CN Awards: process

[supercoolyellow]

After watching my previous topic and the results in the poll it was obvious there is not enough support for a full academy. However based on comments, and some mild support for the academy I think i can justify a process where half of the votes are by an academy, and the other half is by public polls. This way we can see if the academy is a viable solution to the problems we had last year. If the Academy doesn't work. We can easily get rid of it next year. Here is an outline of the process I will use in this years awards.

1. in a few minutes I will start a post where by public polls we will select three awards from last year to be eliminated from this year's awards. I will then also ask for nominations for new awards to be posted.

2. A thread will be posted where we will select three new awards to go into this year. I will also begin signups to become a member of the academy.

Basic rules for the academy are as follows.
[list]
[*]1. Only one person per alliance may be in the academy
[*]2. Alliances in the Amazing Sanction Race will get two representatives
[*]3. Sanctioned alliances will get three representatives
[*]4. The academy will be on a first come first serve basis
[*]5. A list of academy members and their votes will be made public
[/list]

3. Ten threads will be posted to allow people to discus and vote the awards

4. Academy members will be asked to vote after the polls are finished so they have a chance to see people's everyone's comments on the award.

5. Awards will be posted after academy members have had a chance to vote. Results will be figured on a percent basis. For example if one alliance recieves 50% of the academy vote and 25% of the popular vote, those two percents will be divided into two and added together. 50/2 + 25/2 =37.5%

6.I expect this process to take about ten days, although I am not making any concrete schedule because I could easily need to change for it for unforseen reasons.

If anyone has any questions or concerns please let me know.

[augustus334]

i'm glad to see we're having an award thing and i think the acadamy will help make sure big alliances dont win everything because they voted for themselves

[Chief Savage Man]

Stop complicating it. A poll of active CN players is more than sufficient.

[xoindotnler]

I will happily boycott these awards. Biased from the start I tell you.

Edited December 28, 2010 by xoindotnler

[Vladisvok Destino]

[quote name='augustus334' timestamp='1293569121' post='2556449']
i'm glad to see we're having an award thing and i think the acadamy will help make sure big alliances dont win everything because they voted for themselves
[/quote]

Except that the bigger alliances get more votes in the academy anyway, so they can still bias the vote in favour of themselves if they want to

[augustus334]

it isnt perfect, but the acadamy might have slightly less bias than the poll

[Duncan King]

[quote name='xoindotnler' timestamp='1293569513' post='2556454']
I will happily boycott these awards. Biased from the start I tell you.
[/quote]
What, so MK and ODN can hack it again? There's no point in having awards if they're going to be so skewed that the same group wins every award. I mean does anyone really think MK really deserved 3/4 of the awards last year?

Edited December 28, 2010 by Duncan King

[Banksy]

There are 12 sanctioned alliances. 28 non-sanctioned sanction race alliances. Even [i]without[/i] the micros entering, that will mean there are [i]92[/i] representatives. Last year there were 400-440 people voting in the final round of voting (depending on the thread). So all you've done is reduce the pool of voters by 1/4 for 50% of the vote.

By doing this, you have completely removed the entire point of an academy. An academy is supposed to be made up of knowledgeable and impartial people. You've just reduced the number of people who can vote in some sort of quasi-democracy. If you had an actual academy, you would choose ~10 well known people who could be relatively impartial. By choosing these people based on an alliance, all you've done is make it clear that people should vote with their alliance and with their biases, rather than impartially or, shocking as it is, individually like in previous years.

[quote name='Duncan King' timestamp='1293572291' post='2556513']
What, so MK and ODN can hack it again? There's no point in having awards if they're going to be so skewed that the same group wins every award. I mean does anyone really think MK really deserved 3/4 of the awards last year?
[/quote]
MK and the ODN 'hacked it?' How on earth did the ODN 'hack it?' They won one award. Apparently people did think MK was able to win those awards, considering they did win by considerable margins. MK had ~150 members at the time, most of whom did not vote. Because the polls were confidential, you have no basis to say that the only reason MK won was because it voted for itself. You are also assuming other alliances did not vote for itself. You just sound bitter and are making assumptions with no proof.

Edited December 28, 2010 by Banksy

[Mason]

I agree that people will typically vote with their alliance first and foremost, and giving larger alliances more votes only skews it further in that direction. As already mentioned, do your best to select a handful of fairly impartial, active members of the community and go from there.

[Duncan King]

As painful as it is to admit, Banksy is 100% correct here. By allowing sanctioned alliances three reps and sanction race alliances two, you are already allowing these alliances to weigh the vote.

A better idea would be to cap the academy at 10-20 and limit reps per alliance to one.

[Duncan King]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1293572904' post='2556525']
MK and the ODN 'hacked it?' How on earth did the ODN 'hack it?' They won one award. Apparently people did think MK was able to win those awards, considering they did win by considerable margins. MK had ~150 members at the time, most of whom did not vote. Because the polls were confidential, you have no basis to say that the only reason MK won was because it voted for itself. You are also assuming other alliances did not vote for itself. You just sound bitter and are making assumptions with no proof.
[/quote]
MK sent all their members to vote for themselves in every poll for every award despite what the award was actually for. This skewed the results. The poll results are confidential, but MK members aren't shy about saying they voted for themselves.

ODN wasn't that active in winning this particular poll, but 2-3 years ago, anything that mentioned ODN or another orange alliance saw a huge influx of orange nations voting for ODN and other orange alliances. One of the reasons I stopped paying attention to polls here several years ago was ODN won everything.

I agree that "hack" was the wrong word, but I wasn't sure which one would be more appropriate.

Edited December 28, 2010 by Duncan King

[Banksy]

[quote name='Duncan King' timestamp='1293573462' post='2556531']
MK sent all their members to vote for themselves in every poll for every award despite what the award was actually for. This skewed the results. The poll results are confidential, but MK members aren't shy about saying they voted for themselves.

ODN wasn't that active in winning this particular poll, but 2-3 years ago, anything that mentioned ODN or another orange alliance saw a huge influx of orange nations voting for ODN and other orange alliances. One of the reasons I stopped paying attention to polls here several years ago was ODN won everything.

I agree that "hack" was the wrong word, but I wasn't sure which one would be more appropriate.
[/quote]
I understand what you're saying now.

I would simply counter that every alliance will, and did, send out their members to vote in the categories they were nominated for. To not do so is actually rather stupid. We've seen it so far this year, with Legion members being sent nation PMs to vote in polls with their alliance. Other alliances had to vote for MK in order for them to clinch the awards. And in a number [possibly a majority, but I can't recall all the awards right now] of the categories, MK certainly did deserve to win considering their (and Archon's) role in Karma.

A better system would be to say no one can vote for their own alliance, and make the polls public so SCY can check this. However I suspect he doesn't want to check over every poll with 400+ votes several times [400*25 for the final rounds and the early nomination polls in front of that would be a massive amount of work and he'd certainly go over his click limit in-game even if he had a week to look] each so that suggestion is not practical.

[Fernando12]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1293572904' post='2556525']
There are 12 sanctioned alliances. 28 non-sanctioned sanction race alliances. Even [i]without[/i] the micros entering, that will mean there are [i]92[/i] representatives. Last year there were 400-440 people voting in the final round of voting (depending on the thread). So all you've done is reduce the pool of voters by 1/4 for 50% of the vote.

By doing this, you have completely removed the entire point of an academy. An academy is supposed to be made up of knowledgeable and impartial people. You've just reduced the number of people who can vote in some sort of quasi-democracy. If you had an actual academy, you would choose ~10 well known people who could be relatively impartial. By choosing these people based on an alliance, all you've done is make it clear that people should vote with their alliance and with their biases, rather than impartially or, shocking as it is, individually like in previous years.

[/quote]
You're assuming people will be biased, probably because you think MK isn't going to be everyone's number one choice for everything. I think the most active CN players can be honest and impartial about how they vote on each category, give people some credit. I can think of several that are well informed enough about CN events, players, alliances, etc of 2010 that could be impartial despite perhaps not liking someone or the alliance that they would probably have to vote for if they are being honest. Myself for example would still have MK as the most powerful/influential alliance. A repeat of last year's so called "hacked" awards and even Sir Paul's Awards.

Banksy, if you're so upset about the prcess why don't you all just rig up some awards and do it on your own forums so you get the wanted results.

[Vladisvok Destino]

[quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1293575121' post='2556555']
You're assuming people will be biased, probably because you think MK isn't going to be everyone's number one choice for everything.[/quote]

I'm assuming people will be biased because this is CN....the world where we hold 3 year old grudges and accept all sorts of behaviour from our allies that we would condemn in enemies, of course people are going to be biased.

[quote]I think the most active CN players can be honest and impartial about how they vote on each category, give people some credit. I can think of several that are well informed enough about CN events, players, alliances, etc of 2010 that could be impartial despite perhaps not liking someone or the alliance that they would probably have to vote for if they are being honest. Myself for example would still have MK as the most powerful/influential alliance.[/quote]

There probably are *some* people like that, but when you're taking 3 members from each sanctioned alliance, 2 from everyone in the sanction race, etc, I'd be surprised if even 50% of them could be unbiased.

[quote]Banksy, if you're so upset about the prcess why don't you all just rig up some awards and do it on your own forums so you get the wanted results.
[/quote]

Again you assume that this is MK not liking it because they might not win it, any chance of actually addressing the issue?

Edited December 28, 2010 by Vladisvok Destino

[Fernando12]

[quote name='Vladisvok Destino' timestamp='1293575794' post='2556561']
Again you assume that this is MK not liking it because they might not win it, any chance of actually addressing the issue?
[/quote]
What issue needs to be addressed? The rules have been clearly stated in the OP. Are you guys going to assume that this process will not yield the correct results? Are there "correct" results? Try this process that SCY set up and tweak it next year if need be.

Edited December 28, 2010 by Fernando12

[Banksy]

[quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1293575121' post='2556555']
You're assuming people will be biased, probably because you think MK isn't going to be everyone's number one choice for everything. I think the most active CN players can be honest and impartial about how they vote on each category, give people some credit. I can think of several that are well informed enough about CN events, players, alliances, etc of 2010 that could be impartial despite perhaps not liking someone or the alliance that they would probably have to vote for if they are being honest. Myself for example would still have MK as the most powerful/influential alliance. A repeat of last year's so called "hacked" awards and even Sir Paul's Awards.

Banksy, if you're so upset about the prcess why don't you all just rig up some awards and do it on your own forums so you get the wanted results.
[/quote]
Why would I set up my own awards when i've already said I think they're stupid because of the bias? Honestly, do you think before you post? Vladisvok Destino said everything else that needs to be said.

[Fernando12]

[quote name='Banksy' timestamp='1293576442' post='2556567']
Why would I set up my own awards when i've already said I think they're stupid because of the bias? Honestly, do you think before you post? Vladisvok Destino said everything else that needs to be said.
[/quote]
Anything that a player not in MK says gets this type of response, it's old and boring. You guys need to realize this game isn't just about MK players. You guys need to think before you post. Make your own awards if you want the results to be rigged as usual or try working with others with the process that SCY set up and see how it goes.

Edited December 28, 2010 by Fernando12

[James I]

[quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1293576665' post='2556568']
Anything that a player not in MK says gets this type of response, it's old and boring. You guys need to realize this game isn't just about MK players. You guys need to think before you post. Make your own awards if you want the results to be rigged as usual or try working with others with the process that SCY set up and see how it goes.
[/quote]
No. Banksy has just explained to us how he wants to suppress any element of bias built into the awards system. After this, you suggested that he rig up his own awards to get the desired results.

[Epiphanus]

This is ridiculous. You decided that you didn't like how the other thread was going so you elected yourself to create this ~Academy~. Why not just do it like we've always done it. Someone who is biased towards the whole thing really should be running it </sarcasm> Maybe you should take a step back from the whole thing SCY and let someone else run the show. Someone who isn't totally biased.

Edited December 28, 2010 by Epiphanus

[Axolotlia]

[quote name='Duncan King' timestamp='1293573271' post='2556528']
A better idea would be to cap the academy at 10-20 and limit reps per alliance to one.
[/quote]

Or to shake things up, only allow micro-alliances to be on the academy with one rep per alliance

The definition of micro i guess would be any alliance not in the sanction race. Thoughts?

[Fernando12]

[quote name='James I' timestamp='1293576901' post='2556573']
No. Banksy has just explained to us how he wants to suppress any element of bias built into the awards system. After this, you suggested that he rig up his own awards to get the desired results.
[/quote]
And what you and he do not understand is that no matter what the system and its voters someone is going to be accused of being biased. He suggests like I do to select a few players that would be impartial. Realize that it is our own bias that would deem those we select as impartial. Most likely, someone will say he or I selected so and so because of what we thought they would vote for.

SCY came up with a good system, let's roll with it. Oh wait, I like SCY so of course I am biased to him and the system he came up with

Seriously, work with what SCY came up with or make your own awards and do it however you like.

Edited December 28, 2010 by Fernando12

[supercoolyellow]

[quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1293577383' post='2556585']
And what you and he do not understand is that no matter what the system and its voters someone is going to be accused of being biased. He suggests like I do to select a few players that would be impartial. Realize that it is our own bias that would deem those we select as impartial. Most likely, someone will say he or I selected so and so because of what we thought they would vote for.

SCY came up with a good system, let's roll with it. Oh wait, I like SCY so of course I am biased to him and the system he came up with

Seriously, work with what SCY came up with or make your own awards and do it however you like.
[/quote]


MMM,

To be honest I'm not all that threatened by the comments so far. Mind you I'm quikcly skimming and trying to read while playing my guitar, but from what I can see this is the breakdown. Banksy has issues with any awards because he thinks they will be biased, which I would largely have to agree with. Any system would be inherently biased, where I would disagree with him is that I don't think the current degree of bias means we should nix the awards. That's not all that really big of a disagreement. Some people would do things a little differantly (Axatolia, Zhaan), and Epiphanus is being critical of me sarcastic jest (I think.)

Also my biggest concern isn't biased, I know people will vote in a biased way no matter what I do. My biggest concern is credibility, that we have a process that can be respected, and hopefully it will lead to a result where people will respect at least a large part of the final decisions.

[Banksy]

[quote name='Axolotlia' timestamp='1293577264' post='2556583']
Or to shake things up, only allow micro-alliances to be on the academy with one rep per alliance

The definition of micro i guess would be any alliance not in the sanction race. Thoughts?
[/quote]
I think the issue with this would be that many micros are either lead by unknowns [who we do not know are impartial/do not know at all] or are lead by an extremely vocal retired person. Choosing by alliances is flawed imo, but certainly only picking exclusively from sanctioned or well-known alliances is just as flawed as they will probably be nominated for the bulk of awards due to their prominence and size.

[quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1293577383' post='2556585']
And what you and he do not understand is that no matter what the system and its voters someone is going to be accused of being biased. He suggests like I do to select a few players that would be impartial. Realize that it is our own bias that would deem those we select as impartial. Most likely, someone will say he or I selected so and so because of what we thought they would vote for.

SCY came up with a good system, let's roll with it. Oh wait, I like SCY so of course I am biased to him and the system he came up with

Seriously, work with what SCY came up with or make your own awards and do it however you like.
[/quote]
SCY asked people what we should do, and his idea of an academy was shot down so he made a compromise by reading the comments in the thread. However, there are objections to this compromise and because he clearly has no objection to suggestions, then what is wrong with making them?

But please, turn this into another chance to try and !@#$ on MK. You don't really do it nearly enough.

[Vladisvok Destino]

[quote name='Fernando12' timestamp='1293576295' post='2556565']
What issue needs to be addressed? The rules have been clearly stated in the OP. Are you guys going to assume that this process will not yield the correct results? Are there "correct" results? Try this process that SCY set up and tweak it next year if need be.
[/quote]

By this same logic, there is nothing wrong with the process that was used before. There are no 'correct' results beyond what people choose to vote for, if most people choose to vote for MK (either because MK members are the ones who vote most, or because other people voted for them) then they get the award.

SCY felt there was a problem with the system and so proposed a new one, people are trying to explain why the new system does not fix the supposed bias that was inherent in the old system.

[Fernando12]

[quote name='Vladisvok Destino' timestamp='1293578468' post='2556603']
By this same logic, there is nothing wrong with the process that was used before. There are no 'correct' results beyond what people choose to vote for, if most people choose to vote for MK (either because MK members are the ones who vote most, or because other people voted for them) then they get the award.

SCY felt there was a problem with the system and so proposed a new one, people are trying to explain why the new system does not fix the supposed bias that was inherent in the old system.
[/quote]
So?

SCY can set this one up and someone else can redo one with the old process. What's the problem?