Now, before you begin voting, will those of you who are playing in the match this afternoon move your reviews down onto the lower peg immediately after lunch, before you write your letter home, if you’re not getting your hair cut, unless you’ve got a younger brother who is going out this weekend as the guest of another boy, in which case, collect his note before lunch, put it in your letter after you’ve had your hair cut, and make sure he moves your review down onto the lower peg for you.
Can you elaborate? I wouldn’t have said that “please play all the finalists in a category before voting on that category” was particularly complicated… and the rest of that message is just backstory/rationale.
Sure. Suddenly there are “finalists”, which means there are voting rounds. “please play all the finalists in a category” is just the rule for the final round. There are other different rules for the other rounds, or are these “nominations”?
Also,
I think it should be possible to have a People’s Choice award that permits advertising, but not campaigning, by requiring voters to (claim to) have played multiple games in each category
If this is simple, can you explain how claiming to have played multiple games in each category permits advertising but not campaigning?
Ah, sorry, I shouldn’t have put “finalists” in there; that part of Dan’s message was clearly about the second round of the XYZZYs, not the potential new awards.
The issue in 2012 was that the much much larger Choice of Games community voted in XYZZY for the game they knew and loved without having any idea that there was any reason to have played any of the others. Which turned it into a straight popularity contest with a foregone conclusion that the much bigger community would “win”.
Putting the “please play several games in a category and choose your favorite” in the award itself tries to mitigate that, and take (some of) the responsibility off authors to make sure that their fans know to try other games.
I’m not sure how well it would work. But I’m also skeptical whether anything would allow mixing communities of such different sizes with legitimately different tastes, without one overwhelming the other.
But if the awards are as much about drawing people into the community as about choosing which games this tiny community thinks are the most interesting… then it’d be an interesting experiment. And I’m pretty much an “all awards are made up and don’t mean anything” kind of person, so I’m all for doing weird experiments with them, but that’s probably an outlier opinion.
Inspired by Mathbrush “C64 parser game” example, I propose “Best retro IF game”. So that would include any game published to run on a retro machine such as the C64 but also Atari ST, Amiga, Spectrum, Apple II etc.
I just realized that there are three threads and I though there was only one
[will try to clean my posts up - not sure if moving a post from one of the threads to another will only cause more confusion…]
I don’t know if that was just me being too fast but many will not have the time to read through all 170+ posts, and so they might make mistakes like me. So I was thinking of ways to simplify things a bit.
At least for the nomination thread, keeping the first post updated, could avoid too many unnecessary duplicate nominations. For instance, if no more votes are necessary for “Best XXX game” (XXX being any platform like Inform, TADS etc) where all sufficiently popular platforms, that should be stated clearly. Then we know we don’t need to add new categories like Best Quest Game etc.
So it would be good to know if we should try to get these people to vote on it in the other thread or if the 13 votes are accepted? The nomation thread has currently 6 votes but only two of these are unique, so that gives a total of 15 votes.
So, you either need the two wayward unique voters on the former post to also like the latter, or you need someone like @mathbrush to agree it should count and hand-waive it. Do I have that correct?
ETA: And it literally resolves itself while I’m typing. Please carry on and disregard.
Apparently things are becoming more relaxed now, though Mathbrush might not agree
In the nomination thread, @pinkunz proposed the name
IFDB Awards
I think that is a good but also honest name considering the approach.
You could also consider calling the main award “IFDB Game of the Year” as “outstanding” is implied in Game Of The Year (GOTY) and as GOTY seems to be an industry standard now, I think.
