Announcing a new set of Interactive Fiction Awards

Is it me, or is this getting way too complicated?

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”?


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.


I agree. I’m not trying to argue whether it’s really too complicated or not, but my feeling is that the rules should be simple.

Perhaps it’s a bit like game design. Try to keep things simple and still work. :slight_smile:


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 :upside_down_face:
[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.


I was planning on updating it tomorrow, but I’ll update it today!

The 15th is when I plan on closing the thread, and then discussing any last minute changes before voting begins on Feb 1.


Maybe you could have some boilerplate in each poll mentioning the key rules. For example:

This poll is to decide the Outstanding Adventuron Game of 2022 in the People’s Choice Awards. Eligible games are listed at this link: [link]

  • Any member of IFDB may vote in this poll.

  • You may vote for up to N games.

  • You may vote only for games you have played. Votes must be in good faith and based on your personal experience with the game.

  • Details and full rules are at [link].

And something similar for the authors’ choice polls, except the part about who can vote could be something like

  • Any game author on IFDB may vote in this poll. For your vote to be counted, there must be a game attached to your IFDB profile.
1 Like

Oh–and I suggest that wherever the official voting announcement/rules/details are, that there would also be links to all the polls.

1 Like

The link to the newest poll is missing in the announcement thread - at least if it is supposed to be near the top: Poll for new IF awards public discussion/sharing/promotion rules

Also following my mistake on putting the “best retro game”-proposal in the announcement thread instead of the nomination thread, I was adviced not to move it as it would loose the 13 votes it has so far and Pinkunz already linked to its current position: Nomination thread for IF People's Choice and IF Authors' Choice awards - #119 by pinkunz

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.


Hmm, that seems like it adds up just fine. I’ll add it to the list.




Thank you for not counting my vote among the unique votes on the nomination thread, as I wouldn’t have been able to vote for my own post anyway.

I am dumb. I authored neither post. Doubled disregard.

If I’m parsing this correctly, you’re suggesting that @DeusIrae and @SomeOne2 voted on this post, but not on this post that already had 13 other votes, which are essentially duplicates.

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.


Have to go now but Mathbrush will have the final answer - hope to look at this tomorrow. Sorry if I made a mistake - not sure(?)


Pinkunz indicated I made a mistake, so you better double check. I will have to now - will take a look tomorrow.


No, it’s fine, I don’t think it’s worth splitting hairs over. It will definitely be included!


No mistake, just making sure I understood.


Apparently things are becoming more relaxed now, though Mathbrush might not agree :smile:

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.

More so me groping for an on-the-fly handle in my sad attempts at mass communication, but sure, why not; let’s go with that, lol.

I proposed the IFDB Awards. :grin:

1 Like