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 .
