Scummies 2011 Nominations

[SaintKerrigan]

I could've sworn there was an award for best performance in a losing cause, but I don't see the category now...

For 2011, I

Request a "Best Performance in a Losing Cause"

category, and for that category,

Nominate MagnaofIllusion

for his performance in

The Return to Liten

. By the end of Day 4 in an 18-player game, he was the only scum player alive, but he successfully took the game to lylo and was

that

close to pulling out the victory. The person casting the deciding vote had a difficult time choosing Magna over the other player, and I think this speaks volumes with regards to Magna's play. (Not to mention that I had someone outside the game guess who the scum was in lylo, and Magna was the person's last choice.)

Edit: Copy-paste works again, so I added the link.

[SaintKerrigan]

trololol.

Not if it's a result of other poor players.

trololol.

Not if the other players are better.

trololol.

FTFY

[SaintKerrigan]

technicality nitpick.

Not if it's a result of other poor players.

technicality nitpick.

Not if the other players are better.

technicality nitpick.

Fixed for political correctness.

[SaintKerrigan]

Because you are assuming that the "poor play" of the person nominated is the reason why that person's team lost. Yes,

technically

Magna didn't win the game,

but

he did take the game to a D7 lylo, despite some doozies from other members of the scumteam. The fact that it was a hard decision for the player with the deciding vote gives further credit to Magna's play.

The award is for players who put forth an amazing effort

despite

not winning the game, and Magna's play certainly qualifies.

(Also, do yourself a favor and read the mentioned game before arguing theory.)

EDIT: The Return to Liten, now that copy-paste is working again.

[SaintKerrigan]

So, essentially, you expect Magna to play perfectly, and if he had done so, he wouldn't have lost the game. That's not what this award is about. It's about putting forth a good effort, even though you didn't quite pull it off.

The vibe I'm getting from you is that you think because Magna lost the game, his overall play was poor. In my opinion, that's crappy generalization. Yes, he didn't play a perfect game. Yes, he made some mistakes. But

overall

, he did a damned good job to make it as far as he did, and

that

is why I want to recognize his performance.

You can't judge his performance by endgame alone. If you want to form an honest opinion, you ought to read his entire play. I mean, he was on many people's townlists for the greater majority of the game...

(I'm getting the feeling this line of convo is about to get the bejesus split out of it...)

[SaintKerrigan]

So, essentially, you expect Magna to play perfectly, and if he had done so, he wouldn't have lost the game. That's not what this award is about. It's about putting forth a good effort, even though you didn't quite pull it off.

The vibe I'm getting from you is that you think because Magna lost the game, his overall play was poor. In my opinion, that's crappy generalization. Yes, he didn't play a perfect game. Yes, he made some mistakes. But

overall

, he did a damned good job to make it as far as he did, and

that

is why I want to recognize his performance.

You can't judge his performance by endgame alone. If you want to form an honest opinion, you ought to read his entire play. I mean, he was on many people's townlists for the greater majority of the game...

(I'm getting the feeling this line of convo is about to get the bejesus split out of it...)

Magna's play wasn't

good enough

because he lost. His play was

poor

because you want him to give him Best Performance in a Losing Cause (and re-introduce the award for him) rather than giving him a good scum award.

If his early play was better than you wouldn't be nominating him for Losing Cause. Therefore he's getting nominated for the award based on his early play being poor. Theregore its an award for poor play.

I have no idea how you are deriving these conclusions, and personally I think you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Magna's play wasn't perfect. That does not mean it was poor. You can play a good game and still lose, and this is what happened to Magna.

[SaintKerrigan]

Would

you

nom a scum player who played well, but lost, for the Don Corleone? I don't even recall seeing anyone nominated for that award who was part of a losing team, much less win it. Honestly, when it comes down to picking a good scum who won versus a good scum who lost, you're going to go for the one who won every time, and rightfully so.

The Losing Cause award is in another class entirely. No, Magna shouldn't be nommed for the DC because he lost,

but

his play does deserve recognition because his play

almost

earned him a win. It's not sacrilegious to have both awards, one for recognizing a good scum who won, and another to recognize a good scum who lost.