Scummies Ideas, Suggestions and Comments Thread

[xRECKONERx]

Make the process public, people aren't honest because they may fear social blowback. Then we definitely get a popularity contest.

[Nachomamma8]

I'm seeing some sentiment of people feeling the judges have made some REALLY weird, wacky calls--they don't understand what made the judges decide to make their selection. This isn't exactly something the ceremony itself gives; the most you typically get is a quote either from the game itself or from a nominator of the award about why it deserved nomination. That's...not exactly the most informative of processes. Seeing the actual judging after it has been done in a greater capacity would allow users to go, "Ohhhhh! That makes sense, now!", or at the very least, make it more tangible what their disagreements are.

One good criticism that I think you bring up here is that the ceremony could do a better of establishing the "this is what the award is about, this is why this person won" dynamic. I think that releasing judge PTs after the fact is probably not the best solution to the problem you outline here, though.

This would also offer the judges a form of critique--with it all behind closed doors, who can tell the judges how to improve? Only those with access. And I'm sure that any judge who is worthy of being a judge holds interest in how to do their job better, and would love the feedback. But how can general users provide that feedback if they can't actually see what the process was? It's near-impossible.

In the current system, there are already dissenting opinions; judges already criticize/offer feedback to each other, the SSC is in a position to criticize/offer feedback to judges, etc. A judge who wants to improve already has plenty of resources to do so, and a general user who earnestly wants to improve the judging system specifically needs to be a judge. I also don't feel like it's fair to say that someone isn't worthy of being a judge unless they want more feedback than they want already because most of the responses aren't feedback; they're people lashing out from a place to hurt and the making the entire process transparent seems likely to exacerbate that pretty significantly. I'd have more faith that we'd be able to cultivate a healthy atmosphere of constructive criticism --> self-improvement if we already had an atmosphere like that post-Scummies, but we don't and so it's probably more prudent to assume that it won't magically appear if we invite the potential for more drama.

So there's clear benefits on all ends to this, and I can't really see a downside to this. It'd basically be like releasing a mod PT after the conclusion of a game: by doing so, the mod shows their process, and lets users know what happened and why, opening themselves up to feedback on how to improve their modding process.

Don't think this is a good comparison; the gap between a moderator and a judge is large enough where I think your point is mostly lost here. Moderators not only aren't obligated to rank their players in term of how well they thought that they played, but it's also a much smaller sample; it's a hell of a lot easier to move past a game than it is to move past an entire year.

[Nachomamma8]

Anything said in private you fear being released is...something which shouldn't be said at all? I mean, that seems kind-of self-explanatory.

This isn't really true.

For one, we're not talking about harsh words here, we're just talking about words. Keeping the judging system anonymous allows the judges to make the decision they feel is best, without worrying about the general user's opinions. This is the strongest way to go about it.

For example, let's say that Titus and RC are in the running for Most Cunning Manipulator. Mathblade is a judge. Mathblade knows that Titus dislikes RC as a person, but they also feel like RC played an objectively better game. With a public process, the choice Mathblade makes every time is Titus because at the end of the day the Scummies is not something that is worth risking a personal relationship over. This is what we're trying to avoid.

Secondly, I don't think the situation is as simple as you're laying it out to be; sometimes blame is easily assigned, sometimes it isn't. Just because you can say "this person is being unreasonable" or "this person is wrong" doesn't mean that it's worth it to open both sides up to being hurt, if that makes sense.

[Nachomamma8]

If I knew what warranted the award better on PREVIOUS years, that would allow me to better deem as a nominator who I think is worthy of an award and how to write a nomination for said person.

But I think that this takes away from the nomination process, not adds to it.
Nominators shouldn't be nominating someone because they think "oh, based on the criteria for the award, I think this player has a strong chance of winning!". Nominators should be nominating someone because they think someone did something that's fucking sweet and deserves recognition; if judges disagree, whatever, no big deal.

Moderators for games tend to open themselves up to criticism. They willingly put their necks out on the line, asking for feedback so that they can improve.

Why would judging be any different?

Moderators put themselves on the line for criticism for 30 people at most.
The job of a moderator is to 1) make sure that a game runs smoothly, 2) make sure that a game is balanced, 3) make sure that the flavor was cool.
This is a job that is far less likely to piss people off than someone who is supposed to determine that this person who had a really good year played better than that person.

[Nachomamma8]

I know dozens, even hundreds, of scummers who view them that way--I don't think I am alone in my belief of what they stand for. They are a statement of our elite, of our best. By inherent nature of that, by inherently BEING our best, they are beacons of what to strive for, and as a result...they are a self-improvement metric.

The Scummies are something to strive for, absolutely. They're not a good basis to use as a self-improvement metric, and what you are doing loses a lot of its meaning if you're doing it just so you can win a Scummy.

[Plotinus]

Also, when you're talking about finalists, a lot of the discussion isn't like "x doesn't deserve to win" or "x somehow made it to the finalists even though they suck". That's what you imagine when you don't win something, you think you must've done something wrong, you think you would've won if you hadn't done something wrong but it's really not like that at all. It's more like "x, y, and z are all really fantastic and of those I liked x resonated with me the best." For a lot of categories, and Paperback in particular, every single one of the finalists did top notch work, and some of the non finalists did too.


Mastina, Gistou was beautiful and amazing and I don't know if you could have done anything to make it better than it was. It was incredible. And you will create other things and some of them will be duds (because all of us have duds) and some of them will be awesome and some of it will surpass Gistou because of the skills you honed in creating Gistou.

You should try out judging. It's fun reading all the games and seeing all of the year's cool moments. You can't judge any categories you're still in the running for (or even comment on the thread) but you can judge the others.

[Plotinus]

tl;dr: I love everybody

[Kublai Khan]

Has she ever volunteered to actually judge scummies?

I made the decision years ago that I wouldn't be qualified for the job. Every year, I check on my skills and abilities, revisiting that stance, to ask if the status quo has changed, if I have improved in the areas I see as necessary for judging enough to be competent at the job.

Get over it. Judges aren't "the best players on site", they are just the people who've been around a while and volunteered. You've been around almost as long as I've had and you've probably played 3 times as many games. That's all the qualification you need.

Nobody who is qualified to judge the scummies but hasn't should be complaining about the scummies process works.

[McMenno]

I hate everybody tbh

[Kublai Khan]

I hate everybody tbh

Extremely qualified to judge too.

[mastina]

Small points of clarity:

I also don't feel like it's fair to say that someone isn't worthy of being a judge unless they want more feedback than they want already

And neither do I; my point was more that a judge should hold at least

some

interest in improving their process (with the assumption that this is true of all judges and I hold trust in them where I imagine it is), and having the process evaluated by a much wider audience would be a way of doing so.

I also never said the entire thing would be transparent--quite the opposite, I've said that having it be only a partial release would probably be best. "If the judging was overall anonymous and made public, rather than known to a few yet kept private", is what I was throwing out as an idea, essentially.

what you are doing loses a lot of its meaning if you're doing it just so you can win a Scummy.

I personally do not do what I do so that I can win a Scummy, though I do try to aim for Scummy

quality

in all aspects of my presence--an important distinction I feel should be made. The latter is seeing the scummies as essentially a beacon of goodness, and striving to match or even exceed those standards. I feel this should be encouraged. I also personally feel like knowing what each award means to the judges would better accomplish that, thus my suggestion.

However, at this point, I feel I have made every point I can make which is productive. My feedback has been raised, and is out there. This is a thread for ideas/suggestions/comments; I've made mine as entirely as I can with it still qualifying as constructive criticism, so I don't have anything more to say.

[Nachomamma8]

For instance, body of work awards require me to essentially use "third person meta" on a player, which I am notoriously bad at; single-game awards require me to read literally every aspect and every nuance of every game nominated and to give a hierarchy to them, which I am also notoriously bad at. Practice for this is reading games I am not actually a player in...but often, I find myself failing to meet my self-imposed minimums in that regard. (Namely, not actually reading said game I'm not in.)

There's a good chance that you're being too hard on yourself here; the most important skill in being a judge is seeing who is playing a good game. You aren't making a unilateral decision; most reasonable points of view end up adding to the process in the end.

If you feel it's something you would ignore, or simply couldn't handle the time commitment, that's understandable, but it's something you care deeply about and thus I don't really see that happening.

[Nachomamma8]

Nobody who is qualified to judge the scummies but hasn't should be complaining about the scummies process works.

I don't think that judging the scummies is a prerequisite for commenting on the process. If that was the case, this thread wouldn't exist.

[Kublai Khan]

Nobody who is qualified to judge the scummies but hasn't should be complaining about the scummies process works.

I don't think that judging the scummies is a prerequisite for commenting on the process. If that was the case, this thread wouldn't exist.

I stand by my statement. If someone who has been here for 6 months asks about why some games win and others don't, then that's a perfectly okay question to ask. But if someone has been here for years and never answers the call for volunteers, then they forfeit the right to say how it could be done better.

mastina is looking for feedback on how she could improve. That is nowhere in the job description of scummie judges. The choice usually comes down to "A, B, & C are all terrific, but I like B best. B is the majority choice? B is the winner."

[Psyche]

vry severe

[LicketyQuickety]

I mentioned this in the actual Scummies 2017 thread, but I think I like the idea of having a "Most Improved" body of work award. The key difference between this award and "Rising Star" is that "Rising Star" measures how someone starts playing when they first get here as opposed to the distinction of players who have turned their game around in one way or another to bring their game to new heights. Some people are "late bloomers" so they have no chance of getting an award like "Rising Star." It also wouldn't be contingent on a player being a superior player according to other players but being a superior player compared to their own play. I feel this fits nicely into being somewhat of a niche award all the while being general enough for the award to have some overall significance and can definitely motivate players to try and bring their A game each and every game they play.

[Pine]

I concur with LQ on this. I understand why the Scummies have been slimmed down and conflated a bit, but there ought to be some venue for recognition of older players who undergo a personal renaissance.

[zoraster]

I mentioned this in the actual Scummies 2017 thread, but I think I like the idea of having a "Most Improved" body of work award. The key difference between this award and "Rising Star" is that "Rising Star" measures how someone starts playing when they first get here as opposed to the distinction of players who have turned their game around in one way or another to bring their game to new heights. Some people are "late bloomers" so they have no chance of getting an award like "Rising Star." It also wouldn't be contingent on a player being a superior player according to other players but being a superior player compared to their own play. I feel this fits nicely into being somewhat of a niche award all the while being general enough for the award to have some overall significance and can definitely motivate players to try and bring their A game each and every game they play.

Rising Star:

This award is given to the player that is a rising star in the game of mafia, showing great promise to join the elite echelon of mafia players. This award replaces both the Best Newbie award and Most Improved Player awards, and judges may consider elements of both those previous awards in deciding this award.

[LicketyQuickety]

I mentioned this in the actual Scummies 2017 thread, but I think I like the idea of having a "Most Improved" body of work award. The key difference between this award and "Rising Star" is that "Rising Star" measures how someone starts playing when they first get here as opposed to the distinction of players who have turned their game around in one way or another to bring their game to new heights. Some people are "late bloomers" so they have no chance of getting an award like "Rising Star." It also wouldn't be contingent on a player being a superior player according to other players but being a superior player compared to their own play. I feel this fits nicely into being somewhat of a niche award all the while being general enough for the award to have some overall significance and can definitely motivate players to try and bring their A game each and every game they play.

Rising Star:

This award is given to the player that is a rising star in the game of mafia, showing great promise to join the elite echelon of mafia players. This award replaces both the Best Newbie award and Most Improved Player awards, and judges may consider elements of both those previous awards in deciding this award.

Has a vet actually ever won or been nominated a "Rising Star" Award?

[Psyche]

know of any vets who deserve one?

[LicketyQuickety]

know of any vets who deserve one?

I don't think I have been around long enough to say, honestly.

[zoraster]

Depends what you mean by "Vet." Rising Star has been a category since the 2012 scummies. If you assume Scummies covers a time period ending December 31 of the year listed (so December 31, 2016 for the 2016 awards), winners have been on for:

2012: MattP - August 22nd, 2011-December 31, 2012: 498 days
2013: Empire - September 18, 2012-December 31, 2013: 471 days
2014: Kagami - November 9, 2013-December 31, 2014: 419 days
2015: Plotinus - March 13, 2015-December 31, 2015: 294 days
2016: Dwlee99 - July 3, 2015-December 31, 2016: 547 days


So the average number of days was 446, or roughly 1 year 3 months. Dwlee99 actually started BEFORE the previous year's winner, Plotinus.

So most winners exist in a newer member but not that new category. Which makes sense to me. The ability for someone who's been here years to win is certainly there, but I imagine for 2017 if someone started in 2013 there'd have to be a clear, articulable reason why they should win the award now.

[zoraster]

Let's not fool ourselves either. Here are the "Most Improved" winners:

2007: Battle Mage - Jan 10, 2007: 356 days
2008: Not sure if it was awarded
2009: SpyreX - April 24, 2008: 617 days
2010: MagnaofIllusion - February 9, 2010: 326 days
2011: Andrius - February 16, 2010: 685 days

So SpyreX and Andrius were both around the 1 year, 9 month mark, but Battlemage and Magna both under the year mark. So even if you broke the two categories out to newbie and most improved again, you're probably only targeting slightly older users, and then not all the time.

[LicketyQuickety]

Well then I think it just sucks that only newer players are the only ones getting nominated for these awards :/

And let me be clear, I don't think I am really that much of a vet honestly and I have been here almost 2 years. I sorta set a number in my head that 100 games is where I think I will be proficient at the game. Other's milage may vary, but when you have people who have been here over 10 years it makes these players who are winning these awards look like infants.

[LicketyQuickety]

What about a lifetime award type of thing?

And I say that knowing damn well I will never win that one.