Scummies 2011 Nominations

[Xalxe]

I thought there was in the past too. Huh.

[q21]

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

(no link because for some reason my comp isn't letting me copy-paste ). 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.)

There used to be such an award but it was dropped because it it rewards failure which is not something we should be doing.

[Mr. Flay]

I'm not sure that's entirely accurate - I thought it was dropped for lack of nominees. Rewarding 'bad play' is what we've dropped some awards for (like Most Likely To Be Lynch Day 1, thankfully).

[gandalf5166]

Best Performance in a losing cause does NOT reward bad play. It rewards people for not giving up.

[Ythan]

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

[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.

[Xalxe]

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.

[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".)

[Xalxe]

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.

[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.

[SaintKerrigan]

trololol.

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

trololol.

Not if the other players are better.

trololol.

FTFY

[Xalxe]

Now now SK, that's just rude.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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...)

[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.

[Xalxe]

So, Empking, I provide you with a scenario:

You are scum with HiImaShittyNewb.

Town consists of DGB, SaintKerrigan, and mith, who are all fantastic scumhunters.

Shittynewb gets lynched. You nightkill mith.

SaintKerrigan votes you instantly, claiming a cop result. You retaliate with a brilliant case, explaining exactly why SK is lying scummery.

DGB interrogates the hell out of SK for weeks before finally hammering you.

Postgame, she admits that without your case, she would've hammered you instantly, and that as it was, it was very, very close.

I say you deserve the award for almost pulling the win off.

Discuss.

[Empking]

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

[Xalxe]

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

That's why it's two different awards.

[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?

[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.

[MagnaofIllusion]

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.

Any player can play an absolutely brilliant game but still lose. And any player can play a craptastic game and win. Chesskid in Liten is an example of the later. To use an analogy Micheal Jordan played for subpar Chicago Bulls teams for several years until he got a good supporting cast (and I am not comparing myself to him … this is just an example). Because his teams didn’t win in the play-offs does not mean he played poorly.

If your objection is the reintroduction of the award that is one argument. But trying to say that in a team game by eventually losing it means you must have played poorly is just stupid.

[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.