in this hunt, it appears that the members cannot submit their own works, or vote on said works; just are allowed to win for said works. This appears to be no different than a member of the film Academy winning on a night they might be presenting or hosting awards which does occur.

Seems fair to me.


Thank you. Yes, that's exactly right. The AME was partly inspired by the Academy for Motion Pictures, and the GDAs originally conceived as a kind of "Oscars" for the NWN modding community.

I'm a bit surprised at the number of people posting here on the assumption that groups like the Motion Picture Academy don't allow for the nomination of members. I'd like to ask anyone who thinks that to post a reference to such a policy. I don't think you'll find one (I haven't, and I've looked), because it would make no sense -- for precisely the reasons that several of us have already tried to explain. It would be unfair (see Bannor's comments), it would compromise the awards themselves (see my previous comments), and it would make the AME unworkable and undermine its mission, as Pstemarie observed:

Pstemarie wrote...

I can see where you're coming from regarding holding up appearances and getting the Community more involved in nominations and voting. But, such an action would make the AME so much like the Vault voting system that it would become a useless endevour.


I'm not sure what else to say on this, other than that individuals in the community are welcome to their opinions about the value of our awards -- just as they are welcome to their opinions of Vault voting, the MOTYs, and the Reviewer's Guild. The purpose of all of these is to provide the community with a variety of different kinds of assessments based on different standards and procedures. By my way of thinking, that's a good thing.
               
               

               


                     Modifié par AndarianTD, 25 août 2011 - 12:47 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Elhanan on August 25, 2011, 02:00:08 pm


               heh! I like to think of myself as sort of a a non-membered Leonard Maltin, and simply try to help folks select enjoyable mods.
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_FunkySwerve on August 25, 2011, 05:48:37 pm


               

Pstemarie wrote...

However, I can see where you're coming from regarding holding up appearances and getting the Community more involved in nominations and voting. But, such an action would make the AME so much like the Vault voting system that it would become a useless endevour. TBH, the Vault voting system is useless. So many people download stuff and never vote, making me wish you could disable voting without disabling comments. If the AME went public, I'm sure it wouldn't be much better - the same lack of community involvement. Really - referring to the Vault now, how hard is it to revisit a page and vote on something you've used?

I tend to agree that the Vault system is severely flawed - that's why I sent Max my suggestions. I would take a look at them and consider them at length, as they solve the more serious issues. Max rejected them because he didn't have power to change them - they're an IGN standard, applying to multiple sites.

The problem that you're describing, that of nonvoting, is sort of a non-issue. It simply describes the point at which content will get voted on, which doesn't bias results one way or another - those who care enough, vote, and those who don't, don't. The incentives line up to create a rough picture of what the community values most. My issues with it revolve more around ranking of that data, not selection bias of any kind.

AndarianTD wrote...

Thank you. Yes, that's exactly right. The AME was partly inspired by the Academy for Motion Pictures, and the GDAs originally conceived as a kind of "Oscars" for the NWN modding community.

I'm a bit surprised at the number of people posting here on the assumption that groups like the Motion Picture Academy don't allow for the nomination of members. I'd like to ask anyone who thinks that to post a reference to such a policy. I don't think you'll find one (I haven't, and I've looked), because it would make no sense -- for precisely the reasons that several of us have already tried to explain. It would be unfair (see Bannor's comments), it would compromise the awards themselves (see my previous comments), and it would make the AME unworkable and undermine its mission, as Pstemarie observed:


Since you're still surprised, I'll explain more thoroughly. The analogy to the Acadamey is severely flawed. First of all, the Academy does not release their member list, though my understanding is that until recently they listed invitees.  Second, Elhanan's comparison to an acadamey member winning when hosting misses the point - it's influence in voting that matters, and the host doesn't have any more voting power than anyone else. Third, and most relevantly, the Academy has 6,000 members, who send in ballots. Any self-dealing is necessarily highly diluted by volume, and would be comparable not to a small group like the AME meeting to discuss nominees, but to voting for your own work on the Vault. By contrast, in a small group, there's a good chance that the members' relationships to one of the group will sway their thinking, whether or not that member actually participates in voting. There's also the risk of upsetting that member if content they feel is inferior is picked over their own. There is no mass of votes to dilute the self-dealing, there's only a small group, with incentive to keep its members happy. There is simply no way around that, in your current setup, as you've described it.

In any event, thank you both for listening and responding, instead of doing the kneejerk 'OMG it's not praise he musts be trollzor!!111.' I make an effort to avoid antagonizing the members of our shriking community when possible, but I have great difficulty in taking the AME's awards serioiusly given the issues I've raised.

Funky
               
               

               


                     Modifié par FunkySwerve, 25 août 2011 - 04:50 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_AndarianTD on August 25, 2011, 07:11:02 pm


               

FunkySwerve wrote...

By contrast, in a small group, there's a good chance that the members' relationships to one of the group will sway their thinking, whether or not that member actually participates in voting. There's also the risk of upsetting that member if content they feel is inferior is picked over their own.


It's interesting that you'd assume that such dynamics would necessarily dominate a group such as the AME, when in all my years of experience with it what I've overwhelmingly observed is precisely the opposite. One of our "axioms" of proper behavior in the Academy is that members should respect the differing votes, choices, and opinions of other members. Members who sulk and complain about not getting their way (and we have had a few) do not last long with us, because they aren't allowed any traction for such behavior. We discuss and debate, and sometimes convince each other; but it is an extremely important part of AME culture that in the end, if we disagree, we agree to disagree as respectful colleagues.

And in that spirit, I do appreciate the candor of your feedback. :)
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_WhiZard on August 25, 2011, 08:48:27 pm


               

AndarianTD wrote...
One of our "axioms" of proper behavior in the Academy is that members should respect the differing votes, choices, and opinions of other members.

Members who sulk and complain about not getting their way (and we have had a few) do not last long with us, because they aren't allowed any traction for such behavior.


Careful how you phrase things.  Those two consecutive statements could easily be read as disproving each other.
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Pstemarie on August 25, 2011, 09:08:58 pm


               

AndarianTD wrote...

I'm not sure what else to say on this, other than that individuals in the community are welcome to their opinions about the value of our awards -- just as they are welcome to their opinions of Vault voting, the MOTYs, and the Reviewer's Guild. The purpose of all of these is to provide the community with a variety of different kinds of assessments based on different standards and procedures. By my way of thinking, that's a good thing.


I was strictly talking about the Vault system. I think the AME works great as is and doesn't need to change. However, having once held similar views to Funky, I can see where they come from.
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Tybae on August 26, 2011, 08:55:28 am


               If I thought for one second that the AME voting and nominating systems were biased in any way shape or form, I'd leave the AME then and there.  You are free to think and feel however you wish.  I know how the AME works and I know what goes on there.  Unless you are, or have been, a member, you don't.  Either way, I'm tired of having the same arguments with the same people over and over again.
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Failed.Bard on August 26, 2011, 09:39:14 am


               

Tybae wrote...

You are free to think and feel however you wish. I know how the AME works and I know what goes on there. Unless you are, or have been, a member, you don't.


I believe it's this part that's the source of the problem, perception wise.
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Pstemarie on August 26, 2011, 10:53:48 am


               

Tybae wrote...

If I thought for one second that the AME voting and nominating systems were biased in any way shape or form, I'd leave the AME then and there. You are free to think and feel however you wish. I know how the AME works and I know what goes on there. Unless you are, or have been, a member, you don't. Either way, I'm tired of having the same arguments with the same people over and over again.


Well said.
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_AndarianTD on August 26, 2011, 01:11:36 pm


               

Failed.Bard wrote...

Tybae wrote...

You are free to think and feel however you wish. I know how the AME works and I know what goes on there. Unless you are, or have been, a member, you don't.


I believe it's this part that's the source of the problem, perception wise.


Then why not join? As I wrote before, it's not as though we haven't been posting calls for volunteers on the forums for as far back as I can remember. We've even restructured the AME's organization and procedures so that it's more friendly to casual membership from individuals with limited time or a more specific focus among the awards.
               
               

               


                     Modifié par AndarianTD, 26 août 2011 - 12:11 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Arkalezth on August 26, 2011, 03:51:36 pm


               I joined the AME two months ago. I have a question for those who have a bad perception of it from outside: take a look at the past awards (finalists, winners...). Do you think any of them don't deserve it? Of course, you may have a personal different favorite, but I don't think you'll find a bad module or author among them.

And if Funky or anyone else wants to create some sort of "public academy", by all means, go ahead, no one will stop you. I'll probably even vote.
               
               

               


                     Modifié par Arkalezth, 26 août 2011 - 02:58 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_WebShaman on August 26, 2011, 05:52:23 pm


               I actually kind of like Funky's suggestion, of having a "I like it" +1 and a "I don't like it" - 1 sort of thing.

That does seem to really get the "gist" of PUBLIC opinion about what is good and not.  

Now, I DO understand that the AME is more aimed at getting professional opinion involved in the process.  I also understand why this is so - only a professional really understands what has gone into the producing of something - thus, a vote for or against something has more weight in tha sense.

But these things aside, I think Funky raised a valid issue.  I do find that some answered his questions rationally and without...fevor, if you will.
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Tybae on August 26, 2011, 07:00:03 pm


               Since it was brought up, here is the list of Academy of Motion Pictures members by category.  As you can see, there are dozens of them that are Oscar winners and/or nominees.  Just because you're a member doesn't mean your work is not worthy of nomination or winning an award.  The same applies to the AME.  The Academy of Motion Pictures does not allow public voting either.  Does that then mean that they are a "secretive" organization?  Either way, I can talk until I'm blue in the face.  People will think what they want to think and it always seems to be the same handful of people doing the bashing, badmouthing and accusing.  If you really want to know what goes on, become a member.  Our member requirements have become less and less as the game has less and less builders and players.

As far as the "professional standpoint" goes.  I am not a modder or CC creator of any measure.  I play modules, playtest works and provide constructive criticism from a players perspective, which is often what authors desire as they tend to be overly critical.  We have a few members that are just like me.  No modding experience whatsoever besides playing.  It is important to have that balance for numerous reasons.  The two main ones being the player offering a fresh perspective on the work and the modder educating the player as to how, what and, most importantly, why they do what they do when building.  

Funky may have raised a valid issue and I feel the issue has been addressed and I have no problems with those valid issues.  What I do have problems with is that when the issue is addressed and it continues to be an issue just for the sake of argument then turns into a thing measuring contest, for lack of a better analogy.  I have no plans on suggesting any changes to the AME's procedures based upon a few views.  You can't please everyone and trying to do so is setting yourself up for failure.  There will always be doubters in anything in life no matter what it is.  I am perfectly content with that.
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_WhiZard on August 26, 2011, 08:39:12 pm


               

Tybae wrote...
Funky may have raised a valid issue and I feel the issue has been addressed and I have no problems with those valid issues.  What I do have problems with is that when the issue is addressed and it continues to be an issue just for the sake of argument then turns into a thing measuring contest, for lack of a better analogy.


Well then simply admit "valid issue" and move on.  I agree that multiple posts to demonstrate the same issue, when the issue has already been admitted can dampen credibility; however, multiple answers to questions that simply try to nail in "the AME is beyond reproach" even when they do admit something here and there have the same effect of dampening credibility.  If the AME can speak for itself, just let it.
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Bannor Bloodfist on August 26, 2011, 09:07:51 pm


               beat horse == dead
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_AndarianTD on August 26, 2011, 10:09:47 pm


               

WebShaman wrote...

Now, I DO understand that the AME is more aimed at getting professional opinion involved in the process.  I also understand why this is so - only a professional really understands what has gone into the producing of something - thus, a vote for or against something has more weight in tha sense.


That's part of it, but as Tybae suggested there's more to it than that. Rather than "professional" opinion, I'd call it serious opinion. As I said earlier, the AME is made up of a synergistic  combination of modders and reviewers (the more "professional" element), and of serious players. Aside from the ability to work with fairness and integrity, the main criteria for AME membership is simply a passion for modding. Players who enjoy playing mods, rating them, thinking seriously about what they like about them and what makes them good, exchanging ideas with others who feel the same way, and who want to help recognize and reward those who take the time to make good modding content, are among our most valuable contributors -- even if they're not what one would call "professional" (or as professional as one can be as a modder, given that modding is essentially an amateur activity).
               
               

               


                     Modifié par AndarianTD, 26 août 2011 - 09:10 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_FunkySwerve on August 27, 2011, 02:45:05 am


               

AndarianTD wrote...

FunkySwerve wrote...

By contrast, in a small group, there's a good chance that the members' relationships to one of the group will sway their thinking, whether or not that member actually participates in voting. There's also the risk of upsetting that member if content they feel is inferior is picked over their own.


It's interesting that you'd assume that such dynamics would necessarily dominate a group such as the AME, when in all my years of experience with it what I've overwhelmingly observed is precisely the opposite.

I'm not assuming a single thing. I'm describing a structural problem in your voting setup based on fundamental human nature. It's completely true that this problem may not hold sway over any given decision - but it's still there. To pretend otherwise is to commit the same mistake as Marx did in outlining communist government - to expect that humans will act not out of self-interest, but according to their better angels. That key difference - reality vs ideology - is what drove the success of the market system. One could outline the issue in purely economic terms, were they so inclined. No amount of 'oh but WE'RE not like that' can address it. This is why you don't see ANY awards organaization that operates in such fashion (as already noted, the comparisons to the Academy Awards are severely off-base).

Is this problem of earth-shattering import? Eh, not so much. But it certainly has ramifications for your credibility in the community. As someone whose career revolves around studying and analyzing systems of rules, seeing something like this sets my teeth on edge. It's just a bad system, because of how it creates and handles behavioral incentives, regardless of how nice the people faced with that system of incentives may be. Even when a decision is made in spite of those incentives, there will still be a question as to whether they played a role - they poison the well.

In any event, my point has been made. Do with it what you will. In the interest of community harmony, I won't post on it again after today.

Funky
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_FunkySwerve on August 27, 2011, 02:53:50 am


               

Arkalezth wrote...
And if Funky or anyone else wants to create some sort of "public academy", by all means, go ahead, no one will stop you. I'll probably even vote.

Why on earth would I want to do that? As already noted, the Vault fills much of that role, as flawed as its system of ranking may be. AME is, as has been noted, trying to establish a separate standard - 'serious' voting, as Andarian put it. I can see the angle they're going for, but they way they went about it is, to borrow a phrase, fraught with peril. If the AME feels that public voting any under circumstances is insufficiently 'serious' for its purposes, the next best alternative would be to make themselves more like the Academy Awards - diluting potential self-dealing with numbers. This wouldn't really fix the problem, but it would mitigate it, to a degree dependant on the added numbers of voters. The larger a group, the less a factor interpersonal dynamics will play in outcomes. And, to their credit, the AME has been TRYING to do just that, but without a great deal of success, according to Andarian, which is understandable given waning numbers in NWN overall. My point is not that they are bad people bent on giving themselves all awards; rather, it is that they've set up a bad system with the potential to distort outcomes. Much easier to fix the problem than to reinvent the wheel.

Funky
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Bannor Bloodfist on August 27, 2011, 03:33:08 am


               What is so truly funny though, is that you waited 5 friggin years before posting your concerns.  FIVE YEARS.  The AME has announced winners every year since 2006.  Those winners have always been selected from content uploaded to the vault during the prior year.  ALL content.  Then reviewed, all of it gets reviewed, THEN voted on, finalists are announced and then the winners... So figure at min 2 NEW posts per year announcing finalists and then winners, and you wait until this year to post a negative comment.

Many, MANY folks are capable of setting aside friendship and honestly critiquing submitted works.  Too bad that you feel you are not honest enough to do that, and that you feel you must accuse everyone else of being as low minded.

The AME is not a conspiracy to take votes away from anyone's efforts.  They have made that very clear over the years.  They voluntarily recuse themselves from voting on any content related to anything they have that has been submitted.  They have consistently asked for other volunteers to help with the reviewing/critiquing process.

Has anyone bothered to check their rules?  Has anyone bothered to see who are the current members?  Has anyone bothered to see if something that was voted on by the team as a winner did not actually earn that winning vote?

Nope.  Otherwise you would be spouting proof of your false accusations.

The analogy to the Academy Awards is spot on.  In the Academy Awards, a person is not even notified that they are being considered, so they can not vote for themselves regardless.  Which is exactly what the AME is doing.

Sure, the numbers to dilute the votes are smaller, but whose fault is that?

Comparing the AME to the financial world, driven entirely by greed is in fact accusing the AME of acting in the same fashion.  They don't.  They HAVE proved it.  For 5 full years.
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_AndarianTD on August 27, 2011, 04:28:49 am


               

FunkySwerve wrote...

AndarianTD wrote...

It's interesting that you'd assume that such dynamics would necessarily dominate a group such as the AME, when in all my years of experience with it what I've overwhelmingly observed is precisely the opposite.


I'm not assuming a single thing. I'm describing a structural problem in your voting setup based on fundamental human nature.


*Blink*

Um, yes, Funky. That's the assumption I was pointing out: your implicit and contemptuous view of human nature.

I think I'm done here.
               
               

               


                     Modifié par AndarianTD, 27 août 2011 - 04:41 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_jmlzemaggo on August 27, 2011, 09:11:45 am


               

FunkySwerve wrote...
That key difference - reality vs ideology - is what drove the success of the market system.

I can't believe one tried to use such a questionable if not fishy personal opinion as some "supposed to be universal, legal and final" statement... and still, pretends talking for justice. 
"The success of the market system..." Yeah, sure... It's so obvious, just look around the world. 
I never thought I would read anything as dumb as this in these NWN forums. 
One should keep his own ideological but personal opinions for himself, regarding a gaming forum neutrality.
To allow me to do the same with mine. 
Thanks. B)
               
               

               


                     Modifié par jmlzemaggo, 27 août 2011 - 09:04 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_FunkySwerve on August 27, 2011, 10:18:14 am


               

Bannor Bloodfist wrote...

What is so truly funny though, is that you waited 5 friggin years before posting your concerns.  FIVE YEARS.

Yes, clearly I have been lying in wait, plotting against you that entire time. That, or I responded to a request for feedback. Clearly, you should go with the paranoid conspiracy theory option. :lol:

Many, MANY folks are capable of setting aside friendship and honestly critiquing submitted works.  Too bad that you feel you are not honest enough to do that, and that you feel you must accuse everyone else of being as low minded.

It's not that I feel I'm not honest, I'm simply aware that people, by and large, are not perfect. Pretending otherwise is folly. Our entire market economy is premised on rational self-interest. Systems that are not have a demonstrable tendency to fail horribly - check your history.


The AME is not a conspiracy to take votes away from anyone's efforts.

Is someone saying it is?

Has anyone bothered to check their rules?  Has anyone bothered to see who are the current members?  Has anyone bothered to see if something that was voted on by the team as a winner did not actually earn that winning vote?

I've dealt solely with what it's members have said about them - mainly the fact that they allow members to be nominated. There's nothing more to check - it's there that the defect lies, as I've said several times now.

Nope.  Otherwise you would be spouting proof of your false accusations.

Which accusations have I made that are false? Quotes, please, and be specific. Certainly YOU would not FALSELY accuse me of making false accusations, would you? :P

The analogy to the Academy Awards is spot on.  In the Academy Awards, a person is not even notified that they are being considered, so they can not vote for themselves regardless.  Which is exactly what the AME is doing.

Sure, the numbers to dilute the votes are smaller, but whose fault is that?

Whose fault it is isn't relevant - it's a problem regardless. No one is blaming you for having small numbers, just pointing out a flaw in your process. Why are you so threatened by this? As other posters have pointed out, this rabid facts-be-damned defense only makes you look suspect.

Comparing the AME to the financial world, driven entirely by greed is in fact accusing the AME of acting in the same fashion.  They don't.  They HAVE proved it.  For 5 full years.

I wasn't comparing the AME to the financial world, I was pointing out that its voting system, like all voting systems, is subject to economic analysis, which makes its flaw very plain. Voting for or against the work of fellow members, who, from your zealous defense of them, it's clear you feel a connection to, involves rational self-interest that must, at times, run counter to unbiased voting. It makes for a error-prone setup.

Funky
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_FunkySwerve on August 27, 2011, 10:36:46 am


               

AndarianTD wrote...

FunkySwerve wrote...

AndarianTD wrote...

It's interesting that you'd assume that such dynamics would necessarily dominate a group such as the AME, when in all my years of experience with it what I've overwhelmingly observed is precisely the opposite.


I'm not assuming a single thing. I'm describing a structural problem in your voting setup based on fundamental human nature.


*Blink*

Um, yes, Funky. That's the assumption I was pointing out: your implicit and contemptuous view of human nature.

I think I'm done here.

It's not a contemptous view of human nature - it's the core assumption of our market system - rational self-interest. It's as simple as the assumption that, faced with two identical candy bars, one of which is half the price of the other, you'll buy the cheaper of the two. There's nothing tawdry about it, and not a shred of contempt. You clearly haven't taken an econ class, or you would not have read my remark in that light.

That self interest, in the market system, is used, by pitting it against the interests of others, to acheive what are called 'pareto-efficient' outcomes - outcomes which distribute scarce resources to those who value them most - it is a system based on utilitarian morality. Of course, market failures abound, especially in today's setup, which sees gross injustices arising from things like campaign contributions and income gaps - instances where the market system has been undermined. The financial sector is an excellent example of this, but this is getting very far afield of my remarks, which you managed to radically misconstrue. Take an econ class if you want to learn more. Suffice it to say, if you study law (or even just politics or history), you learn that any system set up with flaws like yours will eventually have those flaws exploited - the greed of the financial sector which Bannor was bemoaning is a paradigm example. And they'll protest their good intentions the whole time, too. In fact, such systems often create a 'race to the bottom', morality-wise, which is why you actually see some CEOs (the ones with a conscience) calling for stricter regulations of their industries. Long story short, operating on any other assumption than rational self-interest is hopelessly naive. Just ask the USSR.

Funky
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_FunkySwerve on August 27, 2011, 10:44:30 am


               

jmlzemaggo wrote...

FunkySwerve wrote...
That key difference - reality vs ideology - is what drove the success of the market system.

I can't believe one tried to use such a questionable if not fishy personal opinion as some "supposed to be universal, legal and final" statement... and still, pretends talking for justice. 
"The success of the market system..." Yeah, sure... It's so obvious, just look around the world. 
I never thought I would read anything as dumb as this in these NWN forums. 
One should keep his own ideological but personal opinions for himself, regarding a gaming forum neutrality.
To allow me to do the same with mine. 
Thanks. B)

It's not opinion, it's fact. The market system is demonstrably superior in efficiency to a command economy. Of course, a FREE market, unfettered by regulation, is just as big a disaster as a command economy, and that's what the US is lurching towards at the moment, and I think what you have in mind. Mixed market economies - like the *gasp* socialism you see in Europe - are much more efficient. And yes, economics is fundamentally a study of ethics - it's grounded in utilitarianism.  I'm not dealing in ideology by any definition, but in economic theory, and you don't have any idea what you're talking about. But thanks for playing. :P

Funky
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_jmlzemaggo on August 27, 2011, 12:47:38 pm


               

FunkySwerve wrote...
... you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

That's rude, pretentious.
Vain.  
Did I forget to say wrong even... 
Who do you think you are. 
Can't you just understand this is not the place for your kind of political or economical smartness, if not self-awarded superiority? 
Please?
This is a gaming forum. And I'm sure your highness's got the humanity to understand such basics. 
Please?
               
               

               


                     Modifié par jmlzemaggo, 27 août 2011 - 03:20 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_TimG on August 27, 2011, 02:26:41 pm


               besides, FunkySwerve, it's just not relevant.  None of the concerns you have posted here are relevant.  This is a gaming community and no one in the AME profits by their actions.  Instead they do the work of sorting out good modules for players to try.  When I started playing NWN in 08 I didn't understand the Vault or Mods or any of the esoteric crap that goes along with playing NWN but once I did start to learn it then it didn't take long to see that a Golden Dragon mod was probably worth downloading.  The AME helps clarify the Vault system by adding a little more emphasis to certain modules.  The NWN community appears to have forgotten how lucky it is.  We (the community) have the BSN, the Vault, a brilliant selection of builders, coders, and modders, and people like the AME that try to narrow down the cream of the crop.  Most folks don't have time to play through a lot of weaker modules to find what is really good.  The two tiered system of public voting on the Vault and private voting by the AME (where almost anyone is welcome to join) makes a superb system.
Everyone here is pulling in the same direction on the same team, your efforts with the "securing your server" thread are an example.  The AME's efforts to review are another.  None of the community members gain by bashing each other.
We should all be united against the common enemy:  "The Judean Peoples Front!", just kidding, if there's a common enemy it is probably EA...
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Arkalezth on August 27, 2011, 03:27:22 pm


               

FunkySwerve wrote...

Arkalezth wrote...
And if Funky or anyone else wants to create some sort of "public academy", by all means, go ahead, no one will stop you. I'll probably even vote.

Why on earth would I want to do that?

FunkySwerve wrote...

This would be less an issue if voting was by the public, naturally.

Funky

Since you're now talking about the market, economy and that kind of off-topic crap, I think it's time for me to leave the thread too. I may be back if it ever gets back on topic.

Edit: Oh, and I believe you haven't answered my question, which was the main purpose of my previous post.
               
               

               


                     Modifié par Arkalezth, 27 août 2011 - 02:41 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Queensilverwing on August 27, 2011, 05:04:00 pm


               

FunkySwerve wrote...

Suffice it to say, if you study law (or even just politics or history), you learn that any system set up with flaws like yours will eventually have those flaws exploited

.

Firstly, let me say in no uncertain terms, that I am not here to attack you in any way Funky. I, like other posters, merely wish to express/discuss the subject at hand.

As to flawed systems, I don't personally think that there is a system out there, be it law, economics, Vault voting, Reviewer's Guild scoring or AME regulations, that isn't flawed. If it can be made, it can be broken, tampered with etc...should a person wish to try and do so. That does not however mean, that that person won't be caught in the act, just that all things are possible.

You can only try and make something as fair and hopefully, impartial as possible, but no one person, or organization can guarantee 100% that it is full proof.

Long story short, operating on any other assumption than rational self-interest is hopelessly naive.


OK, let's play a little bit here, and so no one gets upset, lets use me as an example :bandit:

I'm not a builder, CC creator. I'm a (sometime) reviewer, module player and a member of the AME since it began. let's say I've privately bug tested a module before it's been released to the Vault for public BETA testing. Now a year later, that module has been nominated in say, the RP category of the awards. However, before that certain module was nominated I made a nomination of my own in that category for a different module. I am now no longer allowed to participate in the whole RP category because I have had to vote a COI (conflict of interest) on the module that I privately bug tested.

How then am I able to exercise self-interest in getting my own nomination through to the finals? The only communication I have with my fellow AME members is via the AME forums. If I had wanted to, I could have kept quiet about bug testing privately and continued my participation in that whole category...if I had wanted to undermine the whole spirit of the AME that is.

But I don't, and other members do not...because it is not in my or anyone else's interest to spend countless hours downloading, playing and testing content nominated by fellow AME members. It is not what the AME is about. We want to award a GDA to an author, module, tileset or other CC work because we as a group have expressed our admiration and respect for that work. Moreover, we believe, that above the other finalists, that work was the best of the three finalists that made it through.

I don't participate in all the GDA categories, ergo, I don't vote on all of them either. I trust and respect my fellow AME members, it is also a good bet that anyone who wanted to cheat wouldn't last the course because the whole AME system is a long and time consuming commitment...whatever categories you have committed to. Most people who want to ruin a system or use it to their own advantage, do not have the patience to spend months on and off seeing that self-interest through. It's not really like clicking a button to make a one time vote.

As for being 'hopelessly naive', guess I am, because if I were to work under your assumption that most of us work under the premise of 'rational self-interest' I would have closed the doors of the Reviewers Guild a long time ago. Why don't I? Because there are 178 people who read our last
mini review, 38 of them this month alone (in contrast to the 1000 reads per week we got a few years back) :o Whether it's a mini review or full one, our team spend hours playing, writing and then re-writing a review to follow our no doubt flawed, but I hope fair, guidelines. A reviewer will go through peer review that can be brutal, painful, funny and fun...and all so 178 people can read that review, never make a comment (good or bad) and perhaps glean some idea if that module is the kind of module they'd like to play.

The AME are no less dedicated than the Reviewers, and in many ways, more so because they work for months on end on nominations, testing and finals. In the end, I don't believe there has ever been a GDA awrded to an inferior module, author, tileset or other CC. Does anybody else think there has? If not, then how fawed is our system really?

Did I do good or what? *grins and winks at Flunky*
               
               

               


                     Modifié par Queensilverwing, 27 août 2011 - 04:08 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_FunkySwerve on August 27, 2011, 05:08:29 pm


               

jmlzemaggo wrote...

FunkySwerve wrote...
... you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

That's rude, pretentious.
Vain.  
Did I forget to say wrong even... 
Who do you think you are. 
Can't you just understand this is not the place for your kind of political or economical smartness, if not self-awarded superiority? 
Please?
This is a gaming forum. And I'm sure your highness's got the humanity to understand such basics. 
Please?

Unfortunately, it was true. You accused me of spouting ideology. I wasn't. As for this being a gaming forum, I'm aware - we're discussing gaming-related issues, and I'm bringing my outside experience to bear in relevant ways on the issue at hand.

As for your calling me pretentions, vain, and accusing me of being self-congratulatory, and then calling *me* rude...you know how silly that looks, I hope?

Funky
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_FunkySwerve on August 27, 2011, 05:09:33 pm


               

Arkalezth wrote...

Since you're now talking about the market, economy and that kind of off-topic crap, I think it's time for me to leave the thread too. I may be back if it ever gets back on topic.

It's all on-topic as it relates to the flaw in AME's voting, as you'll see if you read my posts.

Edit: Oh, and I believe you haven't answered my question, which was the main purpose of my previous post.

What question was that?

Funky
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Arkalezth on August 27, 2011, 05:21:45 pm


               

FunkySwerve wrote...

It's not opinion, it's fact. The market system is demonstrably superior in efficiency to a command economy. Of course, a FREE market, unfettered by regulation, is just as big a disaster as a command economy, and that's what the US is lurching towards at the moment, and I think what you have in mind. Mixed market economies - like the *gasp* socialism you see in Europe - are much more efficient. And yes, economics is fundamentally a study of ethics - it's grounded in utilitarianism.  I'm not dealing in ideology by any definition, but in economic theory, and you don't have any idea what you're talking about. But thanks for playing. :P

Funky

This doesn't seem very on-topic to me. You can relate one thing to another infinitely, but the market economy in Europe doesn't have much to do with the AME.

The question was:

Arkalezth wrote...

I have a question for those who have a
bad perception of it from outside: take a look at the past awards
(finalists, winners...). Do you think any of them don't deserve it? Of
course, you may have a personal different favorite, but I don't think
you'll find a bad module or author among them.


               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_FunkySwerve on August 27, 2011, 05:49:18 pm


               

Queensilverwing wrote...

FunkySwerve wrote...

Suffice it to say, if you study law (or even just politics or history), you learn that any system set up with flaws like yours will eventually have those flaws exploited

.

Firstly, let me say in no uncertain terms, that I am not here to attack you in any way Funky. I, like other posters, merely wish to express/discuss the subject at hand.

As to flawed systems, I don't personally think that there is a system out there, be it law, economics, Vault voting, Reviewer's Guild scoring or AME regulations, that isn't flawed. If it can be made, it can be broken, tampered with etc...should a person wish to try and do so. That does not however mean, that that person won't be caught in the act, just that all things are possible.

You can only try and make something as fair and hopefully, impartial as possible, but no one person, or organization can guarantee 100% that it is full proof.

That's all completely true. The problem I have is that there are easy ways to make your system more fair and impartial, which I've already mentioned. The fact that flaws exist is not reason to fail to eliminate them where feasible.


I'm not a builder, CC creator. I'm a (sometime) reviewer, module player and a member of the AME since it began. let's say I've privately bug tested a module before it's been released to the Vault for public BETA testing. Now a year later, that module has been nominated in say, the RP category of the awards. However, before that certain module was nominated I made a nomination of my own in that category for a different module. I am now no longer allowed to participate in the whole RP category because I have had to vote a COI (conflict of interest) on the module that I privately bug tested.

How then am I able to exercise self-interest in getting my own nomination through to the finals? The only communication I have with my fellow AME members is via the AME forums. If I had wanted to, I could have kept quiet about bug testing privately and continued my participation in that whole category...if I had wanted to undermine the whole spirit of the AME that is.

*You* aren't, assuming the system works as you describe. The problem is that the others have incentives - that is to say, it's in their rational self-interest - to want to keep you happy, both as acquaintances/friends, and to retain you in the organization. They could easily act on those incentives, even without being consciously aware of them - it's a conflict of interest. Lawyers, despite all the jokes, have extensive rules dealing with such conflicts, in order to set up firewalls against them.

But I don't, and other members do not...because it is not in my or anyone else's interest to spend countless hours downloading, playing and testing content nominated by fellow AME members. It is not what the AME is about. We want to award a GDA to an author, module, tileset or other CC work because we as a group have expressed our admiration and respect for that work. Moreover, we believe, that above the other finalists, that work was the best of the three finalists that made it through.

Actually, if it's an activity you enjoy, for whatever reason, it absolutely is in your rational self-interest to do spend those countless hours. 'Rational self-interest' is a very broad standard, encompassing all sorts of motivation, and as a utilitarian standard, your enjoyment, your self-image as a community member, and much more, are all factored in. It's also a standard that makes several unrealistic assumptions, like perfect information - you should read up on it on Wikipedia if you're interested, as delving deeper into it would be straying pretty far afield.

I don't participate in all the GDA categories, ergo, I don't vote on all of them either. I trust and respect my fellow AME members, it is also a good bet that anyone who wanted to cheat wouldn't last the course because the whole AME system is a long and time consuming commitment...whatever categories you have committed to. Most people who want to ruin a system or use it to their own advantage, do not have the patience to spend months on and off seeing that self-interest through. It's not really like clicking a button to make a one time vote.

In most cases, the person acting out of an inappropriate motive wouldn't be trying to 'ruin' the system, and wouldn't think of themselves as doing anything nefarious - almost no one actually think's *they're* the bad guy. They might, for example, simply act out of loyalty - itself fairly admirable, but problematic where bias is a concern.

As for being 'hopelessly naive', guess I am, because if I were to work under your assumption that most of us work under the premise of 'rational self-interest' I would have closed the doors of the Reviewers Guild a long time ago. Why don't I? Because there are 178 people who read our last
mini review, 38 of them this month alone (in contrast to the 1000 reads per week we got a few years back) :o Whether it's a mini review or full one, our team spend hours playing, writing and then re-writing a review to follow our no doubt flawed, but I hope fair, guidelines. A reviewer will go through peer review that can be brutal, painful, funny and fun...and all so 178 people can read that review, never make a comment (good or bad) and perhaps glean some idea if that module is the kind of module they'd like to play.

I'm not clear on why you think your rational self-interest would lead you to close the guild, but I suspect it's because you're reading the term too narrowly, construing it as akin to greed, or purely monetary. See my remarks above.

The AME are no less dedicated than the Reviewers, and in many ways, more so because they work for months on end on nominations, testing and finals. In the end, I don't believe there has ever been a GDA awrded to an inferior module, author, tileset or other CC. Does anybody else think there has? If not, then how fawed is our system really?

That's sort of what I was getting at when I said this probably wasn't an earth shattering flaw, earlier. I'm focused on the system, not the results to date. I have no idea how fair or not the results have been thus far - I haven't really paid attention, since the information isn't of much relevance to my own NWN activities. I only know that there's a systemic flaw likely to create problems at some point. I think there would be serious questions about the result, if one of your members were to win - has any member won, in the past?

Did I do good or what? *grins and winks at Flunky*

Yes, thanks for not flipping out or getting all knee-jerk defensive, and for trying to understand the problem I'm getting at. I understand the problem AME faces when it comes to wanting to allow their members to be recognized like everyone else while wanting to apply a more selective set of criteria than public voting allows, and I sympathize, but the method by which you eliminated some undesirable voting inputs left the door open for others. Not being one who likes to criticize without offering a solution, I suggested a modified public voting system, which would have the added benefit of drawing more community participation. If, after you fully understand the problem I'm describing, that simply isn't palatable, then the alternatives aren't great. Increasing member count to dilute conflicts of interest is probably the best bet - just don't ask me how. :P

Funky
               
               

               


                     Modifié par FunkySwerve, 27 août 2011 - 04:52 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Zarathustra217 on August 27, 2011, 05:54:27 pm


               While economics is great for describing the flow of commodities, labour and holdings, it isn't always the best solution for assessing the subjective, the aesthetics and the arts. While I can relate to many of your concerns Funky, I don't feel it's accurate to compare it to a free market situation.

Rather, I think it's relevant to describe it in more psychological and sociological terms.

I truly believe it when you, the AME team, say that you genuinely aspire to be impartial and not favour friends and members of the group. The difficulty is - and this is what I consider the essence of the concern Funky voice - that perception, particularly in matters as these, is a very subjective thing.

Take this as an example:

"Sanctum of the Archmage" is not "only" an ambitious story within a rich setting that's heavy on character interaction and believable romance - another of its prominent features is the ongoing support and high level of polish. Although further installments of the series are still in the works, Andarian constantly upgraded and also completely overhauled the available chapters over the years with the inclusion of some of the community's best custom content available.


I haven't tried out the module, so I won't pretend to be in any place to question it - but merely reading this description makes it obvious how much of this is entirely subjective. How do you objectively assess if the romance is "believable"? And that it is more believable than other?

The answer is of course that you can't, and that you have to trust your intuition. This is not inherently a bad thing - a contest on purely objective terms wouldn't serve anyone - but it poses a challenge to those on the committee aspiring for impartiality. Not just to the extend that they have to be careful not letting their familiarity with the author colour the way they judge a work, to be more kind and flattering in the wording, but even down to the level of what they perceive when judging. If you often associate with a particular author, chances are you will have similar attention to certain things and have similar preferences in certain regards. You end up sharing the same notion of what believable romance is, and the same attention to what criteria it rely on.

I think this is from what the concern has it's legitimate origin. That there's a potential of a close knit group that mainly have eye for each other's things.
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_FunkySwerve on August 27, 2011, 06:01:35 pm


               

Arkalezth wrote...
This doesn't seem very on-topic to me. You can relate one thing to another infinitely, but the market economy in Europe doesn't have much to do with the AME.

The relation is far from infinite - market reasoning is central to the issue I'm discussing. I agree the response wandered somewhat far afeild, but responses to trolls, like that gentleman, often do, of necessity - when someone makes vague, unfounded accusations about spouting ideology, it's a little difficult to respond without straying somewhat afield. I suggest you take him to task, not me, and focus on my other remarks, which are still very much on topic.

The question was:

Arkalezth wrote...

I have a question for those who have a
bad perception of it from outside: take a look at the past awards
(finalists, winners...). Do you think any of them don't deserve it? Of
course, you may have a personal different favorite, but I don't think
you'll find a bad module or author among them.

Actually, as it happens, I just answered that in my last reply. I'm taking issue with the system, not the results to date. The system is flawed and likely to produce skewed outcomes. Whether it has done so already, I have no idea. And yes, that's certainly relevant to the seriousness of the flaw, as I note in my above response to marie.

Funky
               
               

               


                     Modifié par FunkySwerve, 27 août 2011 - 05:02 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_FunkySwerve on August 27, 2011, 06:13:59 pm


               

Zarathustra217 wrote...

While economics is great for describing the flow of commodities, labour and holdings, it isn't always the best solution for assessing the subjective, the aesthetics and the arts. While I can relate to many of your concerns Funky, I don't feel it's accurate to compare it to a free market situation.


Actually, economics (this is application of economic reasoning, NOT a comparison to a 'free market situation' - econ != free market)  does assess those things, by its very nature. While it's difficult, as you note, to answer a question like, 'what is the market value of a beautiful view?' directly, the market still has an answer. This is why houses in the foothills, or along beaches, for example, tend to be much pricier than their less-scenically situated counterparts. Likewise, subjective preference is encompassed in 'rational self-interest', though as you note it's often complicated, and has been the source of much scholarly dissent. One of the easier cases, for example, is that of the addict - should his getting a fix constitute his having satisfied his rational self-interest? Only a few hedonists think that it should, but you can see all sorts of less black-and-white avenues leading that direction.

Economics, by its nature, is a formulaic way of talking about all human concerns - sort of akin to psychohistory, if you're a fan of Asmiov - just much less advanced. :P


Rather, I think it's relevant to describe it in more psychological and sociological terms.
...
I think this is from what the concern has it's legitimate origin. That there's a potential of a close knit group that mainly have eye for each other's things.


Bingo. This is essentially what I'm gestting at, though you took a different road to get there. It's not so much that they're actively wanting to skew outcomes, just that, in some cases, they are likely to.

Funky
               
               

               


                     Modifié par FunkySwerve, 27 août 2011 - 05:16 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Elhanan on August 27, 2011, 06:34:46 pm


               All art is subjective, however. While the vast majority seem to love Casablanca, The Godfather series, Raging Bull, etc, my own thoughts lean away from them all. This does not equate them to being less worthy of the praise they have been given; just not getting any from me. Same goes for art that I enjoy; may not always be what garnishes attention. So be it.

Simply because a mod wins awards does not mean I will enjoy it or not; same goes for most recommendations. But I am more likely to try these mods as a rule because of the praise and reviews given by their peers. And that is what all of this seems to be about; awarding praise to what this body deems worthy. It is not an objective bunch of accountants placing the ballots in mason jars for the final talley.

Currently, I could care less of the film Academy as they have polluted their voting pool with other outside factors. And I have actually seen very few of the acclaimed films of the past 10+ yrs. But for now, the AME has provided a decent base of recommendations from which to utilize, and I commend them for striving towards excellence.
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Queensilverwing on August 27, 2011, 08:23:45 pm


               Gosh this is deep and I'm not trying to be facetious.

I'm taking issue with the system, not the results to date. The system is flawed and likely to produce skewed outcomes. Whether it has done so already, I have no idea. And yes, that's certainly relevant to the seriousness of the flaw, as I note in my above response to marie.


I like things simple, including my words. I simply don't understand how a system can be deemed flawed without it ever having been tested? If in 5 years of this system being in place, not one person (as yet) can come up with a single GDA winner which was not the crème de la crème of that years finalists, then how can you insist that the system is flawed, based solely on logical (perhaps) data and not actually the results of that system being in use?

All our opinions are subjective I agree. The write-up on the 'Sanctum of the Archmage' finalist was written by the very person who originally nominated Andarian for Veteran Author. Should he/she not have tried to express their reasons for such a nomination? We all, when making a nomination do our very best to express to the other members why we are making such a nomination. I certainly do not think I'm so important or liked that any single member of the AME are going to vote favourably on my nomination simply on my say so. Tehy'll go off and evaluate that nomination on their own, applying their own subjective views and the guidelines of what the AME are looking for in any single category to come to a decision.  

I'll be frank, I personally do not like the idea of any AME member being nominated for their work. Not however because they are not deserving, but because it raises eyebrows in some areas of the community. On the other hand is it fair, truly fair and honest of me, to deny an author or CC'er the right to have the chance at being awarded a GDA ?

The answer is no, it is not fair or right of me to penalize a person for wanting to give back to the community in their capacity as an AME member, at the cost of denying them the chance (if it comes up) at such an award. I'm wrong for ever thinking it, or that it could or indeed should work. That would have been the perfect system perhaps, but it would have been a sterile and ultimately immoral one.

But that is me. I vote on the MoTY, subjectively. I write reviews subjectively but guided by rules. I nominate and vote subjectively on the AME, and I'm OK with that, because I know that what I'm subjectively considering is content, not people or friends.

I'm really pleased to hear while there might be worries about the AME, overall, most feel we are trying to do something good within our community. I know that it means a lot to me and I'm sure other AME members. Y'all really should come and join us, we don't bite...much ;)

As for rational self-interest, pffft I'm not going there. Even the articles on the net can't agree on what it means....guess it's all subjective eh! :P
               
               

               


                     Modifié par Queensilverwing, 27 août 2011 - 07:27 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_jmlzemaggo on August 27, 2011, 09:21:44 pm


               

Queensilverwing wrote...
... I have had to vote a COI (conflict of interest) on the module that I privately bug tested. 

That is something I deeply don't understand. A subject which has been, sometimes even strongly, discussed in the AME forums. 
The way I see it, you shouldn't have to choose between being an NWN player and an AME member. Why are you an AME member, or a reviewer to the Guild in the first place: because you're a dedicated and concerned player. That’s the reason why you can pretend being a relevant, useful and valuable AME member. 
Now, if I follow your idea, does that mean you shouldn't help NWN builders? Littering your great knowledge of the game, just for being AME or a reviewer? Do you think NWN, and AME,'s got enough members to allow themselves such a luxury today? 
That would be a waste of your talent. On both sides, creation and awards.  
You didn't rewrite the story? You just helped making it playable? Well, nothing to say but our greatest thanks!  
Even more, I suppose you offered playtesting that particular module because you liked it, didn’t you? 
'meaning seeing it already... as a potential AME nomination perhaps? Legit.  
It's kind of contradictory. 
When I was AME myself, I tried to submit only one rule: no rules. And miserably failed... :D
No rules at all. But trust and respect, mixed with the most awake awareness. 


I'm deeply respectful with people offering some of their free time, and strong knowledge of that very game, to help its community. Both builders and judges. 
I trust, and trusted, every single AME member, and that was more than enough for me. 
Even to the point I believe the author of an AME nominated module itself should be allowed to vote for his own module for the GDA. Because he is a player. Before anything else. 
The "Double peine", in France, is now a prohibited sentence. One can’t be condamned twice, in two different ways, for the same single crime. 
So, for being an helpful, and very needed... just ask the builders how much they need playtesting... tester, you're holding, retaining, wasting your vote, or nomination even?
To that very module you believe being among the best ones out there?  
Now, what about a builder, when 'not voting' means voting against his own module, when it reaches the finals? 
I find it unfair. Worse: wrong. 
A pity and a waste to the whole community. 


You seem to like exemple? Here is the worse possible one: the AME chairman today, Andarian, is a builder himself. 
Unfortunatelly for him, among the best. 
Problem! His serie, « Sanctum of the Archmage Â», happens to be eligible this year. 


What should we do with this ‘situation’? Because this is the one we all have been talking about all the way here, lets be honnest. 
Now, I wanna tell you something: « Sanctum of the Archmage Â» is one of the most important modules ever written for NWN. 
Now, because of the many years he’s been already spending on it, NWN knowledge and talent combined, Andarian is probably the best chairman the AME could get today. 
Shall he be punished for being helpful. For free? 


So?
Just listen to my three personal answers to that situation:
This is a game. 
This is a game. 
This is a game. 
Can’t we just have fun? 
What is the point of gaming if it’s not being free... for a couple of hours. 
This is an entire new world. A new frontier to explore and enjoy. 
Let’s just do so, as long as it’s permitted. 
Even if it raises some eyebrows...
I do that with my kids sometimes: :huh:
They just laugh... :o

Just for the records:
I found very healthy, and even smart, some NWN players brought that subject up. 
That shows they're concerned and caring. And how much that community is wild awake.
And vigilant. 
Alive. 
               
               

               


                     Modifié par jmlzemaggo, 27 août 2011 - 08:41 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_WhiZard on August 27, 2011, 09:43:33 pm


               

jmlzemaggo wrote...
The "Double peine", in France, is now a prohibited sentence. One can’t be condamned twice, in two different ways, for the same single crime. 


*Bolding added* - Yep once you are in hell you are in hell.

On a more serious note the submitter does already get a chance to vote for his own module, its just on the vault voting.  Now if you added the vault voting in (maybe on a fractional vote scale from -1 to 1 vote or something like that) that might be enough substance to say that the public's opinion was looked at and used.  What Funky seems to be objecting to is that public reactions seem to be completely ignored even though for well done modules, those putting in their vote are often serious evaluators as well.
               
               

               


                     Modifié par WhiZard, 27 août 2011 - 08:44 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Queensilverwing on August 27, 2011, 10:27:28 pm


               

jmlzemaggo wrote...

Queensilverwing wrote...
... I have had to vote a COI (conflict of interest) on the module that I privately bug tested.

That is something I deeply don't understand. A subject which has been, sometimes even strongly, discussed in the AME forums.
The way I see it, you shouldn't have to choose between being an NWN player and an AME member.>>>>

<<<<<
Now, if I follow your idea, does that mean you shouldn't help NWN builders? Littering your great knowledge of the game, just for being AME or a reviewer? Do you think NWN, and AME,'s got enough members to allow themselves such a luxury today?
That would be a waste of your talent. On both sides, creation and awards.  
You didn't rewrite the story? You just helped making it playable? Well, nothing to say but our greatest thanks!  
Even more, I suppose you offered playtesting that particular module because you liked it, didn’t you?
'meaning seeing it already... as a potential AME nomination perhaps? Legit.  
It's kind of contradictory. >>>>>


Ahh jml my friend, but you see, I am not having to chose between one or the other when voting CoI. Just because I play test (privately remember!) a module, and maybe I even enjoyed it, does not mean that it would be a module I would nominate. If it is that good, I'm pretty sure it will be nominated, if it is not even considered, there is likely a very good reason why - it didn't make the cut.

I personally do not help play test often. I'm no longer a part of any group which could cause me a CoI, and so I'm as free to pick and choose what or who I'd like to nominate. As for self-voting or nominating *shakes wings and shivers* Well, that would pretty much put paid to the idea that your peers have awarded you a GDA wouldn't it?

*grins*

Even in a game that gives us great pleasure, there must be some limits, a line drawn. I'd love to slap an award on all the wonderful content out there...but then, to do so would somehow lesson its meaning and specialness (uhm, not sure if that IS a word but hey, I can make it up cos I'm a dragon right?)

The Vault gives us HoF, MoTY which is a huge accolade and the AME present a special award for a module, CC or author in a very specific category. Two out of those three are the voice of the NWN masses, and one is a small group of builders, CC'ers and players who offer an alternative view and award.

*Munches on a cream scone and considers how wonderful the NWN community is. *

Stimulating is not a big enough word for what you all are! ;)
               
               

               


                     Modifié par Queensilverwing, 27 août 2011 - 09:27 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_FunkySwerve on August 27, 2011, 10:33:56 pm


               

Queensilverwing wrote...


I'm taking issue with the system, not the results to date. The system is flawed and likely to produce skewed outcomes. Whether it has done so already, I have no idea. And yes, that's certainly relevant to the seriousness of the flaw, as I note in my above response to marie.


I like things simple, including my words. I simply don't understand how a system can be deemed flawed without it ever having been tested?


Very easily. We are not condemned to repeat past mistakes. Do you need to smoke cigarettes to know they're addictive? Obviously not. Similarly, theory draws on past experience to draw hypotheses which are tested, confirming or disconfirming them. This is basic scientific process used in just about every field, including social science. Examples are legion, but to keep it simple, let's go to nwscript. Here's a script to set a local object on a creature:


void main() {
    object oPC;
    SetLocalInt(oPC, "Variable", 1);
}

I don't need to compile and run this script to tell you that it's flawed - I can instead draw on my experience to realize that I haven't defined oPC. I haven't tested this very simple variable-setting system, but experience tells me it's flawed. Same as your voting system. Simple enough for you? :)

The study of law is, at it's essence, the study of systems of rules - what works, and what doesn't, and why. There is a crystal clear conflict-of-interest problem here, stemming from your considering nominations within your own ranks. And frankly, the simple refusal of many of your members to see or admit it, despite claims that they deliberated at length on the issue, and therefore must have realized the complication, doesn't speak particularly well for their judgment or impartiality.

Funky
               
               

               


                     Modifié par FunkySwerve, 27 août 2011 - 09:35 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Queensilverwing on August 27, 2011, 10:56:34 pm


               Yip simple...and appears logical. Then again, I have a brother-in-law who talks in such a way as to make the listener believe he has a great command and grasp on any given subject, and he puts forth his arguments with such apparent logic, that it isn't until later that I sit there and think/realise that he just shovelled me a pile of horse manure and I swallowed it!

Not that I'm saying you're full of *hit, not at all! I just have a natural distrust of people who can discuss emotive subjects with such apparent emotionless. Then again, I'd make a baaaaad law maker, so a little distance is to be admired on occasion.

That said, I cannot deny your reasoning on the subject of member nominations. But that is where we veer  apart. We have had some of the most amazing module authors and CC creators in our group, if we discount their undoubtedly high calibre of work, what are we really saying to the community?

Sorry folks, you got the next best thing on XY & Z category because the really excellent works were by an author who is an AME member?

It IS a damnable problem, I admit it. However, we have I think managed to avoid the pitfalls you are worried about for the last 5 years...I honestly believe that. I don't know what the future holds, but I do know that should I ever have reason to question something like that in an award year, I like all the other members would pull up sticks and leave the awards. I don't want a friend to win, I want the best to win, even if that means I have to vote against a friends work or nomination.

When I think about it, it really is that simple. And gods you know how I like simple! *chuckles*
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Elhanan on August 27, 2011, 11:01:15 pm


               And again, art is subjective; not the comparison of flawed scripts, warning labels, or even perfectly drawn chisel of brush strokes in the piece. So is the work of the art critic. Opinions all.

If the artist (or critic) were to submit their own piece and vote on it for an award, objections might be valid.  But to insist that all nominees were required to be non-members would offer in it's own issues. Besides the problem of fairness, removing their works diminishes the remaining pool of nominations, as well as the pool of critics willing to serve.

While the AME may have members that garnish awards, so does the film Academy. I see no problems, and seem to note several that are willing  police their own to insure a lack of bias.
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_AndarianTD on August 27, 2011, 11:04:26 pm


               

FunkySwerve wrote...

I only know that there's a systemic flaw likely to create problems at some point. I think there would be serious questions about the result, if one of your members were to win - has any member won, in the past?


I answered this in my very first response to you on the thread, Funky:

AndarianTD wrote...

The AME has nominated and awarded individuals who have served on the panel for years, ever since Ragnarok_MR4 won Best Custom Content for his ACP animations back during our very first cycle.


It doesn't happen that frequently, but it has happened a few times.

Since I'm sure you'll want to try to use me as the "obvious counter-example," though, let me get that out of the way for you. Sanctum 2 won the Best Roleplaying GDA for 2007. I will also point out, however, that it ALSO won the Bronze MOTY that year (and that it was common knowledge at the time that it would have won the Silver if the Layonara Project Team hadn't stuffed the ballots for their candidate); that it has a 9.8 rating on the Vault; and that it's consistently been in the "Top 50" front page list there for most of the time since it was released. (And BTW, the AME nominated the module that shafted it for the Silver MOTY anyway. The panel was that fair.)

Sanctum 1, on the other hand, which is currently # 35 on the Vault with a 9.82 rating, was never nominated by the AME. I was nominated for it as Debut Author of 2006, but lost -- to Fester Pot, for Almraiven, one of the most brilliant NWN authors and modules in the community's history, and who even *I* think deserved the award over me.

So do tell us, please, what you make of all this evidence. Does it show AME's voting system failing to work? Or does it show, as I think it does, precisely the opposite: a system that allows a deserving author member to be nominated, and to win when he should, and not when he shouldn't?

As I wrote before, one of the problems with your so-called "theory" here is that it cuts both ways -- and that you're unwilling to face and address the fact that it does, or the implications of that fact. Let's say that Ragnarok_mr4 -- who won Best CC of 2006 for his ACP Animations, and which I think richly deserved it -- hadn't been eligible for the award. Then who would have been nominated and won instead? Someone that would have received it, unearned and on the rebound -- for no other reason than that the actually deserving author that should have received it instead was a member of the Academy. You're quick to allege that the AME's voting rules "might" lead to a non-objective or non-optimal result if members are eligible for nomination, but strangely silent on the at least equally likely scenario of this happening on the reverse case. And you completely ignore the fact that refusing to allow members to be nominated would scare away the builder volunteers that the Academy would need to function effectively in the first place.
               
               

               


                     Modifié par AndarianTD, 27 août 2011 - 10:10 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Bannor Bloodfist on August 27, 2011, 11:31:41 pm


               Folks, stop feeding the troll please.

He has proven that he doesn't really care what anyone else's answer may be.

He has proven that he can't answer direct challenges to his supposed conflict of interest charges, simply because there are none.

He has been asked to join the system, and directly refused to do so.
He has been asked to prove that the system is broken, he can't.
His opinions on human nature mean absolutely nothing as they are just his opinions.
His quasi claims to knowing law and economics have no bearing on the AME whatsoever.
He has been asked to simply ignore a system he thinks is flawed, but he can't seem to do that.
He has made promises directly in this thread to no longer post about it,  Yet he has, multiple times.

If that is not troll behavior by a conspiracy theorist (which he hates being called on the carpet for, likely due to his guilt by association), I have no idea what else you would call it.

He raised an issue, which has been answered by how that issue is handled within the AME by precluding any member from even being counted in any votes on that particular category..  NO system is perfect.  Adding public votes won't change anything.  Besides which, the two public voting systems available are already there so no reason to add a 3rd.

No one expects everyone to agree on everything.  No one forces ANYONE to take a Golden Dragon award.  In fact, folks are allowed to remove their works from consideration if they so choose.  No one forces anyone to even read the announcements etc.  If anyone hates the IDEA of the AME and the GDA award soo much, just walk away from it.  Stop attempting to knock it down on some personal belief that you personally can not be honest enough to give a valid vote on something, especially when you decide to create a new award, and give it to yourself, just to prove how dishonest you can be?  
It truly is sad that someone has to take personal likes/dislikes to such extremes.

Geeze, if that is not trolling behavior, I certainly do not understand what trolling really is.

Funky has some good ideas, especially for helping protect PW servers etc.  But his "opinions" on human nature have no bearing here at all.  Especially when he can find no proof of said negative behavior in regards to the AME at all.  The reason he can't is simply because the AME folks have taken their toils to heart, and are honest, hardworking folks whom only wish to HELP the community to find truly good/great releases that might otherwise not have gained the attention they deserve.  

Does the "opinion" of the AME matter to anyone?  Many folks find it helps them to find the jewels hidden among the dross on the vault.  Saves them time trying out everything that gets released etc.  So that they can spend whatever free time they devote to NWN by playing with something truly worth the time.  If you DON"T like how the AME does it's job, simply ignore the award(s) and go your own way.  The AME won't mind, neither will the rest of us.  But knocking the AME on the mistaken belief that they are flawed, is ludicrous.  No proof can be offered that they have mistakenly voted something in that didn't deserve the vote.  Could it happen?  Possibly, but not with the current membership and how they do things, but even if it did happen, sometime far in the future, by some new membership that didn't care to be honest and trustworthy, it still would not break anyone's enjoyment of the game of NWN.  It wouldn't end the world, it wouldn't even cost you anything out of your bank account.  So, what's the big deal?
               
               

               


                     Modifié par Bannor Bloodfist, 27 août 2011 - 10:32 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_FunkySwerve on August 28, 2011, 01:20:19 am


               

AndarianTD wrote...

FunkySwerve wrote...

I only know that there's a systemic flaw likely to create problems at some point. I think there would be serious questions about the result, if one of your members were to win - has any member won, in the past?


I answered this in my very first response to you on the thread, Funky:

AndarianTD wrote...

The AME has nominated and awarded individuals who have served on the panel for years, ever since Ragnarok_MR4 won Best Custom Content for his ACP animations back during our very first cycle.


It doesn't happen that frequently, but it has happened a few times.


Thanks, I missed that. That, in itself, is troubling. Of course, this could be spun either way - either the AME tends to pick its own, or they're good at picking quality authors. There's no way to tell chicken from egg, there. Which, of course, is why it's a problem of appearances.

Since I'm sure you'll want to try to use me as the "obvious counter-example,"

Counter-example to what?

So do tell us, please, what you make of all this evidence. Does it show AME's voting system failing to work? Or does it show, as I think it does, precisely the opposite: a system that allows a deserving author member to be nominated, and to win when he should, and not when he shouldn't?

As I note above, there isn't going to be a smoking gun one way or the other - we can't peek into your heads. The fact that it's happened a number of times certainly looks bad, but even that isn't 'proof' that this flaw has expressed itself.

As I wrote before, one of the problems with your so-called "theory" here is that it cuts both ways -- and that you're unwilling to face and address the fact that it does, or the implications of that fact. Let's say that Ragnarok_mr4 -- who won Best CC of 2006 for his ACP Animations, and which I think richly deserved it -- hadn't been eligible for the award. Then who would have been nominated and won instead? Someone that would have received it, unearned and on the rebound -- for no other reason than that the actually deserving author that should have received it instead was a member of the Academy.

My only 'theory', as you put it, is that there is an obvious flaw with your voting system. It doesn't 'cut both ways', as you put it. It's certainly true that making members noneligible could result in awards going to the less deserving - I certainly haven't denied that, and have actually acknowledged that as part of the problem, if you trouble yourself to read what I've written. That's why I suggested a modified public voting system as the best alternative - it's not burdened by such an issue.

You're quick to allege that the AME's voting rules "might" lead to a non-objective or non-optimal result if members are eligible for nomination, but strangely silent on the at least equally likely scenario of this happening on the reverse case.

There is no 'reverse case' - there are a number of options, each with their own problems, and none of which I've been slient about, strangely or otherwise. My first suggestion, a modified public voting system, was rejected out of hand as insufficiently exclusive. Blocking nominations of member works risks excluding the best candidate, as you point out. Adding members, which would dilute the effects of self dealing, has feasibility issues. We're not living in a binary world, where there are only two possible solutions. What a bizarre straw man.

And you completely ignore the fact that refusing to allow members to be nominated would scare away the builder volunteers that the Academy would need to function effectively in the first place.

No, I don't - as I said to pstmarie, if you don't want to allow public voting, none of the remaining solutions looks terribly appealing - in part because of the desire to retain members, which I have actually discussed at length as part of the bias issue - again, if you bother to read and understand what I've written.

Funky
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_FunkySwerve on August 28, 2011, 01:42:08 am


               
Quote
Bannor Bloodfist wrote...

Folks, stop feeding the troll please.

He has proven that he doesn't really care what anyone else's answer may be.

He has proven that he can't answer direct challenges to his supposed conflict of interest charges, simply because there are none.

What an inane pile of babble. I'll address your points briefly, but it's clear that you have no interest in trying to understand what I'm saying - kindly stop attacking me, and let me discuss the issue with the more rational AME members.
Quote

He has been asked to join the system, and directly refused to do so.

Completely true. It wouldn't fix anything, as I already noted, not without a whole lot of other people joining as well. I also don't really regard myself as possessing expertise of the kind you're looking for - my expertise runs more to identifying specious logic and absurd accusations, like the ones in your post. :P
Quote

He has been asked to prove that the system is broken, he can't.

Actually, I have. What I haven't proven is that the broken system has already produced broken results - such a proof is impossible without omniscience, so decrying my not having done so is patently absurd.
Quote

His opinions on human nature mean absolutely nothing as they are just his opinions.

Actually, they're not just my opinions. They're the underpnnings of the global market economy. Ignore them at your peril. :P
Quote

His quasi claims to knowing law and economics have no bearing on the AME whatsoever.

Oooh, 'quasi'. That sure sounds BAD. I wonder if even you know what you meant to say there. I'm a licensed attorney, no quasi about it, and I studied and tutored econ in undergrad, as well as studying the field of economics and law in law school. If you want to tell me that the study of rules has no bearing on the AME's system of rules for nominations, well, then there's no helping you. :P
Quote

He has been asked to simply ignore a system he thinks is flawed, but he can't seem to do that.

Begging your pardon? Where was I asked to ignore it? The last 'request' I saw of any kind was a request for feedback, which I've given despite your extreme belligerence.
Quote

He has made promises directly in this thread to no longer post about it,  Yet he has, multiple times.

Begging your pardon, but I didn't 'promise' anything. I said I wouldn't post about it after yesterday, but have been forced to post in order to clarify points I've already made - in part, by you. Objecting to my responding to you is more than a little silly.
Quote

If that is not troll behavior by a conspiracy theorist (which he hates being called on the carpet for, likely due to his guilt by association), I have no idea what else you would call it.

I have no idea what you're trying to say, there, but it was me that was teasing you about conspiracy theorizing, if you look back. It had to do with you muttering suspiciously about why I picked now to post these concerns - after having been asked for feedback. :P

Quote

He raised an issue, which has been answered by how that issue is handled within the AME by precluding any member from even being counted in any votes on that particular category..  NO system is perfect.  Adding public votes won't change anything.  Besides which, the two public voting systems available are already there so no reason to add a 3rd.

The problem is, that you haven't addressed it. Rather, you've tried to pretend it away, misconstrue it, and make every possible sort of inane excuse or denial of and for it.
Quote

No one expects everyone to agree on everything.  No one forces ANYONE to take a Golden Dragon award.  In fact, folks are allowed to remove their works from consideration if they so choose.  No one forces anyone to even read the announcements etc.  If anyone hates the IDEA of the AME and the GDA award soo much, just walk away from it.  Stop attempting to knock it down on some personal belief that you personally can not be honest enough to give a valid vote on something, especially when you decide to create a new award, and give it to yourself, just to prove how dishonest you can be?  

I love that you're trying to make this about me being dishonest. :P My concerns with your voting system are based on extremely basic precepts of economic theory, which aren't even trivially disputed within or without the field. They have nothing to do with honesty, and everything to do with self-interest.
Quote

It truly is sad that someone has to take personal likes/dislikes to such extremes.

Again, I have no idea what you're talking about. Do you have some sort of personal beef with me? It'd certainly explain the character of your replies.
Quote

Geeze, if that is not trolling behavior, I certainly do not understand what trolling really is.

You're absolutely correct! You clearly don't. :P
Quote

Funky has some good ideas, especially for helping protect PW servers etc.  But his "opinions" on human nature have no bearing here at all.

I covered this above - you really shouldn't scarequote one of your own labels, by the way - it indicates skepticism about the term. Doh.
Quote

 Especially when he can find no proof of said negative behavior in regards to the AME at all.  The reason he can't is simply because the AME folks have taken their toils to heart, and are honest, hardworking folks whom only wish to HELP the community to find truly good/great releases that might otherwise not have gained the attention they deserve.

Actually, no, the reason I can't is, as noted above, I'm not omniscient. Unless one of you was dumb enough to write something like 'I R voting for this cuz author is my best buddy' in a public place, such proof is simply unavailable. That doesn't mean there's no problem, however, as I've already pointed out several times. Again, the kind of bias that I'm concerned with needn't even be of the conscious variety.
Quote

Does the "opinion" of the AME matter to anyone?  Many folks find it helps them to find the jewels hidden among the dross on the vault.  Saves them time trying out everything that gets released etc.  So that they can spend whatever free time they devote to NWN by playing with something truly worth the time.  If you DON"T like how the AME does it's job, simply ignore the award(s) and go your own way.  The AME won't mind, neither will the rest of us.  But knocking the AME on the mistaken belief that they are flawed, is ludicrous.  No proof can be offered that they have mistakenly voted something in that didn't deserve the vote.  Could it happen?  Possibly, but not with the current membership and how they do things, but even if it did happen, sometime far in the future, by some new membership that didn't care to be honest and trustworthy, it still would not break anyone's enjoyment of the game of NWN.  It wouldn't end the world, it wouldn't even cost you anything out of your bank account.  So, what's the big deal?

No one is knocking the AME. You asked for feedback, and I expressed a concern, and you proceeded to rabidly knock *me*, calling me a troll, and carrying on about how I have some mysterious grudge and am conspiring against you, in truly paranoid fashion. You didn't like the concern, so suddenly you don't want that feedback you were asking for. Funny that. :P Again, I'll ask that you please leave the discussion to the more level-headed members of the group, of which there thankfully appear to be a few.

Funky
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_FunkySwerve on August 28, 2011, 01:54:25 am


               

Queensilverwing wrote...

Yip simple...and appears logical. Then again, I have a brother-in-law who talks in such a way as to make the listener believe he has a great command and grasp on any given subject, and he puts forth his arguments with such apparent logic, that it isn't until later that I sit there and think/realise that he just shovelled me a pile of horse manure and I swallowed it!

Not that I'm saying you're full of *hit, not at all! I just have a natural distrust of people who can discuss emotive subjects with such apparent emotionless. Then again, I'd make a baaaaad law maker, so a little distance is to be admired on occasion.

That said, I cannot deny your reasoning on the subject of member nominations. But that is where we veer  apart. We have had some of the most amazing module authors and CC creators in our group, if we discount their undoubtedly high calibre of work, what are we really saying to the community?

Sorry folks, you got the next best thing on XY & Z category because the really excellent works were by an author who is an AME member?

It IS a damnable problem, I admit it. However, we have I think managed to avoid the pitfalls you are worried about for the last 5 years...I honestly believe that. I don't know what the future holds, but I do know that should I ever have reason to question something like that in an award year, I like all the other members would pull up sticks and leave the awards. I don't want a friend to win, I want the best to win, even if that means I have to vote against a friends work or nomination.

When I think about it, it really is that simple. And gods you know how I like simple! *chuckles*


Thank you for your reasoned reply. I'll save the teasing about how I'm suspiciously logical and dispassionate for another time. :P I wish I had a better solution to offer, but without public voting, I just can't think of anything that would improve things without making them worse elsewhere. Perhaps the AME could certify voters somehow? Even that seems like a potential bureaucratic mess for marginal gains...

Funky
               
               

               


                     Modifié par FunkySwerve, 28 août 2011 - 12:54 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Shia Luck on August 28, 2011, 02:14:27 am


               HI all :)

Just like to say I don'tlike the way this thread has gone. The complete quality of the people responding in this thread has been shown over many years and many forum posts and you are all wonderful members of the community, and it seems sad to me that you stand and fight for... well, seemingly... actually let's leave how it all seems out of this.

IMHO, Funky has a non practical, but completely possible point about non concious influence.

The AME members have a lot of practical points about how the system does a lot more good than harm.

Stop fighting, no?

So far as I can see you all do your very best for the NWN community, in very different areas which don't overlap.

Why not just leave it as that? 

...

(TBH, I just find it ironic that economics is being used to justify the "Ethical" viewpoint, while ethics is being used to justify the "practical viewpoint *grin* )

Have fun , and please stop arguing :)
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_olivier leroux on August 28, 2011, 03:55:40 am


               I acknowledge the point about potential risks of unconscious influence. It's certainly something to take into consideration, especially with the AME's unfortunately small number of members at the moment. And it's not as if we haven't extensively discussed this matter internally, with different opinions. But these risks are always present, it doesn't stop with excluding AME members from being nominated. The NWN community is comparatively small and a lot of players, builders and CC creators are 'friends' and treat each other favorably. If you'd exclude AME members from being nominated, you'd still have no guarantee that AME members won't vote for their 'friends' who are not AME members. And if you'd make the voting public and let everyone participate, you'd have no guarantee either that the winner wasn't chosen because he or she is the most popular, the one with the most friends among voters.

The AME tries its best to minimize such influence, on the one hand by appealing to the member's honor and responsibilty, on the other hand by strict regulations regarding conflicts of interest. It's a system based on both rules and trust. Is it perfect and 100% fool-proof? Of course not - show me a system that is. But I wouldn't call it flawed, a lot of thought has gone into it over the years, and it seems good enough, if not the best possible solution considering the AME's purpose.

And the purpose of the AME, in my eyes, is neither to be the measure of all things by dictating what is 'objectively' the best (such a notion would be quite ridiculous, IMO), nor to determine who and what is the most popular, but to give qualified recommendations by experienced and passionate people who have had a closer look at the available content of a given year (or in a specific category), and to thank the according authors for their contribution by awarding them. "The Best Role-Playing Module", for example, means nothing more than "The Best Role-Playing Module according to the majority vote of AME members", who naturally, even when picking out quality content, all have their own preferences, and all this should be obvious.

As others have said, community members can take these recommendations or ignore them, everyone's allowed their own opinion on the winners and the credibility of the awards. There's no prize money, the winners won't make it on no magazine cover, all they ever gain is a little additional recognition and a GDA banner for their Vault page, so provided the system is theoretically open for abuse and someone actually manages to bypass all control mechanisms, would that really be such a big deal in the end? Anyone is welcome to join the AME, share their own playing and modding experiences and help to ensure that there's a wide variety among the tastes and preferences of AME members. And if someone wanted to form their own jury and awards instead, based on their own voting system and credibility, that would be perfectly fine, too. NWN can only win.

I understand the questions you raised, Funky, and I appreciate the feedback, but I'm not sure where your reasoning is meant to lead us eventually, and if it's really constructive criticism. So far you haven't gone into detail how you'd imagine a system of public voting for the AME and what would distinguish it from the MotY contest or casting votes on Vault pages. Can you actually come up with a public system that is beneficial to the community and better at avoiding all risks of favoritism than the AME's current one? And in keeping with the AME's purpose as I described it above? Or are you just aiming at the abolition of the AME by replacing it with another - and therefor quite redundant - popularity poll system (which would add up to nothing but one community service less, whether you liked it or not)?
               
               

               


                     Modifié par olivier leroux, 28 août 2011 - 04:16 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_FunkySwerve on August 28, 2011, 07:18:12 am


               Hey, oliver, thanks also for a thoughtful reply.

olivier leroux wrote...
The AME tries its best to minimize such influence, on the one hand by appealing to the member's honor and responsibilty, on the other hand by strict regulations regarding conflicts of interest. It's a system based on both rules and trust. Is it perfect and 100% fool-proof? Of course not - show me a system that is. But I wouldn't call it flawed, a lot of thought has gone into it over the years, and it seems good enough, if not the best possible solution considering the AME's purpose.

My point isn't that the AME system isn't perfect, but that it could be better. Most systems of rules can, though it isn't always worth the trouble.

And the purpose of the AME, in my eyes, is neither to be the measure of all things by dictating what is 'objectively' the best (such a notion would be quite ridiculous, IMO), nor to determine who and what is the most popular, but to give qualified recommendations by experienced and passionate people who have had a closer look at the available content of a given year (or in a specific category), and to thank the according authors for their contribution by awarding them. "The Best Role-Playing Module", for example, means nothing more than "The Best Role-Playing Module according to the majority vote of AME members", who naturally, even when picking out quality content, all have their own preferences, and all this should be obvious.

The problem there is that, by calling something the best, you are asserting some kind of objective measure - otherwise the award would be meaningless. Indeed, the point of AME, as it's been described here, is to apply a MORE critical, experienced, and evenhanded standard than that of the Vault. I don't think you really mean to relinquish claim to some form of objectivity, though the point that perfect objectivity isn't possible is well taken.

And if someone wanted to form their own jury and awards instead, based on their own voting system and credibility, that would be perfectly fine, too. NWN can only win.

I disagree with that, but that would require a more complicated economic analysis than those already set down in this thread. Suffice it to say, I'm not looking to replace the AME, just at ways to improve it.

I understand the questions you raised, Funky, and I appreciate the feedback, but I'm not sure where your reasoning is meant to lead us eventually, and if it's really constructive criticism. So far you haven't gone into detail how you'd imagine a system of public voting for the AME and what would distinguish it from the MotY contest or casting votes on Vault pages.

Actually, I did mention some details early on, but the notion of public voting was rejected pretty quickly as being counter to the purpose of the AME. If you're open to the notion, I'm happy to elaborate. I think it's the best option, if disallowing submissions by AME members is a nonstarter, but your other remarks below make me think you're not so open to it.

Can you actually come up with a public system that is beneficial to the community and better at avoiding all risks of favoritism than the AME's current one? And in keeping with the AME's purpose as I described it above?

This question is...somewhat fraught with complexity - the answer is that it depends on how you define the AME's purpose. With regard to favoritism, yes, absolutely. If, however, a core part of the AME's purpose is to solicit only a certain class of opinion, rather than what some above described as a 'popularity contest', then it's less clear. If you can crystallize that purpose a bit, I could answer. I've seen a few different explanations of what the AME dislikes about the Vault system, not necessarily mutually exclusive ones. For example:
-Do you want to exclude anyone without a certain type of experience? What type or types of experience do you want to require?
-Do you want to exclude only 'fanboy' votes, as someone else above termed them, meaning votes, presumably, which don't really have bearing on the material being voted on, but rather that of previous work?
-Do you want to require simple playthrough of the material, or more involved examination?
-Are you simply trying to guard against fast, arbitrary assessments like 'I can't load it it R teh suxxormax', or something more?

There are myriad ways to craft rules to serve most of those goals, depending on the specifics. First, though, let's get specific. As I mentioned above, vote certification of some kind is a potential compromise solution, but it's feasibility and benefit are dependant on the current situation. How many members of AME are there at present? I tally 45 votes in the custom content poll for september, by way of comparison.

Funky
               
               

               


                     Modifié par FunkySwerve, 28 août 2011 - 06:19 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Quillmaster on August 28, 2011, 10:12:31 am


               

FunkySwerve wrote...

In any event, my point has been made. Do with it what you will. In the interest of community harmony, I won't post on it again after today.

Funky


Your day is up.  Please let others make of it what they will, and allow us to move on with what we enjoy... sampling the best of what the community has to offer.
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Zarathustra217 on August 28, 2011, 10:53:51 am


               

FunkySwerve wrote...

Zarathustra217 wrote...

While economics is great for describing the flow of commodities, labour and holdings, it isn't always the best solution for assessing the subjective, the aesthetics and the arts. While I can relate to many of your concerns Funky, I don't feel it's accurate to compare it to a free market situation.


Actually, economics (this is application of economic reasoning, NOT a comparison to a 'free market situation' - econ != free market)  does assess those things, by its very nature. While it's difficult, as you note, to answer a question like, 'what is the market value of a beautiful view?' directly, the market still has an answer. This is why houses in the foothills, or along beaches, for example, tend to be much pricier than their less-scenically situated counterparts.


That I mention a free market situation is merely because you use that as example for part of your reasoning yourself.

FunkySwerve wrote...
Likewise, subjective preference is encompassed in 'rational self-interest', though as you note it's often complicated, and has been the source of much scholarly dissent. One of the easier cases, for example, is that of the addict - should his getting a fix constitute his having satisfied his rational self-interest? Only a few hedonists think that it should, but you can see all sorts of less black-and-white avenues leading that direction.

Economics, by its nature, is a formulaic way of talking about all human concerns - sort of akin to psychohistory, if you're a fan of Asmiov - just much less advanced.


And that is exactly why it isn't very good at describing things such as art and beauty, because these terms in their essence caries a strong element of non-structualism. Of course, that's a rather fundamental metaphysical debate, but what concerns me is mainly that you present is as 'given'. It's quite far from what is the common conception carried by current acedemic philosophical society.

What a side-point though! Back to the matter at hand.

I'll be frank, I personally do not like the idea of any AME
member being nominated for their work. Not however because they are not
deserving, but because it raises eyebrows in some areas of the
community.


I find this concern very important too, but not just because the AME should avoid to upset some tiny yet vocal minority. Rather, I find that for the AME to truly be respected, it has to establish a large amount of trust. You cannot simply sit down and start acting as official judge of what is good and bad without it being prone to seem intimidating - even provacative - and particularly when establishing a reward for something this subjective makes you particularly prone to questions of impartiality and bias toward friends.

Whether the AME has by now earned the respect and trust to not worry about such accusations, I am not in the position to say - but it's obvious that it's a concern to take seriously.

On the other hand is it fair, truly fair and honest of me, to
deny an author or CC'er the right to have the chance at being awarded a
GDA ?

The answer is no, it is not fair or right of me to
penalize a person for wanting to give back to the community in their
capacity as an AME member, at the cost of denying them the chance (if it
comes up) at such an award. I'm wrong for ever thinking it, or that it
could or indeed should work. That would have been the perfect system
perhaps, but it would have been a sterile and ultimately immoral one.


I don't think it's a matter of any fundamental 'right' to be awarded a GDA. It's entirely something you've constructed yourself, after all. It's up to you to assess whether the necessity of having everyone eligible candidates (even AME members) outweights the concerns involved, and if you could do more to earn credibility in that regard. Perhaps it's a matter of excluding those potentially nominated from participating in discussing their own category? Perhaps do more to clarify the measurements you take to prevent bias? Perhaps make a jury for each category that is elected by the respective part of the community?

Let me make it clear though, I appreciate every initiative to bring the community to life and continue to run, and I honestly do not feel I'm enough active in this part of the community to really say if there's a critical issue here. But the discussion was opened, and it was opened because of lack of response and reaction to the initial posts. To me, if I was the AME, that would be a worrying sign. If it's related to a crisis of credibility I don't know, but it seems that something has to be done to reach more out to the community.
               
               

               


                     Modifié par Zarathustra217, 28 août 2011 - 11:38 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_WebShaman on August 28, 2011, 01:09:32 pm


               

sampling the best of what the community has to offer.


SOME of the best - and that is a given, I think.  But there is a whole lot more out there, that I haven't seen "offered"...

Of course, due to my personal tastes and dislikes, I am biased ;)  My rational self-interest is seeping through here...

I will say that I am somewhat appalled at some of the responses to someone's asked for feedback.  Especially a feedback that is most informative, and quite rational.

Whatever.

Well, Funky, you were always a unique individual, and you will continue to be one, especially here.  Keep holding the flame, man.

This community would be poorer without you.

No more to see from me here.  I think the issue will not be addressed, and will continue as it has.  Well, the point was raised, and feedback gathered.  It would seem that a line in the sand was drawn, and minds are set.

Reminds me of an issue that we had not all that long ago.
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_olivier leroux on August 28, 2011, 01:35:25 pm


               

FunkySwerve wrote...
This question is...somewhat fraught with complexity - the answer is that it depends on how you define the AME's purpose. With regard to favoritism, yes, absolutely. If, however, a core part of the AME's purpose is to solicit only a certain class of opinion, rather than what some above described as a 'popularity contest', then it's less clear. If you can crystallize that purpose a bit, I could answer. I've seen a few different explanations of what the AME dislikes about the Vault system, not necessarily mutually exclusive ones. For example:
-Do you want to exclude anyone without a certain type of experience? What type or types of experience do you want to require?
-Do you want to exclude only 'fanboy' votes, as someone else above termed them, meaning votes, presumably, which don't really have bearing on the material being voted on, but rather that of previous work?
-Do you want to require simple playthrough of the material, or more involved examination?
-Are you simply trying to guard against fast, arbitrary assessments like 'I can't load it it R teh suxxormax', or something more?

There are myriad ways to craft rules to serve most of those goals, depending on the specifics. First, though, let's get specific. As I mentioned above, vote certification of some kind is a potential compromise solution, but it's feasibility and benefit are dependant on the current situation. How many members of AME are there at present? I tally 45 votes in the custom content poll for september, by way of comparison.


I think I did already define the AME's purpose above and it's different than the Vault ratings' purpose for a reason. The thing is, it's not about the "AME disliking the Vault system" (I for one don't dislike it), it's just that I see no reason to mimic it when it's already present as an option. So what would your system set apart from it?

Personally I don't see the GDAs as some kind of elitist awards that are better than the rest but as an interesting alternative that complements the already existing public options of voting. A simple playthrough is enough for a player to participate in the voting process for a module category, but for us it is important that the players make themselves familiar with all the finalists before casting their vote for the winner, so that candidates who didn't get a lot of attention yet get a chance to win, too - that's the type of experience that is definitely required. Of course that is a matter of trust and everyone's own responsibility, but the AME members are not anonymous, you can check out who they are by reading the Bio thread on our forums, and they are also chosen on the ground of appearing reliable and responsible. So yes, it is all subjective and all opinions but you know where it's coming from, and AME members stand for it with their name, plus they are to a certain extent able to control and question each other's reasoning.

When you have a completely anonymous system like the Custom Content poll, you won't know who participated in the voting (I don't mean who voted for what but who actually participated) and for what reasons. You wouldn't even notice when someone with more than one account votes several times for their own choice or when someone mobilizes all their friends to vote for the same. And you had even less means to ascertain that the voters are really familiar with all the candidates. I don't see how that would help to increase the awards' credibility. It would just turn them into something completely different.

(Besides, I doubt it makes much sense to take the participation in the "Custom Content Challenge" poll as a measure for potential AME participation. You don't have to be familiar with anything to cast a vote in that poll, it's a wishlist not a rating poll, entirely based on personal preferences and doesn't require any research or responsibility.)

But by all means, if I'm wrong and you actually do have a good idea to address all these issues to everyone's satisfaction, helping the AME to improve, I'd be curious to hear it. And I mean it. It would certainly be more constructive and more interesting to read than metadiscussions, mutual reproaches and abstract thoughts about economy, no matter from what side.
               
               

               


                     Modifié par olivier leroux, 28 août 2011 - 01:07 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_olivier leroux on August 28, 2011, 01:47:15 pm


               

Zarathustra217 wrote...
Perhaps it's a matter of excluding those potentially nominated from participating in discussing their own category?


I think that's a good thought, to complement the rules already in place. Not that it would change the outward appearance but it's still something to consider for ourselves.
               
               

               


                     Modifié par olivier leroux, 28 août 2011 - 12:47 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_olivier leroux on August 28, 2011, 02:03:32 pm


               

WebShaman wrote...

sampling the best of what the community has to offer.


SOME of the best - and that is a given, I think.  But there is a whole lot more out there, that I haven't seen "offered"...

Of course, due to my personal tastes and dislikes, I am biased ;)  My rational self-interest is seeping through here...


Naturally. I think it would be pretentious if someone claimed he was absolutely free in their decisions, regardless of personal tastes and dislikes. That doesn't mean everyone is acting out of selfish interest but personally I'm convinced that the definition of "best" is always subjective and depending on one's own - or a community's - preset standards. But, believe me, even AME members don't always get their way, because that's democracy. And in democracy it's always easier to complain about what others decide than to participate in the decisive process yourself (at the risk of having to compromise).

If the outcome is not to your satisfaction, why not join and try to change things? I think the reluctance of community members to help the AME by joining is a far more serious issue than what is discussed here, but who knows, maybe the two issues are related, as noone likes being accused to act purely out of self-interest.
               
               

               


                     Modifié par olivier leroux, 28 août 2011 - 01:04 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_ffbj on August 28, 2011, 06:25:48 pm


               I think we all tend to have a bias to discuss things in relationship to things we know.  Thus FS uses economics and relates that to the AME.  Frankly I don't get the relationship all that much.  To me economics is what something is worth to someone else, not it's intrinsic value as nothing intrinsically has value except in relationship to needs or wants, real or imagined, and the exchange of goods.  So if you have a pound of gold and are starving someone could charge you a pound of gold for a ham sandwich, and if no other food was available, you would fork over the gold, or starve to death.
So since no one is paying anything for what the AME does, the economics arguments are a non-sequitur. The argument falls flat since there is no barter or exchange of goods, no quid pro quo.
I suppose, to counter my own argument, you could say there is value in having a module or work declared the AME award winner, since people actually desire that and others would find value in it. In other words the stock of the author would rise since they had received the award. 

Regarding the unconscious bias I think this point is well taken.  But since the bias, if it exists, is unconscious, i.e.  those that employ it are unaware of it.  Therefore there is no intentional bias.  If the process is biased you could change the process, but once again since those involved in the process would not be aware consciously that there was such bias, then merely changing the process witll not result is something more akin to fairness because the bias that existed below the level of consciousness, unconscious bias, is still there. If you did change the process to eliminate those members of the AME from contention then you could eliminate at least the basis for this argument.
I, however think that would be unfair to those within the AME who have made contributions by simply categorically eliminating them from consideration.  I think that would truely be consciously unfair and biased.
               
               

               


                     Modifié par ffbj, 28 août 2011 - 06:01 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Queensilverwing on August 28, 2011, 07:26:55 pm


               

Zarathustra217 wrote...

Let me make it clear though, I appreciate every initiative to bring the community to life and continue to run, and I honestly do not feel I'm enough active in this part of the community to really say if there's a critical issue here.


I also appreciate the feedback and to be honest, the discussion. For good or ill, this subject has brought us together...sometimes with a bump, but then, we are only human (well, I'm not of course, but I meant the rest of you *grins a toothy grin*).

But the discussion was opened, and it was opened because of lack of response and reaction to the initial posts. To me, if I was the AME, that would be a worrying sign. If it's related to a crisis of credibility I don't know, but it seems that something has to be done to reach more out to the community.


You know, a few years ago I would have agreed with you, thinking that the lack of response was indeed worrying. However, 6 years of being a member of the review team and other teams on and off, has shown me that while we are a community; it takes something that either completely excites, irritates or seems suspicious, for the community to speak out.

Unless producing something that the community can actually use, like CEP, CTP, Project Q, custom content whatever category it sits in, very little community acknowledgement/feedback, gripes or kudos is made to those who give back/contribute to the community in a different way. That isn't necessarily wrong, but it can be a little disheartening if a lot of effort has gone into contributing and you have no idea if that contribution is wanted, liked or ignored.

So the fact that no feedback was forthcoming on this thread until a question was posed by Flunky Swerve, does not surprise me in the least. In my opinion, while I know a huge amount of work goes into the work at the AME, the end result, be it excitement, outrage or even surprise, is so tiny you have to wonder if you missed it when you blinked. In the end, we slap an award on someones profile, module or CC. The author may or may not notice, may or may not feel pride. Often I have noticed a happy reaction from nominees, finalists and winners. But overall? The excitement from the community is tiny compared to the effort put in to create not only the awards, but forums, award badges, Vault pages listing the winners by year, etc. etc. etc.

I don't blame us as a community for that, although it took me some time to accept as my own idea of the community was likely rose-tinted in many ways. I was completely in love with NWN1, but today, it has a little less hold on me but still gives me great pleasure nonetheless.

We each, in our own way, give something to the community. Player, creator, reviewer or group member alike. So I don't worry that in the normal course of things the community neglect to pop in and say hi, good job, or are you crazy? I know these awards, or reviews, or polls are noted by folks, but playing the game is far more fun than taking time out to post on a forum.

After all, if I were not a member of a review team or AME or website or whatever...would I take that time to comment? I'd <like> to think so, but the truth is probably...no.
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_jmlzemaggo on August 28, 2011, 07:55:46 pm


               Let's consider two things:
- criticism
- act
Now, a puzzle:
Which one can't exist without the other one?
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Queensilverwing on August 28, 2011, 09:11:47 pm


               

jmlzemaggo wrote...

Let's consider two things:
- criticism
- act
Now, a puzzle:
Which one can't exist without the other one?


Both. There can't be criticism without an act...and vice versa.

So, you are a fatalist jml, because you know that no matter how transparent a thing is, there will always be people who will question that transparicy. ;)
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_henesua on August 28, 2011, 11:56:08 pm


               I have to say this argument about flaws in the AME is absurd. Its like arguing over whether a tree falling in the woods makes any sound. The answer to that old conundrum: who cares?

All systems are flawed, as are solutions to those flaws. This is not the problem. Failing to recognize and address a system's flaws is the problem. Over and over again in this thread, members of the AME have mentioned that they are aware of the problem and have addressed it as best they can given the constraints of what they want to achieve. That really should have put this whole argument to rest. That it hasn't speaks to this being about something else.

The thing is, Funky, that it is your solution that is in search of a problem - not the other way around. With any organization - in this case the AME - it is not the flaw that breaks the organization, but exploitation of the flaw. Thus members AME have to actively work to deal with the flaw. There is no other way to solve the problem. None. Your "solution" will not eliminate the problem of self-interest. Thus claiming that your solution would put the AME above reproach is absurd. It is not possible.

What the AME has to do to remain relevant in the community is to put out quality awards. If that fails, then they fail, and they lose relevance. What more is there to say on the matter? And what else matters?

About economics (the discussion of which I found amusing):
Self-interest is a problem in markets too. The institutions that govern markets (markets are grossly inefficient without governance) are just as vulnerable as central planning is to the foibles of human nature. Thus "The Market" is not a one size fits all solution to all problems. IT certainly is NOT applicable in this case.

Disclaimer: I am a member of the AME.
               
               

               


                     Modifié par henesua, 28 août 2011 - 11:17 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Dallo on August 29, 2011, 11:19:30 am


               You're right, QSW.  See, even I'm posting here and I haven't had anything to say for quite awhile.  Come to think of it, still haven't really since my passion with NwN has long since cooled.  Funky's argument is a valid one, no doubt about it, but I also have no doubt whatsoever about the integrity of the AME group.

It's a hard one really.  I was invited to be part of AME when it was initially established, but declined since I felt that the community, despite the obvious flaws of the Vault voting system, usually muddled through and got it right.  Not always, but usually.  There is also the point that many modders vote on others' modules, or have in the past, so there's always been 'professional' critique to some extent in the Vault system and I saw no real need for something like the AME.

Since then though I've changed my mind, mostly because 'professional' critique has dried up on the Vault and the relevance of AME, from my perspective, grew as the overall activity declined.  Now it is undoubtedly a key ingredient in the process of mod/CC recognition and whilst i don't play Nwn any more I'm glad it exists for those who do.

Cheers to all of you!  As always there is no Truth, only truths.
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_HipMaestro on August 29, 2011, 01:45:54 pm


               Meh.  It's just like the proverbial Consumer Report reviews that permeate the media. The public should just take the opinions into account with a graIn of salt as they make their own determinations before making a purchase (at least, that's the way it is supposed to work!).  The individual consumer/user still holds the responsibility as to how the information will be digested.  If you've ever visited a racetrack, you should recognize the significance of touts but make your own bets.

A nomination isn't a replacement for our own evaluation, just an addtional resource to help make a decision.  Any biases or vested interests that may exist will be diluted by the sampling size (in this instance, the number of members voting), so the bigger the sample the closer it will come to being an unbiased reflection.  That's why AME implores the community to join... to reach this so-called "perfect" nomination.  I respect their efforts because it is very time-intensive to sample and compile an analysis for the vast content available.  Yes, I joined AME, but have not been able to manage much time to help out.

There are no perfect voting systems, but the AME strives to achieve this, IMO.
               
               

               


                     Modifié par HipMaestro, 29 août 2011 - 12:54 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_FunkySwerve on August 29, 2011, 04:41:54 pm


               

Quillmaster wrote...

FunkySwerve wrote...

In any event, my point has been made. Do with it what you will. In the interest of community harmony, I won't post on it again after today.

Funky


Your day is up.  Please let others make of it what they will, and allow us to move on with what we enjoy... sampling the best of what the community has to offer.

I'm going to keep posting until the points I thought were made clear, are understood. Why the desire to shut me up? The AME asked for feedback, and my response has sparked 4 pages of it, mostly civil, aside from a couple of their members' responses, whose rabid denials only make them look more suspect. When I said I wouldn't post past the day, it was because I thought my points were made, but those members seem intent on warping them, taking them out of context, and in general doing anything but addressing them. Expecting me not to address mischaracterizations is silly, and I will continue to do so.

Funky
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_FunkySwerve on August 29, 2011, 04:45:16 pm


               

Zarathustra217 wrote...

FunkySwerve wrote...

Zarathustra217 wrote...

While economics is great for describing the flow of commodities, labour and holdings, it isn't always the best solution for assessing the subjective, the aesthetics and the arts. While I can relate to many of your concerns Funky, I don't feel it's accurate to compare it to a free market situation.


Actually, economics (this is application of economic reasoning, NOT a comparison to a 'free market situation' - econ != free market)  does assess those things, by its very nature. While it's difficult, as you note, to answer a question like, 'what is the market value of a beautiful view?' directly, the market still has an answer. This is why houses in the foothills, or along beaches, for example, tend to be much pricier than their less-scenically situated counterparts.


That I mention a free market situation is merely because you use that as example for part of your reasoning yourself.


No, I don't. You're confusing free-market advocacy and economics, as I attempted to point out to you in the above-quoted section. They are not the same. I won't elaborate, because drawing that distinction would stray far afield of the topic. Feel free to pm me if you want to discuss it. I'm of the opinion that economics should be a required class in high school, and I tutored it in undergrad, so I'm always happy to elaborate.

Funky
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_FunkySwerve on August 29, 2011, 05:30:50 pm


               

WebShaman wrote...

I will say that I am somewhat appalled at some of the responses to someone's asked for feedback. Especially a feedback that is most informative, and quite rational.


Thanks, WS. I share that feeling, and am puzzled as to why they would react that way. As a number of posters have asked, why not simply say, yeah, we discused that issue, it's a problem, we work to avoid it, and move on? Some of them seem to have taken that tack, but others seem bent on denying any sort of issue at all, despite the simple, obvious nature of the problem, which only raises more questions.

And then there's this:

SOME of the best - and that is a given, I think. But there is a whole lot more out there, that I haven't seen "offered"...


As noted previously, I haven't paid much mind to the AME awards, since they don't have much bearing on my plans for NWN, which revolve solely around developing HG. Since you remarked on this, though, I decided to take a look at their past awards. Most of them revolve around module creation - authors, modules, and the like, but they don't limit themselves to that. They also have a best custom content award and a best tileset award, so 'modding' clearly doesn't just mean modules - they cast their gaze wider. I won't comment on that, though, since I only dabble in custom models and the like. What REALLY caught my eye as bizarre was their best community contribution award. Here are the finalists, for the years posted on their site:

2006:
Winner: Player Resource Consortium’s (PRC Pack v3.1e)
Phaere (Custom Portraits)
CEP Team (CEP 2.0)

2007:
Winner: Axe Murderer
NWNPodcast
Neverwinter Connections

2008:
Community Contribution Award:
Winner: Jassper
Skunkeen
CarloOne

2009:
Winner: Project Q
Ben Harrison
The NWN Lexicon Website

I started to get a sinking feeling in my gut when I read through those. Clearly, organizations, coders, and past contributions are considered. The explanation for Jassper's win was entirely past tense: "Jassper’s dedication and extensive tutorials have helped many people learn to navigate the often counter-intuitive landscape of the NWN scripting language." Yet there are some screaming gaps there. Where, for example, is the NWNX? Axe and Jassper are both great guys, and both extremely helpful in the forums, but - and no offense to either of them - they don't hold a candle to what virusman, dumbo, acaos, and other NWNX coders have done for the community in terms of modding - and they weren't even among the finalists. So, it would appear that Zarathustra217's remark about 'a potential of a close knit group that mainly have eye for each other's things' was dead on the money - at best, this is a very myopic take on community contributions. On that note, let me ask - how many of AME's members are also members of Project Q (the 2009 winner), or have been in the past? I know at least two of the AME members posting here are.

Funky
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_FunkySwerve on August 29, 2011, 05:51:16 pm


               

olivier leroux wrote...

FunkySwerve wrote...
This question is...somewhat fraught with complexity - the answer is that it depends on how you define the AME's purpose. With regard to favoritism, yes, absolutely. If, however, a core part of the AME's purpose is to solicit only a certain class of opinion, rather than what some above described as a 'popularity contest', then it's less clear. If you can crystallize that purpose a bit, I could answer. I've seen a few different explanations of what the AME dislikes about the Vault system, not necessarily mutually exclusive ones. For example:
-Do you want to exclude anyone without a certain type of experience? What type or types of experience do you want to require?
-Do you want to exclude only 'fanboy' votes, as someone else above termed them, meaning votes, presumably, which don't really have bearing on the material being voted on, but rather that of previous work?
-Do you want to require simple playthrough of the material, or more involved examination?
-Are you simply trying to guard against fast, arbitrary assessments like 'I can't load it it R teh suxxormax', or something more?

There are myriad ways to craft rules to serve most of those goals, depending on the specifics. First, though, let's get specific. As I mentioned above, vote certification of some kind is a potential compromise solution, but it's feasibility and benefit are dependant on the current situation. How many members of AME are there at present? I tally 45 votes in the custom content poll for september, by way of comparison.


I think I did already define the AME's purpose above and it's different than the Vault ratings' purpose for a reason.

You have, but so have others, and it's necessary to be precise in order to craft rules to fit your view of the group and its role. That's why I asked the specific follow-up questions that I did - which I see you haven't answered. Perhaps group discussion of the specifics is needed?

The thing is, it's not about the "AME disliking the Vault system" (I for one don't dislike it), it's just that I see no reason to mimic it when it's already present as an option. So what would your system set apart from it?

I haven't proposed a specific system yet, other than throwing out a few specific and rather obvious tweaks to the Vault ranking system, because I'm still waiting on your input - see the questions above. It's not even clear that there IS a viable system of public voting that fits your criteria. Again, that would depend on your answers to the above questions. Of course, that was a fallback suggestion to my original, rather obvious one - disallow AME members from being nominated for awards. The upsides of that massively outweigh the downsides.

Personally I don't see the GDAs as some kind of elitist awards that are better than the rest but as an interesting alternative that complements the already existing public options of voting. A simple playthrough is enough for a player to participate in the voting process for a module category, but for us it is important that the players make themselves familiar with all the finalists before casting their vote for the winner, so that candidates who didn't get a lot of attention yet get a chance to win, too - that's the type of experience that is definitely required.

Ok, that's useful information - you want everyone with input on the outcome to have played through all the candidate modules for modules categories. What about the custom content categories? And what about the community contribution category? Are there any other requirements for your voting process?

Of course that is a matter of trust and everyone's own responsibility, but the AME members are not anonymous, you can check out who they are by reading the Bio thread on our forums, and they are also chosen on the ground of appearing reliable and responsible. So yes, it is all subjective and all opinions but you know where it's coming from, and AME members stand for it with their name, plus they are to a certain extent able to control and question each other's reasoning.

You also didn't answer my question about the number of active members. I'm asking because I am trying to weigh the costs and benefits of a voting/certification system, which requires some idea of how much self-dealing could be diluted by voting - as well as knowing if there would likely be enough voters informed enough to meet your standards.

When you have a completely anonymous system like the Custom Content poll, you won't know who participated in the voting (I don't mean who voted for what but who actually participated) and for what reasons. You wouldn't even notice when someone with more than one account votes several times for their own choice or when someone mobilizes all their friends to vote for the same. And you had even less means to ascertain that the voters are really familiar with all the candidates. I don't see how that would help to increase the awards' credibility. It would just turn them into something completely different.

No one is suggesting anonymous voting as a solution - again, I was trying to guage likely participation to see if a cert system was even worth it. The CC poll was just the first longstanding poll that came to mind - you're absolutely correct in that its format would do nothing to increase your credibility.

(Besides, I doubt it makes much sense to take the participation in the "Custom Content Challenge" poll as a measure for potential AME participation. You don't have to be familiar with anything to cast a vote in that poll, it's a wishlist not a rating poll, entirely based on personal preferences and doesn't require any research or responsibility.)

Yes, I agree - the likely number of voters in a cert system would be well below that number. Which leaves only the question - how many active AME members are there?

But by all means, if I'm wrong and you actually do have a good idea to address all these issues to everyone's satisfaction, helping the AME to improve, I'd be curious to hear it. And I mean it. It would certainly be more constructive and more interesting to read than metadiscussions, mutual reproaches and abstract thoughts about economy, no matter from what side.

Whoops, you tipped your hat there. Earlier you said you couldn't tell if I had a good idea aimed at helping, but now you say you think I don't. No wonder you weren't in a hurry to answer my questions tailored to help shape such an idea. If you really 'mean it', then take the time to answer in detail, and I'll see what I can come up with. If not, please stop wasting my time with games.

Funky
               
               

               


                     Modifié par FunkySwerve, 29 août 2011 - 04:52 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_FunkySwerve on August 29, 2011, 05:54:20 pm


               

olivier leroux wrote...

Zarathustra217 wrote...
Perhaps it's a matter of excluding those potentially nominated from participating in discussing their own category?


I think that's a good thought, to complement the rules already in place. Not that it would change the outward appearance but it's still something to consider for ourselves.

You don't already do that? What rules are there, then?

Funky
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_FunkySwerve on August 29, 2011, 06:03:02 pm


               

ffbj wrote...

I think we all tend to have a bias to discuss things in relationship to things we know.  Thus FS uses economics and relates that to the AME.  Frankly I don't get the relationship all that much.  To me economics is what something is worth to someone else, not it's intrinsic value as nothing intrinsically has value except in relationship to needs or wants, real or imagined, and the exchange of goods.  So if you have a pound of gold and are starving someone could charge you a pound of gold for a ham sandwich, and if no other food was available, you would fork over the gold, or starve to death.
So since no one is paying anything for what the AME does, the economics arguments are a non-sequitur. The argument falls flat since there is no barter or exchange of goods, no quid pro quo.
I suppose, to counter my own argument, you could say there is value in having a module or work declared the AME award winner, since people actually desire that and others would find value in it. In other words the stock of the author would rise since they had received the award. 

Stuff like this really makes me wish econ was required in high school - as well as bang my head against the wall. No offense, but you don't have the foggiest notion what economics is. It has clear application to the study of rules - which is why the field of economics and law exists in the first place.

Regarding the unconscious bias I think this point is well taken.  But since the bias, if it exists, is unconscious, i.e.  those that employ it are unaware of it.  Therefore there is no intentional bias.  If the process is biased you could change the process, but once again since those involved in the process would not be aware consciously that there was such bias, then merely changing the process witll not result is something more akin to fairness because the bias that existed below the level of consciousness, unconscious bias, is still there.

That doesn't follow at all. It's entirely possible to set up rules to exlude or work around unconscious bias. Some of the ways have been discussed in this thread.

If you did change the process to eliminate those members of the AME from contention then you could eliminate at least the basis for this argument.
I, however think that would be unfair to those within the AME who have made contributions by simply categorically eliminating them from consideration.  I think that would truely be consciously unfair and biased.

There's no unfairness there, conscious. It's simple - if you want your work considered by the AME, don't join. You can either pass judgment on others work, or be judged. It's when you combine the two in an attempt to have your cake and eat it too, that problems arise.

Funky
               
               

               


                     Modifié par FunkySwerve, 29 août 2011 - 05:03 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Elhanan on August 29, 2011, 06:05:43 pm


               

FunkySwerve wrote...

You don't already do that? What rules are there, then?

Funky


Evidently, nominees within the AME are able to dicuss their projects. Again, I believe the film Acadamy allows promos, PR, and other insights into their nominations, so I have no problem with this either if such does exist.

Gotta wonder what further arguement on this matter is going to help. Not a question; just an observation.
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_FunkySwerve on August 29, 2011, 06:07:10 pm


               

Queensilverwing wrote...

So the fact that no feedback was forthcoming on this thread until a question was posed by Flunky Swerve, does not surprise me in the least. In my opinion, while I know a huge amount of work goes into the work at the AME, the end result, be it excitement, outrage or even surprise, is so tiny you have to wonder if you missed it when you blinked. In the end, we slap an award on someones profile, module or CC. The author may or may not notice, may or may not feel pride. Often I have noticed a happy reaction from nominees, finalists and winners. But overall? The excitement from the community is tiny compared to the effort put in to create not only the awards, but forums, award badges, Vault pages listing the winners by year, etc. etc. etc.

I tend to agree. I don't really see the lack of comment as indicative of a problem, in and of itself - though I DO think that some kind of voting setup could work to increase participation.

Funky
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_FunkySwerve on August 29, 2011, 06:15:06 pm


               

henesua wrote...

I have to say this argument about flaws in the AME is absurd. Its like arguing over whether a tree falling in the woods makes any sound. The answer to that old conundrum: who cares?

All systems are flawed, as are solutions to those flaws. This is not the problem. Failing to recognize and address a system's flaws is the problem. Over and over again in this thread, members of the AME have mentioned that they are aware of the problem and have addressed it as best they can given the constraints of what they want to achieve. That really should have put this whole argument to rest. That it hasn't speaks to this being about something else.

The thing is, Funky, that it is your solution that is in search of a problem - not the other way around. With any organization - in this case the AME - it is not the flaw that breaks the organization, but exploitation of the flaw. Thus members AME have to actively work to deal with the flaw. There is no other way to solve the problem. None. Your "solution" will not eliminate the problem of self-interest. Thus claiming that your solution would put the AME above reproach is absurd. It is not possible.

My solution - blocking nominations of AME member content - absolutely would eliminate the problem of self-interest to the maximum extent possible.That's kind of screamingly obvious if you step back and look.  And I never claimed this would put the AME 'above reproach' - you're right, that is absurd, and impossible. Interesting that you would choose to put those abusrd and impossible words into my mouth. :P

About economics (the discussion of which I found amusing):
Self-interest is a problem in markets too. The institutions that govern markets (markets are grossly inefficient without governance) are just as vulnerable as central planning is to the foibles of human nature. Thus "The Market" is not a one size fits all solution to all problems. IT certainly is NOT applicable in this case.

I also didn't claim 'The Market' was a solution - application of market principles is. Those principles include regulation, since, as you say here, and as I remarked earlier in the thread, a free market is just as bad as a command economy. You clearly haven't taken the time to read my remarks, let alone understand my point. And yes, market principles are most definitely applicable here. You, like others, are confusing economics with free-market advocacy.

Funky
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Quillmaster on August 29, 2011, 06:50:31 pm


               

FunkySwerve wrote...

Quillmaster wrote...

FunkySwerve wrote...

In any event, my point has been made. Do with it what you will. In the interest of community harmony, I won't post on it again after today.

Funky


Your day is up.  Please let others make of it what they will, and allow us to move on with what we enjoy... sampling the best of what the community has to offer.

I'm going to keep posting until the points I thought were made clear, are understood. Why the desire to shut me up? The AME asked for feedback, and my response has sparked 4 pages of it, mostly civil, aside from a couple of their members' responses, whose rabid denials only make them look more suspect. When I said I wouldn't post past the day, it was because I thought my points were made, but those members seem intent on warping them, taking them out of context, and in general doing anything but addressing them. Expecting me not to address mischaracterizations is silly, and I will continue to do so.

Funky


My point is you've made your point, and by your own admission it's in the interest of community harmony to leave it at that.  Your point is understood too, there's just not anything practical that can be done about it.  Again, by your own admission, you don't have a solution either,

I'm not trying to "shut you up", far from it. In fact I started a debate on this very subject on the AME forums.  The problem they face is that making the voting public is not an option, since that system already exists in the vault.  Banning members from participation is counter productive, since that would not only discourage further membership but also force nominations of inferior quality, which would make the awards meaningless.

I haven't been a member long, but long enough to witness the members have great integrity.  The merits of any nomination are discussed in a mature fashion with members able to disagree in a respectable manner.  They all realise that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and that you can't please everyone all of the time. They strive to give recognition where it is due in an effort to further encourage those whose contributions to the community are admired.  As has already been pointed out, they also have stringent rules regarding conflicts of interest.  I myself have already declared such a conflict and refrained from voting in a category.  I think you under estimate the integrity of the members.  The very nature of what they try to do dictates a membership with high moral values.

The only possible solution I can offer is that members join with pseudo names different to their NWN names, but that wouldn't work either because then you'd leave the door open to people nominating their own work.  Not that I believe they would, but it's outsider persception that is the problem, which is what caused this debate in the first place.

As for your mention of other possible nominees who you regarded as more deserving in another post, AME is always open to public suggestions and would welcome them with open arms.  If you're not willing to join, they still have a public forum where you can give pointers to people you believe are overlooked.

Participation is the best reward you can give to the community. ;)
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Quillmaster on August 29, 2011, 07:02:53 pm


               

FunkySwerve wrote...

olivier leroux wrote...

Zarathustra217 wrote...
Perhaps it's a matter of excluding those potentially nominated from participating in discussing their own category?


I think that's a good thought, to complement the rules already in place. Not that it would change the outward appearance but it's still something to consider for ourselves.

You don't already do that? What rules are there, then?

Funky


We do already do that.  I think Olivier wasn't aware because it's never been an issue.
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_AndarianTD on August 29, 2011, 07:53:50 pm


               

FunkySwerve wrote...

Zarathustra217 wrote...

Perhaps it's a matter of excluding those potentially nominated from participating in discussing their own category?


You don't already do that? What rules are there, then?


Of course we already do that. As I wrote on the first page of the thread:

AndarianTD wrote...

Members may not nominate or vote for themselves, and must immediately recuse themselves from further participation in any category for which they are nominated as soon as they are [emphasis added].


The word "participation" is used there very deliberately, and for a very specific reason that I thought should have been obvious. Folks, if any of you are going to presume to criticize the AME and its operating rules, then please at least take the time to read and understand what has actually been written here about them.
               
               

               


                     Modifié par AndarianTD, 29 août 2011 - 07:37 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Estelindis on August 29, 2011, 08:12:27 pm


               I've only just seen this thread, so it's taken me a while to catch up.

Firstly, since I've been a sometime member of the AME, I ask anyone to please tell me if they find any posts I may make on this topic overly defensive or tending in any way not to welcome discussion and critique.

Secondly, any authors who wish not to have their work nominated (or even considered for nomination) will find their wishes respected by the AME; this applies whether said authors are AME members or not (and certainly a fair few members have excluded their work from the awards over the years). Personally, I'd tend to be against anything of mine going through in any year of active AME participation by me, and a lot of that does come down to a sense of "what will people think, that I'm patting myself on the back?" (regardless of my deep awareness of the significant internal CoI safeguards in place and, indeed, the fact that I've never made anything worthy of an award!). But that doesn't mean I'd want a blanket ban. I think it should be left up to the individual.

Thirdly, the first thing that comes to mind as a possible reform in response to the concerns raised would be to make public the whole sub-forum of nomination and discussion for any given year's awards after the winners had been decided and announced. It would be possible to see who had said (and nominated) what, but not how people had voted (which remains private even within the AME, unless anyone chooses to state how they've voted). The primary concern, after all, seems to be that the decision-making process is not public; this would change that, but only at such a time as not to remove the pleasant surprise of being told that one has been nominated for or won an award. However, there are two glaring problems with this idea: 1) AME members might no longer feel able to speak quite as freely and frankly, and 2) if everyone saw the full discussions, some people might up being upset or hurt by the criticisms they might read of their work. On this last point, I think particularly of the year when I was "champion" for the non-tileset custom content category, towards which end I downloaded the entirety of what had been submitted to the Vault for the year in question, looked at it all, and then posted my full assessment of every last thing. Naturally, the quality varied highly from one submission to the other; while I had high praise for some items, I wrote quite harshly of others. Would it be right or helpful for all that I said there to be broadcast to the public domain? Not that I imagine most people would find it very compelling reading... It's just that the AME is supposed to bolster and help the community, and I hope any change that might be made would only enhance that element rather than detracting from it. Mind you, I find most of the discussion tends to be positively-oriented; I'm just wondering if making it all public afterwards would lead to some unhelpful self-censorship (or, otherwise, hurt feelings) for some people.

Thanks for reading!
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_AndarianTD on August 29, 2011, 08:37:45 pm


               Due to Hurricane Irene running over our area, I have had a very limited ability to follow and respond to this thread over the last few days. I still have no power at home and am posting this on a lunch break at work -- and unfortunately, it's likely to be days yet before that changes and I can get caught up. In the meantime, I'd just like to say that while I've seen some reasonable points being offered, that some of the alleged criticism here relies on what I consider to be questionable assumptions and arguments, if not outright misinformation (the remark addressed in my last post being an example). When I can, I will comment on those issues at length and try to set the record straight.
               
               

               


                     Modifié par AndarianTD, 29 août 2011 - 07:39 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Estelindis on August 29, 2011, 08:40:40 pm


               Andarian, I'm so sorry that you were caught up in the hurricane.  I hope you and your family are all doing okay.  *hugs*
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_AndarianTD on August 29, 2011, 08:52:34 pm


               

Estelindis wrote...

Andarian, I'm so sorry that you were caught up in the hurricane.  I hope you and your family are all doing okay.  *hugs*


Thanks, Este. :) We're OK, and actually weathered the storm pretty comfortably, except for the loss of power. It's really interesting to come face to face with just how much you can come to depend on, and have integrated into your daily life, the conveniences made possible by modern technology. Nearly all of them depend on having electricity available, and the prospect of having to go without that for a week can be quite a self-discovery. ;)
               
               

               


                     Modifié par AndarianTD, 29 août 2011 - 07:54 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Zarathustra217 on August 29, 2011, 09:35:18 pm


               

AndarianTD wrote...

FunkySwerve wrote...

Zarathustra217 wrote...

Perhaps it's a matter of excluding those potentially nominated from participating in discussing their own category?


You don't already do that? What rules are there, then?


Of course we already do that. As I wrote on the first page of the thread:

AndarianTD wrote...

Members may not nominate or vote for themselves, and must immediately recuse themselves from further participation in any category for which they are nominated as soon as they are [emphasis added].


The word "participation" is used there very deliberately, and for a very specific reason that I thought should have been obvious. Folks, if any of you are going to presume to criticize the AME and its operating rules, then please at least take the time to read and understand what has actually been written here about them.


Well, what I actually meant - and this is just a loose idea mind you - was to exclude module authors (if they want to be themselves relevant for the term) from any discussions on modules, and rather set them up to discuss something like custom content instead. The reasoning is in part that I imagine the criteria for evaluating modules are shaped already prior to nomination, but also since module builders would be great for evaluating things such as custom content as they have extended first hand involvement with it and know exactly how it permits them to do new things.

This is all probably just overthinking it though, but there's some input at least.
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Quillmaster on August 29, 2011, 10:19:14 pm


               

Zarathustra217 wrote...

Well, what I actually meant - and this is just a loose idea mind you - was to exclude module authors (if they want to be themselves relevant for the term) from any discussions on modules, and rather set them up to discuss something like custom content instead. The reasoning is in part that I imagine the criteria for evaluating modules are shaped already prior to nomination, but also since module builders would be great for evaluating things such as custom content as they have extended first hand involvement with it and know exactly how it permits them to do new things.

This is all probably just overthinking it though, but there's some input at least.


In practice this is pretty much what happens anyway.  Most nominations for actual modules come from those who play a great deal.  As a builder myself, I don't tend to have the time to play (although I have done for some of the shorter modules.), and prefer to show an interest on some of the less time consuming offerings, such as custom tileset or music nominations, something that as a builder I can still offer a valid opinion on.  Indeed, it's the relaxation of AME time demands from members that had me join up in the first place.
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Arkalezth on August 29, 2011, 10:24:26 pm


               

Zarathustra217 wrote...

Well, what I actually meant - and this is just a loose idea mind you - was to exclude module authors (if they want to be themselves relevant for the term) from any discussions on modules, and rather set them up to discuss something like custom content instead. The reasoning is in part that I imagine the criteria for evaluating modules are shaped already prior to nomination,

Making a module shouldn't exclude you from participation in any module
category, just the one where you have a conflict of interest. Andarian's
modules are for NWN1, why shouldn't he be able to participate in NWN2 categories,
or a different NWN1 year?

but also since module builders would be great for evaluating things such as custom content as they have extended first hand involvement with it and know exactly how it permits them to do new things.

Agreed, but don't you think they're also great for evaluating modules?
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_AndarianTD on August 29, 2011, 11:00:41 pm


               

Arkalezth wrote...

Making a module shouldn't exclude you from participation in any module category, just the one where you have a conflict of interest. Andarian's modules are for NWN1, why shouldn't he be able to participate in NWN2 categories, or a different NWN1 year?


Or a different modules category, for that matter. If someone's a nominee for Best Storytelling but not Best Action, then why shouldn't he participate in the latter? It doesn't affect the former, and the standards for the two are different anyway.

but also since module builders would be great for evaluating things such as custom content as they have extended first hand involvement with it and know exactly how it permits them to do new things.

Agreed, but don't you think they're also great for evaluating modules?


Depending on the individual's degree of experience with CC, available time, and interest, we'll often do both. Speaking personally, for example, I rarely nominate or test in the yearly modules categories any longer, although I'll sometimes offer general thoughts on some of the discussions. Aside from my job, family, duties as AME Chairman, and work building Sanctum 3, I don't have the time to play modules anymore. But Sanctum is a very CC-heavy series, and I do test and integrate a lot of it working on the next chapter. That gives me a fair amount of specifically builder-perspective experience that I can bring to the custom content categories, and I do. That complements the player and CC creator specific experience and perspective of some of our other members, without which our evaluation of those categories would necessarily have a narrower focus.
               
               

               


                     Modifié par AndarianTD, 29 août 2011 - 10:04 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_henesua on August 29, 2011, 11:35:19 pm


               

FunkySwerve wrote...

My solution - blocking nominations of AME member content - absolutely would eliminate the problem of self-interest to the maximum extent possible.That's kind of screamingly obvious if you step back and look.  And I never claimed this would put the AME 'above reproach' - you're right, that is absurd, and impossible. Interesting that you would choose to put those abusrd and impossible words into my mouth. :P


Actually, Funky. You are the pot calling the kettle black here and below on the economics point. You aren't addressing my point: your solution will not solve the problem of self-interest damaging the organization, because your solution is irrelevant. Did you miss the part about the academy needing members? Especially members who produce content? Without them the AME is irrelevant as well. Come on, man. I know you are smart. So either you are trolling, or there are deeper issues here that have nothing to do with the argument.

Again: What matters is that the AME is (1) aware of the problem, (2) has policies to address the problem,  and (3) is continually vigilant about the problem. All of those things together dwarf any system solution you can propose. To simply resort to step two - sticking your finger in a hole in the ****** - solves nothing.

And lastly if this is about keeping the AME relevant - which if it is not you are simply going on about nothing of import - you can't have a relevant AME if you don't attract members who produce content.

I also didn't claim 'The Market' was a solution - application of market principles is...


You are splitting hairs. In this case there is no functional difference. Especially not when you consider your audience. You need to communicate with your audience rather than get bogged down in the minutiae. And the rest of your "defense" was irrelevant as you made a straw man. I never claimed you were pushing free market principles. So yeah right back at ya on the not reading a post thing.

I'm done.There is a real disconnect going on with you here, perhaps a refusal to comprehend. Its hard to know what is going on. I'll be back with a response when I see that you actually address the defense laid before you. Otherwise why would the AME change just to please you? Its a waste of time. We took care of the real problem, and continue to address it.

Whinging about a potential flaw in the system and trying to find the perfect solution... complete waste of time. Real solutions work much better.
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_olivier leroux on August 30, 2011, 12:50:21 am


               

FunkySwerve wrote...
Whoops, you tipped your hat there. Earlier you said you couldn't tell if I had a good idea aimed at helping, but now you say you think I don't. No wonder you weren't in a hurry to answer my questions tailored to help shape such an idea. If you really 'mean it', then take the time to answer in detail, and I'll see what I can come up with. If not, please stop wasting my time with games.


What's wrong with being doubtful? You have doubts about the AME's integrity and credibility and still say you want to help them, while I can't be interested in hearing your general idea and at the same time be sceptical whether it's going to be helpful? It's you who said there was something wrong with the AME, not I, so it's also you who's got to convince me that changes would be beneficial to the purpose I outlined.

I am open to hear concrete suggestions that clearly support this purpose, but so far you haven't even commented on that purpose and instead keep talking about the Vault system which, as I said before, has nothing to do with the AME's mission (as a sidenote, you could have found everything about the AME's mission nicely spelled out on their website, if you had ever cared to look). You made some valid points about potential flaws in the system, and were told that the AME is aware of it and how it's addressed as best as possible for the AME's purpose. But everything else you say sounds to me as if  you want to turn the AME into something it was never meant to be, just because you don't like the idea of what it actually is.

Tell me, how can you act like you'd know how to help the AME when you admit you haven't really followed their work, didn't have much interest in it before and have no idea what their mission and current ruleset is? And when you're constantly ignoring any notion that the AME is just offering recommendations shaped by the members' subjective judgement and a democratic vote of all those community members who volunteered to help by sacrificing some of their time? You were free to join the AME and nominate all those deserving coders you mentioned but chose to ignore the GDA's instead, only to complain about other people's decisions now. And then you cry outrage when some AME members lose their patience with you ...

If you accuse me of playing games and wasting your time, what is it you do then? Giving constructive feedback on something doesn't equal immediately taking over and designing the masterplan for changing it, and frankly noone has ever asked you to do something of the sort, it was you yourself who proposed it. I answered your questions as best as I could, but if you can't even explain your general idea without me feeding you with all kinds of data first, then pardon me when I begin to think I'm wasting my time trying to listen to you, too. Where's your 'self-interest' in all of this, I wonder?
:whistle:
               
               

               


                     Modifié par olivier leroux, 29 août 2011 - 11:53 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_WhiZard on August 30, 2011, 01:07:20 am


               

olivier leroux wrote...
What's wrong with being doubtful? You have doubts about the AME's integrity and credibility and still say you want to help them, while I can't be interested in hearing your general idea and at the same time be sceptical whether it's going to be helpful?

This discussion has clearly missed the sewers and is tanking out at rock bottom.
(Bolding added).
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_AndarianTD on August 30, 2011, 01:45:46 am


               

olivier leroux wrote...

I am open to hear concrete suggestions that clearly support this purpose, but so far you haven't even commented on that purpose and instead keep talking about the Vault system which, as I said before, has nothing to do with the AME's mission (as a sidenote, you could have found everything about the AME's mission nicely spelled out on their website, if you had ever cared to look). You made some valid points about potential flaws in the system, and were told that the AME is aware of it and how it's addressed as best as possible for the AME's purpose. But everything else you say sounds to me as if  you want to turn the AME into something it was never meant to be, just because you don't like the idea of what it actually is.

Tell me, how can you act like you'd know how to help the AME when you admit you haven't really followed their work, didn't have much interest in it before and have no idea what their mission and current ruleset is? ... And then you cry outrage when some AME members lose their patience with you ...


This.
               
               

               


                     Modifié par AndarianTD, 30 août 2011 - 12:46 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy__six on August 30, 2011, 03:08:07 am


               To use FunkySwerve's example of Project Q (a group I know very well har har) winning a GDA in illustration... Well, I was an AME member for the first two sets of GDAs well before Q even existed, and left when I figured working hard on custom content didn't leave me time to play a dozen modules within the space of a couple of months. True, after leaving I've pretty much won a GDA every year - one as part of Project Q. Do I think that's because of my connection to AME? Considering I don't even have contact details for most of them, I doubt it. And if anything, while I was there I felt there almost seemed a bias against giving awards to members. That's a problem in itself, but a far cry from the bias issue that's being pushed so hard here.

And for the most cynical of you, I did not leave for fear of not being considered myself. Frankly, it doesn't mean a huge deal to me to win an award at all. I enjoy giving them, because I love much of the stuff this community has churned out for years and think the more exposure it gets the better. But recieving them doesn't mean as much to me as just getting thoughtful forum posts and suggestions. From how little the community seems to care about the AME I'd hazard to say I'm not the only one. Hell, even as an ex member I don't pay them any attention.

As far as crossover between groups goes, well, I don't know off hand who exactly is in AME but from working with Project Q, I've seen lord of worms, ragnarok_mr4, Estelindis, lord rosenkrantz, ninjaweaselman, Tom_Banjo and plenty more as members of Q during its history. Testers have included Andarian and Luspr. That's a pretty sizeable chunk of the most active and productive NWN community members of the last 5 years. While I was at AME there was a CEP member on the team. Ruling out such contributors to the community either as members or nominees would go a long way to making the awards meaningless, as their already narrow scope (two aging games is hardly a wide playing field) would become even smaller.

Dead horse duly flogged. I'm not an AME member, and to tell the truth I'm fairly lukewarm to the AME these days. They fulfil their role as well as can be expected, but it's just somehow... disconnected. Not irrelevant, just somewhere off to the side. Hopefully that goes some way to responding to Andarian's original question, rather than being taken as a defense of a group I've no current affiliation with.


Edit: Oh crap, I seem to have been nominated for something or other. Teach me to not read the original posts.
               
               

               


                     Modifié par _six, 30 août 2011 - 02:15 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_FunkySwerve on August 31, 2011, 12:16:49 am


               

Quillmaster wrote...

My point is you've made your point, and by your own admission it's in the interest of community harmony to leave it at that.  Your point is understood too, there's just not anything practical that can be done about it.  Again, by your own admission, you don't have a solution either,

Begging your pardon, but that simply isn't true. I've offered one surefire solution - simply stop voting on member content. I know you guys already deliberated on that, but you got it wrong, plain and simple. Since there was a great deal of resistance to implmenting that very obvious solution, I suggested other options, and am still awaiting some input to see whether another solution is possible, as you can see for yourself by reading my posts. There are myriad possible solutions - the question is if any of them are practical.

I'm not trying to "shut you up", far from it. 

Oh, so by telling me to stop posting because my day was up, you actually meant to say, 'please, tell me more.' How silly of me to misunderstand. :P

In fact I started a debate on this very subject on the AME forums.  The problem they face is that making the voting public is not an option, since that system already exists in the vault. 

A public voting system would not necessarily be redundant with the Vault, as I've already pointed out - the mere existance of the Vault is not a barrier. Rather, it seems, the group wanted to take a different tack, which I understand. That's why I asked the questions I did, to see if some other system might be feasible.

Banning members from participation is counter productive, since that
would not only discourage further membership but also force nominations
of inferior quality, which would make the awards meaningless.

Of course, this is only true if you assume that the superior-quality work belongs to members of the AME - which of course, is the very same problematic presumption I'm seeking to address. You basically made my case for me, there. If this is what you believe, one alternative would be to create an alternate list of Suggested Member Content, or something along those lines, issued alongside the awards - this would allow you to showcase member content without committing the folly of putting foward a self-award. And, since you seem to be missing this point - when you hand out awards that are tainted by bias, you are also rendering them meaningless.

I haven't been a member long, but long enough to witness the members have great integrity.  The merits of any nomination are discussed in a mature fashion with members able to disagree in a respectable manner.  They all realise that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and that you can't please everyone all of the time. They strive to give recognition where it is due in an effort to further encourage those whose contributions to the community are admired.  As has already been pointed out, they also have stringent rules regarding conflicts of interest.  I myself have already declared such a conflict and refrained from voting in a category.  I think you under estimate the integrity of the members.  The very nature of what they try to do dictates a membership with high moral values.

Actually, I'm not estimating the integrity of the members at all - I'm analysing the integrity of the system they've chosen. I don't know many of them, and even the ones I know, I don't know well enough to pass judgment on their integrity. If you're reading my critique at all in that light, you've misunderstood.

The only possible solution I can offer is that members join with pseudo names different to their NWN names, but that wouldn't work either because then you'd leave the door open to people nominating their own work.  Not that I believe they would, but it's outsider persception that is the problem, which is what caused this debate in the first place.

That's just another variation on the anonymous idea - I agree, it wouldn't accomplish anything.

As for your mention of other possible nominees who you regarded as more deserving in another post, AME is always open to public suggestions and would welcome them with open arms.  If you're not willing to join, they still have a public forum where you can give pointers to people you believe are overlooked.

That's nice, but I was pointing to that as an example of the problem. You've overlooked a huge and incredibly productive segment of the community, for no apparent reason. WITHOUT bad intentions, it would appear, your process has produced some very skewed outcomes. Please note, this is a separate issue from the question of self-voting - I'm simply using it to show that you can get bad results without bad intentions.

Participation is the best reward you can give to the community. ;)

Are you seriously intending to preach community participation to me, or was this just a toss-off soundbite? I've done more than my share of contibuting to the community.

Funky
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_FunkySwerve on August 31, 2011, 12:19:32 am


               

AndarianTD wrote...

FunkySwerve wrote...

Zarathustra217 wrote...

Perhaps it's a matter of excluding those potentially nominated from participating in discussing their own category?


You don't already do that? What rules are there, then?


Of course we already do that. As I wrote on the first page of the thread:

AndarianTD wrote...

Members may not nominate or vote for themselves, and must immediately recuse themselves from further participation in any category for which they are nominated as soon as they are [emphasis added].


The word "participation" is used there very deliberately, and for a very specific reason that I thought should have been obvious. Folks, if any of you are going to presume to criticize the AME and its operating rules, then please at least take the time to read and understand what has actually been written here about them.


PRESUME to criticize? YOU asked for input, you utter nonce. :P Oh, teh presumptions! As for taking the time to read and understand, exactly what is it you thought I was doing there? He posted information which contradicted what had already been said, so I asked for clarification. Sigh. I can see this is going nowhere.

Funky
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_FunkySwerve on August 31, 2011, 12:23:07 am


               

Estelindis wrote...

I've only just seen this thread, so it's taken me a while to catch up.

Firstly, since I've been a sometime member of the AME, I ask anyone to please tell me if they find any posts I may make on this topic overly defensive or tending in any way not to welcome discussion and critique.

Secondly, any authors who wish not to have their work nominated (or even considered for nomination) will find their wishes respected by the AME; this applies whether said authors are AME members or not (and certainly a fair few members have excluded their work from the awards over the years). Personally, I'd tend to be against anything of mine going through in any year of active AME participation by me, and a lot of that does come down to a sense of "what will people think, that I'm patting myself on the back?" (regardless of my deep awareness of the significant internal CoI safeguards in place and, indeed, the fact that I've never made anything worthy of an award!). But that doesn't mean I'd want a blanket ban. I think it should be left up to the individual.

Thirdly, the first thing that comes to mind as a possible reform in response to the concerns raised would be to make public the whole sub-forum of nomination and discussion for any given year's awards after the winners had been decided and announced. It would be possible to see who had said (and nominated) what, but not how people had voted (which remains private even within the AME, unless anyone chooses to state how they've voted). The primary concern, after all, seems to be that the decision-making process is not public; this would change that, but only at such a time as not to remove the pleasant surprise of being told that one has been nominated for or won an award. However, there are two glaring problems with this idea: 1) AME members might no longer feel able to speak quite as freely and frankly, and 2) if everyone saw the full discussions, some people might up being upset or hurt by the criticisms they might read of their work. On this last point, I think particularly of the year when I was "champion" for the non-tileset custom content category, towards which end I downloaded the entirety of what had been submitted to the Vault for the year in question, looked at it all, and then posted my full assessment of every last thing. Naturally, the quality varied highly from one submission to the other; while I had high praise for some items, I wrote quite harshly of others. Would it be right or helpful for all that I said there to be broadcast to the public domain? Not that I imagine most people would find it very compelling reading... It's just that the AME is supposed to bolster and help the community, and I hope any change that might be made would only enhance that element rather than detracting from it. Mind you, I find most of the discussion tends to be positively-oriented; I'm just wondering if making it all public afterwards would lead to some unhelpful self-censorship (or, otherwise, hurt feelings) for some people.

Thanks for reading!

Thanks for a levelheaded post, Este - I didn't find it defensive at all. :) I don't think the primary problem is the lack of public view, but the potential for bias in the results. I don't see having the debate made public helping any, and I think you're right about some of the downsides.

Funky
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_FunkySwerve on August 31, 2011, 12:43:43 am


               
Quote
henesua wrote...

Quote
FunkySwerve wrote...

My solution - blocking nominations of AME member content - absolutely would eliminate the problem of self-interest to the maximum extent possible.That's kind of screamingly obvious if you step back and look.  And I never claimed this would put the AME 'above reproach' - you're right, that is absurd, and impossible. Interesting that you would choose to put those abusrd and impossible words into my mouth. :P


Actually, Funky. You are the pot calling the kettle black here and below on the economics point. You aren't addressing my point: your solution will not solve the problem of self-interest damaging the organization, because your solution is irrelevant. Did you miss the part about the academy needing members? Especially members who produce content? Without them the AME is irrelevant as well.

That was an interesting arrangement of words, but it lacked logical coherence. If you're going to accuse me of hipocrasy, I'd appreciate an argument, with supporting premises logically leading to the conclusion. My solution is simply not irrelevant - though it's certainly true that the academy needs members - that is a competing interest, one of many. It is in the balancing of all those interests that the optimal solution lies - one consideration does not magically render another 'irrelevant', just as part of a solution that helps with regard to one consideration and hurts with regard to another is not necessarily bad - it depends on where the balance of costs and benefits comes out.
Quote
Come on, man. I know you are smart. So either you are trolling, or there
are deeper issues here that have nothing to do with the argument.

This is amusing, coming from someone who just drastically oversimplified his analysis of my points in order to set up a straw man - many would consider this specious sort of argumentation to be trolling, assuming you're smart enough to understand that's what you were doing.

Quote

Again: What matters is that the AME is (1) aware of the problem, (2) has policies to address the problem,  and (3) is continually vigilant about the problem. All of those things together dwarf any system solution you can propose. To simply resort to step two - sticking your finger in a hole in the ****** - solves nothing.

Step two is sticking your finger in a hole? I'll alert the underpants gnomes immediately! PROFIT!!!

More seriously, 2 is false - your policies don't address the problem I'm describing - rather, you rely on the good nature of the participants to compensate for a flawed system. That will often work, but no one is perfect, and this reliance allows a great deal of bias.

Quote

And lastly if this is about keeping the AME relevant - which if it is not you are simply going on about nothing of import - you can't have a relevant AME if you don't attract members who produce content.

Actually, I'm not sure that that follows - wouldn't past content producers be equally qualified to sit in judgement? In any event, there is a mirror image of this problem - if the appearance of bias is serious enough, it renders the AME irrelvant.


Quote

I also didn't claim 'The Market' was a solution - application of market principles is...


You are splitting hairs. In this case there is no functional difference. Especially not when you consider your audience. You need to communicate with your audience rather than get bogged down in the minutiae. And the rest of your "defense" was irrelevant as you made a straw man. I never claimed you were pushing free market principles. So yeah right back at ya on the not reading a post thing.[/quote]
No, I'm not splitting hairs, and yes, there is a serious difference. From the perspective of someone who has studied economics, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.Instead of admitting it, you're attempting to refashion my points to suit your needs. In any event, I won't press the economics angle any more, if you don't attempt to trivialize it by insisting that it's just 'my opinion', since you clearly aren't able or willing to understand what I'm saying. I'll accept part of the blame, for that, however, since the economics angle is somewhat technical.

Quote

I'm done.There is a real disconnect going on with you here, perhaps a refusal to comprehend.

Oh, sweet irony.
Quote

Whinging about a potential flaw in the system and trying to find the perfect solution... complete waste of time. Real solutions work much better.

And now I'm 'whinging'. Heh. I'm not describing a potential flaw, but an actual one. Neither am I looking for a perfect solution (another obvious straw man) - just a better one than yours.

Funky
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_FunkySwerve on August 31, 2011, 01:36:45 am


               
Quote
olivier leroux wrote...
Quote
FunkySwerve wrote...
Whoops, you tipped your hat there. Earlier you said you couldn't tell if I had a good idea aimed at helping, but now you say you think I don't. No wonder you weren't in a hurry to answer my questions tailored to help shape such an idea. If you really 'mean it', then take the time to answer in detail, and I'll see what I can come up with. If not, please stop wasting my time with games.


What's wrong with being doubtful? You have doubts about the AME's integrity and credibility and still say you want to help them, while I can't be interested in hearing your general idea and at the same time be sceptical whether it's going to be helpful? It's you who said there was something wrong with the AME, not I, so it's also you who's got to convince me that changes would be beneficial to the purpose I outlined.

Nothing is wrong with being doubtful. I was taking issue with you wasting my time, by at first holding yourself out to be receptive to input, and then refusing to cooperate when I asked some basic questions - to help me help you. It's enough to make me think that you were only interested in appearing receptive to input, but had no intention of listening to any suggestions. If that's not the case, there's an easy way to show it - just answer the questions already. :P
Quote

I am open to hear concrete suggestions that clearly support this purpose, but so far you haven't even commented on that purpose

Begging your pardon, but that's completely untrue. I've remarked on that purpose many times, and asked you a series of questions to try to get as concrete a handle on that purpose as possible - questions which, for some reason, you seem very reticent about answering. I'm not trying to trick you into saying something, if that's what you're worried about. This is pretty standard stuff when an attorney sets out helping a client - you have to first carefully assess what it is they want to see if you can help them.
Quote

and instead keep talking about the Vault system which, as I said before, has nothing to do with the AME's mission

I've been talking about the Vault system as a contrast, to try to nail down what it is you're trying to do differently. I'm well aware that you're trying to do something different, and have remarked as much a number of times.
Quote

(as a sidenote, you could have found everything about the AME's mission nicely spelled out on their website, if you had ever cared to look).

Had you read my posts, you'd be aware that I've already visited the AME website - I pulled the nominees and winners from each year right off it. Why on earth would I go there to read information on the AME's purpose which WASN'T written with my purpose in mind, when I can simply ask you? This is about soliciting the best information possible, not about me being too lazy to go to your site.

Quote

 You made some valid points about potential flaws in the system, and were told that the AME is aware of it and how it's addressed as best as possible for the AME's purpose. But everything else you say sounds to me as if  you want to turn the AME into something it was never meant to be, just because you don't like the idea of what it actually is.

If that were the case, I wouldn't have just spent the last three responses to you trying - unsuccessfully - to solicity information from you on what YOU mean the AME to be, now would I?
Quote

Tell me, how can you act like you'd know how to help the AME when you admit you haven't really followed their work, didn't have much interest in it before and have no idea what their mission and current ruleset is?

Simple, it's my job. I have a far better working knowledge of the crafting of rules, along with their benefits and shortcomings. I also have a fair idea of the relevant facts, other than the ones I've asked you to elaborate on, and I have a fair idea of the ruleset, conflicting information in this thread aside.

Quote

And when you're constantly ignoring any notion that the AME is just offering recommendations shaped by the members' subjective judgement and a democratic vote of all those community members who volunteered to help by sacrificing some of their time?

I haven't ignored that, just pointed out the fact that human subjectivity does not excuse needless bias.
Quote

You were free to join the AME and nominate all those deserving coders you mentioned but chose to ignore the GDA's instead, only to complain about other people's decisions now. And then you cry outrage when some AME members lose their patience with you ...

I haven't complained about any of those decisions - just pointed them out as an example of a problem. Nor have I done anything remotely like 'cry outrage' - that's absurd. In fact, it's the AME members who have been expressing 'outrage' at my 'presumption' in daring to respond to their request for input. Which makes sense, when you think about it, since they have far more personally invested in the AME than I.

Quote

If you accuse me of playing games and wasting your time, what is it you do then? Giving constructive feedback on something doesn't equal immediately taking over and designing the masterplan for changing it, and frankly noone has ever asked you to do something of the sort, it was you yourself who proposed it.

What 'I do' is to give requested feedback, in an attempt to improve your organization.
Quote

I answered your questions as best as I could,

As best you could? You didn't even attmept to answer most of them, including the very simple question about the number of active AME members.
Quote

 but if you can't even explain your general idea without me feeding you with all kinds of data first, then pardon me when I begin to think I'm wasting my time trying to listen to you, too.
 

 Begging your pardon, but that isn't true either. As I already explained, the general idea was a voting certificatio system, and the 'all kinds of data' were a few simple questions to see if such was even feasible.
 
 
Quote

 Where's your 'self-interest' in all of this, I wonder?
{smilie}

And close with a vague implication of an axe to grind, with not even a shred of evidence. classy stuff. Is this really how you want to represent your organization to the community?

In any event, between Andarian's reduculous remarks, and your obvious reticence, it's looking more and more like you guys were after attention, not actual feedback, so I'll desist in my attempts to help. I won't say anything about refraining from posting, however, as last time I did that, some of your members took it as carte blanche to troll me. I urge you to reconsider self-nominations, when tempers have had a chance to cool - as Este noted, it looks really bad.

Funky
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Estelindis on August 31, 2011, 02:15:52 am


               Just to interject, Funky, I feel it would look bad if I was nominated for anything while an active AME member - but, as I said before, it's not as if I've actually produced anything worthy of an award. Perhaps I would feel differently if some of my work genuinely reached that level of merit! (Or perhaps I wouldn't, but it's all theoretical and far too easy to make pseudo-magnanimous claims if there's never the chance I might actually have to put my money where my mouth is.) In terms of other members' (or former members') work, I esteem submissions like Ragnarok's animations and Andarian's Sanctum very highly, and believe they fully deserved their awards.

So, where does that leave us?  I suggest the following as our consensus. On the one hand, some community members feel that the possibility (and, as we see, the actuality) of some AME members being nominated for Golden Dragon Awards dilutes the notability and legitimacy of the awards. On the other hand, AME members attest that the matter has already been given serious consideration and feel that the best possible compromise has already been implemented (and, indeed, is working well).  What if it was agreed that the concerns raised would be acknowledged, but rules concerning the elligibility of AME members for awards would only be changed based on a democratic vote among Academy members?  AME membership is, after all, open to all those willing to give their time and effort to help the awards process, so hopefully that would answer the concern that things should be public ("public" meaning, I now gather, open to the public rather than totally transparent to the public; rightly or wrongly, this is what I take from Funky's response to my previous suggestion).  Of course, to ensure that people didn't just join to change rules at voting time, one would have to have actually helped with the Academy's work (or be in the process of helping) to be entitled to vote. Does this seem fair?
               
               

               


                     Modifié par Estelindis, 31 août 2011 - 01:36 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Estelindis on August 31, 2011, 03:10:55 am


               In terms of identifying what the particular purpose of the AME/GDAs is, by the way, I'd contrast them not only with Vault votes (and the old Module of the Year contest) but also with the Reviewers' Guild.

The Vault doesn't really require that a person justifies their vote. Certainly, an uncommented 1 can (and, I'm sure, would usually) be removed upon request , but I imagine an uncommented 10 would remain.  ;-)  On the plus side, the speed and ease of adding one's score/assessment mean that many more people will do so than would, say, write a constructive review.  Accordingly, the Vault is able to build up a mosaic of opinion from lots of little voting "tiles"; regardless of the system's weaknesses, this is valuable.

A review will give a deep, well-thought-out perspective on a module. The module does not have to be compared to others (though, due to the Guild's scoring system, reviewed modules can easily be compared to each other); each one generally stands or falls on its own merits. There is no particular guarantee that the reviewing process will result in a conveniently-viewable "cream of the crop," however. While the Reviewers' Award is given to modules that achieve high scores, I don't get the impression that reviewers try to single out the very best of what is available (QSW can correct me if I'm wrong). Each year of reviews might yield higher or lower scores, depending on what reviewers felt like playing and writing about (though I gather that there's a list of modules requested for review, which must influence matters somewhat).

I think the aim of the AME is to provide a peer-reviewed series of awards recognising what a group of experienced and committed builders, modders, scripters and what-have-you feel to be the best available work done on and in NWN over the course of a given year. Before nominations and winners are released to the public, each suggestion by any given member is reviewed by others working in the same category. If another member thinks a suggestion would not be worthy of nomination, they can say why. Depending on the situation, it might lead to an Academy-wide discussion of the principles at question (e.g. what constitutes a good "role-playing module"; should entirely new models be preferred over reskins; should conversions from other games be allowed, etc), or maybe it will just be a matter of the member either reiterating their support for the suggestion or taking the criticism on board and suggesting some other material for nomination. As a group, AME members try to learn from each other and use their collective experience to the best possible effect. Once an awards cycle is complete, the community will not have assessments of all material (Vault voting, insofar as even a total lack of votes and low downloads can be seen as useful information), or even of a more or less arbitray selection (Reviewers' Guild), but of a very particular set of material which could be of unique interest to them. This is not to say that the GDAs are better or worse than the alternatives, only that they are somewhat different.

While this is just the way I see things, I hope it helps matters.
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_henesua on August 31, 2011, 03:33:08 am


               

FunkySwerve wrote...
That was an interesting arrangement of words, but it lacked logical coherence...


Funky, I'm not interested in your claims of incomprehension, but requested that you address the argument laid before you. This pattern is typical of you. Ignore the real argument, and stake irrelevant ground. Banner was right to call you a troll earlier. Thats all this is. Waste of time.

Bye.
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_WebShaman on August 31, 2011, 03:32:35 pm


               

Funky, I'm not interested in your claims of incomprehension


??  I do not see where Funky "claims" not to be able to comprend - on the contrary.  He is pointing out that something does not make sense! due to how it is formulated.  In other words, it does not follow, logically.

, but requested that you address the argument laid before you.


As far as I can tell, that is exactly what Funky did.  I am sort of at a loss as to why you do not realize this, or see it.  Could you perhaps expound on this?

This pattern is typical of you. Ignore the real argument, and stake irrelevant ground.


Now THAT is a real straw man, and it *IS* trolling.

Banner was right to call you a troll earlier.


Banner was out of line, as he often is.  Such as with Chris, for example.  Or in many other threads that if we had access to the Legacy forums I could directly link to.

Thats all this is. Waste of time.


An interesting statement.  To whom is it a waste of time?  Obviously you consider it trolling (you say as much), and you have trolled it yourself, so yes, that part is sort of a waste of time, I suppose.  It does give a deeper look into yourself, however, for those who are reading what you are posting.  So in that sense, it is not a total waste of time, at least not for me.

I am beginning to get the uncomfortable feeling that this has less to do with the actual AME, and more to do with previous...discussions about other things, that suprisingly enough involved pretty much the same folks!  As I recall, those discussions (if you wish to call them that) never did get resolved, due to Bioware shutting them down.

So what are we really dealing with here?  The AME voting process and the issue of bias and self-interest, or are we really dealing with the residue of unresolved disagreements of the past?

If the latter, then indeed, this is really a big waste of time.  If the former, then I think not.
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Estelindis on August 31, 2011, 04:02:24 pm


               

WebShaman wrote...

I am beginning to get the uncomfortable feeling that this has less to do with the actual AME, and more to do with previous...discussions about other things, that suprisingly enough involved pretty much the same folks!  As I recall, those discussions (if you wish to call them that) never did get resolved, due to Bioware shutting them down.

I sincerely hope not.  Those were some of the least pleasant exchanges I've seen at any time in the community's history, and I have no desire (not just an absence of desire, but a negative quantity of desire, if that is even possible!) to return to them.

Ultimately, if no agreement on the topic of member eligibility can be reached, I think it's best to simply thank everyone for the feedback.  The process of listening and discussing has been at least somewhat valuable, regardless of whether or not it has led to any given party taking actions that others suggest.  Personally, I am happy to leave things there.
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_WebShaman on August 31, 2011, 04:14:25 pm


               

Ultimately, if no agreement on the topic of member eligibility can be reached, I think it's best to simply thank everyone for the feedback.  The process of listening and discussing has been at least somewhat valuable, regardless of whether or not it has led to any given party taking actions that others suggest.  Personally, I am happy to leave things there.


You know, Estelindis, I really enjoy reading your posts!  They are really well formulated, come to the point, and you maintain a really nice level of decency and coherence in the process.

I concur wholeheartedly.
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Estelindis on August 31, 2011, 04:30:32 pm


               I'm glad that you feel that way.  Thank you very much.  :)
               
               

               


                     Modifié par Estelindis, 31 août 2011 - 03:45 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_AndarianTD on August 31, 2011, 04:52:50 pm


               

WebShaman wrote...

I am beginning to get the uncomfortable feeling that this has less to do with the actual AME, and more to do with previous...discussions about other things, that suprisingly enough involved pretty much the same folks!  As I recall, those discussions (if you wish to call them that) never did get resolved, due to Bioware shutting them down.


That's a very insightful observation, WebShaman, which I have also noticed and with which I unfortunately very much agree. As then, there are a lot of implicit philosophic assumptions and premises underlying this discussion that both sides are sometimes relying on without recognizing explicitly, and which are leading to a lot of talking past each other. I think that the implicit view of self-interest inherent in Funky's central criticism, for example, is one of those core assumptions (and one which, as an Objectivist, I very much do not share).

I've been torn about writing to identify those differing implicit premises, which I at least think I understand, even when I don't share them. What they show, I think, is that this is less a debate about the AME than it is a debate about one's philosophic and political worldviews. That's clearly evinced by the appearance of seemingly irrelevant digressions on things like "economic analysis," "market solutions," and the like. But I know from experience that people (myself included) can become extremely exercised when their implicit worldviews are challenged; and like Este, that's the last thing I want to see here.

So as much as the philosopher in me wants to fisk these issues in minute detail, I'm going to resist the temptation and ask everyone to please draw a line under the current discussion. I created this thread to ask for feedback on the AME's current awards activities, including things like nominee suggestions for the still open awards, thoughts on the finalists and their work, and questions about how to help out for those who might be interested. Let's agree to disagree on what we disagree about, and return to those topics.
               
               

               


                     Modifié par AndarianTD, 31 août 2011 - 04:00 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Failed.Bard on August 31, 2011, 06:13:59 pm


                 I'm going to make a TL;DR summary of my views on the two sides of this.

AndarianTD wrote...
The AME's current and former membership list includes some of the finest builders in the community -- people like BGPHuges, Ragnarok_mr4, Sixesthrice, Pstemarie, Quillmaster, Carlo One, Qkrch, Bannor Bloodfist, nereng, and Estelindis, just to name a few off the top of my head. If such award-caliber builders were not eligible, then what would our awards really mean? "Here's the best Tileset of 2011, except it's not because the really best tileset happened to have been made by someone who was on our voting panel so we couldn't nominate it?" I wouldn't take such an awards announcement seriously, and I wouldn't expect anyone else to do so either.


  This is from AndarianTD's first post on the matter, the bolded part had been repeated by him several times, and by several others from AME.  While I can understand the position the shrinking playerbase and inability to recruit new members, the perception of that oft repeated and aggressively defended statement is that the AME considers their own work to be of higher quality than non-AME members work.

  FunkySwerve asserts that the perception of bias, both in nominating members and statements like I quoted, is a serious issue for the credibility of the AME.  The AME believes it isn't.


  Personally, I don't know any of the people involved with the AME, and have no reason to believe that they aren't trying to be both neutral and fair in their evaluations of all the nominated work.  This, and my earlier post, are simply about the perception of that work, deserved or otherwise.
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_AndarianTD on August 31, 2011, 06:48:42 pm


               All right, one more round... ;)

Failed.Bard wrote...

...the perception of that oft repeated and aggressively defended statement is that the AME considers their own work to be of higher quality than non-AME members work.


The AME doesn't create work. Some of its members do, as individual participants in the community. Because the AME goes out of its way to recruit skilled builders with well-known community reputations as part of its membership, it will sometimes be the case that these individuals will deserve to be nominated. The AME simply tries to be as fair to them as it is to everyone else, and has vigorous COI rules to address any resulting community concerns.

The AME aggressively recruits experienced builders and players with well-known reputations in the community because our mission is to bring informed, professional, and serious analysis to the giving of the Golden Dragon Awards. This is the same reason why the Academy of Motion Pictures recruits experienced professionals into their membership.
               
               

               


                     Modifié par AndarianTD, 31 août 2011 - 05:55 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Bannor Bloodfist on August 31, 2011, 08:12:51 pm


               Funky's argument is that he BELIEVES there is a POTENTIAL for someone to nominate, and award themselves.  That entire idea has been discounted continuously in this thread.  ANY other argument is moot.  The AME distinctly answered that threat.  A member can NOT nominate themselves.  An AME member can NOT participate in the voting for an award where their own content is involved.  This means not only that their own vote is not even permitted, but that their own insights are not counted towards the potential award.

ANY argument from a NON-AME member is worthless since that argument is presented from a person that could not be bothered to join the AME.  The AME has consistently requested folks to join up to help.  They have consistently requested insights on what folks think should bne considered for any given award.

Is there a POTENTIAL for subversion?  Sure, just as there is a potential for anyone to win the 84 million lottery.  However, that potential can't be realized unless you purchase a ticket.  If you feel that the AME is not doing things correctly, fine, join them, make sure your voice is heard, but only AFTER you have read, and discussed how things are handled.

So far, Funky has still refused to read the rules of the AME, and still refused to accept that the potential has never been realized.  

There is a potential for the Sun to explode tomorrow... the odds are against it, but humans certainly do NOT have enough knowledge to guarantee that the sun will NOT explode tomorrow.  So, should we all start building a space-ark and hoarding food/water/gold on the random chance that eh Sun will explode in the next 24 hours?  That is what Funky is stating that we should all do... beware, the AME is gaming the vote, (Likely because he is jealous, but that is another question entirely) and awarding GDA's to folks unworthy without fair comparison of other submitted works etc...

So far, no proof of "loading" the vote has been given.  The Straw Man argument that something was not considered for a vote is just that, a Straw Man; An argument based on the assumption that everyone is doing things specifically to exclude folks, or to specifically grant folks an award.  He is throwing accusations against a team of folks that has absolutely no basis in fact.  

Funky has flat out stated that he doesn't consider the request to read the rules etc, to be pertinent to him, since he already knows all the answers to all the questions regardless or because he believes that he personally should be directly answered here, again, and again, instead of reading what is already in place.  He is above having to research, he is waiting for folks to do the work for him.  He has succeeded in harming the reputation of the AME just by the accusations, with NO BASIS IN FACT of any wrongdoing by any member of the AME.  All of this by a supposed lawyer.  

Funky, do your research, JOIN the AME, and get your views answered as a PARTICIPATING member.  If you feel you might have a way to change things that you think would alleviate any POTENTIAL gaming of the vote, Join the AME and get your voice heard.  Throwing accusations against someone/team that you truly know nothing about, on the OFF CHANCE that something MIGHT HAPPEN in the future/past etc, is just seriously harming your own reputation as well as that of folks that have striven very hard to HELP the community.

It truly does NOT matter what potentials exist, what matters are how those potentials have been handled and what things are in place to prevent those potentials.

There is no perfect system.  The AME only considers work for each year, based on what was posted onto the vault the previous year.  Excluding the "lifetime achievement" type of awards, which are not a SINGLE award, but one that is potentially given every year.  

I still stand, FIRMLY, on the belief that the AME is above reproach.  If you don't agree, then kindly walk away, and ignore those awards OR Join the AME and help to decide how things are done.  Standing on the sidelines yelling out potential plays to the Quarterback doesn't help.  The Quarterback has the actual GAME on his mind, not what some fan is yelling from the sidelines.

The AME is setup as a PEER REVIEW type system, not a fanboyz system.  Excluding the PEERS from being eligible is absolutely a non-starter.  Adding public fanboyz votes is counter to the goals of the AME.  The AME as originally started, was to give folks an EDUCATED/EXPERIENCED vote on the quality of a given work.  Being nominated for a GDA is in itself an award of sorts... the given work made it above the cut-line.  Winning the award(s) is a vote from experienced moders/players/cc folks whom have agreed that the given winner is the best from the prior year.  A vote made by folks that know how hard it is to create Custom Content in all of it's various forms and/or a vote by experienced players that have seen/played various modules etc, and appreciate the extra quality of a specific winner.

So far, NO EVIDENCE has been presented of ANY nefarious votes on ANY winner in the history of the AME.  Why?  There is none.  A potential for the damn to break doesn't mean that is WILL fail or that it HAS failed.  Anything created by man has the potential to fail, any vote given by ANYONE has the potential to be influenced by any given number of outside influences.  

By Funky's standard here, there is the potential for someone to purchase the vote in one fashion or another.  The fact that this has NEVER happened is proof that the current system in place, does it's level best to prevent such sale of a vote.

As a matter of law, You MUST provide evidence to prove guilt.  This has NOT been done here, and will not be accomplished, simply because the AME already considered the possibility of gaming the system, and has stringent Conflict Of Interest rules in place to help prevent that.  Supposition or beliefs of potential do not make someone guilty.  There must be some form of real evidence to prove the guilt.  Since there is no such evidence, the entire argument is just a way to throw rocks while hiding behind the wall.

Seriously folks, if you believe that the AME has done things wrong, JOIN THEM, help them change.  I personally don't believe that change is necessary, but I also believe any MEMBER of the AME has the right to voice their opinions in an educated argument for/against any rules in place.  Then the Democratic system of the AME will take that proposed change under advisement and likely put it to a vote of a go/no-go status change.

Just because someone placed himself at a crosswalk with a costume designed to look something similar to a Police Officer, does NOT give that person the legal right to issue tickets to someone that MIGHT make a right hand turn instead of going straight.  How would that person know if I planned on making a right hand turn?  Maybe I was going to go straight, or left, or even backwards... Just because the person standing in the crosswalk THINKS that I MIGHT make a turn, does not make it true.  Provide proof, or shut up.

EDIT:  Ohhh... wait, the Sun just exploded, I have to leave for my space ark.  See ya.
               
               

               


                     Modifié par Bannor Bloodfist, 31 août 2011 - 07:15 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Arkalezth on August 31, 2011, 08:38:42 pm


               

Failed.Bard wrote...

  This is from AndarianTD's first post on the matter, the bolded part had been repeated by him several times, and by several others from AME.  While I can understand the position the shrinking playerbase and inability to recruit new members, the perception of that oft repeated and aggressively defended statement is that the AME considers their own work to be of higher quality than non-AME members work.

We just nominate what we think it's best, be it of an AME's member or not, and that's, by far, the fairest approach, IMO.

I shouldn't need to mention this, but to put an example, I've voted/nominated non-AME authors over AME ones. Not because I felt bad or biased, simply because I preferred the other. Believe it or not, some people are objective and mature enough to judge things as they are. And, for what I've seen, I think most AME members are.
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_jmlzemaggo on August 31, 2011, 08:48:09 pm


               In my time, I voted and nominated for AME members, and non-AME members as well. I voted for builders.
Because that was my duty, as an AME member... to simply vote for the best one.
In my opinion.

Opinion being the key word here.

Now, if you would excuse me, I gotta go to the market.
Buy some flowers.
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Tybae on September 01, 2011, 12:08:13 am


               Oh, for the love of all that's holy, let it die.  Nothing is changing no matter what anyone says.  If you don't like it, that's your opinion.
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Shia Luck on September 01, 2011, 12:56:10 am


               

Estelindis wrote...

WebShaman wrote...

I am beginning to get the uncomfortable feeling that this has less to do with the actual AME, and more to do with previous...discussions about other things, that suprisingly enough involved pretty much the same folks!  As I recall, those discussions (if you wish to call them that) never did get resolved, due to Bioware shutting them down.

I sincerely hope not.  Those were some of the least pleasant exchanges I've seen at any time in the community's history, and I have no desire (not just an absence of desire, but a negative quantity of desire, if that is even possible!) to return to them.


*Agreeing wholeheartedly with Este*.. and I think it is good you mentioned that Web.

Estelindis wrote...
Ultimately, if no agreement on the topic of member eligibility can be reached, I think it's best to simply thank everyone for the feedback.  The process of listening and discussing has been at least somewhat valuable, regardless of whether or not it has led to any given party taking actions that others suggest.  Personally, I am happy to leave things there.


AndarianTD wrote...
So as much as the philosopher in me wants to fisk these issues in minute detail, I'm going to resist the temptation ...


I'd
be happy to discuss, and while I can't give AME, or anything else, much of my time these days, I respect it,
just as I respect Funky's huge contributions to the community. But as I impiied in my previous post, I think there is less discussing and more dissing going on. I don't enjoy or even see the point of it.

One thing I know from being in the Reviewers Guild tho, is that, just like in other forums, people are people. [insert huge list of adjectives used for describing people's attitudes] And self interest is not as obvious as it may sound imho.

To begin to show a concept such as the  "Economic human"/purely self interested human means a philosophical quagmire, with lots of studies showing much more altruism and sense of fairness than could be possible by that model, and it therefore seems to fly in the face of current evolutionary thought. Game theory among others .. *shutting up cos it's irrelevent*  *grin* ... but I don;t think you can assume it as something that needs to be defended against, Funky. You need to show it happens in the AME, no?

But all Funky's first assertion needs is that the simplistic model is what is perceived, no? It's a logical point.

But one cannot control what is perceived, no? *tempted to witter about "Death of the author" *grin*

Therefore, all the AME can do is make sure that flaw is covered to the best of it's ability.

Which brings me back to the Reviewers Guild point. I know most RG members would argue (cos I have seen them do it), against any sort of fixing of the scores. And they would do so, arguably, in accordance with the concept of econmics.It is in their own self interest to do so ...  It would increase their standing in the guild to be seen by the other guild members to be acting so, and economics can use any measure, no?  Doesn't have to be monetary, does it? Respect is a coin universally valued. It is the flip side of a member voluntarily recusing themselves from participation in a certain year.


...but if we are going to discuss... then discuss and read charitably... try and find the best interpretation of someone's view, no? There is unproductive testsoterone on both sides methinks.

Bannor Bloodfist wrote...

ANY argument from a NON-AME
member is worthless since that argument is presented from a person that
could not be bothered to join the AME.


Therefore this
thread and it's stated purpose is merely a PR activity with no real
meaning or integrity and mine and Web's and  [insert other non AME members names] thoughts don't count?

I know/hope you don't really mean that Bannor (please correct
me if I am wrong!! *grin* ), but better to have a peace pipe and a talk
around the embers than pour petrol on them no?

...Personally, it's not a question of being bothered or not, it is time. I
find it very hard to believe you can;t recognise that as one the main
reasons for lack of membership in all NWN activities. Also the reason I have never played on HG.
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Bannor Bloodfist on September 01, 2011, 02:40:59 am


               

Shia Luck wrote...
<snipped>

Bannor Bloodfist wrote...

ANY argument from a NON-AME
member is worthless since that argument is presented from a person that
could not be bothered to join the AME.


Therefore this
thread and it's stated purpose is merely a PR activity with no real
meaning or integrity and mine and Web's and  [insert other non AME members names] thoughts don't count?

I know/hope you don't really mean that Bannor (please correct
me if I am wrong!! *grin* ), but better to have a peace pipe and a talk
around the embers than pour petrol on them no?

...Personally, it's not a question of being bothered or not, it is time. I
find it very hard to believe you can;t recognise that as one the main
reasons for lack of membership in all NWN activities. Also the reason I have never played on HG.


Actually, what I was referring to is someone taking a stance that the AME has favored some member with awards, with absolutely no proof, and that same person is claiming that he can't be bothered to read the rules that the AME follows before making such an outlandish claim.

As to the so-called "requested feedback" bit about this whole thread, the feedback actually looked for was additional nominees.

Not some off the cuff remark about the integrity of the AME guild.  As evidenced by the sole post requesting such feedback which was widely mis-quoted so I will repost it here:

AndarianTD wrote...

Wow -- tough crowd. {smilie} No one has any thoughts or feedback? Suggestions for new nominees or thoughts on new categories, perhaps?

We've tried to come up with some new one-time "Special Recognition" categories that open up the field of nominations to works published in previous as well as recent years. After our finalists for Best Tileset are posted (coming soon), We'll share some of those categories with you. In the meantime we'd be interested in hearing suggestions for such categories from the rest of the community. What would YOU like to see as a new "Special Recognition" category for NWN1?


That was not actually a request on how the finalists are chosen, the process etc, but a request for nominees AND for more members to help alleviate any possible conflicts by having more members, AND having more content/categories etc to choose from.

Funky's first response was a direct attack on who won, base on a badly mistaken belief that the vote was loaded due to having members elligable for winning an award.  My first response was to point out just how any conflict of interest is handled within the AME as is now stands.

The whole thread went downhill from there simply beccause I chose to use the words "Beyond Reproach" for the AME membership.  I know they are, because I HAVE read the rules, AND I HAVE been involved in the past.  Neither of which has Funky done.  So his statements are particularly grating, since by his own statments, he can't be bothered to even read up on things, to see how possible conflicts of interest are handled.  He is basically demanding that the AME RE-STATE how they do things, wihen it is all publicly available if you bother to read their website.

There are public forums there to raise issues, there are private forums there to prevent egregious reactions to opinions on why a particular candidate may not deserve a winning vote.

Everything else is just grandstanding on the belief that all humans are dishonest and unreliable.

In the case of the AME:  No need to fix what isn't broken.

The AME always takes notice of folks that submit possible candidates for a given award, those candidates are investigated, and compared against OTHER contestants for the same award.  There can be only one true winner, yet, even being a finalist is an award in and of itself.  And the Finalist listing is NOT a listing of all the candidates for a given award, it is simply the top few out of however many candidates there are.


Shia Luck , I FULLY understand not having the time to join another endeavor, that is fine, we all have lives to live, things to do, people to see etc.  But just because someone is busy does NOT give them the right to attack someone else's work on a badly mistaken belief that the system is weighted against anyone but the AME.  AME members have lost to others, AME members have won against others, both of which are as it SHOULD be.

The AME was setup as a group of peers, for peer review above and beyond the fanboy type voting system found elsewhere.  Skilled folks, players, builders, cc creators, writers, scripters, any of whome may have their own content in one fashion or another that CAN qualify for an award.  The AME believes that those folks that have given of their own time to help the AME should NOT be penalized/excluded from a possible win just because they are a member.  To help alleviate any possible Conflict of Interest though, those folks can NOT participate in testing/reviewin OR Voting on the category that their content may have been nominated for.

The entire rest of this hate thread is just stupid grandstanding.

As I stated earlier, the Sun may explode tomorrow, do you have your Space-Ark built yet?  There are all sorts of POSSIBLE things that can happen at any given point in time or space, should we be hiding from the possiblity of a falling apple in the winter?  No apples in the tree?  That is Funkie's assertation to this point in time.  He claimed he wants to help, yet can't be bothered to even read to see HOW things are done before casting aspersions.  That is what caused this whole flame war.  Back it up with facts, or shut the heck up.  Comparisons to econmic theory and law have absolutely no bearing here.  No laws were broken, and there is absolutely no proof that the AME has ever awarded a member in favor ABOVE anyone else with the same quality of work.  Why?  Becasue they are honest and have striven above and beyond what most folks would consider reasonable, to make sure that no such aspersions can be cast at them based on facts...

To continue to argue an INVALID point in spite of every evidence against such point, is just grandstanding.  Choosing to flame for no reason.  It truly does not matter how nicely worded a threat is, a threat is a threat, an attack is an attack.  If you can't be bothered to even investigate before casting aspersions, you have no business being here.

Edit:  Note that the "You" in all of the above is not aimed at any specific individual, but the collective "you" as in all of us.
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Tybae on September 01, 2011, 05:24:45 am


               I'd just like to say how much I agree with Bannor Bloodfist's post.
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_WebShaman on September 01, 2011, 09:30:30 am


               

Funky's argument is that he BELIEVES there is a POTENTIAL for someone to nominate, and award themselves.


This is incorrect.  

Funky pointed out the potential for bias in the system, and a perceived lack of checks for it.  He never stated that he "believes" that there is a potential for someone to just nomiate and award themselves, rather, he based his words on sound theory - self-interest and how that can lead to appearances of misconduct (which do not even have to be present)!  He used such as an example of what could happen, as well as others influencing each other, either conciously or INCONSCIOUSLY!

Also, he pointed out the potential for those outside to perceive such bias, real or imagined, and how that can reflect on the worth of an award that is based on such.  Also based on sound theory.

It is not a question of belief here.  Instead, it is more about basing a premis on a tried and proven theory and how it applies to a particular issue, with examples providing the support.

I could go on about this, but it is not necessary.  As I have pointed out in the above, the rest of the post was based on faulty premises.

I will comment on the part that Shia took issue with - and just point to it.
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Bannor Bloodfist on September 01, 2011, 05:06:22 pm


               If your perception or anyone else's perception is that bad, I would suggest that they get a pair of glasses and READ how the AME handles things PRIOR to making unfounded accusations.
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_NWVaultQSW on September 01, 2011, 05:54:20 pm


               

Dallo wrote...



You're right, QSW. See, even I'm posting here and I haven't had anything to say for quite awhile. Come to think of it, still haven't really since my passion with NwN has long since cooled. Funky's argument is a valid one, no doubt about
it, but I also have no doubt whatsoever about the integrity of the AME group.

It's a hard one really. I was invited to be part of AME when it was initially established, but declined since I felt that the community, despite the obvious flaws of the Vault voting system, usually muddled through and got it right. Not always, but usually. There is also the point that many modders vote on others' modules, or have in the past, so there's always been 'professional' critique to some extent in the Vault system and I saw no real need for something like the
AME.

Since then though I've changed my mind, mostly because 'professional' critique has dried up on the Vault and the relevance of AME, from my perspective, grew as the overall activity declined. Now it is undoubtedly a key ingredient in the process of mod/CC recognition and whilst i don't play Nwn any more I'm glad it exists for those who do.

Cheers to all of you! As always there is no Truth, only truths.


You should never tell QSW she is right, it is hard enough to keep the old bag under control as it is Dallo, without having to suffer her dragonish smug grins and blowing of talons :blink:
Dallo, it is always the greatest of pleasure to see you around and your thoughts on any given subject, whether for or against, have the ability to ground me and bring a great big smile to my face. :D



_Six Wrote:

But recieving them doesn't mean as much to me as just getting thoughtful forum posts and suggestions. From how little the community seems to care about the AME I'd hazard to say I'm not the only one. Hell, even as an ex member I don't
pay them any attention.


ROFL! Oh thank you Six! I know I may sound err, weird, but having an ex AME member as well as one of the top talents in CC of NWN1 say this, reinforces my belief that it is the imperfections (subjectively perceived of course!) that
endear the NWN1 community to me.


Estelindis wrote:

A review will give a deep, well-thought-out perspective on a module. The module does not have to be compared to others (though, due to the Guild's scoring system, reviewed modules can easily be compared to each other); each one
generally stands or falls on its own merits. There is no particular guarantee that the reviewing process will result in a conveniently-viewable "cream of the crop," however. While the Reviewers' Award is given to modules that
achieve high scores, I don't get the impression that reviewers try to single out the very best of what is available (QSW can correct me if I'm wrong). Each year of reviews might yield higher or lower scores, depending on what reviewers
felt like playing and writing about (though I gather that there's a list of modules requested for review, which must influence matters somewhat).



That is a good evaluation of what the Reviewer's Guild do Est. 99% of the reviews written are on modules where authors have requested the review. In order to try and keep reviewer's interest, we introduced the 'Reviewer Module Requests' forum, which enables a reviewer to ask if they can review a module not on our current pending list. Admin make the request of the author and only allow it if permission is given. As we all know, not every module genre will be to a player's taste, and we won't allow such bias to enter a review as it is to no one’s benefit. This additional function enables us to add variety to our reviews as well as keeping reviewer's motivated (to a certain extent)

I firmly believe it is an organizations ability to review, change or accommodate (as much as it can without compromising its own values) that defines the organization itself.

Like you, when the possibility of the Reviewer's Guild being eligible for the Community Contribution Award came up, I asked that we not be considered as I was an AME member. I did speak to the members of the Review Guild at the time, because that is only fair, as recognition of their hard work over the years was at stake. I explained my postion to them, as an AME member and they agreed at the time that it was fine not to be included in the awards of that year.

I acually have no recalection if it was agreed upon if that would be the case for following years or not, as I don't belive we discussed it in the forums, instead it was via YIM. Perhaps shia or VPJ or one of the other reviewers at that time would recall. My own stance on the matter is the same, but obviously as I have stated earlier in this thread, it is not a stance I hold for, or expect of other AME members. Should the review Guild ever again be considered (something highly unlikely I might add) I would still be of the same mind, but I'd also be willing to step down from my AME membership in order that my own personal preferences did not unduly or adversely affect a group of people who I
have the highest love and regard for.

In the end, I honestly believe we each of us try to do the very best for our community as a whole, regardless of our own personal preferences at the time.

PS: Sorry that this is not the account I normally post with. I can't remember what my other account PW is, and so the laptop account for me is different. *Grins* I don't actually remember what the PW for the laptop one is either...see what happens when you ask a computer to remember everything for you?!
               
               

               


                     Modifié par NWVaultQSW, 01 septembre 2011 - 05:07 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Tybae on September 01, 2011, 09:33:00 pm


               

WebShaman wrote...

This is incorrect.  

Funky pointed out the potential for bias in the system, and a perceived lack of checks for it.  He never stated that he "believes" that there is a potential for someone to just nomiate and award themselves, rather, he based his words on sound theory - self-interest and how that can lead to appearances of misconduct (which do not even have to be present)!  He used such as an example of what could happen, as well as others influencing each other, either conciously or INCONSCIOUSLY!


Just because there is potential for something doesn't mean it's happening.  You may have a set of car keys and that means there is potential for you to drive drunk.  You have money and that means that there is potential for you to spend that money on drugs. 

We have offered several times for anyone who is doubtful to check our forums.  All of our rules are posted there in writing.  If anyone violates those core values, then they will be expelled from the AME.  Thankfully we haven't had to do that.  I don't care what conclusions people draw.  There is nothing that is going to change those values and there is more than one person who enforces those rules.  If I were to violate any of those rules, I would expect to be expelled from the AME. 

Either way, I can talk until I'm blue in the face and I won't change minds.  The same can be said for people who doubt.  We have offered several times to the people who doubt to put their money where their mouth is and they have declined each and every time.  Put up or shut up.  I'm done defending myself and the AME against a few paranoid doubters that feel they want to pee in my cereal just because.  I will not give in to uninformed accusations just because someone thinks they are right.  We all know what opinions are like.  I, for one, am not going to change anything, nor am I going to suggest any changing.  I think the AME is fine how it is.  It is completely and utterly unfair to the member to not have their work nominated.  If their work is the best out there, then they deserve an award, whether they are a member or not.  Oh, and for the record, I have voted against a members work because I thought someone else's work was better.  

All in all, I really don't care what others think.  I'm done here.  Threads like this are why I don't come here often anymore.  How fun is it to have to defend yourself all the time against the same people over and over and over and over?  How fun is it to have debates when people with differing opinions are met with rudeness and name calling?  It's sad really.  After all, this is just a game. 
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_WebShaman on September 02, 2011, 03:48:50 pm


               

Just because there is potential for something doesn't mean it's happening.


Nobody has stated that it is happening.  That is what is sooo off here.  Some are reacting as if they are under attack, and they are not.

What is being stated is that under the current system, the impression that something could happen, is important, because the checks and balances do not correspond.  And often, this impression is one that outsiders hold (which pretty much totally derails what Bannor posted) to be true.

Appearances, and all that.

An examination of human history shows us that groups that police themselves are prone to such errors - as such, checks and balances need to be imposed to prevent it.  It is the ol' "who watches the watchmen" question...and yes, when it comes to awards (being selected as having acheived something by some group, etc), appearances are very, very importance to the worth of said award.

Take the Oscar, for example.  If the whole system was totally corrupt (not saying it is, or is not, but let us for a moment suggest that it was) and known, then the award itself would lose on importance and worth.

If public opinion was so that it was corrupt, regardless of whether or not it truly was, then the same thing would also occur - the award would lose on importance and worth.

So there really is more than one side to be considered here, as has been pointed out.

@Bannor - I know that the AME has a website.  I know that everything about the AME is spelled out about it on that website.  But I am not everyone, obviously.  And I seriously doubt that most go to the AME website, and thus, most likely have very little idea of what it is all about, etc.

Much then lies within the realm of so-called "public opinion", as much normally does.  People for one reason or another (using that term, "reason", lightly here) tend not to invest time and effort to inform themselves, when they can "fall back" on public opinion.  It is just...easier, I guess.  Or perhaps conform, I don't know.
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Tybae on September 02, 2011, 04:31:59 pm


               

WebShaman wrote...
What is being stated is that under the current system, the impression that something could happen, is important, because the checks and balances do not correspond.  And often, this impression is one that outsiders hold (which pretty much totally derails what Bannor posted) to be true.


There ARE checks and balances in place.  The checks and balances exist past the public eye.  Just because you can't see them, doesn't mean they aren't there. Not only are they there, but there is more than 1 person enforcing such rules.  This is because we don't want any 1 person wielding the stick, so to speak.  We aren't going to make everything public just because of the views of a few people.  To be blunt, that's not going to happen.  That will be a problem for some people, but any organization is going to have to deal with doubters.  That is a fact of life and is no different in NWN than it is in real life.  CEP, CTP, PQ, etc. all have their doubters, trollers, etc. but changing their ways because of the views of a few is not only not realistic, it sets a very bad precedent.  If you change for a few, then where do you draw the line next time? 
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Bannor Bloodfist on September 02, 2011, 06:41:26 pm


               Heh...

Checks and balances don't correspond?  Why not?  How?  They are in place to specifically address any possible loading of votes.  Is the system perfect?  No such perfection exists anywhere.

As an example of the responses here, I will make this statement:

I "perceive" that you have Pink Elephants on your underpants.  Because of that, and association with anyone from the Higher Ground pw, I will assume that all of you are pinkos.

What?  No facts to back it up?  So what... I perceive it that way.  

Now, just how ridiculous does that sound?  Pretty darn bad I think.  (And not necessarily what I believe, just a statement of possibilities)

The entire rest of the arguments from that side of the fence are based on facts not in evidence, and any perception otherwise is ludicrous.

The issue has been fully addressed by the AME from it's initial conception.  Anyone that bothered to actually follow them over the years would have seen that evidence many times.

The AME is a group of PEERS, meaning folks that create custom content for/from NWN and have also already gained recognition of their efforts by the community at large prior to joining the AME.  At least that was how it started, the AME lowered some of the requirements for membership to allow folks that do NOT create CC to help judge things, but those folks have still proven their worth in other ways.

The AME was distinctly setup to prevent voting by the general public at large and was setup in such a way as to alleviate any possible conflicts of interest voting.  Those facts are there for anyone that cares about it.  Stating that your opinion doesn't agree with that, is Superficially plausible, but actually wrong: "a specious argument"  

Wait, I perceive that you are changing your underpants to Green Dinosaurs now... but I still believe you to be a pinko.  Ridiculous.
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Tybae on September 02, 2011, 08:38:25 pm


               

Bannor Bloodfist wrote...


The AME is a group of PEERS, meaning folks that create custom content for/from NWN and have also already gained recognition of their efforts by the community at large prior to joining the AME.  At least that was how it started, the AME lowered some of the requirements for membership to allow folks that do NOT create CC to help judge things, but those folks have still proven their worth in other ways.


For the record, I was one of the first accepted to the AME who was not a builder or a CC creator.  I still am not a builder or CC creator mostly because I don't have the time.  
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Arkalezth on September 02, 2011, 09:14:57 pm


               Same here, I'm just a player.
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_AndarianTD on September 02, 2011, 10:12:39 pm


               

Bannor Bloodfist wrote...

The AME is a group of PEERS, meaning folks that create custom content for/from NWN and have also already gained recognition of their efforts by the community at large prior to joining the AME.  At least that was how it started, the AME lowered some of the requirements for membership to allow folks that do NOT create CC to help judge things, but those folks have still proven their worth in other ways.


Just for the record, the AME was always intended to be organized around the idea of having a combination of builders, reviewers, and players in its membership. We were a bit heavier on builders and reviewers in our first cycle (the one Bannor was involved in) because AME grew out of the Reviewer's Guild and most of the early volunteers who stuck with it during the first year came from those communities. That's shifted over the years as we recruited more active and serious players -- folks like Tybae, Laisee, and Arkalezth, just to name a few -- to help fill out our membership. AME needs all three types of members, because it needs all three perspectives on modding to do justice to evaluating works for the GDAs.
               
               

               


                     Modifié par AndarianTD, 02 septembre 2011 - 09:14 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Dallo on September 08, 2011, 09:36:36 am


               

NWVaultQSW wrote...

You should never tell QSW she is right, it is hard enough to keep the old bag under control as it is Dallo, without having to suffer her dragonish smug grins and blowing of talons :blink:
Dallo, it is always the greatest of pleasure to see you around and your thoughts on any given subject, whether for or against, have the ability to ground me and bring a great big smile to my face. :D



*bows deeply*

My sword is yours, Silver One!!
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_FunkySwerve on September 11, 2011, 03:36:05 am


               

Bannor Bloodfist wrote...

Heh...

Checks and balances don't correspond?  Why not?  How?  They are in place to specifically address any possible loading of votes.  Is the system perfect?  No such perfection exists anywhere.

As an example of the responses here, I will make this statement:

I "perceive" that you have Pink Elephants on your underpants.  Because of that, and association with anyone from the Higher Ground pw, I will assume that all of you are pinkos.

What?  No facts to back it up?  So what... I perceive it that way.  

Now, just how ridiculous does that sound?  Pretty darn bad I think.  (And not necessarily what I believe, just a statement of possibilities)

Your counterexample above is inane. You're not basing anything on proven theory, just stringing together a bunch of made-up and unrelated facts. More technically put, you aren't advancing a sound argument with true premises, while the person you're criticizing (me) was. This is not simply a matter of perception, it's a case of extremely poor rule-making, but I can see that you're dead-set against any attempt to understand the problem.

As for Web, he isn't from HG, and has no affiliation with it. He simply possesses the capacity to reason - a rarity in this thread, it would seem. :P

The entire rest of the arguments from that side of the fence are based on facts not in evidence, and any perception otherwise is ludicrous.

Actually, no, they're entirely based on facts in evidence - what you yourself have said about your nomination process - specifically that you consider your own members for awards. Or are you now denying that?

The issue has been fully addressed by the AME from it's initial conception.  Anyone that bothered to actually follow them over the years would have seen that evidence many times.

Really? Where is all this copious evidence? Why haven't you produced it instead of blanket denials? You can't, of course, because, as I've already pointed out, this is not a thing that would leave behind physical evidence one way or another save in cases of extreme stuidity (though I'm less inclined to rule that possibility out than out the outset).

The AME is a group of PEERS, meaning folks that create custom content for/from NWN and have also already gained recognition of their efforts by the community at large prior to joining the AME.  At least that was how it started, the AME lowered some of the requirements for membership to allow folks that do NOT create CC to help judge things, but those folks have still proven their worth in other ways.

Ah, I now understand your group's reticence in talking about the way it perceives itself. In fact, it's members do NOT have to be custom content creators of any stripe - meaning you don't really differ from the Vault's voting makeup in your membership requirements, only in your process. A process which has provided demonstrably skewed results thus far, completely omitting NWNX authors for some inexplicable reason. You don't require any actual expertise...I can see where that runs into an image problem for a group professing to offer a more expert opinion, though I can understand the need to lower the bar so as to garner more participation.

The AME was distinctly setup to prevent voting by the general public at large and was setup in such a way as to alleviate any possible conflicts of interest voting.  Those facts are there for anyone that cares about it.  Stating that your opinion doesn't agree with that, is Superficially plausible, but actually wrong: "a specious argument"  

Simply saying it doesn't make it true. Your setup has a glaring conflict of interest, as has been pointed out ad nauseam.

Wait, I perceive that you are changing your underpants to Green Dinosaurs now... but I still believe you to be a pinko.  Ridiculous.

 This isn't a critique based on perception, but on sound theory. I can see you have no interest in addressing the problems with your voting/nomination system, but I will continue to correct you so long as you persist in mischaracterizing my critique, which is, as Web noted, on solid ground. If I were you I would just drop it - it's making you look rediculous.

Funky
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_WebShaman on September 11, 2011, 10:07:55 am


               I somehow doubt that Bannor cares how he looks on the internet, Funky.  Especially in light of many of the discussions that we have all had before, on various topics.

I mean, he slammed into Bioware recently, if you remember, which got Chris pretty upset.

I don't think he particularly cares how he comes across.  I think he gets passionate and posts, damn the torpedoes and all that.

At least, that is how it looks to me.
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Estelindis on September 11, 2011, 12:40:35 pm


               

FunkySwerve wrote...

Bannor Bloodfist wrote...
The AME is a group of PEERS, meaning folks that create custom content for/from NWN and have also already gained recognition of their efforts by the community at large prior to joining the AME.  At least that was how it started, the AME lowered some of the requirements for membership to allow folks that do NOT create CC to help judge things, but those folks have still proven their worth in other ways.

Ah, I now understand your group's reticence in talking about the way it perceives itself. In fact, it's members do NOT have to be custom content creators of any stripe - meaning you don't really differ from the Vault's voting makeup in your membership requirements, only in your process. A process which has provided demonstrably skewed results thus far, completely omitting NWNX authors for some inexplicable reason. You don't require any actual expertise...I can see where that runs into an image problem for a group professing to offer a more expert opinion, though I can understand the need to lower the bar so as to garner more participation.

If I may raise a point: there are many categories of Golden Dragon Awards, of which custom content actually represents a minority.  As such, there's no reason why only custom content makers should be AME members.  To get a proper balance of expertise, the judging group should consist of players, builders, scripters, and CC makers.  As it happens, it does have people with lots of experience in these areas.  This represents a significant difference with the Vault, since, although anyone (including experts in their fields) certainly can vote there, there's no NWN knowledge requirement for voting.

A further discinction that I would like to draw between the GDAs and Vault scoring is that, in general, most people do not vote for a Vault entry by comparing it to anything else.  The general tendency is to give an entry a ten if it is any good in itself, regardless of whether it's better or worse than something else from the same category of content that has also received a ten.  By contrast, there are a finite number of GDAs that can only be given to so many modules / CC packages / what-have-you.  Accordingly, they must be compared with each other.  This helps to achieve a result that AME members intend to showcase as a cream of the crop.  Of course, it's subjective (that's inevitable), but every attempt at objectivity (in the best sense of the word) is made and judgements are based on criteria can be understood by anyone.

I don't ask anyone to agree with me, as everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but these factors just mentioned make it clear to me, at least, that there's  worth in what the AME attempts to do.
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_WebShaman on September 11, 2011, 02:09:52 pm


               

I don't ask anyone to agree with me, as everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but these factors just mentioned make it clear to me, at least, that there's  worth in what the AME attempts to do.


Sure, and I certainly agree here.  In fact, I don't think anyone is actually disagreeing with this.
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Estelindis on September 11, 2011, 05:40:14 pm


               

WebShaman wrote...
I don't think anyone is actually disagreeing with this.

Really?  Well, good.  Differing opinions are welcome, but that doesn't mean it isn't nice when people agree.  :)
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Bannor Bloodfist on September 11, 2011, 06:38:33 pm


               In direct response to Funky's allegations:

1) Andarian was nominated for Debut Author of 2006, made the finals, and lost the award to Fester Pot. <<proof that AME CoI works very well.  Counter proof of Funky's baseless allegations.

2) Ragnarok_mr4 was nominated for Best CC for his Alternate Combat Animations, made the finals, and won the award.  Does anyone think that he should have NOT won that award?  He did not nominate himself by the way.

3) Six voted COI (conflict of interest, or a non-vote) for Best Tileset of 2007 due to having done some work fixing up ValynDyral's Arcadia City Tileset. It made the finals but did not win the award.

4) CTP was nominated for ComCon in 2008. It did not make the finals, but it took out three AME members (Este, Tybae, and Hellfire) from further participating in the nominations phase for the entire category.  <<-- Proof that the CoI rules are in place, and likely but not necessarily proof against Funky's baseless allegations.

5) Tybae was knocked out of Best Tileset and Community Contribution last year for his participation as a CTP tester, due to CTP's nomination in both categories. CTP did not make the finals in ComCon, but Babylon did make the finals in Best Tileset. Neither won the award.  <<-- Proof against an AME member winning when they should not.

6) Estelindis' KOTOR Heads was nominated for Best CC last year, made the finalis, and lost to Ben Harrison's Wizard Arcana Placeables. Este wasn't an active member at the time, but she was well known to all of us and still had voting access to the boards through the entire time when she was a nominee.  <<-- Again, proof that AME membership doesn't guarantee winning anything. In other words, Proof AGAINST Funky's allegations.

7) Andarian has been nominated and made the finals for Veteran Author of 2010. The winner is yet to be determined.  He can NOT participate in any of the voting in the Veteran Author award category due to CoI rules implemented by the AME so his vote is "lost" even if it would have been for someone else.

Now Funky,  provide proof that the AME has done anything wrong here?  You can't, because it does not happen, and because in the few instances where it MIGHT, POTENTIALLY happen, there are Conflict of Interest rules in place to prevent your allegations from taking place.  Provide proof dude, Put up or SHUT UP!

You have yet to provide any POSSIBLE solution other than removing an AME member from consideration, which has been explained to you that the AME feels that would be unfair for anyone to be excluded.

Now, as to your repeated comments regarding the NWNX team... So far, NO PW MEMBER has ever joined the AME despite repeated requests for PW members to join up.  NO AWARDS have been given for tools for PW's, since the AME has no PW folks involved.  No way to compare things, nothing to judge them against... Not the fault of the AME, since they have repeatedly asked for PW folks to join.  Sorry you feel you have been personally slighted, so obviously, you are JEALOUS that folks have won awards but have nothing to contribute to the community other than flames?

CTP has been nominated at least twice for various things, we never won.  Despite me personally, being a prior member of the AME, CTP lost.  

As one who has been convinced by this entire thread to rejoin a team of folks that are giving their own time to help the community. I have to publicly state that I have rejoined the AME to help them do their work.  My time is limited like many folks out there, but I can give of that time as much as I wish.
               
               

               


                     Modifié par Bannor Bloodfist, 11 septembre 2011 - 05:43 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_WebShaman on September 11, 2011, 09:00:18 pm


               NWNX can also be used for SP games...

I personally asked for this, and Virusman got it done.

As for the issue you raise with jealousy..huh?  I mean...HUH??!!  You have not only gone out on a limb, but left it and you are now approaching the limits of known space...

Are you even rational?
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_AndarianTD on September 11, 2011, 09:11:37 pm


               I've already commented on the AME's COI history, for example here. The rest of it was summarized in Bannor's last post, from information we compiled this morning. I hope that information is helpful to anyone genuinely and respectfully curious about the AME and its activities.

Also and for the record, I completely agree with Este's recent post, which I think summed up the facts about AME membership quite accurately.

I would like to add one additional point regarding Funky's comments about NWNX, though. As I understand it, NWNX is a server-side tool designed for online play, primarily for PWs. Although we do have a category for multiplayer modules, the AME primarily covers work in NWN's single-player community. Partly that has to do with the focus of our awards, and the design differences between SP mods, MP mods, and PWs. But mostly it's because in practice, we have had almost no support from NWN's Multiplayer and PW communities, despite repeated efforts to reach out to and solicit members from those communities in the past. As a consequence, even the AME's one MP category has now gone unawarded for several years in a row.

To take myself as an example: as a strictly SP author who doesn't play MP at all, I didn't even become aware of the existence of NWNX until earlier this year. From what I can see it looks like a fantastic contribution to the PW community. But as someone who builds and plays work for the SP community only, I have never had occasion or reason to learn about or to use it. That it has not been recognized is not surprising to me, given our lack of members from the MP and PW communities with the requisite focus and experience to nominate and champion it.

So yes, Community Contributions with an MP / PW focus may well have ended up being overlooked by the AME in the past. And yes, if anyone wants to "criticize" our awards for having a mainly SP-centric focus, I think that's a legitimate observation. But not to put too fine a point on it, that's less by our choice than it is by the choice of the members of NWN's MP player and builder communities. Anyone who would like to see that change can help out by signing up, but armchair quarterbacking or criticizing from the sidelines is neither fair nor helpful.

The AME has always wanted to expand its coverage of the NWN and NWN2 multiplayer communities, and we've had a number of long discussions about what we could do to help bring that about. Former Chairmen have repeatedly reached out to the MP community, and I'll be happy to reiterate that call here. But in the end, we can't conscript anyone to help us make that happen. Most of our volunteers historically have come from the SP community, and only the community's MP and PW players and builders can help us change that.
               
               

               


                     Modifié par AndarianTD, 11 septembre 2011 - 11:45 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_ffbj on September 11, 2011, 10:04:51 pm


               I can vouch for the PW part as I was once a considering joining the AME, as someone who has had some xp with PW's. They were gracious to me, but after I read through all the work required I simply bowed out, and with no reticence from the AME.  In fact they were very understanding concerning my trepidation.  I am basically lazy and being an AME member looked to me like a heck of a lot of work.
Anyway to reiterate.  I think they are great and do a wonderful job, with no remuneration for their efforts.
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Bannor Bloodfist on September 11, 2011, 11:51:29 pm


               

WebShaman wrote...

NWNX can also be used for SP games...

I personally asked for this, and Virusman got it done.

As for the issue you raise with jealousy..huh? I mean...HUH??!! You have not only gone out on a limb, but left it and you are now approaching the limits of known space...

Are you even rational?


Listen Virusman, NWNX was never considered for any type of award since it was (until fairly recently) for server use only.  Since there are no GDA's for pw's because the AME doesn't have enough PW membership, there is no award to give.  There is absolutely NOTHING negative meant by that fact.  

IF there HAD or ever will be a place for an award that NWNX could win, I am nearly positive that it would.  I know it would get my personal vote.  However, there is no competition either, so what would the vote actually mean?  Besides, you seem to have jumped onto Funky's Bandwagon and taken an issue with the AME in general.  Forgive me if I am wrong on that.

That is NOT the issue here, but Funky is throwing absolute crap out here to the community at large.  CRAP.  False allegations of vote loading etc.  I just posted proof against that supposed weakness in the AME voting system.  Yet no one can counter that proof, because it is simply that, PROOF that the AME is as fair as it is possible to be in ANY voting system, and much more fair than most.  Right up to and including the fact that hard working members of AME are forced to vote a CoI vote meaning that they can not participate in a given category.  This removes the possibility of their vote going to anyone else, much less themselves.

I do believe myself to be VERY rational here.  I responded to his statement that he believes that NWNX should be considered for some kind of award.  Since AME never posted any awards for PW's, you can see OUR confusion on his issue?

So far, Funky has been asked for suggestions besides removing an AME member from the possibility of winning an award.  And he has been asked to provide proof of his allegations against the AME loading votes.  He can not respond to that last one, as no such proof exists.  To continuously stand on a soap box and claim otherwise is just proving to everyone else, that he is not actually attempting to help, but just to flame.

His counter arguments regarding my "perceptions" of him being a pinko prove my points exactly.  It is absolutely ludicrous to claim something that has no proof.  I can likely take a few minutes and scan the web to find proof that the sun MAY explode tomorrow, complete with the percentile strength against it being this week or 1 billion years from now.  Would it actually matter?  Nope, neither do his arguments regarding his personal perception that the AME has loaded votes, and that it is a bad system.  A system he still has not bothered to investigate personally, he wants us to provide him with the data, who died and made him god anyway?  INVESTIGATE before casting allegations.  That has been and will continue to be my point.  I am NOT trying to trip anyone else into saying something without thought, I am proving him wrong, and I firmly believe I have done so.  With FACTS, not some nefarious opinion based on string theory either.  But FACTS, that prove him totally wrong.


Now, if anyone from the PW community wants to join and help the AME to create awards for the PW community, please do so.  Remember though, there are hard rules for Conflict of Interest.  You can't nominate your own pw, or a pw that you are admin/dm of.  It is hard, and time consuming, work.  You have to be fair to all submissions/nominations.  Truly compare alternate PW's of same flavor against each other etc.  At this stage of things, there are no guidelines for a PW as the AME has never had enough folks that are PW savvy involved. (1 or 2 here or there over the years).  So, what rules there would need to be implemented, content types to compare against, IE good DM's, Good New User, Good Old User, whatever has not been setup.  This is YOUR opportunity to help with that.  Join the AME and help them OR recognize that the AME doesn't handle PW's at all, and leave it alone.
               
               

               


                     Modifié par Bannor Bloodfist, 11 septembre 2011 - 10:52 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Estelindis on September 12, 2011, 02:27:40 am


               Let me just see if I can sum things up accurately.

Funky believes that the AME has three problems: 1) potential for bias in favour of members; 2) poor appearances if members can be nominated; 3) bias in favour of categories that interest members.  

On the other hand, as AME members have said: 1) members cannot nominate their own work or vote in a category in which they've been nominated; 2) any member who feels it looks bad for them to be nominated can decline the nomination; 3) new members with differing interests compared to old members are welcome, so that more categories can be considered for awards.

My personal feeling is that, by now, one has either found the AME's answers on these matters satisfactory or one has not.  The answers aren't going to change, as long as the criticisms don't; the same question in the same context will always get the same answer.  I think that simply repeating the arguments won't get us anywhere and, unless there are extra observations to make or further context to be added, we will just end up going around in circles.  People will get frustrated and it won't do our goals any good.

Do people generally feel that much more of worth on this topic can be said or not?  If discussion on the topic were to be concluded, what other feedback might we have?
               
               

               


                     Modifié par Estelindis, 12 septembre 2011 - 01:27 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Tybae on September 16, 2011, 09:20:48 pm


               As far as MP goes, we have handed out MP awards in the past for modules.  However, we do not have enough members interested in MP, therefore, it's difficult to hand out an award for MP modules or any MP specific haks, scripting systems, etc.  We have been trying for years to get people to join who can help us with MP awards with little interest.  If you really want to see us be able to have an MP award, join.

As for PW's, they take an astronomical amount of time to judge.  Is a couple of weeks really enough to judge whether a PW has the potential to win an award?  Do people really have that kind of time to play multiple PW's at the same time?  I don't have enough time for one, let alone multiple.  I have a full time job, a wife and a 22 month old daughter.  I barely have time for this post.  When you don't have the time or staffing, how do you expect the PW and MP worlds, modules and CC to receive awards?  

As for missed work, when there are about 5 nominations on average for categories that make the finals and only 1 nomination allowed per member, how do you expect them to get everything 100% of the time?  Not to mention when a conflict of interest occurs.  There are always nominations that take people out of voting for awards because of CoI's, which has happened to me several times.  The one nomination that got overlooked in Bannor's post was the NWN Podcast.  Most of the current and previous hosts have been AME members.  The NWN Podcast has been nominated more than once, taking out up to half of our membership out of the voting as soon as it was nominated.  

I didn't see this here, but, when a Conflict of Interest occurs, that member incurring the CoI may not vote any further in the category, but their nomination and any seconding/not seconding votes made previous to the CoI stand.  If the category makes it to the finals with the work that created the CoI making the finals, then the CoI is grandfathered into the finals.  If that work that created the CoI does not make the finals, then the CoI is lifted and the member may continue to vote as if the CoI never existed.  

All in all, if you are not happy with the nominations, finalists or winners, then change it by joining.  We have no membership requirements and any implication that we do have any are just plain wrong.  The only thing that we require is willingness to help.  If we have someone interested in joining, they are accepted by popular vote by the current members, which is how pretty much every NWN related organizations work.  

Due to a large number of spammer accounts created lately, we have had to approve new accounts manually.  If you are interested in joining and don't already have an account on our site, drop a message to either myself and/or Andarian and we can give you a temporary password and unlock your account.  This is due to security issues with SMF that most if not all sites using SMF are currently facing and there seems to be no fixes in place yet.
               
               

               
            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_AndarianTD on September 16, 2011, 09:55:06 pm


               I agree with Tybae's last post, but just wanted to clarify one thing for the record:

Tybae wrote...

The one nomination that got overlooked in Bannor's post was the NWN Podcast.  Most of the current and previous hosts have been AME members.  The NWN Podcast has been nominated more than once, taking out up to half of our membership out of the voting as soon as it was nominated.


The year that Tybae is talking about, the NWN Podcast was nominated for (and won) the award for NWN2 Community Contribution. Since this was a discussion on the NWN1 forums, I only included COIs related to the NWN1 awards when I compiled the information for Bannor's post. That same year two podcast members (Eat2Surf and Liso66) had joined the AME, and two other AME members at the time (Tybae and Dragonstar) were serving as backup hosts. All four of them had to recuse themselves from the NWN2 ComCon category completely for the rest of the cycle. And that doesn't count several other members who had to recuse themselves due to COIs for other nominations in the category as well. NWN2 ComCon 2008 was by far the most challenging case of COI management we ever had in the AME, but we got through it nonetheless and gave out what I think was a clearly well-deserved award.
               
               

               


                     Modifié par AndarianTD, 16 septembre 2011 - 09:05 .
                     
                  


            
Title: AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements
Post by: Legacy_Queensilverwing on September 18, 2011, 02:59:30 pm


               The Academy for Modding Excellence is pleased to announce the finalists for the Joint NWN1 & NWN2 Best Sound/Music of 2009 Award for Neverwinter Nights!

Christopher Escalante - Christopher likes to work different variations on a common theme. From a modder's perspective that's actually incredibly helpful because it allows choosing an underlying theme for some aspect of your mod, and then using different variations on it in different situations and circumstances as appropriate (much as one would do in scoring a movie).

From the light guitar to the more serious piano, heroic, call to arms and sad themes, Christopher delivers a wide range of musical themes that provoke the listener to lean forwards in anticipation!

J 'Wildfire' Town's - This conjured images in my head immediately.  At first I thought of Faeries, then as the piece went on, I pictured walking through a forest.  The pictures fit together, which is a sure indication that the music has no jarring qualities.

Simply beautiful, soft and unobtrusive but still memorable, creating great atmosphere - soothing, sad or strange. Great music like this just serves to remind us how poor the engine is for allowing us to properly choreograph game play.

Travis "Darklord Snafe" Richards - Mr. Richards has been an active musical contributor to the NWN community for a long time, and has continued that tradition through both of the last two years.

Always experimenting and striving to improve on his works, Travis' compositions range from the battle theme, lullaby's, triumph, remorse, love, sadness and much more. There is something for every scenario and his creative flow is constant.
               
               

               


                     Modifié par Queensilverwing, 18 septembre 2011 - 02:01 .