might find some games If I have to (mini 1190 he was good in IIRC) , but basically he plays very well. All the time. well except when he's policy lynching me
probably more worthy of the award than I am anyways
Lady Lambdadelta wrote:Scummies wrote:Oh, Andrew and Lady Lambdadelta appear to be ineligible for Outstanding New Player via join dates.
Due to my due date of joining, I feel I never had a fair chance at winning this award due to the arbitrary date you placed. I joined 31 days before your deadline, and as a result never really had a chance to participate for either the 2010 or the 2011 award, due to the arbitrary date line.
I would like to move for the time on the newbie award to be changed to a more inclusive "joined in 2010" time. Then it at the very least gives all players a chance at 1 year of play. Because my only chance at the newbie award would have been in 2010, where I had 4 months of play. Due to your ineligibility date, all my other time (while still being under a year on this site) is not even looked at.
Using the "joined in the previous year" idea works better to include all players, as it provides a minimum of 1 year experience (assuming a December join date).
Of course, there is also the option of only counting games played within the first year, so that it makes everyone equal. So for this scummies, eligability would work like this:
-Joined in 2010 or later
-Only first year of games are counted (from join date to 1 year later).
This gives all players equal time to prove themselves for the award, and also removes the arbitrary cut off where people like me who join just before the date get screwed.
tanstalas wrote:Someone really wants that newbie award >.>
GreyICE wrote:Basic understanding from me says that every player should have a fair shot of winning it. LLD didn't have that. No one is going to win best newbie off of 4 months of play when there's people who had full 12. You just don't have the body of work that a 12 month player has.
Making it something like February or March is probably much fairer. At least until someone shows me that a player who played on site 4 months was ever seriously considered for the award EVER in the past (doesn't have to win, but show serious consideration for a 4 month poster in any past scummies (all current nominees have been on site far longer).
tanstalas wrote:GreyICE wrote:Basic understanding from me says that every player should have a fair shot of winning it. LLD didn't have that. No one is going to win best newbie off of 4 months of play when there's people who had full 12. You just don't have the body of work that a 12 month player has.
Making it something like February or March is probably much fairer. At least until someone shows me that a player who played on site 4 months was ever seriously considered for the award EVER in the past (doesn't have to win, but show serious consideration for a 4 month poster in any past scummies (all current nominees have been on site far longer).
And then in a year someone who joined in January or February (based off your February or March statement) will complain.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't
Unless you said can be nominated for any game that was completed within your first year of joining the site.
tanstalas wrote:GreyICE wrote:Basic understanding from me says that every player should have a fair shot of winning it. LLD didn't have that. No one is going to win best newbie off of 4 months of play when there's people who had full 12. You just don't have the body of work that a 12 month player has.
Making it something like February or March is probably much fairer. At least until someone shows me that a player who played on site 4 months was ever seriously considered for the award EVER in the past (doesn't have to win, but show serious consideration for a 4 month poster in any past scummies (all current nominees have been on site far longer).
And then in a year someone who joined in January or February (based off your February or March statement) will complain.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't
Unless you said can be nominated for any game that was completed within your first year of joining the site.
GreyICE wrote:Basic understanding from me says that every player should have a fair shot of winning it. LLD didn't have that. No one is going to win best newbie off of 4 months of play when there's people who had full 12. You just don't have the body of work that a 12 month player has.
ooba wrote:@Nexus, CSL, MoI: Thanks!
Thirdthe scum team ofEmpking, vezokpiraka, Thor and SpyrexforBest Performance Scum Team
- Think all four of them played a great game
- Good coordination: They split fakeclaims pregame. Also the counterclaim-reaction to SaintKerrigan's claims looked genuine.
- Timing of claims: Empking claimed Mafia Watcher when he was about to be lynched. More importantly, it believable and people didn't go "cult-claiming-Mafia-Watcher". He was lynched the next day but caught the CR killing someone in the night. Without that, I think cult would have won.
- Also, choice quote when there were 6-players left:
I see no situation where you're not scum.I simply do not see a SpyreX + Thor scumteam.Every other pairing had and passed up the opportunity to hammer you.
zoraster wrote: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 sometime 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 wrote: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.
tanstalas wrote:Just a question, if you start in August of 2010 and get nominated for a game that you finished in say december 2010 you can be nominated for 2011 scummy for newbie for 2010, but what happens if you also do a great game in march 2011 - can you be nominated again in 2012 for best newbie?
Slippery slope and all that jazz.
Waiting for GI's awesome insult for the above sentence.
tanstalas wrote:Just a question, if you start in August of 2010 and get nominated for a game that you finished in say december 2010 you can be nominated for 2011 scummy for newbie for 2010, but what happens if you also do a great game in march 2011 - can you be nominated again in 2012 for best newbie?
Slippery slope and all that jazz.
Waiting for GI's awesome insult for the above sentence.
tanstalas wrote:You don't agree?
You start making one exception, and then another, etc etc.
Are you unfamiliar with that expression?
Lady Lambdadelta wrote:zoraster wrote: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.
zoraster wrote: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 to suggest is a good way to go at it.