In post 959, zoraster wrote:Scummy nominees don't not win because of mistakes or whatever. We are talking about pretty subjective stuff and nominees by their nature — and finalists in particular — represent top tier stuff.
The use of the word mistake was used for lack of a better word--what I'm more going for is, releasing some of the judging process would allow for, more or less, an idea of:
"This award, to us, means this. And Game X, we feel, best demonstrates this, because of these reasons."
Yes, the process is subjective. Yes, the nominees in particular the finalists are top-tier stuff: but
what
made the finalists be finalists? And
what
made the winner be the winner? What was the magical process which caused the judges to feel, overall, this one nominated player/moderator/game stood out above all others in the year for the quality the award is for?
What made the townplay be the best townplay?
What made the scumplay be the best scumplay?
Having a better idea of that would allow:
-Players/moderators a better idea of what to strive for
-Players/moderators a potential way of self-improvement, eliminating weaknesses and capitalizing on strengths
-Players/moderators having stronger inspiration
-Players/moderators having a better idea of the qualities we on mafiascum wish to see more of in games, and also maybe even the qualities we on mafiascum wish to see less of in games
-Players/moderators worthy of nomination being easier to find because the criteria are better-known
-Players/moderators nominating moderators/players being able to better present their case for the above of why their candidate is worthy of the award
-Users to voice their opinions on how the judges can improve and get even better at their job in future years (especially when paired with the above point).
Basically, by having an increased understanding, all aspects of the site, from playing to moderation to nomination to judging, would be increased because everyone with an increased understanding now has that increased knowledge.