AME Golden Dragon Award Finalist Announcements

[Legacy_FunkySwerve]

               

Queensilverwing wrote...

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 tend to agree. I don't really see the lack of comment as indicative of a problem, in and of itself - though I DO think that some kind of voting setup could work to increase participation.

Funky
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_FunkySwerve]

               

henesua wrote...

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.

My solution - blocking nominations of AME member content - absolutely would eliminate the problem of self-interest to the maximum extent possible.That's kind of screamingly obvious if you step back and look.  And I never claimed this would put the AME 'above reproach' - you're right, that is absurd, and impossible. Interesting that you would choose to put those abusrd and impossible words into my mouth. '>

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.

I also didn't claim 'The Market' was a solution - application of market principles is. Those principles include regulation, since, as you say here, and as I remarked earlier in the thread, a free market is just as bad as a command economy. You clearly haven't taken the time to read my remarks, let alone understand my point. And yes, market principles are most definitely applicable here. You, like others, are confusing economics with free-market advocacy.

Funky
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Quillmaster]

               

FunkySwerve wrote...

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

My point is you've made your point, and by your own admission it's in the interest of community harmony to leave it at that.  Your point is understood too, there's just not anything practical that can be done about it.  Again, by your own admission, you don't have a solution either,

I'm not trying to "shut you up", far from it. In fact I started a debate on this very subject on the AME forums.  The problem they face is that making the voting public is not an option, since that system already exists in the vault.  Banning members from participation is counter productive, since that would not only discourage further membership but also force nominations of inferior quality, which would make the awards meaningless.

I haven't been a member long, but long enough to witness the members have great integrity.  The merits of any nomination are discussed in a mature fashion with members able to disagree in a respectable manner.  They all realise that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and that you can't please everyone all of the time. They strive to give recognition where it is due in an effort to further encourage those whose contributions to the community are admired.  As has already been pointed out, they also have stringent rules regarding conflicts of interest.  I myself have already declared such a conflict and refrained from voting in a category.  I think you under estimate the integrity of the members.  The very nature of what they try to do dictates a membership with high moral values.

The only possible solution I can offer is that members join with pseudo names different to their NWN names, but that wouldn't work either because then you'd leave the door open to people nominating their own work.  Not that I believe they would, but it's outsider persception that is the problem, which is what caused this debate in the first place.

As for your mention of other possible nominees who you regarded as more deserving in another post, AME is always open to public suggestions and would welcome them with open arms.  If you're not willing to join, they still have a public forum where you can give pointers to people you believe are overlooked.

Participation is the best reward you can give to the community. '>
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Quillmaster]

               

FunkySwerve wrote...

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

We do already do that.  I think Olivier wasn't aware because it's never been an issue.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_AndarianTD]

               

FunkySwerve wrote...

Zarathustra217 wrote...

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

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

Of course we already do that. As I wrote on the first page of the thread:

AndarianTD wrote...

Members may not nominate or vote for themselves, and must immediately recuse themselves from further participation in any category for which they are nominated as soon as they are [emphasis added].

The word "participation" is used there very deliberately, and for a very specific reason that I thought should have been obvious. Folks, if any of you are going to presume to criticize the AME and its operating rules, then please at least take the time to read and understand what has actually been written here about them.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par AndarianTD, 29 août 2011 - 07:37 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Estelindis]

               I've only just seen this thread, so it's taken me a while to catch up.

Firstly, since I've been a sometime member of the AME, I ask anyone to please tell me if they find any posts I may make on this topic overly defensive or tending in any way not to welcome discussion and critique.

Secondly, any authors who wish not to have their work nominated (or even considered for nomination) will find their wishes respected by the AME; this applies whether said authors are AME members or not (and certainly a fair few members have excluded their work from the awards over the years). Personally, I'd tend to be against anything of mine going through in any year of active AME participation by me, and a lot of that does come down to a sense of "what will people think, that I'm patting myself on the back?" (regardless of my deep awareness of the significant internal CoI safeguards in place and, indeed, the fact that I've never made anything worthy of an award!). But that doesn't mean I'd want a blanket ban. I think it should be left up to the individual.

Thirdly, the first thing that comes to mind as a possible reform in response to the concerns raised would be to make public the whole sub-forum of nomination and discussion for any given year's awards after the winners had been decided and announced. It would be possible to see who had said (and nominated) what, but not how people had voted (which remains private even within the AME, unless anyone chooses to state how they've voted). The primary concern, after all, seems to be that the decision-making process is not public; this would change that, but only at such a time as not to remove the pleasant surprise of being told that one has been nominated for or won an award. However, there are two glaring problems with this idea: 1) AME members might no longer feel able to speak quite as freely and frankly, and 2) if everyone saw the full discussions, some people might up being upset or hurt by the criticisms they might read of their work. On this last point, I think particularly of the year when I was "champion" for the non-tileset custom content category, towards which end I downloaded the entirety of what had been submitted to the Vault for the year in question, looked at it all, and then posted my full assessment of every last thing. Naturally, the quality varied highly from one submission to the other; while I had high praise for some items, I wrote quite harshly of others. Would it be right or helpful for all that I said there to be broadcast to the public domain? Not that I imagine most people would find it very compelling reading... It's just that the AME is supposed to bolster and help the community, and I hope any change that might be made would only enhance that element rather than detracting from it. Mind you, I find most of the discussion tends to be positively-oriented; I'm just wondering if making it all public afterwards would lead to some unhelpful self-censorship (or, otherwise, hurt feelings) for some people.

Thanks for reading!
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_AndarianTD]

               Due to Hurricane Irene running over our area, I have had a very limited ability to follow and respond to this thread over the last few days. I still have no power at home and am posting this on a lunch break at work -- and unfortunately, it's likely to be days yet before that changes and I can get caught up. In the meantime, I'd just like to say that while I've seen some reasonable points being offered, that some of the alleged criticism here relies on what I consider to be questionable assumptions and arguments, if not outright misinformation (the remark addressed in my last post being an example). When I can, I will comment on those issues at length and try to set the record straight.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par AndarianTD, 29 août 2011 - 07:39 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Estelindis]

               Andarian, I'm so sorry that you were caught up in the hurricane.  I hope you and your family are all doing okay.  *hugs*
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_AndarianTD]

               

Estelindis wrote...

Andarian, I'm so sorry that you were caught up in the hurricane.  I hope you and your family are all doing okay.  *hugs*

Thanks, Este. '> We're OK, and actually weathered the storm pretty comfortably, except for the loss of power. It's really interesting to come face to face with just how much you can come to depend on, and have integrated into your daily life, the conveniences made possible by modern technology. Nearly all of them depend on having electricity available, and the prospect of having to go without that for a week can be quite a self-discovery. '>
               
               

               

                     Modifié par AndarianTD, 29 août 2011 - 07:54 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_Zarathustra217]

               

AndarianTD wrote...

FunkySwerve wrote...

Zarathustra217 wrote...

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

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

Of course we already do that. As I wrote on the first page of the thread:

AndarianTD wrote...

Members may not nominate or vote for themselves, and must immediately recuse themselves from further participation in any category for which they are nominated as soon as they are [emphasis added].

The word "participation" is used there very deliberately, and for a very specific reason that I thought should have been obvious. Folks, if any of you are going to presume to criticize the AME and its operating rules, then please at least take the time to read and understand what has actually been written here about them.

Well, what I actually meant - and this is just a loose idea mind you - was to exclude module authors (if they want to be themselves relevant for the term) from any discussions on modules, and rather set them up to discuss something like custom content instead. The reasoning is in part that I imagine the criteria for evaluating modules are shaped already prior to nomination, but also since module builders would be great for evaluating things such as custom content as they have extended first hand involvement with it and know exactly how it permits them to do new things.

This is all probably just overthinking it though, but there's some input at least.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Quillmaster]

               

Zarathustra217 wrote...

Well, what I actually meant - and this is just a loose idea mind you - was to exclude module authors (if they want to be themselves relevant for the term) from any discussions on modules, and rather set them up to discuss something like custom content instead. The reasoning is in part that I imagine the criteria for evaluating modules are shaped already prior to nomination, but also since module builders would be great for evaluating things such as custom content as they have extended first hand involvement with it and know exactly how it permits them to do new things.

This is all probably just overthinking it though, but there's some input at least.

In practice this is pretty much what happens anyway.  Most nominations for actual modules come from those who play a great deal.  As a builder myself, I don't tend to have the time to play (although I have done for some of the shorter modules.), and prefer to show an interest on some of the less time consuming offerings, such as custom tileset or music nominations, something that as a builder I can still offer a valid opinion on.  Indeed, it's the relaxation of AME time demands from members that had me join up in the first place.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Arkalezth]

               

Zarathustra217 wrote...

Well, what I actually meant - and this is just a loose idea mind you - was to exclude module authors (if they want to be themselves relevant for the term) from any discussions on modules, and rather set them up to discuss something like custom content instead. The reasoning is in part that I imagine the criteria for evaluating modules are shaped already prior to nomination,

Making a module shouldn't exclude you from participation in any module
category, just the one where you have a conflict of interest. Andarian's
modules are for NWN1, why shouldn't he be able to participate in NWN2 categories,
or a different NWN1 year?

but also since module builders would be great for evaluating things such as custom content as they have extended first hand involvement with it and know exactly how it permits them to do new things.

Agreed, but don't you think they're also great for evaluating modules?
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_AndarianTD]

               

Arkalezth wrote...

Making a module shouldn't exclude you from participation in any module category, just the one where you have a conflict of interest. Andarian's modules are for NWN1, why shouldn't he be able to participate in NWN2 categories, or a different NWN1 year?

Or a different modules category, for that matter. If someone's a nominee for Best Storytelling but not Best Action, then why shouldn't he participate in the latter? It doesn't affect the former, and the standards for the two are different anyway.

but also since module builders would be great for evaluating things such as custom content as they have extended first hand involvement with it and know exactly how it permits them to do new things.

Agreed, but don't you think they're also great for evaluating modules?

Depending on the individual's degree of experience with CC, available time, and interest, we'll often do both. Speaking personally, for example, I rarely nominate or test in the yearly modules categories any longer, although I'll sometimes offer general thoughts on some of the discussions. Aside from my job, family, duties as AME Chairman, and work building Sanctum 3, I don't have the time to play modules anymore. But Sanctum is a very CC-heavy series, and I do test and integrate a lot of it working on the next chapter. That gives me a fair amount of specifically builder-perspective experience that I can bring to the custom content categories, and I do. That complements the player and CC creator specific experience and perspective of some of our other members, without which our evaluation of those categories would necessarily have a narrower focus.
               
               

               

                     Modifié par AndarianTD, 29 août 2011 - 10:04 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_henesua]

               

FunkySwerve wrote...

My solution - blocking nominations of AME member content - absolutely would eliminate the problem of self-interest to the maximum extent possible.That's kind of screamingly obvious if you step back and look.  And I never claimed this would put the AME 'above reproach' - you're right, that is absurd, and impossible. Interesting that you would choose to put those abusrd and impossible words into my mouth. '>

Actually, Funky. You are the pot calling the kettle black here and below on the economics point. You aren't addressing my point: your solution will not solve the problem of self-interest damaging the organization, because your solution is irrelevant. Did you miss the part about the academy needing members? Especially members who produce content? Without them the AME is irrelevant as well. Come on, man. I know you are smart. So either you are trolling, or there are deeper issues here that have nothing to do with the argument.

Again: What matters is that the AME is (1) aware of the problem, (2) has policies to address the problem,  and (3) is continually vigilant about the problem. All of those things together dwarf any system solution you can propose. To simply resort to step two - sticking your finger in a hole in the ****** - solves nothing.

And lastly if this is about keeping the AME relevant - which if it is not you are simply going on about nothing of import - you can't have a relevant AME if you don't attract members who produce content.

I also didn't claim 'The Market' was a solution - application of market principles is...

You are splitting hairs. In this case there is no functional difference. Especially not when you consider your audience. You need to communicate with your audience rather than get bogged down in the minutiae. And the rest of your "defense" was irrelevant as you made a straw man. I never claimed you were pushing free market principles. So yeah right back at ya on the not reading a post thing.

I'm done.There is a real disconnect going on with you here, perhaps a refusal to comprehend. Its hard to know what is going on. I'll be back with a response when I see that you actually address the defense laid before you. Otherwise why would the AME change just to please you? Its a waste of time. We took care of the real problem, and continue to address it.

Whinging about a potential flaw in the system and trying to find the perfect solution... complete waste of time. Real solutions work much better.
               
               

               
            

[Legacy_olivier leroux]

               

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

What's wrong with being doubtful? You have doubts about the AME's integrity and credibility and still say you want to help them, while I can't be interested in hearing your general idea and at the same time be sceptical whether it's going to be helpful? It's you who said there was something wrong with the AME, not I, so it's also you who's got to convince me that changes would be beneficial to the purpose I outlined.

I am open to hear concrete suggestions that clearly support this purpose, but so far you haven't even commented on that purpose and instead keep talking about the Vault system which, as I said before, has nothing to do with the AME's mission (as a sidenote, you could have found everything about the AME's mission nicely spelled out on their website, if you had ever cared to look). You made some valid points about potential flaws in the system, and were told that the AME is aware of it and how it's addressed as best as possible for the AME's purpose. But everything else you say sounds to me as if  you want to turn the AME into something it was never meant to be, just because you don't like the idea of what it actually is.

Tell me, how can you act like you'd know how to help the AME when you admit you haven't really followed their work, didn't have much interest in it before and have no idea what their mission and current ruleset is? And when you're constantly ignoring any notion that the AME is just offering recommendations shaped by the members' subjective judgement and a democratic vote of all those community members who volunteered to help by sacrificing some of their time? You were free to join the AME and nominate all those deserving coders you mentioned but chose to ignore the GDA's instead, only to complain about other people's decisions now. And then you cry outrage when some AME members lose their patience with you ...

If you accuse me of playing games and wasting your time, what is it you do then? Giving constructive feedback on something doesn't equal immediately taking over and designing the masterplan for changing it, and frankly noone has ever asked you to do something of the sort, it was you yourself who proposed it. I answered your questions as best as I could, but if you can't even explain your general idea without me feeding you with all kinds of data first, then pardon me when I begin to think I'm wasting my time trying to listen to you, too. Where's your 'self-interest' in all of this, I wonder?

               
               

               

                     Modifié par olivier leroux, 29 août 2011 - 11:53 .