What do the XYZZY's mean to you? (Future of the awards)

[pbparjeter]

If Pinkunz ever rejoins, he’s of course welcome to participate; and I bet he’d be glad the project got picked up again in his absence.

I didn’t want to bring this up earlier, but now that it’s out there … I get the impression that this thread is a lot of people being offended on Pinkunz’ behalf.

Letting people veto a decision without the absent organizer’s input is just as risky as enacting a decision without the absent organizer’s input.

Personally, I’m in favor of leaving the XYZZY awards dormant — mostly because multiple years have been missed. I think reviving them later, if and when the community truly needs another awards format, makes the most sense. That’s just me.

But taking offense on someone else’s behalf not a good look. Neither is the defensiveness of the few people urging for it to be taken over immediately.

[Jonathan]

@Encorm

2. Reach out to one of the other people who can still access the website and talk them into appointing someone else.
3. Hold a wildcat XYZZYs.

…

2 and 3 are also asshole moves and that matters in a community as small as this.

I know it’s taking an obvious risk to say it in reply now, but would it work for the IFTF to take over the XYZZYs?

It worked well for IFDB and IFWiki, and some thought and work was done before agreement was reached and the reins were formally handed over.

I’d be in favour of 2 and 3 in that order.

[ChristopherMerriner (Christopher)]

I agree (with P.B. Parjeter).

Reading back over this thread, I see several views being forcibly expressed with a regrettable tendency to veer into the personal, on both sides. It seems to me that everyone has made their points. The IFDB awards exist, thanks to Brian’s work, and are doing an admirable job of providing an annual awards ceremony for works of IF.

Leaving the XYZZYs dormant until the current designated organiser is able to speak for themselves, or until there is definite proof that they’re not able to do so, does seem to me to be the most sensible thing to do.

[Encorm (N. Cormier)]

@Jonathan

I know it’s taking an obvious risk to say it in reply now, but would it work for the IFTF to take over the XYZZYs?

This has been brought up before and Sam Ashwell was against it for reasons I was never quite clear on. Unless he changes his mind or Dan pops back up to give permission, we’re back at the “inter-community strife” bit.

As far as I’m concerned, the XYZZYs were already dead and had been for years. Yes, they did technically happen, but extremely late and with progressively little fanfare every year. I’d be surprised if more than 20 or so people participated in voting for the '22 awards, and I’m saying that as someone who won something that year.

It was nice seeing them potentially get a second lease on life with Pinkunz at the wheel, but even though that hasn’t worked out it doesn’t change the trajectory the awards had already been on for years. To quote Hayao Miyazaki, the XYZZYs are “just a name”, and it’s the community and the traditions behind it that make it special.

The community and traditions have already started to move on. I’m fine with waiting for Pinkunz because of that.

[bg]

@pbparjeter

Letting people veto a decision without the absent organizer’s input is just as risky as enacting a decision without the absent organizer’s input.

I’m not sure what decision you’re talking about vetoing, but if it’s the idea of a takeover, here are some things Pinkunz said a few years ago when someone proposed running the XYZZYs without the then-organizer’s consent:

@pinkunz

I do not support this.

@pinkunz

I don’t support hostile takeovers as a rule. That’s not a good precedent. I’m also sure there’s plenty we don’t know behind the scenes. I’d rather give the current management another opportunity to at least speak for themselves.

@pinkunz

Call me a sentimental fool, but I feel it’s best to do a wellness check on your repairman before we start searching the classifieds for another repairman.

@pinkunz

I’d like either an acknowledgement that they are or are not continuing, honestly. Running the XYZZYs without the latter feels hostile to me. Presumptuous at least. Your opinion is just as valid, of course.

@pinkunz

And I suspect you’re right about it being a potential lifted burden, but that should be voluntary on his end.

It’s not the same as having the organizer’s input on the current situation, but it might be the closest thing we have.

[aschultz]

I think it’s time to let go.

I’m reminded of teams in the English Football league that fall into receivership/debt. The fans love them, but it’s time to go. There’s no way out. The delay between the end of the year and the ceremonies got too great. Sometimes it takes a few years of trying to make things work out, and investors want to invest money to help the community etc. but it is too much.

But on the bright side, often what happens is a phoenix club. With a similar name, but a completely different entity.

[zarf (Andrew Plotkin)]

@Jonathan

I know it’s taking an obvious risk to say it in reply now, but would it work for the IFTF to take over the XYZZYs?

IFTF cannot manufacture community agreement or legitimacy.

If the current or future organizer asks for IFTF help in managing the web site, the process, the organization, or any combination of those, that’s when IFTF should get involved.

[Jonathan]

Yes, I could imagine the IFTF being involved in 1 or 2 rather than 3.

[HanonO (Hanon Ondricek)]

Talking about moving forward is much more productive.

Would there be interest in creating an IF Community Forum award (An IFCFA?)? The forum has all the aforementioned discussion and operational and voting resources. It wouldn’t have to mimic the extensiveness of the IFDB awards - it could be like a Nobel Peace Prize where it’s given out when warranted, or could be a scheduled thing.

I think what we’ve learned is the key is consistency. If we want some kind of “oscars” for IF, it needs to be a team project, and the social outreach to make people aware of it outside of our insular community might be a factor. A couple years back, the IFComp even got traction in some non-IF web gaming publications.

Instead of duplicating the format, perhaps it could even include things discussed by the community - like “Favorite VN” “Movie that most feels like it could be IF” “Best commercial game that gives IF vibes” “Best historical IF people are still playing” “Best Positive or Neutral Thing posted this year” etc.

[Jonathan]

The Plugh Awards!

[otistdog]

I’ve been operating under the assumption that the community still cares deeply about the preservation and continuation of the XYZZY Awards. I have assumed that this was the case because of the large positive reaction to the news of the previous handover, which I understood to be occurring because the change in stewardship promised the hope of improvement over an unsatisfactory status quo. I would not have guessed that community sentiment regarding the XYZZYs had shifted that quickly, but getting some clarity on that point might be useful.

Please note that these questions are intended to be considered on their own, divorced from any particular position about who or how.

I think restoring the XYZZY Awards is…

• a worthwhile goal
• not a worthwhile goal

I think the XYZZY Awards…

• can still be salvaged
• cannot be salvaged

[SomeOne2 (Max Fog)]

Question: why aren’t people happy with IFDB Awards? They seem to be a good replacement for the time being. I’m not going to support a hostile takeover of the XYZZYs. If it’s not hostile, I’m not sure what the suggestion of how you plan to go about this takeover. The XYZZYs will happen when the time comes, if they do at all…

And anyway, I think IFDB Awards do a very good replacement.

[otistdog]

We’ve already waited nine months, and there has been no effective change in the status quo since the handoff.

I think it’s fair to wait another three months to see what results from activity that we now know about but which hasn’t been officially communicated, and to see whether the duty to communicate regularly and openly is being fulfilled. I don’t think anyone is in disagreement that the best possible outcome would be for the current organizer to live up to past promises. Better late than never, and all’s well that ends well.

Without substantial progress being demonstrated at the one year mark, though, I think it’s very fair – and in no way an “asshole move” – to ask maga to retract his endorsement on the basis of non-performance and choose someone else who is capable of delivering. I think that would satisfy any reasonable person that the new appointee was the legitimate holder of the right to conduct the XYZZYs.

I would also very much be in favor of the new appointee immediately creating a committee structure along the lines suggested by rileypb, i.e. one including a role that is formally assigned the responsibility and accountability to be the official communicator, with a schedule of expected communications each year. Without taking a role on that committee, I would gladly commit to a substantial share of whatever grunt work was needed to help get that set up and work through the first cycle of producing the awards.

ETA: I wouldn’t call such a scenario a “hostile takeover” either.

To your question about preferring the continuity of the XYZZYs over their de facto replacement by the IFDB Awards, my own short answer would be “so that aspiring authors can hope to one day win the same awards held by Emily Short, Andrew Plotkin, Aaron Reed, [insert your favorite star authors here], and everyone else whose work has brought the art form to this point over the course of three decades.” I might also add “so that the awards can act as an embodiment of the continuity of the community, passing from the dawn of the post-commercial era through the present to a long and happy future.”

Note that I very much admire mathbrush’s stewardship par excellence of the IFDB Awards – not to mention his single-handed creation of them and thoughtful forward planning for their future – and I think those should continue, in any case.

ETA: It seems helpful to have a channel for direct but anonymous communication by the public at large, so in the interests of moving the conversation forward productively…

I think the plan proposed above is…

• fair to all parties
• not fair to all parties

(Note that by “all parties” I’m including the community at large as a party, along with both the past and current organizers.)

[HanonO (Hanon Ondricek)]

@otistdog

I don’t think anyone is in disagreement that the best possible outcome would be for the current organizer to live up to past promises. Better late than never, and all’s well that ends well.

Here’s where you’re brushing up against inferring blame and consequences which is what rubs people the wrong way. Please stop. If you want to privately negotiate with Pinkunz, do that, but it seems you’re attempting to make public group decisions you were not nominated to make.

It’s been established the majority don’t want to wrest control of the XYZZY moniker and wish to move on with something else. Continuing to set these imaginary goals like “we’ll give them three more months!” is not productive.

@otistdog

Without substantial progress being demonstrated at the one year mark, though, I think it’s very fair – and in no way an “asshole move” – to ask maga to retract his endorsement on the basis of non-performance and choose someone else who is capable of delivering.

Also, Sam (who used to go by the username “maga” until that became something else) is no longer involved in the process as he handed over the reins.

If you want to create your own award and manage it, please do so. The whole concept of a “coup” takeover specifically of XYZZY (IMHO) has been pretty much declared moot. I myself suggested a low-damage route for it which wasn’t popular. Most people here are not interested in continuing to try making a dead horse walk with deadlines, punishments, or ultimatums.

EDIT: Yes, you’ve conducted polls. But even the people who’ve agreed with might be indicating they think XYZZYs could come back if the concerned parties decide it, but forcing the issue is going to result in hurt feelings on every side.

[mathbrush (Brian Rushton)]

I’m going to quote from some correspondence I had with Dan Fabulich when we approached Sam about taking over the XYZZY’s. I’m not going to quote his part because I don’t have permission, but when it was my goal to revive the XYZZY’s this was my priority:

I’m interested in this; the language around it is something that matters to me a lot. I’d like to emphasize our feelings about xyzzy and not our feelings about him or speculation. I’m also cognizant of the fact that this a volunteer thing and he personally doesn’t owe anyone anything, while the xyzzy awards themselves are a sort of community possession.

So, I’d be okay with something along the lines of “Me and Brian are invested in the XYZZY awards and want them to be more consistent, and we’re offering to take over running them”, but would feel uncomfortable with anything like “we don’t know what’s been going on with you” or “you’re probably experiencing difficulties in your life” or anything that implies that we feel his personal failures are so gross that we have to step in.

I do think that the current discussion about taking over (spearheaded by you but with some additional proponents) is going against my personal philosophy, as almost all those quotes above that I said would make me personally uncomfortable are things that you’ve said.

I think it’s more of a marketing issue right now. If you approach this from the angle of “let’s run the xyzzy’s for one year until Pinkunz gets back on his feet” or ‘let’s get the ball rolling but step aside if they ask’, I think it would be easier to go along with. The part that’s getting people riled up is the insistence on proving that Sam or Pinkunz have failed (words like ‘non-performance’ and ‘withdraw endorsement’).

While I hold no animosity towards you personally (because I have had different phases where I felt just like you and may have them again), I can’t support the current movement as it stands while the emphasis is on declaring people a failure.

You can declare that you are not being a jerk and aren’t being personal, but it’s kind of like serving food. You can say the food is good, but if people don’t like it, they’re not going to buy it. And if people say they dislike a certain tone or feel strongly that an action you’re doing is negative, declaring it to be positive doesn’t change other people’s feelings. And one thing I’ve learned in this community is that it’s not large enough to afford alienating any major subgroup. If five frequent posters get angry and hate you forever, that’s a sizable chunk of the IF world and it’s not easy to get that trust back.

If you do run polls on specific actions proposed to take, I’ll vote on them. If the XYZZYs start up without the participation of the current organizers, I would intend to vote in them. My only sticking point is the language used in regards to Pinkunz and Sam, and I reserve my own judgment on whether that l am offended by that language or not. I don’t speak for anyone else, but just chiming in in case anyone else feels similarly.

[HanonO (Hanon Ondricek)]

@mathbrush

If you approach this from the angle of “let’s run the xyzzy’s for one year until Pinkunz gets back on his feet” or ‘let’s get the ball rolling but step aside if they ask’, I think it would be easier to go along with.

I cosign all Mathbrush is saying. I proposed something similar, although with a bunch of brainstorming that was cart before the horse and was likely confusing. I proposed creating a private XYZZY Organization forum group to basically study how XYZZY worked and how it might work moving forward with full intention of leaving space so if/when Pinkunz returns, he would be welcomed as a part of it. Basically laying the groundwork for forum support if the award comes back. Which (from what I know of Pinkunz) would likely be appreciated. Of course there would always be the possibility he could have his own team and be like “I’m back, we’re doing it this way” as he was basically ‘knighted’ with the responsibility.

[jsnlxndrlv (Jason Love)]

In April of 2020, popular¹ long-form video essayist Joseph Anderson uploaded the first of his videos on CD Projekt Red’s The Witcher series of video games. Commentary on The Witcher 2 followed in August of the same year. As the games did not break through into mainstream success until the release of The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, anticipation for the third video was high. Because the first two videos had already set expectations for exactly how much ancillary Witcher content the third video would cover—both the game itself, the optional downloadable content, as well as the books written by Andrzej Sapkowski on which the games were based—viewers knew this video would be much longer, and settled in for a wait.

¹ Subscriber count at the time of this comment: 756,000.

Months turned into years. Other high-profile games came out and demanded attention; life got in the way. Among Joseph Anderson’s fans, the question “when will the Witcher 3 video come out?” became an emblem of eternal amusement and endless frustration. As Joseph himself said in late 2023, “Some of you are being weird. You need to chill out.”

When he uploaded his Lies of P critique in April of 2024, he immediately made and pinned a comment in response: “The Witcher 3 video will be released one week after the most recent person finishes reading this comment. Right now that means you.”

Personally, I would have been perfectly content if this were where the story ended, but Joseph Anderson did in fact upload the first 90-minute installment in his Witcher 3 saga as of April 1, 2025. I guess sometimes good things happen even if you have to wait a while for them.

All of which is to say: I am fine waiting for the XYZZY Awards to return some years from now, or even if they never come back, that will be fine, too. Some of you are being weird. You need to chill out.

[pieartsy (Aster F)]

@pieartsy

Are you going to start up the XYZZYs like several people here said they’d prefer you to do?

(I wanna clarify personally, my stance here was not actually supporting a hostile or wildcat takeover of the XYZZYs, I was just really done with the judgement without offering aid (at that point of the conversation). Like I said in response to Dan Fabulich, and in agreement with others, I don’t need the XYZZYs back. I won’t turn them down if they are back, though.)

@mathbrush

You can say the food is good, but if people don’t like it, they’re not going to buy it. And if people say they dislike a certain tone or feel strongly that an action you’re doing is negative, declaring it to be positive doesn’t change other people’s feelings.

This is perfectly said.

[Melendwyr]

@Encorm

Unless something has gone extremely, catastrophically wrong on Pinkunz’s end in a way none of us are aware of then waiting for him is in fact the easiest and likely fastest solution.

Except the awards are now multiple years behind. There seems to be a sentiment that taking action is in some way a judgment or insult towards Pinkunz. That’s a form of “making it personal”. The award does not exist to serve the people implementing it. If it’s in the award’s best interest to assign responsibility for it to another person or people (probably people, it seems too much for one volunteer) then so be it.

[pieartsy (Aster F)]

have you considered that intangible concepts like “awards ceremonies” have no best interest, unlike people? People don’t only exist to implement the awards either.