Author Topic: Suggestions for next year  (Read 11144 times)

Arataka Reigen

  • The Greatest Psychic of the 21st Century
  • Core 'Shroom Staff
  • Star Spirit
  • ***
  • Gabumon
  • 100% Legit
    • View Profile
Re: Suggestions for next year
« Reply #60 on: August 17, 2015, 03:43:14 PM »
The real reason is that, when viewed from a certain angle, Mario's hat kind of looks like a butt. So the A actually DOES stand for "Mario", only that "Mario" is to be used synonymously with "Asshat".

Hobbes

  • Wiki Administrator
  • Core 'Shroom Staff
  • Star Spirit
  • ***
  • tucayo
  • Poll Committee Vice-Chairman
    • View Profile
    • The 'Shroom
Re: Suggestions for next year
« Reply #61 on: August 17, 2015, 03:58:23 PM »
I by no means speak in behalf of The 'Shroom Core Staff but rather from my own, past experience. The reason why UP and 'Shroom staff are asked to prepare the Awards beforehand is because they are assumed to have more knowledge in the matter. It's easier to do it that way, since the respective staff bodies present ten (or more) suggestions, and then the AC gives input on each of them, but it takes significantly less time as an almost-final draft has already been made.


Gamefreak75

  • Global Moderator
  • Power Star
  • *****
  • "The hated boss who beats you down..."
    • View Profile
    • Kirby Wikia
Re: Suggestions for next year
« Reply #62 on: August 17, 2015, 04:22:52 PM »
I'm pretty sure the reason why Mario Awards are categorized by A rather than M was because the awards used to only be about Mario so A was just used for "Awards" and, like Anton said, nobody really gave enough of a *bleep* to correct it when more stuff was added.

Ritsuko Akizuki

  • also known as Blocky
  • Global Moderator
  • Shine Sprite
  • *****
  • Superchao
  • give it up for loud noises
    • View Profile
Re: Suggestions for next year
« Reply #63 on: August 17, 2015, 06:34:03 PM »
I can confirm that; in the original 2007 ceremony it just meant "Award 1" and so on. Then because we've had it that way for years nobody ever really wanted to change it.

BEEEEEAAARRRS

  • 658 pieces
  • Power Star
  • ******
  • Toadbert101
  • how about a rousing game of pool
    • View Profile
Re: Suggestions for next year
« Reply #64 on: August 17, 2015, 08:49:32 PM »
its like we're purposefully making a confusing present with the history we had

Walkazo

  • Dragon Lady
  • Wiki Bureaucrat
  • Shine Sprite
  • *****
  • Thou liest!
    • View Profile
    • Fanfiction.net
Re: Suggestions for next year
« Reply #65 on: August 17, 2015, 08:54:14 PM »
Trying to keep this short, but you know me...

I by no means speak in behalf of The 'Shroom Core Staff but rather from my own, past experience. The reason why UP and 'Shroom staff are asked to prepare the Awards beforehand is because they are assumed to have more knowledge in the matter. It's easier to do it that way, since the respective staff bodies present ten (or more) suggestions, and then the AC gives input on each of them, but it takes significantly less time as an almost-final draft has already been made.
But couldn't the Shroom folks still do their contributions separately, and then give it to the AC, but instead of like "here's the Shroom section", they'd be like "okay, here's the 10 Shroom awards for the overall community awards"? Then UP folks would be like "and here's our 10 fiction/art/community awards" and the staffs would be like "and here are our 5 editor/admin/mod awards", and the overall meeting/AC/whatever would still be like "oh yes, very good, we approve". Or some other division adding up to 25, or possibly 20: as mentioned way back, having one block of awards allows for more flexibility if we can't come up with 5 more awards, or if it really is that imperative that the number of awards doesn't increase.

Anyway, I feel like the procedure doesn't necessarily need to change very much to combine the two community awards - because honestly the Shroom is just as much a part of the overall community as any other aspect of the wiki: we write it and we read it, same as how we write and read comics and fanfics, and draw and admire art, and edit, post and chat. A lot of work goes into the Shroom, so it makes sense that it gets a nice slice of awards (in addition to their internal awards, btw), but if we're gonna rebrand UP awards to be "Community Awards", I just think it'd be awkward and artificial to keep that chunk of the community separate (save for the community-wide UP awards that factor the paper in anyway).

Plus, having the two sets of awards mixed together in the celebration could help keep things feeling varied and fresh. And anyone who might not necessarily be interested in the dedicated Shroom awards, or the dedicated UP awards, and just wants to see the other one, doesn't have to sit around waiting for either set to be over - who knows, maybe they'd even get interested in the other stuff by being exposed to it interspersed with the stuff they're interested in.

But I mean, it's easy for me to talk seeing as I don't really get involved with awards stuff personally outside these suggestion threads and the odd fact-checking PM and whatnot...



It's been on a steady decline regarding peoples' participation in presentations.  I've also noticed that there's a steady incline in presentation quality though, so, !!  I'm very aware that the shroom's 100th issue put a wrench in presentation sign-ups seeing that a whole ton of people I asked directly if they want to do a presentation declined because they were doing sections for that, but I can't really declare that as "blame" and instead chalk it up to (in)convenient timing.
Perhaps the increase in quality is why there's a decrease in sign-ups? I feel like there's a lot more pressure to do a good job these days - which is a much better time for the readers, but a much more daunting task for the writers. But hopefully the timing with the Shroom and whatnot won't be a factor next year, so maybe sign-ups will go up again anyway, idk.



But that's my point: the fact that U10 now skews only towards contemporary people excludes any long-time folks who aren't retired, yet who aren't still in the thick of things, and yet upon whose backs the community was built.
Before we redefined U10 last year, it was an award based on someone's entire lifetime of contributions, we decided to redefine it because the same people won the award annually, or people doing stuff now were getting overlooked because of something someone did in 2007 which have all already had several years to get the recognition they deserve, and we thought this new version would make for more interesting, less stagnant results.
I agree that it makes sense to have a current community award, and shortening the list of names this year by removing the old guard made sense too, so you don't need to defend U10's current format. All I'm saying is that it would be nice to ALSO recognize the old guard, separately, like in U1, but for folks who aren't retired and just taking a quieter approach to their hard work.

Especially because, if you look at the old U10 results, they actually didn't get recognition aside from the basic "it's good to be nominated" sort: at least for the previous few years, the top-placers were never folks getting votes because of ancient history - it was always current folks, and the placings actually did change around a lot (except SMB winning by a landslide three years in a row, but that was because anons were voting for his name, in addition to the legit votes he was getting for being so contemporarily active in the community - but either way, it was not because of ancient history overshadowing young bloods or whatever).




I sincerely doubt that the style of the dossiers have this much of an effect.

The paragraphs do look longer though for people with more stuff.  It wouldn't be fair to condense someone's list of achievements if they legitimately have them all just so they're the same character length as everyone else.  The bullet points take just as much work, and if I remember correctly I did ask you to do / fact-check yours, so that's not a feature inherent in just paragraphs.  I did that with everyone.  I did try hard to get the bullet lists to be the same length but there's only so much that can physically be done until I either start adding fluff or knocking things off.

In addition my intention was to create the dossiers for people to read them, and frankly, if they're voting solely on the length of the section and not actually reading them there's literally nothing I can do about that other than personally shame them if they tell me that's what they did.  If someone's lazy enough to do that, they're lazy enough to not even read the blocks of text.  I struggled with people too lazy to even look at the dossiers when trying to rally in chat.
Neither system is perfect, but I feel like summarizing a long list of achievements to be roughly the same length as a summary of few achievements is less unfair than the current situation, where years of hard work can get condensed into a couple one-liners just because someone focuses on one stream instead of a handful of things. Quality and quantity are both important, and if someone who did a bunch of stuff has quality as well as quantity, that will still be seen in the summary, whereas the list format tips towards quantity regardless of the quality - especially at a glance, which I DO think is a big problem. You said so yourself: people are lazy and don't always want to read the dossiers, but while we can't stop them from making uninformed votes, at least we can stop the "at a glance" bias.

As for my award still having different lengths, that's largely because I actively made the paragraphs shorter for the write-ins and longer for the folks who placed higher to reflect that more people voted for those accomplishments - it's still quite doable to shorten the longer ones and say more about the write-ins (example below). Of course, there's still wavering around even among paragraphs I aimed to make about the same (10-6, 5-2), but it's still decently balanced, especially compared to the lists, and a bit of variability isn't a bad thing. A rigid word limit would definitely be too restrictive and unfair, both to folks who'd get achievements cut, and folks who'd get obvious filler; simply saying you'd want paragraphs that are around 1000 characters, give or take 100 or so (but still no hard cutoffs), leaves room to work with, but also keeps the footing relatively even.




Well what I meant by polarizing by nature was that there'd be obvious winners to them, or that they couldn't be feasible with mod work being mostly private.  Shroom staff is different because they're an online magazine, not a rule and policy governing body.
But lots of stuff goes on behind the scenes at the 'Shroom that readers don't see too, and lots of wiki/etc. staff stuff is visible (and in both cases, the staffs are amongst the voters, so their insider knowledge will help contribute to the results). I also feel like there aren't obvious winners? I could guess at who'd be in the top circles, sure, but definitely not the specific order, seeing as there's so many different criteria that different voters could weigh more or less importantly - and probably differently from how I value things myself. Tenure length, rank, vandal-fighting effort, maintenance, leadership, helpfulness, community presence, personality - so much stuff to consider (at least for the wiki - the forum/chat admins would have better ideas of how folks might view their teams).

Hobbes

  • Wiki Administrator
  • Core 'Shroom Staff
  • Star Spirit
  • ***
  • tucayo
  • Poll Committee Vice-Chairman
    • View Profile
    • The 'Shroom
Re: Suggestions for next year
« Reply #66 on: August 17, 2015, 10:47:34 PM »
But couldn't the Shroom folks still do their contributions separately, and then give it to the AC, but instead of like "here's the Shroom section", they'd be like "okay, here's the 10 Shroom awards for the overall community awards"? Then UP folks would be like "and here's our 10 fiction/art/community awards" and the staffs would be like "and here are our 5 editor/admin/mod awards", and the overall meeting/AC/whatever would still be like "oh yes, very good, we approve". Or some other division adding up to 25, or possibly 20: as mentioned way back, having one block of awards allows for more flexibility if we can't come up with 5 more awards, or if it really is that imperative that the number of awards doesn't increase.
Yes, that would work just as well.

For the record, I think this is a good idea and doesn't force us into having "filler" awards while another category might have a better one that just didn't get in because it would've been the eleventh award.


Ritsuko Akizuki

  • also known as Blocky
  • Global Moderator
  • Shine Sprite
  • *****
  • Superchao
  • give it up for loud noises
    • View Profile
Re: Suggestions for next year
« Reply #67 on: August 17, 2015, 11:22:13 PM »
Plus, having the two sets of awards mixed together in the celebration could help keep things feeling varied and fresh. And anyone who might not necessarily be interested in the dedicated Shroom awards, or the dedicated UP awards, and just wants to see the other one, doesn't have to sit around waiting for either set to be over - who knows, maybe they'd even get interested in the other stuff by being exposed to it interspersed with the stuff they're interested in.
Hi! Sorry to ignore most of your post, but this is the only part I have a real reply to. I don't know that that would actually help - people who would want to only see the dedicated Shroom or UP awards would probably not enjoy the combination. Rather than having an entire ceremony you can skip freely - get a snack, do something fun - and then come back for the stuff you care about, now you have to sit through a bunch of awards you don't care about in between all the ones you do care about. So you get award you want to see, award you don't, award you do, etc, and it probably gets annoying.

Just my view though - I can't speak for certain considering I always read them all

Anton

  • Froppy
  • #mwchat Admin
  • Star Spirit
  • *****
  • Hypnotoad
  • kero?
    • View Profile
Re: Suggestions for next year
« Reply #68 on: August 17, 2015, 11:43:49 PM »
Rather than replying piece-by-piece I'll just say again that there was a discussion in chat and tl;dr they're not merging.  UP and Shroom will remain separate and retain their titles.



Also as I'll say again, I agree that it would be nice to honor the older peeps and the work they've done, but I still need an award example if any of this idea is going through; I can't work with just hypotheticals and hopes.  I cannot debate the quality of an award and decide to add it until I see it.

Out of that part of the talk the only thing I'm going to bring up is:
Especially because, if you look at the old U10 results, they actually didn't get recognition aside from the basic "it's good to be nominated"

This is a general reply not directed at a single person, but this is not the first time that I've seen someone bring up that just getting nominated isn't enough.  There's literally nothing I can do to change the winners and I'm not going to create an award just to manipulate the voters into picking someone we want to win something.  It is good to be nominated and if I see one more person mention anything like this, or say that they're upset that they 'only' got 2nd place, I'm not going to be happy.  If you need an award to validate your position then perhaps you're not in the best position.



It's been on a steady decline regarding peoples' participation in presentations.  I've also noticed that there's a steady incline in presentation quality though, so, !!  I'm very aware that the shroom's 100th issue put a wrench in presentation sign-ups seeing that a whole ton of people I asked directly if they want to do a presentation declined because they were doing sections for that, but I can't really declare that as "blame" and instead chalk it up to (in)convenient timing.
Perhaps the increase in quality is why there's a decrease in sign-ups? I feel like there's a lot more pressure to do a good job these days - which is a much better time for the readers, but a much more daunting task for the writers. But hopefully the timing with the Shroom and whatnot won't be a factor next year, so maybe sign-ups will go up again anyway, idk.

As someone who's been dealing with this for easily 4 years now I really don't think people care about the quality of other presentations when taking into account their own.  The only pressure is don't make it a list and keep it relevant.  Any other pressure is artificial on behalf of the person feeling it.



I sincerely doubt that the style of the dossiers have this much of an effect.

The paragraphs do look longer though for people with more stuff.  It wouldn't be fair to condense someone's list of achievements if they legitimately have them all just so they're the same character length as everyone else.  The bullet points take just as much work, and if I remember correctly I did ask you to do / fact-check yours, so that's not a feature inherent in just paragraphs.  I did that with everyone.  I did try hard to get the bullet lists to be the same length but there's only so much that can physically be done until I either start adding fluff or knocking things off.

In addition my intention was to create the dossiers for people to read them, and frankly, if they're voting solely on the length of the section and not actually reading them there's literally nothing I can do about that other than personally shame them if they tell me that's what they did.  If someone's lazy enough to do that, they're lazy enough to not even read the blocks of text.  I struggled with people too lazy to even look at the dossiers when trying to rally in chat.
Neither system is perfect, but I feel like summarizing a long list of achievements to be roughly the same length as a summary of few achievements is less unfair than the current situation, where years of hard work can get condensed into a couple one-liners just because someone focuses on one stream instead of a handful of things. Quality and quantity are both important, and if someone who did a bunch of stuff has quality as well as quantity, that will still be seen in the summary, whereas the list format tips towards quantity regardless of the quality - especially at a glance, which I DO think is a big problem. You said so yourself: people are lazy and don't always want to read the dossiers, but while we can't stop them from making uninformed votes, at least we can stop the "at a glance" bias.

As for my award still having different lengths, that's largely because I actively made the paragraphs shorter for the write-ins and longer for the folks who placed higher to reflect that more people voted for those accomplishments - it's still quite doable to shorten the longer ones and say more about the write-ins (example below). Of course, there's still wavering around even among paragraphs I aimed to make about the same (10-6, 5-2), but it's still decently balanced, especially compared to the lists, and a bit of variability isn't a bad thing. A rigid word limit would definitely be too restrictive and unfair, both to folks who'd get achievements cut, and folks who'd get obvious filler; simply saying you'd want paragraphs that are around 1000 characters, give or take 100 or so (but still no hard cutoffs), leaves room to work with, but also keeps the footing relatively even.


I'm not saying that either method is valid over one or the other, I'm just saying that I really doubt that one method is going to have wildly different results than the other.  For what it's worth, when Dippy was writing up the dossier for the shroom she asked if she could write paragraphs and I said sure, just to be aware of attention spans.  It's not like I enforced a certain style, it's just personal.  If you're writing the dossier next year and want to use paragraphs, go for it.  I'm not going to stop using bullet points because I just really don't see the difference amounting to much, if anything at all.

Quote
Quality and quantity are both important, and if someone who did a bunch of stuff has quality as well as quantity, that will still be seen in the summary, whereas the list format tips towards quantity regardless of the quality - especially at a glance, which I DO think is a big problem. You said so yourself: people are lazy and don't always want to read the dossiers, but while we can't stop them from making uninformed votes, at least we can stop the "at a glance" bias.

The problem is not the dossier.

If a position needs to be elaborated upon it can easily be done in a list format as well.  And I really don't see what you're saying with the "at a glance" bias, like, are you concerned that people are voting just by length?  Is there any real way to even know that?



Well what I meant by polarizing by nature was that there'd be obvious winners to them, or that they couldn't be feasible with mod work being mostly private.  Shroom staff is different because they're an online magazine, not a rule and policy governing body.
But lots of stuff goes on behind the scenes at the 'Shroom that readers don't see too, and lots of wiki/etc. staff stuff is visible (and in both cases, the staffs are amongst the voters, so their insider knowledge will help contribute to the results). I also feel like there aren't obvious winners? I could guess at who'd be in the top circles, sure, but definitely not the specific order, seeing as there's so many different criteria that different voters could weigh more or less importantly - and probably differently from how I value things myself. Tenure length, rank, vandal-fighting effort, maintenance, leadership, helpfulness, community presence, personality - so much stuff to consider (at least for the wiki - the forum/chat admins would have better ideas of how folks might view their teams).

There's already plenty of Shroom staff awards so idk how to reply to that other than just dismiss it.

I get that staff are among the voters but they're not the only voters.  I've already asked around a few of the various wiki, forum, and chat staff and the opinion I'm seeing is that they'd either be horribly uninformed (especially in the case of the forum), or be even more of a popularity contest than any of the awards already are, or that it would just be completely problematic or wholly unnecessary.

I'd really need to see an award to argue this further.  If I don't get that, I'm not going to comment anymore because it's a waste of time.


Hobbes

  • Wiki Administrator
  • Core 'Shroom Staff
  • Star Spirit
  • ***
  • tucayo
  • Poll Committee Vice-Chairman
    • View Profile
    • The 'Shroom
Re: Suggestions for next year
« Reply #69 on: August 17, 2015, 11:44:55 PM »
Plus, having the two sets of awards mixed together in the celebration could help keep things feeling varied and fresh. And anyone who might not necessarily be interested in the dedicated Shroom awards, or the dedicated UP awards, and just wants to see the other one, doesn't have to sit around waiting for either set to be over - who knows, maybe they'd even get interested in the other stuff by being exposed to it interspersed with the stuff they're interested in.
Hi! Sorry to ignore most of your post, but this is the only part I have a real reply to. I don't know that that would actually help - people who would want to only see the dedicated Shroom or UP awards would probably not enjoy the combination. Rather than having an entire ceremony you can skip freely - get a snack, do something fun - and then come back for the stuff you care about, now you have to sit through a bunch of awards you don't care about in between all the ones you do care about. So you get award you want to see, award you don't, award you do, etc, and it probably gets annoying.

Just my view though - I can't speak for certain considering I always read them all
Well, the obvious solution to this would be to have first the awards related to the 'Shroom, then UP, etc. But all together under the Community Awards


Crocodile Dippy

  • Toxic Shock Syndrome
  • Retired Wiki Staff
  • Star Spirit
  • *
  • Pokemon DP
  • God I'm good at being an owl
    • View Profile
Re: Suggestions for next year
« Reply #70 on: August 18, 2015, 11:47:47 AM »
OK, here it goes

1) Do not merge UP and 'Shroom awards together, we've done more than enough to warrant our own category and I'd hate to see us homogenised like that for... really, no reason at all.

2) No need to be calling anyone out for "lel you're just butthurt you didn't win," I'm sure we can be more civil than that. I, too, am miffed that some older users (such as Ghost Jam-senpai) didn't get more recognition than they did.

3) I honestly would prefer we go for paragraphs for the dossiers, since they can be written in a way that doesn't skewer them in favour of those with a long list of credentials instead of those with only one or two hyperdevoted credential. It's honestly not that hard, either...

4) Is it really that big a deal to add a few more awards for UP awards?
Rest in peace, Walkazo.

Walkazo

  • Dragon Lady
  • Wiki Bureaucrat
  • Shine Sprite
  • *****
  • Thou liest!
    • View Profile
    • Fanfiction.net
Re: Suggestions for next year
« Reply #71 on: August 18, 2015, 12:19:20 PM »
If the Shroom's staff don't wanna merge the awards, no prob, I won't push - it was just a thought.

This is a general reply not directed at a single person, but this is not the first time that I've seen someone bring up that just getting nominated isn't enough.  There's literally nothing I can do to change the winners and I'm not going to create an award just to manipulate the voters into picking someone we want to win something.  It is good to be nominated and if I see one more person mention anything like this, or say that they're upset that they 'only' got 2nd place, I'm not going to be happy.  If you need an award to validate your position then perhaps you're not in the best position.
You really misinterpreted what I was saying, and I'm honestly a bit upset that me saying I'd like other people who don't get super involved with all aspects of the community to have a snowball's chance in hell of getting more than three-way ties for 12th with zero points or whatever, results in a big speech about how people shouldn't ever complain about their own ranking.

Quote
If a position needs to be elaborated upon it can easily be done in a list format as well.  And I really don't see what you're saying with the "at a glance" bias, like, are you concerned that people are voting just by length?  Is there any real way to even know that?
I can almost guarantee that at least some people are voting by length: people vote by length for all sorts of things all the time, so why would we be special? Especially when we even know for sure that some people don't even read the dossiers at all, which is

I already suggested awards: some sort of legacy award for folks who don't fit in U1 because they're not retired, but who aren't actively involved in enough aspects of the community to be in U10 (Ghost Jam, Stooben Rooben, Glowsquid, other folks who were cut out of U10, etc.), despite having contributed a lot to it in the past, wiki/forum/chat staff award(s) (like how the Shroom has staff awards), plus another award for editors (namely non-admins) who may have never been big names in the community, yet who do a lot of work for the wiki, and could deserve some props (Time Turner, BLOF, LGM, and many more).

The legacy one is the one I'm most keen on, since that can cover staff from any team and regular editors alike - but unless we can come up with one current award to replace, we'll need more than one new one, so here's some options.
« Last Edit: August 18, 2015, 04:17:11 PM by Walkazo »

Northern Verve

  • Princess of Magic
  • Star Spirit
  • *******
  • SonicMario
    • View Profile
Re: Suggestions for next year
« Reply #72 on: August 18, 2015, 02:28:00 PM »
How about Mario Maker Level contests?

Everyone participating would make a level.

And either there'd be official judges that play the levels and/or all participants will play eachother's levels and they'll vote for whichever ones they liked (They just can't vote for their own levels). Possibly an additional Public vote option similar to the Art contest too.

Tokens spread across through rankings

Anton

  • Froppy
  • #mwchat Admin
  • Star Spirit
  • *****
  • Hypnotoad
  • kero?
    • View Profile
Re: Suggestions for next year
« Reply #73 on: August 18, 2015, 05:10:37 PM »
OK, here it goes

1) Do not merge UP and 'Shroom awards together, we've done more than enough to warrant our own category and I'd hate to see us homogenised like that for... really, no reason at all.

2) No need to be calling anyone out for "lel you're just butthurt you didn't win," I'm sure we can be more civil than that. I, too, am miffed that some older users (such as Ghost Jam-senpai) didn't get more recognition than they did.

3) I honestly would prefer we go for paragraphs for the dossiers, since they can be written in a way that doesn't skewer them in favour of those with a long list of credentials instead of those with only one or two hyperdevoted credential. It's honestly not that hard, either...

4) Is it really that big a deal to add a few more awards for UP awards?

1)  Yeah we already covered that and I wasn't too fond of the idea either so don't worry

2)  No one said that so I guess things are fine!

3)  Then do paragraphs, like I said, it's up to your preference.  I just really feel like it doesn't have that much of an affect and I'm not really gonna go out and poll people on what methods they used to vote.

4)  Nah, that's an option I'm open to.



This is a general reply not directed at a single person, but this is not the first time that I've seen someone bring up that just getting nominated isn't enough.  There's literally nothing I can do to change the winners and I'm not going to create an award just to manipulate the voters into picking someone we want to win something.  It is good to be nominated and if I see one more person mention anything like this, or say that they're upset that they 'only' got 2nd place, I'm not going to be happy.  If you need an award to validate your position then perhaps you're not in the best position.
You really misinterpreted what I was saying, and I'm honestly a bit upset that me saying I'd like other people who don't get super involved with all aspects of the community to have a snowball's chance in hell of getting more than three-way ties for 12th with zero points or whatever, results in a big speech about how people shouldn't ever complain about their own ranking.

Well I did say it was a general statement not directed at anyone, but the thing that you said that I focused on was more about how you insinuated getting nominated isn't enough recognition and that only winning is.  That kind of logic upsets me which is why I called it out, and then went on a tangent about how I've seen other people discredit their placements that were not 1st.  If that's not what you meant, then I apologize, but like I already said it was a general statement and that entire paragraph was not focused on you.
 
Quote
If a position needs to be elaborated upon it can easily be done in a list format as well.  And I really don't see what you're saying with the "at a glance" bias, like, are you concerned that people are voting just by length?  Is there any real way to even know that?

I can almost guarantee that at least some people are voting by length: people vote by length for all sorts of things all the time, so why would we be special? Especially when we even know for sure that some people don't even read the dossiers at all, which is

I already suggested awards: some sort of legacy award for folks who don't fit in U1 because they're not retired, but who aren't actively involved in enough aspects of the community to be in U10 (Ghost Jam, Stooben Rooben, Glowsquid, other folks who were cut out of U10, etc.), despite having contributed a lot to it in the past, wiki/forum/chat staff award(s) (like how the Shroom has staff awards), plus another award for editors (namely non-admins) who may have never been big names in the community, yet who do a lot of work for the wiki, and could deserve some props (Time Turner, BLOF, LGM, and many more).

The legacy one is the one I'm most keen on, since that can cover staff from any team and regular editors alike - but unless we can come up with one current award to replace, we'll need more than one new one, so here's some options.

I'm not going to take your "almost guarantee" because that tells me nothing about how much of an affect it has.  It could be 1 vote, it could be all 60, there's literally no way to tell and I'm not basing any decision off of a wild guess.

In addition, I never declined the award ideas at all.  I know you've already suggested them, but I know I've already asked for clarification on them.  I've actually stated that I like a few of them and just need more information on them to actually OK them.  I can't do anything with half an idea and 3 nominees.  The staff awards are the ones I'm most skeptical of because like I said all of the staff members of each the wiki/forum/chat that I've asked all really didn't think they're be good or strong awards, and if the staff members who are being nominated think it's a weak award I'm not really willing to push the idea.  Many questions have to be asked and answered in order for the award to be solid and work out.  Some of these questions for the legacy one are:  What are the prerequisites for being nominated?  Who else would be nominated?  Is it possible to also be nominated for U10?  Why or why not?  How would we compare 'legacies' within each context of the wiki, forum, chat, and shroom?  Would the forum one include just good administration or would it include prolific posters and topic creators?  With the editor awards how exactly would we get nominees?  Is there a time frame to work within?  What exactly constitutes good editing?  Does having prior warnings and blocks affect the nomination?

I'm not dismissing the award ideas.  It's just that initially it was presented as being done for people who "aren't social" and that just doesn't...sound good, and sounds mostly like an adverse reaction to results instead of a cool idea.  If it's presented in the context of recognizing people with a lot of time put in, then that's completely different.  I'm just asking for them to be worked on as I cannot take them if they're just ideas.  There's plenty of time to do that.



How about Mario Maker Level contests?

Everyone participating would make a level.

And either there'd be official judges that play the levels and/or all participants will play eachother's levels and they'll vote for whichever ones they liked (They just can't vote for their own levels). Possibly an additional Public vote option similar to the Art contest too.

Tokens spread across through rankings

I'd be open to it so long as we get a host to host it and players to play it   :bowser:
« Last Edit: August 18, 2015, 05:13:11 PM by Derpl Zork »


Walkazo

  • Dragon Lady
  • Wiki Bureaucrat
  • Shine Sprite
  • *****
  • Thou liest!
    • View Profile
    • Fanfiction.net
Re: Suggestions for next year
« Reply #74 on: August 18, 2015, 10:58:18 PM »
Quote
Well I did say it was a general statement not directed at anyone, but the thing that you said that I focused on was more about how you insinuated getting nominated isn't enough recognition and that only winning is.  That kind of logic upsets me which is why I called it out, and then went on a tangent about how I've seen other people discredit their placements that were not 1st.  If that's not what you meant, then I apologize, but like I already said it was a general statement and that entire paragraph was not focused on you.
No, more like being guaranteed to lose sorta makes being nominated a bit less point-ful - and not lose as in, not get 1st, but like, no chance of placing very high at all ever because of the nature of the award itself more than the competition. Specifically, I was thinking about how U10 used to be, since, while there was change-ups from year to year, especially higher up, you still usually had the same few veteran users placing very low, hence I felt like they were a bit under-served in the recognition department - it was your  "[they] have all already had several years to get the recognition they deserve" comment in particular that I was disagreeing with.

But if you're cool with a legacy award, then I guess that's neither here nor there anyway. The idea I've been trying to convey IS "recognizing people with a lot of time put in", just in ways that haven't traditionally gotten very much attention despite being integral to the site, like editing and tedious upkeep stuff, or oldschool things that kids these days don't know about (*shakes cane*), yet which have really influenced what the place is like now. Not so much "boo, popular kids get all the love" and more like "that's cool, but give the old farts and maintenance gnomes love too".

Specific Q&A stuff...

Is it possible to also be nominated for U10?  Why or why not?
I'd say no: U1, U10 and the new one should all be mutually exclusive, since each award is geared towards users from different walks of life and/or current statuses. U10 is about people who loom large in the community as a whole in the present, while the new one would be about people who are just as important to the continued existence of a nice, robust, peaceful wiki, yet who are working more in the background these days (they could always have been background people, or they could have been U10-level community folks in their heyday, but aren't anymore). Both awards would be for users who are still around, while U1 is for people who are retired - whether gone completely, or still checking in from time to time but no longer posting, editing or chatting on a regular basis. (To be clear, U1 and U10 would stay the same as they are now, we'd just be filling a gap that' currently there.)

What are the prerequisites for being nominated?
Does having prior warnings and blocks affect the nomination?
How would we compare 'legacies' within each context of the wiki, forum, chat, and shroom?

Been here a few years and still actively editing, posting, administratoring, etc. (so not U1), but not high-profile enough now (or ever) to fit in U10. It's a bit of a grab-bag thing, since a user's legacy could take many forms, but basically, without them, the site would be a different place even if we don't really notice them on a day-to-day basis - either because a lot of maintenance work and editing would never have been done, thousands of images never been uploaded, key aspects of the wiki/community never been established, etc. The award will probably skew to folks who were more active before, and who did at least a couple big things, but folks who have just always been around and always doing little things should be considered too. Not having warnings definitely helps the odds, but some people get over rocky pasts to become good users, so it shouldn't be automatic disqualification.

With the editor awards how exactly would we get nominees?
Is there a time frame to work within?
What exactly constitutes good editing?
Does having prior warnings and blocks affect the nomination?

Ask for suggestions and double-check their histories and contributions to make sure they really are deserving, I guess. The longer they've been around, the better, but even relative young bloods who have only been around for a year but made the most of it could be considered. Good editing is a mix of quality and quantity: thousands of gnomework edits are good, but taking the time to rewrite the odd page in addition to maintenance, is even better. Or, if someone uploads tonnes of images, that's great, but if they don't bother to format the aboutfiles for any of them, and someone else has to clean up their mess, then it's not so good. Personality and attitude should be kept in mind (if someone's a prolific editor, but they're an *bleep* and no one likes them, it's probably better to give that slot to someone who works hard and plays nice), but old warnings and issues shouldn't matter as much as long as they weren't about really serious problems like vandalism or trolling, and aren't an problem anymore.

I can't really comment on anything forum or chat related: those admin teams and/or frequent posters would have a better idea on what sort of criteria and awards (if any) they want, or how best to incorporate that stuff into overall awards.

I'll try to think of some more names, but I can't single-handedly make list of nominees for these awards, even for wiki editor/staff stuff: what I hold in high regards is different from what others may want to put more stock in.

(Sorry for any typos or ineloquent speech, btw - I was getting pretty sleepy by the end here. Hopefully no more misunderstandings will arise despite tha.t)