AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements

[Legacy_AndarianTD]

               

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 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Failed.Bard]

                 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.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_AndarianTD]

               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 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Bannor Bloodfist]

               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 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Arkalezth]

               

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.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_jmlzemaggo]

               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.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Tybae]

               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.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shia Luck]

               

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.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Bannor Bloodfist]

               

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.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Tybae]

               I'd just like to say how much I agree with Bannor Bloodfist's post.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_WebShaman]

               

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.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Bannor Bloodfist]

               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.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_NWVaultQSW]

               

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
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. '>

_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 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Tybae]

               

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. 
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_WebShaman]

               

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.