Page 37 of 52

Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2016 2:09 pm
by Untrod Tripod
because judging isn't already inherently arbitrary for awards like that....

Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:34 am
by Realeo
I have a question. When judges collaborate, how do you work? Do you lynch judge member until all remaining judge decides on an unanimous decision? Do you use VRI--that is used by Oscar, or do you just talk, talk, talk?

Because if it's a talk, talk, talk, I would like to nominate something different.

Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:03 am
by zakk
"Talk talk talk talk talk

You can talk from home, oooh, oooh"

-"
Nth
" Harmony

Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2016 10:03 am
by zakk
Sauce: was a scummies judge once upon a time

Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2016 12:13 pm
by Realeo
=D

Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2016 12:23 pm
by Realeo
Here's the thing. I skimmed the last 3 pages and I realized that xxReckonerxx failed to agree on a common jurying criteria with RC.

If that's the case, instead of trying to unify all judges under one common jurying criteria, why don't let each judge have their own criteria?

2 months before final 3 nomination, judges define their judging criteria and we let the public challenge their criteria. If public finds his judging criteria faulty, the public can secretly WotC the judge. The Wotced judge will still be asked for their contribution but secretly discarded.

Award nominations ala Eurovision contest. 3 nominations with the most points are the final 3 nominations.

To find the champion, employs Instant Runoff Voting system. IRV by its nature tries to accommodates most jury.

Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:37 pm
by McMenno
I suggest that I should get all the scummies

a much better system

Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2016 3:05 am
by xRECKONERx
In post 905, Realeo wrote:Here's the thing. I skimmed the last 3 pages and I realized that xxReckonerxx failed to agree on a common jurying criteria with RC.

If that's the case, instead of trying to unify all judges under one common jurying criteria, why don't let each judge have their own criteria?

2 months before final 3 nomination, judges define their judging criteria and we let the public challenge their criteria. If public finds his judging criteria faulty, the public can secretly WotC the judge. The Wotced judge will still be asked for their contribution but secretly discarded.

Award nominations ala Eurovision contest. 3 nominations with the most points are the final 3 nominations.

To find the champion, employs Instant Runoff Voting system. IRV by its nature tries to accommodates most jury.
We're not going to publicize the judging criteria unless it's a uniform system. Each judge basically has their own right now, and that subjectivity is like 90% of the problem. We're going to try to unify it or provide something more concrete so people know exactly what goes into an award.

Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2016 3:06 am
by xRECKONERx
Also, Scummies participation is already minimal overall. What you're suggesting is an undertaking that would likely oversaturate the process and cause less overall involvement. People can take time to nominate, judges can sign up to judge, but people aren't going to take time to read every possible nomination and make an informed decision.

Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2016 3:16 am
by zoraster
Yeah. We aren't WOTC judges. The scummies committee, given enough options, will try to select those it think will do the job best, but what you're suggesting will only make it more of a popularity contest (since individual users will be far less likely to review games in depth) and unduly influence. Plus, as Reck says, anything that makes the job of scummy judge suckier is going to reduce participation and is a bad idea.

Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2016 3:21 am
by Untrod Tripod
In post 901, Realeo wrote:I have a question. When judges collaborate, how do you work? Do you lynch judge member until all remaining judge decides on an unanimous decision? Do you use VRI--that is used by Oscar, or do you just talk, talk, talk?

Because if it's a talk, talk, talk, I would like to nominate something different.
Underrated post

Posted: Tue Aug 16, 2016 7:05 am
by zakk
should just open it up to everyone on the site and let them vote on their champions

the oscars are a popularity contest anyway, why not make the scummies a mockery too

#rabblerabblerabble


jk :P

Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2016 1:00 am
by Realeo
Wait. I'm not saying that I ask people to reviews the nomination. I ask people to review the judge who reviews the nomination.

Here's the thing. I have a background from data scientist. We data scientist create a program that evaluates things. Read text, read price, make prediction, and so on.

Sometimes however, we can't do that. We will ask human being to do our job, we will take the human's result as a lesson for our program, so one day, when our program has enough knowledge, our program is going to be able to do the job without human intervention.

However, not all human are perfect. We sometimes rate the human so the program weighs in opinion. If two people gives different feedback, who will the program trust? Whose feedback will be used by the computer to study? The program ideally want to learn from the smartest human. How do the program know who is the smartest to learn? Ideally, I want my program to learn from the smartest human, and discard lessons that my program learn from stupid people.

That is the underlying philosophy of my idea. We can't unify all idea. If we can't unify all idea, why don't just let us rate the idea like my program did? Let the good judge rises and let the bad judge sunks.

So I am going to repropose the system again with an ammandement: what if my system is used, but we let the judge discuss and talk, but let they come to their own conclusion?

Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2016 1:35 am
by Realeo
Here's a simplified version if people fail to comprehend what I propose (or I fail to send the mssage)

My system that I proposed is basically a bonafied/complexified system of the election.
  • The nominations are bills and policies that the house want to pass.
  • The scummies judge are the senators.
  • The mafiascum users are public who are voting in the general election..
The public (The whole MafiaScum resident) picks the senators (Scummies judge) that they want. Just like in real election, senators wannabe debates. In MafiaScum, the judge promotes their judging criteria.

After the senators are chosen, the chosen senators (the scummies judges) pick which bill to pass (Which nomination wins)

However, instead of going binary like senators passed or senators rejected (100% or 0%), I give each senator a score (You are good senator. Your opinion worth 80%. You are a bad senator. Your opinion worth 20%)

I mean, you literally are going to pick your president at November. How this idea sounds weird?

Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2016 1:37 am
by Realeo
The best thing about my idea is that everyone is independent. The failed two party system is out of the window.

Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2016 9:06 am
by xRECKONERx
In post 914, Realeo wrote:The best thing about my idea is that everyone is independent. The failed two party system is out of the window.
what

Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2016 9:06 am
by xRECKONERx
we're not goign to make judge selection a public process considering we mostly accept everyone who applies

Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2016 9:08 am
by xRECKONERx
like everything you are proposing is a way more complicated process for something that isn't broken. the one thing not fucked up about the Scummies is how we accept judges

Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2016 9:56 am
by zoraster
That occams razor.

Posted: Wed Aug 24, 2016 3:00 am
by Untrod Tripod
I LOVE this guy

Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2016 1:34 pm
by BBmolla
I had a dream last night that I got 5th in a categories in the scummies and I felt good.

Now obviously I'm not going to win any awards, but is there a particular reason we don't have a 1st, 2nd, 3rd for each category? Is it just too much more work? If the point of the scummies is to give light to great play, I think adding a 2nd and 3rd in each category would shed light on more plays and help with circumstances where judges are really torn between two great examples and have to choose one. Plus it rewards more members of the community for playing well.

Maybe silly, but I was thinking about it today.

Posted: Thu Oct 27, 2016 5:39 pm
by Alchemist21
Probably just better to give honorable mentions to the ones that were a tough choice. It still acknowledges the good ones even if they don't win, but takes out the work of making banners for them and ranking them (which would just be even more time spent discussing the games that didn't actually win).

Posted: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:00 am
by BBmolla
I'm fine with that

Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2016 6:34 pm
by mastina
In post 920, BBmolla wrote:If the point of the scummies is to give light to great play, I think adding a 2nd and 3rd in each category would shed light on more plays and help with circumstances where judges are really torn between two great examples and have to choose one.
Possible compromise:
Years ago, they used to list all of the nominees for an award.
Now, they only list the winner.

In the reward ceremony, we could go BACK to listing all the nominees. That's an absolute zero effort thing (it should literally just be a copy-past thing guys), but it allows for a second spotlight beyond the original nomination, so to speak: "these were the others who were considered", and with that extra mention, those people/situations/games might get a higher level of exposure.

Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2016 2:24 am
by Untrod Tripod
that's fine, although it will highlight all of the awards that only get 1-3 nominees