Scummies Ideas, Suggestions and Comments Thread

This forum is for discussion related to the game.
User avatar
mastina
mastina
She/Her
False Prophet
User avatar
User avatar
mastina
She/Her
False Prophet
False Prophet
Posts: 16670
Joined: October 7, 2016
Pronoun: She/Her
Location: Between Snohomish and Monroe, WA
Contact:

Post Post #923 (isolation #0) » Sat Nov 05, 2016 6:34 pm

Post 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.
User avatar
mastina
mastina
She/Her
False Prophet
User avatar
User avatar
mastina
She/Her
False Prophet
False Prophet
Posts: 16670
Joined: October 7, 2016
Pronoun: She/Her
Location: Between Snohomish and Monroe, WA
Contact:

Post Post #947 (isolation #1) » Mon Feb 27, 2017 3:25 pm

Post by mastina »

Suggestion: would it be possible for the judging process, after the rewards are handed out, to be made public? (Maybe not fully so, but at least some basics?) 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.

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.

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.
User avatar
mastina
mastina
She/Her
False Prophet
User avatar
User avatar
mastina
She/Her
False Prophet
False Prophet
Posts: 16670
Joined: October 7, 2016
Pronoun: She/Her
Location: Between Snohomish and Monroe, WA
Contact:

Post Post #950 (isolation #2) » Mon Feb 27, 2017 4:18 pm

Post by mastina »

Even after the event is over?

The judges are made public.
The nominees are also public.
And the ceremony for the current year is already over.

I don't see the problem?
User avatar
mastina
mastina
She/Her
False Prophet
User avatar
User avatar
mastina
She/Her
False Prophet
False Prophet
Posts: 16670
Joined: October 7, 2016
Pronoun: She/Her
Location: Between Snohomish and Monroe, WA
Contact:

Post Post #953 (isolation #3) » Mon Feb 27, 2017 4:40 pm

Post by mastina »

In post 951, zoraster wrote:If you know it's being made public, you have to adjust what you say and do to avoid potentially negative consequences.
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.

If it is something that you don't want them to see...then why are you saying it in the first place?

A judge can judge harshly, be blunt as they want, and still judge. If the user takes offense to the judge having judged them, then...that's not the fault of the judge? Unless what the judge said crossed a line, in which case...again, why the fuck would it have been acceptable to say in the first place?

Basically, if the judging process involves harsh words, there's a binary:
Those harsh words cross a line, the judge acted inappropriately regardless of public or private; those words should not have been said at all.
Those harsh words did not cross a line, the judge was acting within their job, and if the user takes issue with it, then that is the fault of the user, not the judge.
If the user feels like there is an issue, they can raise that issue to a higher power. If a user harasses a judge who was harsh to them, the judge reports the user to said higher power.

Nine times out of ten, either you'll find the user had a point but isn't entirely right, so their criticism can be construed as...constructive feedback, AKA, a critique, AKA, meant so that the judges can improve. (Or the user is entirely irrational and unreasonable and ends up throwing a tantrum, but any user likely to do so is...likely to do that anyways even without this, so I still don't see the harm?)
User avatar
mastina
mastina
She/Her
False Prophet
User avatar
User avatar
mastina
She/Her
False Prophet
False Prophet
Posts: 16670
Joined: October 7, 2016
Pronoun: She/Her
Location: Between Snohomish and Monroe, WA
Contact:

Post Post #955 (isolation #4) » Mon Feb 27, 2017 4:54 pm

Post by mastina »

In post 952, zoraster wrote:For real, think about why YOU want to know. You were nominated. You didn't get it. That hurts. You want to know why and who voted against you.
One, my suggestion wasn't meant for the current year--it's meant for future years.

Two, you're being a bit presumptuous here. I couldn't care less about the award, nor do I care about the names who denied it to me. What I DO care about is the reason why I didn't get it--that's important to me, because very critically, that lets me improve. That lets me see: "Oh. I did those things wrong. The judges saw that I did those things wrong, and those are things I can now work to improve, now that the judges have highlighted that these were an issue."

Furthermore, it lets me know why the winners were winners: it gives a metric for what we consider high-quality. This NOT ONLY raises the standard of the site on every level related to the scummies (which is...basically everything?), BUT ALSO allows me as a nominator to better describe why I think a player is worthy of a Scummy. You'll note I tend to make a lot of Scummies nominations. 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.

Right now, literally the only metrics available are: the description of the award itself, prior winners of the award, and the descriptions of the nominations of those players (especially those actually used in the ceremony). Seeing what the judges are actually judging would allow for a much better idea of what is considered a good nomination for each and every Scummy.

This, aside from the benefit of having a genuine interest in helping judges improve. I can't do that with no insight into how the judges judged, now, can I? Reviewers for games tend to open themselves up to criticism. 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?

And furthermore: even if a full release isn't practical...why not a partial release?
For instance, with names redacted, reasons behind the judging process being released? (Not a final vote. Just reasons.) That's just one example.
(Basically, instead of, say, "
Drixx:
Game X was good, but I found this fault in it", instead saying "Game X was good, but I found this fault in it", omitting the name of the judge from the process.)
User avatar
mastina
mastina
She/Her
False Prophet
User avatar
User avatar
mastina
She/Her
False Prophet
False Prophet
Posts: 16670
Joined: October 7, 2016
Pronoun: She/Her
Location: Between Snohomish and Monroe, WA
Contact:

Post Post #957 (isolation #5) » Mon Feb 27, 2017 5:02 pm

Post by mastina »

Basically,
-Releasing the judge process would allow the players who were judged to understand why they didn't win: this allows them to refine their craft, so that they can become even better than they were in the prior year. They can fix mistakes they were making. Not releasing means they have no idea and they could end up making the same mistake they made before because nobody told them it was a mistake.

-Releasing the judge process would allow the whole site to see what the judges consider worthy of the award: this allows people to have a better understanding of what each award actually
means
, leading to:
  1. Better nominations
  2. Better-described nominations
  3. Higher quality of play for people striving to be worthy of nominated
  4. A clear illustration making a statement
...As just a short list of benefits. By not releasing, nobody has any idea except the judges themselves what each award is really about.

-Releasing the judge process would allow for users to give constructive criticism to the judges, allowing the judges to improve their process for future years. They could voice disagreements in how the judges operated, stating they don't think that metric was good, or saying they think this metric is good but maybe this other metric would be better. They could voice these opinions in here, and have them be taken in neatly and nicely by the judges, to be considered.

ESPECIALLY if the release is not a full-release, ESPECIALLY if the release is only a partial release, I don't see how that could be a problem, but I see all of these benefits to the release.
User avatar
mastina
mastina
She/Her
False Prophet
User avatar
User avatar
mastina
She/Her
False Prophet
False Prophet
Posts: 16670
Joined: October 7, 2016
Pronoun: She/Her
Location: Between Snohomish and Monroe, WA
Contact:

Post Post #958 (isolation #6) » Mon Feb 27, 2017 5:09 pm

Post by mastina »

In post 956, zoraster wrote:Scummies aren't intended as a self-improvement metric.
And I firmly disagree with that.

Scummies serve as something to strive for.
Scummies serve as a badge of honor.
Scummies serve as a beacon of talent and skill.
Scummies are a reward for doing something.
Scummies are an achievement.
Scummies are a statement: "This user did something that was notable". "This user did something extraordinary".
This user did something which put them above all other users in the given year for the area their scummy is for.

How the fuck is that NOT an improvement metric?
Have you seen how players with scummies tend to have player perception of them be altered?
Mods with scummy achievements of modding nature have players DEMAND higher quality of their moderated games.
Players with Don Corelone will be plagued by players doubting them because they're paranoid of being fooled by the current reigning champion of scumplay.
Players with Paragon are plagued by Burden of Proficiency arguments because people expect them to live up to the scummy every single game.

You get the idea. Scummies hold a deep meaning as a statement of: "This is the best, and you should strive to be this way".

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.
User avatar
mastina
mastina
She/Her
False Prophet
User avatar
User avatar
mastina
She/Her
False Prophet
False Prophet
Posts: 16670
Joined: October 7, 2016
Pronoun: She/Her
Location: Between Snohomish and Monroe, WA
Contact:

Post Post #961 (isolation #7) » Mon Feb 27, 2017 5:33 pm

Post by mastina »

In post 959, zoraster wrote:Scummy nominees don't not win because of mistakes or whatever. We are talking about pretty subjective stuff and nominees by their nature — and finalists in particular — represent top tier stuff.
The use of the word mistake was used for lack of a better word--what I'm more going for is, releasing some of the judging process would allow for, more or less, an idea of:
"This award, to us, means this. And Game X, we feel, best demonstrates this, because of these reasons."

Yes, the process is subjective. Yes, the nominees in particular the finalists are top-tier stuff: but
what
made the finalists be finalists? And
what
made the winner be the winner? What was the magical process which caused the judges to feel, overall, this one nominated player/moderator/game stood out above all others in the year for the quality the award is for?

What made the townplay be the best townplay?
What made the scumplay be the best scumplay?

Having a better idea of that would allow:
-Players/moderators a better idea of what to strive for
-Players/moderators a potential way of self-improvement, eliminating weaknesses and capitalizing on strengths
-Players/moderators having stronger inspiration
-Players/moderators having a better idea of the qualities we on mafiascum wish to see more of in games, and also maybe even the qualities we on mafiascum wish to see less of in games
-Players/moderators worthy of nomination being easier to find because the criteria are better-known
-Players/moderators nominating moderators/players being able to better present their case for the above of why their candidate is worthy of the award
-Users to voice their opinions on how the judges can improve and get even better at their job in future years (especially when paired with the above point).

Basically, by having an increased understanding, all aspects of the site, from playing to moderation to nomination to judging, would be increased because everyone with an increased understanding now has that increased knowledge.
User avatar
mastina
mastina
She/Her
False Prophet
User avatar
User avatar
mastina
She/Her
False Prophet
False Prophet
Posts: 16670
Joined: October 7, 2016
Pronoun: She/Her
Location: Between Snohomish and Monroe, WA
Contact:

Post Post #962 (isolation #8) » Mon Feb 27, 2017 5:36 pm

Post by mastina »

In post 960, Psyche wrote:aren't the judging criteria already public?
Not really.

The judging criteria were posted by xRECKONERx...once. In this thread.
The criteria are in that one spot publicly only.

And even there. Reck kept it pretty generalized. He didn't go into many specifics. He was as broad as possible while having it still be giving criteria. He listed what the criteria are--not what the criteria mean to the judges.
Basically, posting the literal law without the accompanying interpretation of it.
User avatar
mastina
mastina
She/Her
False Prophet
User avatar
User avatar
mastina
She/Her
False Prophet
False Prophet
Posts: 16670
Joined: October 7, 2016
Pronoun: She/Her
Location: Between Snohomish and Monroe, WA
Contact:

Post Post #963 (isolation #9) » Mon Feb 27, 2017 5:39 pm

Post by mastina »

Correction: Reck published the judging criteria for ONE award, Don Corelone, but had this to say about publishing the judging criteria in general:
In post 907, xRECKONERx wrote: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.
User avatar
mastina
mastina
She/Her
False Prophet
User avatar
User avatar
mastina
She/Her
False Prophet
False Prophet
Posts: 16670
Joined: October 7, 2016
Pronoun: She/Her
Location: Between Snohomish and Monroe, WA
Contact:

Post Post #967 (isolation #10) » Mon Feb 27, 2017 6:10 pm

Post by mastina »

In post 966, Kublai Khan wrote: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.

Thusfar, I have yet to deem myself worthy. Common pitfalls?
What categories can I actually judge? (In a given year, I tend to be nominated for at least one or two scummies if not more--I obviously can't judge a category I have a personal bias in.)
What categories am I
qualified
to judge? (I cannot judge Mish-Mash games because I am not involved enough to have a sense there. That's an obvious one, but you get the idea.)
When you narrow the list down to those that I can judge which I am qualified to judge...
Do I have the ability to read the needed materials and treat them with enough respect where I can give the necessary opinion?

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.)

I'm sure that, eventually, a year will come where I feel like I have the necessary skills--at that time, should I be allowed to, I would volunteer for the job. But I only volunteer for jobs on this site I feel I (1) am qualified for, that (2) I can actually handle. And my call is, being a judge is currently not within those boundaries for me.

So yes.

I am oblivious to the process of a judge.
So is 99.99% of the site.
Again, the only people who seem to know are people who are involved or have been involved in the process--yet your response here is generally the type of response ALL of them give. "You have no idea what it's like." That's the whole fucking point, though; we don't, and we WANT to know.
User avatar
mastina
mastina
She/Her
False Prophet
User avatar
User avatar
mastina
She/Her
False Prophet
False Prophet
Posts: 16670
Joined: October 7, 2016
Pronoun: She/Her
Location: Between Snohomish and Monroe, WA
Contact:

Post Post #985 (isolation #11) » Tue Feb 28, 2017 10:53 am

Post by mastina »

Small points of clarity:
In post 976, Nachomamma8 wrote: 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.
In post 979, Nachomamma8 wrote: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.
User avatar
mastina
mastina
She/Her
False Prophet
User avatar
User avatar
mastina
She/Her
False Prophet
False Prophet
Posts: 16670
Joined: October 7, 2016
Pronoun: She/Her
Location: Between Snohomish and Monroe, WA
Contact:

Post Post #1065 (isolation #12) » Tue Mar 07, 2017 6:22 pm

Post by mastina »

Actually, while Nacho/mastina is the most famous duo within the Calcifer hydra, neither of us were the original users. Andrius used it with VasudeVa, then hydraed with Nacho using the same hydra, and then Nacho passed it on to me where we continued using it.
The wiki page for the hydra is ridiculously out of date though.

...Butyes. Nacho and I did go on to use the account multiple times over multiple games and we sporadically/periodically continue to do so (making us the most-well-known duo for it), whenever he pings me up and says "hey let's hydra" (which I never say no to).
User avatar
mastina
mastina
She/Her
False Prophet
User avatar
User avatar
mastina
She/Her
False Prophet
False Prophet
Posts: 16670
Joined: October 7, 2016
Pronoun: She/Her
Location: Between Snohomish and Monroe, WA
Contact:

Post Post #1095 (isolation #13) » Thu Mar 09, 2017 10:47 am

Post by mastina »

In post 1084, xRECKONERx wrote:hmmm i think it becomes hard to attribute a moment to one specific person though???
Lest I be mistaken, Kodak Moment isn't specifically one person. Multiple people involved in a moment can and have been consistently nominated. (Same for Don Corelone under the new system: it can be a single member, but it could also potentially be a whole scumteam nominated.)

I mean, if this isn't true, then frankly the descriptions for the awards are lying to nominators because nominators have been led to believe that these are things that a group can win.
User avatar
mastina
mastina
She/Her
False Prophet
User avatar
User avatar
mastina
She/Her
False Prophet
False Prophet
Posts: 16670
Joined: October 7, 2016
Pronoun: She/Her
Location: Between Snohomish and Monroe, WA
Contact:

Post Post #1098 (isolation #14) » Thu Mar 09, 2017 11:05 am

Post by mastina »

Kodak moment isn't game design, though?
It's literally a memorable moment--mechanics CAN play a part in a memorable moment, but a memorable moment can be literally anything:
Good town play.
A hilarious post.
A notable exchange.
All of those are things within the scope of the award, without game design involved, without mods involved, just purely off of players doing their thing.
User avatar
mastina
mastina
She/Her
False Prophet
User avatar
User avatar
mastina
She/Her
False Prophet
False Prophet
Posts: 16670
Joined: October 7, 2016
Pronoun: She/Her
Location: Between Snohomish and Monroe, WA
Contact:

Post Post #1100 (isolation #15) » Thu Mar 09, 2017 11:11 am

Post by mastina »

In post 1097, Cerberus v666 wrote:Anyways, I sorta feel like Kodak Moment either shouldn't exist, or should be much more limited in scope to "funny" moments.
Kodak moment is literally the only way to recognize several other things which are worthy of awards but which were rolled into Kodak moment.

For instance, it is expected for good town plays to be nominated as a Kodak moment, because there's no other award they are eligible for.
It is expected that a memorable town gambit which was for a single game be a Kodak moment, rather than a Paragon of Mafia Hunters award. (Memorable scum gambit can be either, but is probably Don Corelone.)
It is expected that a funny post/exchange is a Kodak moment, because we got rid of "most funny poster" (or whatever that Scummy was).

There are many things that Kodak moment is literally the only possible award for right now--so IF it were eliminated/more restricted, those things would have to have Scummies (re)added as categories...something the judges seem to have rather a large resistance to.
User avatar
mastina
mastina
She/Her
False Prophet
User avatar
User avatar
mastina
She/Her
False Prophet
False Prophet
Posts: 16670
Joined: October 7, 2016
Pronoun: She/Her
Location: Between Snohomish and Monroe, WA
Contact:

Post Post #1114 (isolation #16) » Thu Mar 09, 2017 3:46 pm

Post by mastina »

In post 1112, xRECKONERx wrote:
In post 1106, Pine wrote:Didn't we have a Best Performance in a Losing Cause award at one point?
this never existed
Except it did?

...I mean it was apparently there only for one year, butstill, it existed when I joined. I honestly didn't know it didn't exist in other years.
(Incidentally, it can be amusing to read the much older scummies threads, and see which awards they had. Only four of the original 2003 Scummies still remain, if I counted them correctly. For 2009-onward, you can find them posted under the Scummies account.)
User avatar
mastina
mastina
She/Her
False Prophet
User avatar
User avatar
mastina
She/Her
False Prophet
False Prophet
Posts: 16670
Joined: October 7, 2016
Pronoun: She/Her
Location: Between Snohomish and Monroe, WA
Contact:

Post Post #1145 (isolation #17) » Fri Mar 10, 2017 11:51 am

Post by mastina »

In post 1143, Spiffeh wrote:Where can I find a list of people on the SSC?
Last years' are included in the scummies 2016 ceremony thread.
User avatar
mastina
mastina
She/Her
False Prophet
User avatar
User avatar
mastina
She/Her
False Prophet
False Prophet
Posts: 16670
Joined: October 7, 2016
Pronoun: She/Her
Location: Between Snohomish and Monroe, WA
Contact:

Post Post #1167 (isolation #18) » Wed Apr 19, 2017 9:38 pm

Post by mastina »

In future years, would it be possible to reduce the "Excellent Moderation" body of work award down from three games?
Some moderators who would otherwise be eligible for the award might not be simply because they run Large games which take so long to complete they don't get to run three in a calendar year (leading to a continuous cycle where they're not eligible for it this year until the game they're running finishes yet it completes next year which makes them ineligible for that year until their next game runs to completion which...you get the idea)...yet the fact is, some of the best moderators on-site have demonstrated their skill specifically in one or two large games, rather than twenty smaller games.

I also feel like that award doesn't get utilized that much in part because people don't know about it as much as they do others (it doesn't get mentioned often), and the few who DO know it exists don't know of moderators eligible FOR the award for this very reason--the mods they
want
to nominate for the award simply don't have the total game experience in a given calendar year.

I recognize that the intention of having it be more than one game is to prevent it from being just a fluke (essentially)...but does it really need to be three games? Why not two? Two solid modded games would show that the first wasn't a fluke.
User avatar
mastina
mastina
She/Her
False Prophet
User avatar
User avatar
mastina
She/Her
False Prophet
False Prophet
Posts: 16670
Joined: October 7, 2016
Pronoun: She/Her
Location: Between Snohomish and Monroe, WA
Contact:

Post Post #1206 (isolation #19) » Thu Jun 22, 2017 9:21 am

Post by mastina »

In post 1204, gigabyteTroubadour wrote:you could probably make a wiki page on the MS wiki - i havent set up mine yet so i dont know how to do that but i'm 30% sure theres a solution :)
Images are easy if they're hosted on the wiki, still possible but trickier if not. Music I don't think can be
embedded
on the wiki, but it can be linked to at least in theory so long as the links aren't caught in the wiki's spam filter. (I
think
that the main requirement there is to have it be https rather than http, in that an https link shouldn't trigger the spam filter but I'm not positive.)
User avatar
mastina
mastina
She/Her
False Prophet
User avatar
User avatar
mastina
She/Her
False Prophet
False Prophet
Posts: 16670
Joined: October 7, 2016
Pronoun: She/Her
Location: Between Snohomish and Monroe, WA
Contact:

Post Post #1221 (isolation #20) » Sat Dec 16, 2017 1:19 pm

Post by mastina »

In post 1214, Nachomamma8 wrote:If you want to generate interest, there are two great ways to do so - the first is to get involved with the actual Scummies side (judging, writing)
For what it's worth at this stage I'd be willing to volunteer as a judge, the thing is I'm not sure I can legally judge any category since in almost every category I am either a nominee or a nominator. (In that in every single category, there would be, so to speak, a "bias"--I nominated people I thought would be worthy, so as a judge there'd be the obvious inclination to select those people.)

I'd also be happy to SUGGEST ideas for writing (in fact I submitted one idea to the Scummies account already), so in that sense I could assist with the writing, but I also know that my particular brand of writing is not able to replicate the innate mafiascum crazy. (It is a requirement for the scummies to be crazy and insane; I can't create something like that as a writer so I'm ill-suited for writing large chunks.)
but the second and equally effective part is by nominating good play when you see it, talking about why you think it's good play, encouraging others to do the same.
I've slacked off on this a little, but I've meant to do this more! Plenty of games have deserved it; I'll make sure to do so before the end of the year.
User avatar
mastina
mastina
She/Her
False Prophet
User avatar
User avatar
mastina
She/Her
False Prophet
False Prophet
Posts: 16670
Joined: October 7, 2016
Pronoun: She/Her
Location: Between Snohomish and Monroe, WA
Contact:

Post Post #1244 (isolation #21) » Sat May 19, 2018 12:01 pm

Post by mastina »

In post 1241, northsidegal wrote:is it even possible that any suggested changes could be implemented for this year?
Small changes are a "maybe"; big changes are explicitly a "no". Unfortunately.
User avatar
mastina
mastina
She/Her
False Prophet
User avatar
User avatar
mastina
She/Her
False Prophet
False Prophet
Posts: 16670
Joined: October 7, 2016
Pronoun: She/Her
Location: Between Snohomish and Monroe, WA
Contact:

Post Post #1262 (isolation #22) » Fri Jan 03, 2020 11:59 am

Post by mastina »

In post 1261, Krazy wrote:Might want to have the deadline for noms more visible in the op next year :P
Hard agree.

One of the main reasons why my nominations were so last minute is that I didn't realize that the deadline--which in literally every single year prior to this year was on the end of January--was so early, until like one week before the deadline.

I thought that I had a whole month, but then had Iess than a wekk…
…During the incredibly busy holidays.

And I am a member of the SSC.
If a member of the SSC wasn't aware of the month-earlier-than-traditionsl deadline, most scummers sure as fuck weren't going to be.
User avatar
mastina
mastina
She/Her
False Prophet
User avatar
User avatar
mastina
She/Her
False Prophet
False Prophet
Posts: 16670
Joined: October 7, 2016
Pronoun: She/Her
Location: Between Snohomish and Monroe, WA
Contact:

Post Post #1274 (isolation #23) » Sun Feb 02, 2020 8:18 am

Post by mastina »

I'd like to point out that MBoS, a micro, and Vengeful Ghosts, a mini, were both nominated for Best Game.

But, most scummies nominations are indeed for larges with only the occasional mini and very rare micro.

This is a trend across every scummie tho, not just Best Game.

Doesn't mean it's not an issue, mind you, but it is still worth noting.
Post Reply

Return to “Mafia Discussion”