AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements

[Legacy_Arkalezth]

               

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 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Queensilverwing]

               

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

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) '> 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 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_FunkySwerve]

               

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
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_FunkySwerve]

               

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
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Arkalezth]

               

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. '>

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.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_FunkySwerve]

               

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) '> 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. '>

Funky
               
               

               

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

            

[Legacy_Zarathustra217]

               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.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_FunkySwerve]

               

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 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_FunkySwerve]

               

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. '>

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 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Elhanan]

               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.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Queensilverwing]

               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! '>
               
               

               

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

            

[Legacy_jmlzemaggo]

               

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... '>
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:
They just laugh... '>

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 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_WhiZard]

               

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 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Queensilverwing]

               

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 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_FunkySwerve]

               

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 .