Scummies 2011 Nominations

[Empking]

Gandalf is right. It doesn't reward failure at all.

But how do you get in a losing situation? That's right, poor play.

[Empking]

Gandalf is right. It doesn't reward failure at all.

But how do you get in a losing situation? That's right, poor play.

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

Good players can minimise the impact of bad players. (so that it's not a "losing cause".)

[Empking]

Gandalf is right. It doesn't reward failure at all.

But how do you get in a losing situation? That's right, poor play.

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

Good players can minimise the impact of bad players. (so that it's not a "losing cause".)

Not if the other players are better.

If the reward is for not giving up when faced with opponents that are better that you then that's pretty clearly a reward for poor play.

[Empking]

How is it a technicality?

Poor play is how you get into a losing cause (excluding with replacements but that's rewarded elsewhere.) Xalxe tried to work out a nitpick to dispute that. I said why I disagreed. Xalxe nitpicked again. I said why that was irrelevant.

[Empking]

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

No I'm not. Actually, yes I am. Magua's play was by very definition was not good enough otherwise he would have won but that's utterly irrelevant.

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.

Look either his play was good enough for the scum scummy in which case you could nominate him for that

or

his early play was poor and he let his buddies drag him down(before improving once they're dead) in which case giving him a reward is giving it to him based on poor play.

The award is for players who put forth an amazing effort

despite

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

There's no "is" about it.

(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.

Read the end game and post-game. Nothing has changed my mind. I would also like to mention that before this post this whole conversation has been Magna and Liten free.

[Empking]

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.

[Empking]

Xalxe; Why is "almost pulling the win off" more deserving than "pulling the win off"?

[Empking]

It's not more deserving of the same award as actually pulling it off.

That's why it's two different awards.

1. What award does the guy who pulled it off get?
2. Why can't Mr. Almost Won get that award?
3. Why should it be two different awards?

[Empking]

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.

His play is not Don Corleone standard. (I'm judging this from your posting.)
If he played a smidgen better then he wouldn't be eligible for Losing Cause.

Losing cause as an award is one that rewards people that play just a little too poorly.

Preview; Just to clarify, I am not saying Magna played

poorly

because he lost.

[Empking]

Would

you

nom a scum player who played well, but lost, for the Don Corleone?

Don Corleone is a body of work award.

I don't think winning is a prequisite for being nominated for any awards.

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.

I would have hoped that the best scum player would win. I can't agree with you at all on "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.

Its not "sacrilegious" but it most certainly is "stupid" and considering there isn't an award for "best performance for a single game by a single Mafiaso" then I'd also add a "a sympton of completely misguided priorities".

[Empking]

Empking, you're conflating "good play" with "good enough play to win". Not the same thing.

Kerrigan, you're arguing with Empking. That was your first mistake.

No I'm not.

If its not deserving of an award if he plays (a bit) better but it is if he plays at that level then its a reward for poor play. (especially if we break it up into tiny chunks and call his mistakes "poor play")

[Empking]

If he had won in those same circumstances, I would definitely give him the award.

Then your vision of this award is completely different from SK's.

[Empking]

^ I don't really know about that, I can't say I've ever seen that many players 'give up'

I like Magna's performance and all, but don't really like the losing cause award.

Good posting.

[Empking]

Nominate Crilly for Funniest Role Claim: http://mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 3#p2806663

Its funny in context so read the page before it and the page with the claim.

[Empking]

Nominate Drench's UXYS 1 1/2 for Best Mishmash game

as well.

second

[Empking]

Nominate Kison for Behind the Scenes

I dunno if all the upgrades he's making have been announced/found yet, but goddamn are there a lot of them.

Second

[Empking]

Nominate TGGC for Professor Mafia

[Empking]

Poorly worded, my bad.
Does the award go to the main account(s) or the account that was played with?

Bilbo Baggin's scummie was given to Plum and Andrius?

[Empking]

I'm pretty sure its better to have an extra kill than an extra night (most of the time.)

[Empking]

Personally, I'm not a fan of Best New Mod and that sort of thing. Surely we want the best of the best to be honoured rather than the best of [insert minority group here]?

As somebody who is really interested in new roles, I'd welcome the split in that category because I agree with Tar on its social enginerring potential.

[Empking]

Nominate Surye for

best SK

for this. For winning as a Serial Killer and not being reliant on the non-killing abilities.

[Empking]

Funny. I actually think mith might award one of the awards himself and it

could

be that one. Not 100% sure though.

+1

[Empking]

IMO, Newbie Scummie shouldn't be based on join date, but end date of first game played. Because until then you can't really nominate them for a best Newbie Scummie anyways.

That's more work for roughly zero benefit.

[Empking]

2nd the Flay's flavour nom.

- I wasn't in the game but came in when I saw the phase change just to read the flavour.

[Empking]

nominate XRecknoner

for something for Maships and Mafia for performing an important historical function on the site (possibly wrong phrasing).

[Empking]

Best Radio Show award?

No either Proffessor or behind the scenes or something like that.

[Empking]

Nominate Diseased Town for Best New Role

from Flameaxe's Large Werewolf

[Empking]

I'm sorry but am I correct in thinking that the "losing cause" for the scumteam in that game was playing against a town that was better than them?