Scummies 2011 Nominations

[zoraster]

I know I'm going back, but I did want to say this:

In theory, Magna is right. You can play a really really good game and still lose, and that might be worthy of a nomination.

But the truth is that in most categories (specifically the player awards) we have a lot of good nominations, and it does to some extent make sense to pare the list down almost automatically to those who actually win. We used to have "best performance in a lost cause" category that I miss.

Put it this way: the MVP of the Super Bowl is never on the losing team (to my knowledge).

[zoraster]

There was that one year with a joint MVP from both teams.

They were both on the same (winning) team, and it was 32 years ago.

[zoraster]

The MVP has come from the winning team every year except 1971, when Dallas Cowboys linebacker Chuck Howley won the award despite the Cowboys' loss in Super Bowl V to the Baltimore Colts

slam! Whoops. I was wrong, and you were right.

Properly put in my place, I will point out that was the only time, and it was in Super Bowl V, 39 years ago when the league was super young. If I wanted to abuse the phrase, I could say it's the "exception that proves the rule."

[zoraster]

I agree with Baltar. Having actually judged scummies before, I had to deal with a barrel of work (that resulted in me taking a six month break from MS). Reading the nominations helps focus the judge on what to look for. The "negative nomination" is a fine line to walk, of course. Once it starts getting nasty, the point of the scummies is defeated. But as a devil's advocate kind of thing, I found people disagreeing with a nomination to be helpful as a judge.

[zoraster]

By the way, this offers a good time for instruction:

Please be SPECIFIC about your nomination. List why you think it's a good nomination, what specifically he did, perhaps even offer a quote. Your nomination is far more valuable if you do something other than just nominate. And at the very least, please LINK to the game.

[zoraster]

4th for Best Flavor

on Storm of Swords but not enjoyable game (not really in a place to judge that, not that I didn't think it was an enjoyable game).

[zoraster]

My general opinion is that so long as a nomination is well explained, ESPECIALLY if it has some links to specific posts, I'm happy to see the nomination. Having actually tried to judge games, there's not much more frustrating than trying to go back and read a game I have no connection with with no guidance. I'd say a nomination with an explanation was roughly three times as likely to get a serious look from me. A paragraph description of why you think a nomination is worthwhile (especially if you're the first nominator) and goes a long way to actually getting that nomination some credit with the judges. Perhaps we should have a category for "Best Scummy Nomination Explanation"

I don't generally mind if people are trading nominations so long as they honestly feel like the other person merits a nomination.

---
That said, for the judges, I think it would be helpful if we had a system of antinominations, perhaps one that was not in the same thread as the actual nominations (I don't like when it devolves into an argument... this thead is for nominating, not arguing*). Maybe there could be a scummy judging "drop box" or something where players who feel a nomination is not deserved could comment. I think negative responses are nice for judges -- it helps further sort the nominations -- but I don't think the system of saying "your nom sucks" is the right way to do it.


*Irony noted

[zoraster]

Look at that, rc nominating a game he designed and then calling people butthurt when they complain about his chronic design flaws.

Is it that time again?

There's absolutely 100% nothing wrong with a mod nominating people who played in his game for scummies.

The nomination may not be deserved, I do not know. It's fine to dispute it on that basis. But don't try and shame moderators from not nominating those who play in their game. They are well situated to make such nominations.

Obviously they shouldn't be nominating themselves for a nomination, but this appears to be different.

[zoraster]

I think Smooth Operator has probably outlived its usefulness as a mod category. In theory, it should be the mod category that would reward newer mods/mods of normal games (the others are all theme game based). But in practice, it's almost always nominated for a moderator who ran a big theme game well. That makes sense as a normal game isn't all that hard to keep up with, post regular vote counts, etc. and so it doesn't usually get recognized in the scummies. It also tends to be one of the less nominated categories.

I think perhaps replacing it with Best New Mod or Best Mini-Normal/Open Moderator would be positive.

[zoraster]

Wasn't Smooth Operator new just last year? But yeah, it seems a bit like a 'well done, you didn't screw anything up noticeably' sort of award... wouldn't miss it, personally.

Tar: *shrug* The modding awards all overlap significantly anyway, because it's harder to tell where one part ends and another begins.

Yeah, I guess it was. Then I'm not sure it was ever very useful. I think a category that would reward mini-normal and open moderators would be nice. It probably won't get a ton of nominations because players of those games are a little stingy with them, but it'd be nice to see moderators rewarded for that.

--
While I'm talking about revamping the scummies, I'd suggest moving

Don Corleone

and

Paragon of Mafia Hunters

to the single-game categories. This tends to be how they're nominated and decided anyway... on the basis of single game performances. It's also allows a player to get nominated for more than one game in the same category. Right now, when a player has a second good game, ostensibly that's sort of entered into the equation of the body of work award, but in reality it gets totally overlooked unless the scummy judges actually played in that game.

Best Performance in a Losing Cause

should already be in the single thread/game category.

Most enjoyable poster

seems like an iffy category. We already have a "funniest" category. And we have performance based awards. I don't know where this fits in.

[zoraster]

Wasn't Smooth Operator new just last year? But yeah, it seems a bit like a 'well done, you didn't screw anything up noticeably' sort of award... wouldn't miss it, personally.

Tar: *shrug* The modding awards all overlap significantly anyway, because it's harder to tell where one part ends and another begins.

A lot goes into finding replacements, votecounting on time and dealing with tough issues and how fast you deal with all 3 (not to mention prodding). I think Smooth Operator has a LOT of merit and I'm in support of a Best New Mod.

Certainly, there's a fair amount that goes into basic moderation.* A good moderator helps a game be fun for her players by being efficient and effective. But I'm not sure that should be enough for an award. And I'm not sure even if it is enough that smooth operators are being nominated because players expect efficient and effective moderation, so it doesn't seem like something they need to award.

*But let's be honest here. Moderating isn't exactly hard. I think I'm one of the very most active moderators in my games. But which is more work once the game actually starts: moderating or playing? It seems pretty clear to me that it's playing. It's a different answer if you include the amount of work that goes into designing a game (it takes me hours and hours on a typical game), but that's not what Smooth Operator is about.

EDIT: And I'll accept VP's points on paragon and don corleone. That said, I think the nomination process for those would be improved if a player could be nominated multiple times for it from different games. Then when the judges confer, they can combine the same nominations from a player.

[zoraster]

Look at it from the other side of the fence, Faraday. Someone has an epic game that finishes in November. I'd like that person to get nominated for that game. But hey, some dufus nominated him for a game that he didn't even WIN back in March, so tough luck... the nomination on record will be for that mediocre nomination.

Anyway, judges may well look to the body of work, but in my experience, individual game efforts overrode it. I think there's little harm in multiple nominations that simply get pushed into one nomination at the end of the year. It'll make the list a bit longer, maybe, but that's okay.

[zoraster]

Because. Anyway, it's not like the body of work isn't looked at. Last year we had the players send in their games and stuff so multiple nominations seems really unnecessary, when judges are looking at body of work

anyway

Uhhhh...?

I was nominated for Paragon and Don Corleone last year and not once was I asked to send in games or anything. So either what you just said is total bullshit, or you guys only asked

certain

players to provide their body of work, which means it isn't fair judging.

I think the three games thing might not be the answer, because Paragon is supposed to be a single person. If a single person has a really good game, forcing people to hold onto that nomination until there are two other games where they can roll it all into a single nomination seems pointless. I would recommend some other kind of system, where players can be nominated for body of work awards after only one game, but they're kept in "pending" status until three games are nominated as well. This would cut down on the judge's time and also make sure that each person nominated for body of work is actually getting their fair voice out there.

I agree with your reasoning up until the part about the pending system. That seems more appropriate for a "life time achievement" or "hall of fame" award.

I think the current system is fine. Just allow multiple game nominations, and the problem should be solved. I don't think the answer is to require at least X games. For one thing, would this be applied to third-parties? Would town require more games than scum (since you're more likely to have more repeat plays as town than scum)? Anyway, I have no problem with someone winning if they just have one astounding game. But I also want to make sure that people can get nominated for multiple games they play, even if they can only win the award once.

[zoraster]

As I mentioned later, Tar, I came around on that. Although I'm in favor of allowing multiple nominations for the categories and then the judges can simply combine them at the end (easier for the judges to find multiple good instances of play) rather than require a certain number of games.

I think requiring a certain number of games is problematic in practice. The people who care enough about finding and submitting multiple games at a time are the players themselves, and it's generally seen as bad form to nominate yourself. As a result, we'll have "circle-jerking" among a few players dominating the categories.

Better is simply to allow a player who thinks another player did a superb job in their game on a particular side to nominate the player for that game. Then at the end, the judges can simply refer to all the games on their list and take into consideration all of the nominations.

But Losing Cause has no business as a body of work award. It just doesn't make sense. Judges evaluate a player how how good he is at consistently being the best loser possible?

[zoraster]

do you have an idea of a gambit that doesn't involve a role claim (that's already a category)? Cunning Manipulation isn't a gambit category anyway.

[zoraster]

non random role assignment lol, although not for this thread and doesn't change the scummy nom so.

What's this referring to?

[zoraster]

non random role assignment lol, although not for this thread and doesn't change the scummy nom so.

What's this referring to?

The game Reck was nominated for, where Wraith assigned the roles non randomly.

was there a reason for that? I've done non-random assignment once, but that was for Pledge of Allegiance where people picked their alignment, so it seemed to make sense.

[zoraster]

Wow that's pretty low...

So you do these things for the recognition, not for the good of the site?

Anti-Nom

Why can't it be for both?

Here's something. Vi's self-nom indicates a problem to me. Name in Orange really isn't working, to my mind. And it feels like currently it is essentially most helpful. So why not split the wiki aspect from Professor Mafia and merging it into Name in Orange?

Also, I agree with this. Contribution to the wiki is a different potato than contribution to mafia discussion, and it's more of a "behind the scenes" kind of thing anyway.

[zoraster]

I actually agree with Fate. Self-noms feel a bit cheap. Get a friend to nominate you. I would have been happy to nominate Vi as I think he deserves a nomination for it, but I guess the thought never crossed my mind for some reason.

Tell you what, Vi. Let's do this right. You delete your nomination and we'll act like it never happened. In a week or two or three someone's going to come in and nominate you for your hard work. That way it won't have to say Vi nominated by

Vi

[zoraster]

Okay. He has gotten many nominations. That doesn't make what he has done this year any less significant. To be frank, he does deserve some sort of recognition for what he did this year. It doesn't really matter if he also got recognised last year. What I was trying to point out is that what Vi has done is not, however, what I would call Professor Mafia. He's done a lot of good work, but I feel that what he has done is more in keeping with the spirit of Name in Orange. That is, someone who has helped the site, and people should really know about that.

I absolutely agree with this. I think Fate does as well. I think he just wants someone else to nominate Vi if for no other reason than it sets a bad example for other categories.

[zoraster]

I actually agree with Fate. Self-noms feel a bit cheap. Get a friend to nominate you. I would have been happy to nominate Vi as I think he deserves a nomination for it,

but I guess the thought never crossed my mind for some reason.

Tell you what, Vi. Let's do this right. You delete your nomination and we'll act like it never happened. In a week or two or three someone's going to come in and nominate you for your hard work. That way it won't have to say Vi nominated by

Vi

In this post you described the problem with your solution.

If you feel I deserve the nomination, make it now. I wouldn't have made the self-nomination if I didn't think I did

over and beyond

what would be necessary to be worthy of it.

Oh, and Fate. Remember when ReaperCharlie and whoeverelseitwas tried to nominate me/us for the same project and I

turned it down

until we had actually done something?

As an aside, I agree that it should be Name/Orange; I have no idea why the original award is in Prof. Mafia.

It's the problem with the scummies in general. I think a lot of things that ought to be nominated aren't. Whenever I moderate a game I think to myself "was there someone who deserves a nomination for this?" to try and prevent it, but that obviously only works for the immediate games I'm moderating. (It also means that games that I moderate are disproportionately represented.)

I digress. I guess to me it's that the scummies are about the appreciation of others. I think it's obvious you deserve a scummy nomination for your work, but to me a self-nomination cheapens it some... It's like any compliment. "You look great" sounds better when it's not preceeded by "I look great, don't I?"

But if you really don't care about that, that's fine with me. A nomination is a nomination in the end it's about who wins it.

2nd Vi's nomination

[zoraster]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RomtlKowQs0

[zoraster]

Self-noming is wrong.

Counter Nth

, I'm very much opposed to her winning this scummy for this nomination now.

Any 'noming of her for this scummy for this entire nominiation period is now tainted by this, all around bad form from those involved.

Bad form has been admitted, and even Vi I think agrees self-nominating is an incorrect move. But are you

really

against him winning a scummy for it if the judges think he contributed the most? REALLY? That's the type of standard you want? Someone who puts in countless hours making the site and community better is now barred from official recognition because he made a faux pas?

Don't be ridiculous.

I don't mind when someone counterclaims on the basis of a substantive disagreement because the judges should get a full view of what happened. If, for example, Vi did hardly any work and it was some other faceless servant who did, then counterclaim so it's known to the judges. But here, you're simply being a jerk.

[zoraster]

That said:

Motion to change "Professor Mafia" to "Best Contribution to Mafia Thought"

(This is from "Best Contribution to Mafia Discussion/Wiki")

I think this better encapsulates what "Professor Mafia" should mean. First, I don't think its presence in Mafia Discussion is necessary. It could take place in a game, it could be published on the wiki (such as Vi's guide).

Furthermore, this allows the Behind the Scenes award to be given to someone who did a lot of work on the wiki (this name doesn't need to change because once wiki is removed from professor mafia, it naturally falls under that category).

EDIT: I had "theory" instead of "thought" but I don't think that's broad enough. For example, Hoopla's push for 13 players and better balance in minis deserved an award because it changed how people moderated games for the better. But that's not really "theory"

[zoraster]

haha, that's a funny ninja zoraster

faux pas five!

[zoraster]

I just want to point out that the above is a good nomination. Not that I necessarily agree or disagree with the scummy-worthiness of the people above, but the actual nomination itself gives specific examples for scummy judges to look at and lays it out. That makes the jobs of judges much easier.

(Nexus' wasn't bad [at least it wasn't just "nom: Person X"], but ooba's is an example to be followed.)

[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.

[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.

[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.

[zoraster]

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.

I think that's fair. Join date is problematic for exactly this reason. Especially given how long it sometimes takes to authorize a player, I could easily see it taking a month before they even start a game, much less finish one.

[zoraster]

2nd Magua

I know from experience how very complicated that type of game is to run, and it seems like he did a great job with it.

[zoraster]

haha i was kidding, Maruchan. In any case, wait until games are over before posting about them please.

If you're interested in that kind of thing you might check out the Records page. It's more appropriate than a scummy for obvious reasons.

[zoraster]

You can add a new category.

I kinda like that one, although it's a hall-of-shame sort of thing rather than a claim to fame... and I'm marginally worried about people 'competing' to spam the game thread before it starts.

Yeah, hall of shame awards are tricky.

On the one hand, you want people to take them with good grace and nominated not out of malice.

On the other, you don't want people to actually be proud of the award.

It's a fine line, and basically the same as "razzing" titles have.

That and is this really something that needs to be awarded every year?

I think he meant this could be added to the Records wiki

[zoraster]

I don't see malice being an issue with something as black and white as most posts before game start.

oh i don't really think it is. It's just something that goes along with most hall of shame type of things. For most posts, the latter point (i.e. taking pride in it) is the bigger problem.

[zoraster]

Who would be stupid enough to take pride in something negative?

Why do you post?

That's harsh.

That was my first reaction. Then I realized it was actually kind of clever comment. Read it again.

[zoraster]

Who would be stupid enough to take pride in something negative?

Why do you post?

That's harsh.

That was my first reaction. Then I realized it was actually kind of clever comment. Read it again.

I read it as "SK takes pride in something negative every time he posts, because his posts are shit."

Am I wrong?

nope.

Anyway, to more seriously answer your question SK, I think the title fairy thread has some examples of people taking pride in negative things.

[zoraster]

Fairly similar to Farside's games too. Not that that's a bad thing

[zoraster]

Yeah, maybe it's preferable to have someone else nominate, but realistically for a town nomination that leaves roughly 4 people who might potentially nominate the town: the scum members and the moderator. Maybe someone else comes in and sees it, but it's unlikely. A self-nomination in this case is fine.

The problem with self-nominations is that it sounds entitled, lacks humility, etc. When a self-nom for a team goes up those problems are defanged because it takes more humility to say, "I had a great team."

[zoraster]

I'll

3rd

... edit: I'll actually take my criticism to the thread.

[zoraster]

Maybe the rule should be that nominations don't show up until they've at least been seconded.

[zoraster]

I hesitate to do this as town's messing up was in large part the cause of scum winning the game, and part of me hates to reward the playstyle, but...

Nominate GreyICE for Cunning Manipulator

http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 23&t=19225

So, GreyICE managed to lead his scumteam to a victory. In a mylo situation where the setup said there was (at least) one town bulletproof, he claimed bulletproof knowing that he'd be counterclaimed. He did this when a town power role had a cop's guilty on him. And he got counterclaimed by Fate. In the end, he managed to get the cop's claim lynched. Admittedly, the cop's guilty was a backup and the claim there was less than stellar, but I think n terms of actual pure manipulation with posting, GreyICE definitely did it.

[zoraster]

Some luck, maybe. But the fact that town ran up something like 4 different town members to claim on D1 without ever getting a scum member to do the same is at least in some small part attributable to scum's actions (or lack thereof).

[zoraster]

he didn't claim did he?

[zoraster]

Nominate Hoopla for most enjoyable poster

I actually take the time to read every single on of her posts in depth in every game I play with her. I have read several other of her games just to see her in action. They are legitimately insightful. I actually enjoy reading her longer posts, unlike most other people's.

Second

Third

but only if we insist on having this as a category, which I don't really like.

[zoraster]

Withdraw GreyICE nomination for Manipulator

No reason for my solo nom to stand. I agree with Flay though... requiring something be seconded is pretty standard for a nominations process. It's also an easy way to weed out self-nominations that aren't deserving without having to ban them altogether.

[zoraster]

You

can

. But you shouldn't. Even venerable people like Vi have caught a lot of flak for self-nominating.

[zoraster]

No, it's unlikely the judges will. They'll probably read enough to try and get a sense of the game and what it takes, but I highly doubt anyone will read it all. If you want to make it easy on the judges, include a list of things you'd like them to look at specifically.

[zoraster]

yeah. if you think a game deserves multiple awards, nominate it.

Flay: have there been many instances of a single game winning multiple mod awards?

[zoraster]

yeah, i'm not surprised. the only category that I would have thought remotely likely was something involving best role.

I don't think we've ever had someone win both of the "big two" either, though I think this year may be different.

[zoraster]

I won both of those in 2008.

I always knew you were a Kinetic/Kison hybrid alt.

[zoraster]

Have we had a most cunning manipulation or best scum team nomination in the past 4 months where it wasn't immediately followed by someone bitching about how it wasn't the scum's good play, it was town's bad play?

It makes me want to knee jerk second the nomination despite not having any idea about it.

[zoraster]

no.

him living over 4-5 days was a huge oversight that town made.

You know what? Screw it. Usurper win? Sticking it to "town made a mistake" bitchers? Yes please.

2nd the warriormode nomination

[zoraster]

you can chalk that up to amazing scum play

I'll go with this option.

I'm actually being serious when I say the more you're talking about it, the more convinced I am that he did a great job. That's not even just knee jerk reaction to someone who's obviously just pissed at the loss, but it's in recognition of just how hard he had it and then turned it around for a usurper victory.

Maybe town "should" have lynched him. I don't know. But the fact they should have but didn't, only gives me more belief that he played it well.

[zoraster]

Makes more sense as a body of work because I think the crucial ingredient of being a great replacement is not necessarily being a great player (though it helps), but regularly taking games that are difficult to get replacements for and contributing meaningfully and quickly. And while one instance will surely show that (e.g. cogito replaced into a 100 page strategy mafia and was caught up practically before I got him his role PM), a general reputation for doing so is even more helpful.