AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements

[Legacy_olivier leroux]

               

WebShaman wrote...

sampling the best of what the community has to offer.

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

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

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

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

               

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

            

[Legacy_ffbj]

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

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

               

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

            

[Legacy_Queensilverwing]

               

Zarathustra217 wrote...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

               
            

[Legacy_jmlzemaggo]

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

               
            

[Legacy_Queensilverwing]

               

jmlzemaggo wrote...

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

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

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

               
            

[Legacy_henesua]

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

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

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

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

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

Disclaimer: I am a member of the AME.
               
               

               

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

            

[Legacy_Dallo]

               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.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_HipMaestro]

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

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

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

               

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

            

[Legacy_FunkySwerve]

               

Quillmaster wrote...

FunkySwerve wrote...

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

Funky

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

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

Funky
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_FunkySwerve]

               

Zarathustra217 wrote...

FunkySwerve wrote...

Zarathustra217 wrote...

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

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

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

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

Funky
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_FunkySwerve]

               

WebShaman wrote...

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

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

And then there's this:

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

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

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

2007:
Winner: Axe Murderer
NWNPodcast
Neverwinter Connections

2008:
Community Contribution Award:
Winner: Jassper
Skunkeen
CarloOne

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

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

Funky
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_FunkySwerve]

               

olivier leroux wrote...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Funky
               
               

               

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

            

[Legacy_FunkySwerve]

               

olivier leroux wrote...

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

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

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

Funky
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_FunkySwerve]

               

ffbj wrote...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Funky
               
               

               

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

            

[Legacy_Elhanan]

               

FunkySwerve wrote...

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

Funky

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

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