Scummies 2007 Nominations Closed!

[AniX]

We need an award: Person most known for things other than Mafia or running the site.

[AniX]

the very fact I have no idea what you are talking about speaks volumes to your choice.

[AniX]

No, Most Prolific Player, I believe, refers to the amount of Mafia games you are in, not your celebry status. Thats why Fritz won it, he played the most games (or was believed to)

[AniX]

Also, its called the Addict award for a reason, Prof.

[AniX]

How in the name of Dana Scully does Addict translate to Most Recognized. The only board where the biggest addict is Most Recognized is a board based on doing drugs. And even then, everybody would be too high or cracked up to recognize anybody else.

[AniX]

I hardly see it as spam. In my traditional eccentric writing style,sure, but we are discussing the intent of titles. Certainly, I have enlightened a poster to some misunderstood intent of a title, as he previously thought it was "Most Recognized", which I believe to be false. Could we have a offical clarification?

[AniX]

We can't get an offical clarification on what we criteria we should be using to nominate people for the "Most Prolific" award? I hardly see that as fair.

[AniX]

I think the very fact that a bunch of people posted very different definitions highlights the need for such a clarification, which I will ask for again at this time.

[AniX]

I think we should start discussing what the definitions of the awards are. I think

he

was right to point out that some awards sound ambiguous.

She is totally talking about the 11th Hour.

But yeah, in all seriousness, I don't see how we can nominate people for awards when the administration is not giving us definitions (abeit, my call for definitions was written in a trademark ridicious style, so I can see where the adminstration might miss my point)

[AniX]

AniX, how would you define "Best Actor" and do you think all members of AMPAS would agree with that definition? The very premise of these awards is that people nominate who they think best suits their notion of what the award should be, and then a panel of judges applies their own criteria and judgment (thus the term 'judges') for a final decision. Nominate who you think deserves it and provide your rationale for those nominations. Valid and reasonable rationales will get seconded and beyond that the judges will sort it out.

I would define best actor as someone who acts. But could I nominate a politician for best actor. In my view they do more acting than anyone else.

And what of people who are phony. Can I elect my senior class of high school, since certainly they are putting on an act and not being who they really are.

Or perhaps I'lll nominate the Pope, since its my view he is putting on a magical puppet show.

Would you view these as valid nominations for actor?

[AniX]

Would you view these as valid nominations for actor?

No, but there are rules requiring the nominee to have appeared in a film during the year in question, just as here there are rules requiring the nominee/nominated material to have occurred in a game which ended in 2006.

But, again, the point of a nomination process is that it allows people to make a case for why their interpretation of the point of the category is the one that should be considered in awarding the prize.

For example,

Letters from Iwo Jima

, directed by Clint Eastwood, won a Golden Globe for Best Foreign Language Film. Generally, this category is used to recognize high quality films that come from outside Hollywood. But

Letters from Iwo Jima

does, technically, fit the criteria for the category. Someone over at Hollywood Foreign Press must have felt that the quality of the movie justified this treatment, and made the argument for it. A more open and freeform nominations process makes that possible.

If we were simply going to define a rigid definition by which the winner in each category could be identified, we wouldn't need this thread at all. The judges would simply go through the games, tally the scores, and see who came out on top. Nominations allow everyone to bring their own interpretation to the awards process.

You are, of course, welcome to continue in your obstinate opposition to a concept that I think, frankly, is pretty easy to see the value of. God knows no one has been able to modify your behavior in any other contexts. But please take it to another thread. This thread is for nominations and so, as Phoebus pointed out, meta-nomination dialogue is spam here. Spam that I've regretfully contributed to simply because I foolishly thought I could quickly and easily make matters clear to you.

Exactly, exactly, exactly. That is what I'm asking for. We haven't, at least to my knowledge, got the basic requirements as to what rules we must follow when making nominations for most prolific (besides, as you pointed out, basic time requirements). Thats all I want. Is that so wrong? Do we really need to break this down into "me vs. you" "me vs. Phoebus" "Spam vs. Nominations" etc. etc. etc? Can't we all just get along, and perhaps get some basic rules to follow in the nomination process?

[AniX]

So if a person says "I suck at life, I should go kill myself", it's ok to say "Hey, you should go kill yourself"?

Depends on who it is. If its Bizarro Superman, thats a valid thing to say.

[AniX]

The problem with that is that I'm sure, on more than one occasion, you would have people turning down awards because they are already over saturated on games, resulting in the true recipients not getting their dues.

[AniX]

Just remember all the great contributions UPick and its inventor have made the community through all its achievements in its lifetime.

[AniX]

I think they call those "Lifetime Achievement Awards".

Oh, really? My modesty simply cannot allow me to suggest an award for myself. But since you brought it up...

[AniX]

Oh, that game we played in scumchat? I forget what it's called. But it was freaking awesome, and I'd be interested to see it in forum format.

EDIT: The fact that it never made an appearance on MS (as far as I can tell) probably invalidates it from recieving a possible award, though.

You have made a grave mistake of graveness. The awesome scumchat game is called UPick, and has been on the forum.