AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements

[Legacy_WhiZard]

               

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).
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_AndarianTD]

               

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 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy__six]

               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 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_FunkySwerve]

               

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. '>

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
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_FunkySwerve]

               

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. '> 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
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_FunkySwerve]

               

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
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_FunkySwerve]

               

henesua wrote...

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. '>

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Oh, sweet irony.

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
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_FunkySwerve]

               

olivier leroux wrote...

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. '>

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.

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.

(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.

 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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 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.
 
 

 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
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Estelindis]

               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 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Estelindis]

               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.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_henesua]

               

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.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_WebShaman]

               

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.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Estelindis]

               

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.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_WebShaman]

               

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.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Estelindis]

               I'm glad that you feel that way.  Thank you very much.  '>
               
               

               

                     Modifié par Estelindis, 31 août 2011 - 03:45 .