Scummies 2011 Nominations

[Twistedspoon]

nominate hoppster for the best newbie award

might find some games If I have to (mini 1190 he was good in IIRC) , but basically he plays very well. All the time. well except when he's policy lynching me

probably more worthy of the award than I am anyways

[Lady Lambdadelta]

Oh, Andrew and Lady Lambdadelta appear to be ineligible for Outstanding New Player via join dates.

Due to my due date of joining, I feel I never had a fair chance at winning this award due to the arbitrary date you placed. I joined 31 days before your deadline, and as a result never really had a chance to participate for either the 2010 or the 2011 award, due to the arbitrary date line.

I would like to move for the time on the newbie award to be changed to a more inclusive "joined in 2010" time. Then it at the very least gives all players a chance at 1 year of play. Because my only chance at the newbie award would have been in 2010, where I had 4 months of play. Due to your ineligibility date, all my other time (while still being under a year on this site) is not even looked at.

Using the "joined in the previous year" idea works better to include all players, as it provides a minimum of 1 year experience (assuming a December join date).

Of course, there is also the option of only counting games played within the first year, so that it makes everyone equal. So for this scummies, eligability would work like this:

-Joined in 2010 or later
-Only first year of games are counted (from join date to 1 year later).

This gives all players equal time to prove themselves for the award, and also removes the arbitrary cut off where people like me who join just before the date get screwed.

Quoting this so it doesn't get lost on the back page.

[tanstalas]

Someone really wants that newbie award >.>

[Lady Lambdadelta]

Someone really wants that newbie award >.>

Somebody really wants to be considered for it, and not shafted by 31 days. :/

[GreyICE]

Basic understanding from me says that every player should have a fair shot of winning it. LLD didn't have that. No one is going to win best newbie off of 4 months of play when there's people who had full 12. You just don't have the body of work that a 12 month player has.

Making it something like February or March is probably much fairer. At least until someone shows me that a player who played on site 4 months was ever seriously considered for the award EVER in the past (doesn't have to win, but show serious consideration for a 4 month poster in any past scummies (all current nominees have been on site far longer).

[tanstalas]

Basic understanding from me says that every player should have a fair shot of winning it. LLD didn't have that. No one is going to win best newbie off of 4 months of play when there's people who had full 12. You just don't have the body of work that a 12 month player has.

Making it something like February or March is probably much fairer. At least until someone shows me that a player who played on site 4 months was ever seriously considered for the award EVER in the past (doesn't have to win, but show serious consideration for a 4 month poster in any past scummies (all current nominees have been on site far longer).

And then in a year someone who joined in January or February (based off your February or March statement) will complain.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't

Unless you said can be nominated for any game that was completed within your first year of joining the site.

[Lady Lambdadelta]

Basic understanding from me says that every player should have a fair shot of winning it. LLD didn't have that. No one is going to win best newbie off of 4 months of play when there's people who had full 12. You just don't have the body of work that a 12 month player has.

Making it something like February or March is probably much fairer. At least until someone shows me that a player who played on site 4 months was ever seriously considered for the award EVER in the past (doesn't have to win, but show serious consideration for a 4 month poster in any past scummies (all current nominees have been on site far longer).

And then in a year someone who joined in January or February (based off your February or March statement) will complain.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't

Unless you said can be nominated for any game that was completed within your first year of joining the site.

Did my fix not equalize this so that all players have 1 year of play time, but can be nominated aslong as they joined after Jan. 1 2010? It equalizes the field.

[GreyICE]

Basic understanding from me says that every player should have a fair shot of winning it. LLD didn't have that. No one is going to win best newbie off of 4 months of play when there's people who had full 12. You just don't have the body of work that a 12 month player has.

Making it something like February or March is probably much fairer. At least until someone shows me that a player who played on site 4 months was ever seriously considered for the award EVER in the past (doesn't have to win, but show serious consideration for a 4 month poster in any past scummies (all current nominees have been on site far longer).

And then in a year someone who joined in January or February (based off your February or March statement) will complain.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't

Unless you said can be nominated for any game that was completed within your first year of joining the site.

Think before you post, it works better.

I'm going to offer you two complaints. Your goal is to show they're exactly equal:

"Wow, that test was unfair. It was closed book, covered material we never studied in class and used an equation we never learned."
"Wow, that test was unfair. The questions were really tough and it covered a ton of material for an hour long test, even if it was open book."

Of course there will be complaints. BUT SOME COMPLAINTS ARE FUCKING VALID AND SOME AIN'T.

LLD's complaint was valid. The complaint in your example wasn't. Do you see why you fail?

[Lady Lambdadelta]

Grey-kun, there's no need to be hostile. I mean, it's just an award. It's not a huge end of the world deal or anything, but I

WOULD

like to have all players be able to be equally and fairly considered.

[zoraster]

I'm sympathetic, but a few issues:

1. What defines play time? Should it start when your first game starts and end a year later? If so, does that mean judges have to stop evaluating midgame? Or is it just games that end within a year of your first game's start?

2. A person joins in January. There seems to be something wrong about evaluating their Best Newbieness that covers basically all of 2010 while we're in 2012. It seems like we start to run more and more behind contemporary times. A player that joins in January of 2010, by the time they receive the "Best Newbie" icon will have been playing the game for TWO YEARS. At the end of his reign, he'll have been playing for three years.

3. One of the nice things about the system now is that judges can evaluate a player GENERALLY to see if they're the best Newbie. An issue with the suggestion is that say you're in a game with me in October of this year and you play great. It's pretty hard to ignore that as a judge, but this is asking me to because it can only cover a year.

As I said, I'm sympathetic, LLD. But you actually had 4 months to get nominated as Best Newbie for last year's scummies. Admittedly, it's not "fair" in the sense that you had far less time to earn it, but I think the October date is set to allow players to at least have a chance.

[tanstalas]

Basic understanding from me says that every player should have a fair shot of winning it. LLD didn't have that. No one is going to win best newbie off of 4 months of play when there's people who had full 12. You just don't have the body of work that a 12 month player has.

You get nominated for a particular game I think, and they go off that game, not your complete body of work, I think...

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 5#p2537595

I was nominated within just a hair after 2 months of being on site. I said, basing it off a full year would make sense, so LLD could be nominated for any game that completes before her August 31st anniversary.

BTW, GreyICE, You swearing at me and calling me fail is quite rude. I was kinda agreeing with LLD, but you can't just put a cut-off date in, it would have to be within 1 year of joining the site kinda thing IMO.

[zoraster]

All that said, maybe we should start awarding "Best Newbie" on a semi-annual basis (first half/second half). Actually give the award when the scummy first half committee makes their decisions. That'll make the Best Newbie award mean something more anyway as the player who holds that award will actually BE really new rather than be, in internet time, a fairly experienced player.

[Espeonage]

@Nexus, CSL, MoI: Thanks!

Third

the scum team of

Empking, vezokpiraka, Thor and Spyrex

for

Best Performance Scum Team

- Think all four of them played a great game
- Good coordination: They split fakeclaims pregame. Also the counterclaim-reaction to SaintKerrigan's claims looked genuine.
- Timing of claims: Empking claimed Mafia Watcher when he was about to be lynched. More importantly, it believable and people didn't go "cult-claiming-Mafia-Watcher". He was lynched the next day but caught the CR killing someone in the night. Without that, I think cult would have won.
- Also, choice quote when there were 6-players left:

I see no situation where you're not scum.

I simply do not see a SpyreX + Thor scumteam.

Every other pairing had and passed up the opportunity to hammer you.

I disagree with this nom. (Ignore any possible butthurt I may be feeling.) Scum were handed the win and were significantly helped by a couple of choice bits of luck. And even when they won it was because of a townsperson blunder.

But opinions are opinions. And they definitely had a great game.

[GreyICE]

All that said, maybe we should start awarding "Best Newbie" on a semi-annual basis (first half/second half). Actually give the award when the scummy first half committee makes their decisions. That'll make the Best Newbie award mean sometime more anyway as the player who holds that award will actually BE really new rather than be, in internet time, a fairly experienced player.

That probably would solve the problem.

Tans argument was fail, and to top it off one of those lines of argument that drive me insane. "There will always be complaints therefore all complaints are automatically invalid" is the height of bad reasoning.

Lets solve it another way too.

Nominate Lady Lambdadelta for Most Improved Player

Since she's not a newbie. That should get nthed in about 12 seconds

[Lady Lambdadelta]

I'm sympathetic, but a few issues:

1. What defines play time? Should it start when your first game starts and end a year later? If so, does that mean judges have to stop evaluating midgame? Or is it just games that end within a year of your first game's start?

2. A person joins in January. There seems to be something wrong about evaluating their Best Newbieness that covers basically all of 2010 while we're in 2012. It seems like we start to run more and more behind contemporary times. A player that joins in January of 2010, by the time they receive the "Best Newbie" icon will have been playing the game for TWO YEARS. At the end of his reign, he'll have been playing for three years.

3. One of the nice things about the system now is that judges can evaluate a player GENERALLY to see if they're the best Newbie. An issue with the suggestion is that say you're in a game with me in October of this year and you play great. It's pretty hard to ignore that as a judge, but this is asking me to because it can only cover a year.

As I said, I'm sympathetic, LLD. But you actually had 4 months to get nominated as Best Newbie for last year's scummies. Admittedly, it's not "fair" in the sense that you had far less time to earn it, but I think the October date is set to allow players to at least have a chance.

1) Play Time should be from the point at which a player joins the site and is activated, to when their year is up. Games should be evaluated based on join date in the game. If you join the game the day before your deadline passes, it should count towards your total. The day after, it should be ignored.

2) To be fair, people will know what year it is intended for, because we are setting a specific limit to what year it is. It's best newbie for the play of their first year on the site, within the larger limit of 2010/2011 game year.

3) Once that year is up, no other games should be counted, and Judges should enforces this strictly. This IS about Best NEWBIE, and after that cutoff point, it may be a great game they played, but it wasn't played AS A NEWBIE. I don't think the judges would be swayed by that, or that they SHOULD be.

[tanstalas]

Just a question, if you start in August of 2010 and get nominated for a game that you finished in say december 2010 you can be nominated for 2011 scummy for newbie for 2010, but what happens if you also do a great game in march 2011 - can you be nominated again in 2012 for best newbie?

Slippery slope and all that jazz.

Waiting for GI's awesome insult for the above sentence.

[GreyICE]

Just a question, if you start in August of 2010 and get nominated for a game that you finished in say december 2010 you can be nominated for 2011 scummy for newbie for 2010, but what happens if you also do a great game in march 2011 - can you be nominated again in 2012 for best newbie?

Slippery slope and all that jazz.

Waiting for GI's awesome insult for the above sentence.

Actually you posted that sentence, and now you have to live with that fact for the rest of your life.

There's just very little I could add to that.

[tanstalas]

You don't agree?

You start making one exception, and then another, etc etc.

Are you unfamiliar with that expression?

[Lady Lambdadelta]

Just a question, if you start in August of 2010 and get nominated for a game that you finished in say december 2010 you can be nominated for 2011 scummy for newbie for 2010, but what happens if you also do a great game in march 2011 - can you be nominated again in 2012 for best newbie?

Slippery slope and all that jazz.

Waiting for GI's awesome insult for the above sentence.

You need to understand there would be two limits.

The date the player joined must be AFTER Jan. 1st of the previous year (in this case, 2010).

All games that are considered must be played within 1 year of join date.

At the extremes, that means at one end, all your games are played in 2010.

And at the other end, all your games are played in 2011.

Which is no different from the current system, really. That part doesn't change.

[GreyICE]

You don't agree?

You start making one exception, and then another, etc etc.

Are you unfamiliar with that expression?

Yah, that's slippery slope. I suggested the rules were defective, and needed changing. So slippery slope doesn't apply since there's no exceptions. That alone would have made the idea pretty dumb.

But look at what you did there. User X joined in 08/10. He was nominated for best newbie off a game in 12/10. So he should have a shot at 2011 (the same way a user who joined in 10/10 would have a shot in 2011 for a game that finished in 12/10). You further went on to hypothesize about a game that finished in 03/11 and was nominated in 2012...

NINE MONTHS LATER.

If no one gave a shit for nine months... what?

It wasn't a slippery slope fallacy, it was an 'epic failure' fallacy. I'm just going to ignore you now, you've obviously decided that what you want to have happen, and are not arguing based off logic or reason, just off the desire to hit post reply until everyone agrees with you.

[zoraster]

I'm sympathetic, but a few issues:

1. What defines play time? Should it start when your first game starts and end a year later? If so, does that mean judges have to stop evaluating midgame? Or is it just games that end within a year of your first game's start?

2. A person joins in January. There seems to be something wrong about evaluating their Best Newbieness that covers basically all of 2010 while we're in 2012. It seems like we start to run more and more behind contemporary times. A player that joins in January of 2010, by the time they receive the "Best Newbie" icon will have been playing the game for TWO YEARS. At the end of his reign, he'll have been playing for three years.

3. One of the nice things about the system now is that judges can evaluate a player GENERALLY to see if they're the best Newbie. An issue with the suggestion is that say you're in a game with me in October of this year and you play great. It's pretty hard to ignore that as a judge, but this is asking me to because it can only cover a year.

As I said, I'm sympathetic, LLD. But you actually had 4 months to get nominated as Best Newbie for last year's scummies. Admittedly, it's not "fair" in the sense that you had far less time to earn it, but I think the October date is set to allow players to at least have a chance.

1) Play Time should be from the point at which a player joins the site and is activated, to when their year is up. Games should be evaluated based on join date in the game. If you join the game the day before your deadline passes, it should count towards your total. The day after, it should be ignored.

2) To be fair, people will know what year it is intended for, because we are setting a specific limit to what year it is. It's best newbie for the play of their first year on the site, within the larger limit of 2010/2011 game year.

3) Once that year is up, no other games should be counted, and Judges should enforces this strictly. This IS about Best NEWBIE, and after that cutoff point, it may be a great game they played, but it wasn't played AS A NEWBIE. I don't think the judges would be swayed by that, or that they SHOULD be.

1. Fair enough

2. I still think it's problematic to have someone winning a Newbie award who has basically been playing the game for upwards 2 years and then have them wear a tag that says "Best Newbie" when they've been around for up to 3 years. Admittedly, that happens a bit now as a winner could have been around a year and 3 months when they win (thus my suggestion of having the best newbie be awarded every 6 months), but it just gets worse. I think that's discouraging to actual Newbies who might get it.

3. Easier said than done. As Newbie is a body of work award, general impressions are important here, not just the individual evaluations of individual games. I don't necessarily think this means it's undoable, but I do think that's one advantage of a system that allows the evaluation UP TO when the scummy is judged.

[zoraster]

I guess my thing is that I think of "Best Newbie" as an attempt to award "our best new player right now" rather than a recognition of the person who was at one point a really good newbie.

Again, that's not to say I'm not sympathetic, LLD. Given the staggered start dates for our players, it certainly means that some are more likely to win the award than others (thus, again, why awarding it every 6 months instead of 12 makes sense), but I'm not sure the solution suggested is a good way to go at it.

[Lady Lambdadelta]

I guess my thing is that I think of "Best Newbie" as an attempt to award "our best new player right now" rather than a recognition of the person who was at one point a really good newbie.

Again, that's not to say I'm not sympathetic, LLD. Given the staggered start dates for our players, it certainly means that some are more likely to win the award than others (thus, again, why awarding it every 6 months instead of 12 makes sense), but I'm not sure the solution to suggest is a good way to go at it.

I actually think that the 6 month thing is good, but it can cause the same problems of not having everyone get equal time.

I am hoping to find a solution wherein all players nominated for this award are given equal opportunity.

The other option is to remove the deadline, and have the judges decide for themselves what a "newbie" is, but that seems to lead to a lot of subjective decision and a non-constant definition of newbie each year.

[DemonHybrid]

I agree with LLD's complaint, logic, and nomination.

[chamber]

The nature of the newbie award is that its going to be unfair to someone, given that its the newbie award may as well be unfair to the more experienced someones, sorry LLD, I'm with Zoraster on this one(not that my word has any weight).