|
Post by Christmas Chief on Apr 13, 2012 15:28:30 GMT -5
One wonders if we should be voting on it in that case, though - couldn't it be determined by counting posts? Based on Emma's clarification above, I suppose we're voting on the quality of the posts as well as their quantity. Counting posts, while logical in theory, would require a lot of time and patience (since it's not the cumulative total, just the amount of posts made that year). Ah, I see. (I think I actually presented that award last year, too. I'm grateful nothing came of it.) If some of these awards are ambiguous when given their title alone, perhaps this year it would be worthwhile to add brief descriptions in the various threads. Some award categories, such as Best Story, wouldn't require this, of course. What I'm observing is that others might.
|
|
|
Post by B. on Apr 13, 2012 15:32:45 GMT -5
Does Best story apply to none ASoUE fiction as well?
|
|
|
Post by Emma “Emmz” Squalor on Apr 13, 2012 15:48:39 GMT -5
If some of these awards are ambiguous when given their title alone, perhaps this year it would be worthwhile to add brief descriptions in the various threads. Some award categories, such as Best Story, wouldn't require this, of course. What I'm observing is that others might. I second this idea. While the significance of the awards are pretty much defined by the presenters, it would be helpful to explain what some stand for beforehand. I think including a brief description in the opening post of each nomination thread would be a good way to go about it. Does Best story apply to none ASoUE fiction as well? Yes.
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Apr 13, 2012 16:51:05 GMT -5
The awards already have descriptors - it's just that some of them are, of their nature, a bit vague.
Regarding 'Best Thread': On the one hand I think it's a good thing in principle to have around, as it allows us to honour things that don't neatly fit the other categories. On the other hand winners have in fact often been rather lack-lustre, I feel (though I'm not including last years' winner, 'Rejected ASOUE lines', which really has been an important part of the site). Perhaps it would help if we removed the rule that the thread has to have been started in the past year - then we could vote for one of the popular games, or for 'Odd ASOUE/Real-life Coincidence Thread', which are some of the most active parts of the site. Though then we would probably have to make a rule that the same thread shouldn't win more than once.
|
|
|
Post by BSam on Apr 13, 2012 17:27:49 GMT -5
as long as we keep funniest. that's been won by some good people in the past.
|
|
|
Post by Christmas Chief on Apr 13, 2012 17:30:08 GMT -5
The awards already have descriptors - it's just that some of them are, of their nature, a bit vague. Yes, but I was rather thinking something more than "the Most Notorious award goes to a member who is most notorious," and something more of "the Most Notorious award goes to a member who most exhibits traits X,Y, and Z." That solution would also allow us to vote on threads such as "If You Had to Rename the Books ..." which was created long ago, but revived recently. I agree it would be a good idea to keep track of the winning threads throughout the years, though, so that no thread wins twice. The only possible trouble would be the accumulating list of winning threads over years. Would that be problematic? (Edit: By the by, were we ever told why 2009 Darkies is password protected? I remember people asking about it, but I don't remember anyone ever answering it.)
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Apr 13, 2012 17:37:29 GMT -5
The awards already have descriptors - it's just that some of them are, of their nature, a bit vague. Yes, but I was rather thinking something more than "the Most Notorious award goes to a member who is most notorious," and something more of "the Most Notorious award goes to a member who most exhibits traits X,Y, and Z." But can we really specify what traits make someone notorious? I don't think the problems with this award arise from our not knowing what it means; they arise from embarrassment at calling someone notorious, except as a joke.
|
|
|
Post by BSam on Apr 13, 2012 17:42:45 GMT -5
Tragedy is a shoe-in for the notorious award as he is the worst.
|
|
|
Post by Christmas Chief on Apr 13, 2012 17:43:58 GMT -5
Yes, but I was rather thinking something more than "the Most Notorious award goes to a member who is most notorious," and something more of "the Most Notorious award goes to a member who most exhibits traits X,Y, and Z." But can we really specify what traits make someone notorious? I don't think the problems with this award arise from our not knowing what it means; they arise from embarrassment at calling someone notorious, except as a joke. In the case of that thread, yes - I was actually picking one at random. But I do think some of the other awards can be defined more precisely, thus allowing voters and nominators to make more informed choices.
|
|
|
Post by Emma “Emmz” Squalor on Apr 13, 2012 18:35:33 GMT -5
Perhaps it would help if we removed the rule that the thread has to have been started in the past year - then we could vote for one of the popular games, or for 'Odd ASOUE/Real-life Coincidence Thread', which are some of the most active parts of the site. It may just be my personal opinion, but I've always assumed that, as long as the thread has been posted in within the past year, then it still counts. This never occurred to me, but does seem like the fair way to go about things. While there are members who've won two or more years in a row, the rule should probably be different for threads. as long as we keep funniest. that's been won by some good people in the past. Don't worry, BSam. That category isn't going anywhere. To make sure, I added to my list of categories to keep. That solution would also allow us to vote on threads such as "If You Had to Rename the Books ..." which was created long ago, but revived recently. I agree it would be a good idea to keep track of the winning threads throughout the years, though, so that no thread wins twice. The only possible trouble would be the accumulating list of winning threads over years. Would that be problematic? I don't think so. I have a pretty organized system regarding the 667 Darkies on my hard and flash drives, so I could make a file to keep track, as well as make a thread for it on here. Then we could bookmark it for easy access. Yeah, that was my fault. I had mistakenly set the date for the 2010 poll results to be revealed before, instead of after the awards ceremony, so Tragedy just told me to move them into the 2009 Darkies section. The Most Notorious Award should be kept. What an honor. I couldn't imagine why anyone would be offended. If you ARE it - OWN it. LOL Agreed! I was thinking earlier about how Most Notorious and Most Compassionate complement each other. I don't know what people's thoughts on Most Compassionate are, but if we had that, and not Most Notorious, it would seem silly.
|
|
|
Post by Emma “Emmz” Squalor on Apr 13, 2012 18:42:11 GMT -5
Awww, yay! I'm glad that made you smile, Countess.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2012 23:22:04 GMT -5
I'm ready, although I don't think I have a chance.
|
|
|
Post by Cafe SalMONAlla on Apr 14, 2012 2:27:55 GMT -5
Yay! (OK, that was just me being pleased that we're talking about the 2012 Darkies.) While there are probably some changes that could be made to the categories, a part of me is saying not to alter the "thirteen" idea. We could always drop some and replace them, I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by B. on Apr 14, 2012 3:55:07 GMT -5
I think the idea of having thirteen awards should be kept, just in keeping with the ASoUE tradition.
|
|
|
Post by Kensicle on Apr 14, 2012 6:27:43 GMT -5
How exactly is the Most Unfortunate Member defined?
|
|