Excuse my Alzheimzers, but isn't HOF at this time of the year?
Printable View
Excuse my Alzheimzers, but isn't HOF at this time of the year?
Actually earlier.
I think I told sapi about it a week or so back and was told that the staff had actually forgotten about it.
Needless to say after that reminder, sapi our hardworking and caring mod has banded up with the honorable KukriKhan to bring us this (well, last) year's HoF as soon as TosaInu approves of it.
:bow:
Sounds good!
I realised we were missing it when I was organising something similar on another forum.
.
When nominating stories/AARs please make sure these ones aren't left out. :bow:
.
HOF? That is the Hall of Fame award, correct? Whenever I check(ed) those awards I never really saw much of descriptions or requirements. So what are they exactly all about? Can someone provide a good explanation?
Hopefully I actually win something. :laugh4:
They are awarded to anyone (outside of Junior Members) who is nominated and subsequently voted as the most deserving in a category. The categories seem to change slightly each year in that regard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijo
They are usually something along the lines of "most helpful" "best contributor" etc and are thus relatively subjective.
When judging a member or higher for those awards, one should consider any contribution (positive and negative) they have made over the last year (i.e. 01.01.2007 - 31.12.2007), not outside of those bounds, although that is not always easy when you come to think of it.
Thanks.
So what exactly would be seen as "good contributions" to, for instance, receive "best contributor"?
And am I correct to assume that -- showing a simple example -- if a member has made one good contribution this would count as a +(1) and that if he or she also made a bad contribution this would count, logically, as a -(1), therefore the negative one would negate the positive one and state a contribution of 0?
So suppose someone made a thousand good contributions (+1000) but he or she did not behave well at certain times, made some bad contributions, and this together has a value of -- let' say for example -- -740 the member would have had a so-called "score" of +260? And the higher the "score" the more probability one would have to receive such an award?
Well, yes and no.
Its up to everyone to decide for themselves whether someone merits the nomination/vote.
You certainly can bring up examples of someone's contributions to highlight it for others, but in the end, its up to you to decide who you support in a given category, not just the contribution total of each member/nominee.
Damn, you sure are fast with your reply.
Well, what you are saying -- if it is true -- does not appear fair or just. It seems as if -- and you can correct this statement if wrong -- that when people make contributions it hardly matters as ultimately it's about what people prefer or support REGARDLESS of what has been contributed?
Speaking of having the decision whether someone merits a vote or nomination (as I read from your reply)... it sounds like this system -- if existent as such -- could easily invite rigging, dirty politics, and so on.
Very true. It is in a way a popularity contest, but you would like to think/hope that people will vote according to merit rather than popularity.
And yes, you can go campaigning like in Victonia for votes :laugh4:
Then if it is true as you say it is, why is this system existing? If we would hope people would vote or nominate fairly, is it enough? It would leave too much possibility for error, dirtiness, etc. To totally exclude this possibility and to operate using justice would be the just thing to do.
And no, I ain't joining that Victonia thread :P It's not like I'm looking for popularity or votes... I just want justice, a thing that is to exist regardless of other things.
How would you define a "good" contribution, exactly? For some people, just pointing out how to become a member to junior members is a good contribution, for others it can just be spam. For some, writing a long guide on the use of Horse-Archers is a good contribution, whilst for others it can be a waste of time. It would be difficult to be just.
If I can put it like this, this system lets people decide what a good contribution is for themselves. It's called Democracy, I believe.
Why do you care so much? It's an internet forum it doesn't seem like it's that big of a deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijo
You steal my thoughts...:inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ichigo
But, seriously, It isn't a big deal. If you ask me, they are just like the dinky awards you may have gotten in elementary school. Yeah, they're nice, but they aren't good for anything, and they eventually wind up at the bottom of a drawer somewhere, forgotten. But, on the other hand, it is a fun thing to vote in, you know? Good for a stroll down memory lane, to see who all gave you the best laugh and such like that.
sorry for the double post here, but it saves time. Anyway, i am here to nag about getting a chapter house slot in the HoF. We need an award too! Maybe one for best interactive...
(or maybe one for best WWI themed multiplayer interactive for the latter half of 07, eh? :cheesy: )
I agree with Motep; seeing as the Chapter House didn't get a spot in last years award, I would request the catergories of:
Best Interactive History for 2007
Best Player for 2007
And if enouh maybe Best SingePlayer and best Multiplayer IH's as well.
When are the awards expected to happen?
If you all are going to bring up the Chapter House I think something for the Gameroom as well should be added.
Yeah! I second thatQuote:
Originally Posted by Ichigo
I would believe that the two you mentioned would be enough. But I concur, we do need one. As does the Gamesroom.Quote:
Originally Posted by Warluster
I do believe that the Gameroom held its own independent mafia HoF awards last year (run by Sasaki Kojiro) - the normal HoF neglected it in a way. You can find the voting thread here and the results here.
Of course, placing the many awards featured there in the normal HoF probably would be a bit too much. Making each award more generic, possibly forming the awards of Best Gameroom Contributer, Best Large Game in the Gameroom and Best Small Game in the Gameroom, would both negate the original problem, and allow other types of game, such as Rise of Civilizations and Battle Royale, to be included as well.
~:)
I am flattered that you think the forum capable of achieving such a thing were countless philosophers, idealists, prophets and revolutionaries have failed. Unfortunately, we are mere mortals and are therefore incapable of reaching perfect justice. The HOF was created in order to have some form of public recognition, however flawed and subjective it may be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijo
Ahhh! I finally understand that first phrase: 'were' misses an 'h' :laugh4: I thought "What the hell....?" when I read it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludens
Yes, I see what you mean. Still it is usually good when it 's one or the other, yes or no, 1 and 0, on and off. The positive value would be objectivity, justice, and so on, while the negative value would be nothing at all... What we have now, what it looks like, is something somewhere vaguely in the middle: a bad system that "tries". This public recognition you spoke of that is achieved through flawedness: is that even worth it?
If you ask me: no. I say we either do or we don't: no trying to start with. If we do and fail, then afterwards we don't and can then justifiably say we tried.
Ah, forget it anyway.
Bijo, feel free to post your suggestions.
Suggestions? What kind of suggestions are you talking about? People I would personally nominate or something else?
I guess that'll teach me not to rely on the spell checker :embarassed: .Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijo
Since we do try I rather fail to see the problem. Off course, if you've got any suggestions to improve the objectivity of the system, I would like to hear them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijo
Well, I more or less provided suggestions already in one of those previous posts with simple math. We -- or whoever is to fairly, etc., do so -- check the amount of positive and negative contributions of members and make a simple calculation. Their contents must also be considered and given a value to be included in the calculation.
The following is just some quick brainstorming on-the-fly. Potential content parameters to check could be:
- honesty
- helpfulness
- truth
- level of sophistication
- humour
- level of effort
- efficiency
- attitude
- clarity
- quality
- etc.
- etc.
Of course, since there would probably be different kinds of HoF awards that seem to be different every year, the parameters to be checked should be tweaked and organized accordingly.
Who is to be appointed for this task... I don't know. Perhaps a team of people -- those who are fit for it and available -- should check and keep tabs on members' activities so around the end of the year they have calculations ready to show.
Are you volunteering to go through the tens of thousands of posts in the last year?
That would be a real pain in the ass to kepp track of all the active members. I dont think that the staff can or would want to handle it with their current numbers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijo
Indeed - add to that the fact that such an approach would naturally be no less subjective than the nomination/voting process that we used in the past years as all the criteria listed are not measurable but are subject to an individual's perception.Quote:
Originally Posted by Motep
Therefore judgment by the community as a whole are likely to yield more meaningful results - even if they are not completely objective.
We already have a vehicle for staff to recognize the achievements of org-members: promotion to "senior member" - which is e.g. based on the subjective assessment (and it would be presumptuous, IMHO, to claim that an objective assessment is even possible) along criteria as listed by Bijo
The HOF awards are an additional way to celebrate members who contributed to the community - this time based on the (subjective) opinions of the org members as a whole.
:bow:
It's kind of fun exercise to consider nominations and then finally voting. It is often a very difficult decision (at least for me) to vote for just one person in a category. The one year we skipped it, the HOF was really missed. Thus it returned due to popular demand.
It might be true that it would take effort, but are you not already doing so more or less? You visit the forum and notice members and their posts, especially moderators and assistant moderators go through posts to make sure things are okay. What this solution would add is merely the exclusion of subjectivity and the inclusion of objectivity. It is not so difficult to ascertain what is right and what is wrong, what is 1 and what is 0, what is good and what is bad, what is on and what is off. A simple example would be a member who posts something offensive like "I hate you, you goddamn son of a *****!" It is easy to decide that that has a negative value. I don't really see the problem if it's about subjectivity and objectivity: it's a matter of knowing the difference between what is positive and what is negative and to act accordingly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
What this solution means is to just go on about business as usual, but pay more attention, be more objective, and maintain the data which can probably be done in simple efficient ways.
We can't discuss with you Bijo because you are Stoic and we are not. We think this HOF should be subjective because its our way to see who is helpful and who is not. You won't give the ok to this statement, but its the way its done. End of the question.
Over.
I'm not certain if that's possible with our software. If I understand Bijo's proposal correctly, he suggests a rating system for individual posts (I guess a 5 point scale:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijo
-2 Very Unhelpful
-1 Unhelpful
0 Neutral
+1 Helpful
+2 Very Helpful)
I presume he'd allow all members to rate posts all the time, and that a running talley (the data he refers to) be kept, eliminating a yearly event with voting, like the Hall of Fame, which he eschews, apparently, as a mere popularity contest.
All you have to do to be nominated for an HOF award is following the link in my signature and posting "in" in the thread my signature links to.
Come on, it's easy. Just click on the word "HERE" in my sig. You'll come to a certain thread. Just post "in" in that thread and your free nomination for an HOF award will be ready in no time.
It's an offer you can't refuse ~:pimp:
I have no problem with HoF as it has worked in the past. I don't think subjectivity is a bug - it's a feature - of the system. It's about whether the contribution was memorable to, and considered helpful by, other members of the .org.
this post can be deleted
Well, not exactly, but it is kind of the direction. Of course, those other factors, parameters, and so on, would have to be considered. What I see here is an extreme simplification (which might be effective as well).Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
To tell you the truth -- and I already stated it more or less -- the proposal would NOT allow all members to rate posts all the time, but for those fit for it and available to simply keep tabs. If all members would be allowed to rate we would more or less maintain allowance of what is attempted to be eliminated in the first place or at least maintain the possibility of subjectivity which has its apparant flaws.Quote:
I presume he'd allow all members to rate posts all the time, and that a running talley (the data he refers to) be kept, eliminating a yearly event with voting, like the Hall of Fame, which he eschews, apparently, as a mere popularity contest.
And I only checked Factionheir's words -- and others seem to verify -- to state that the system we are speaking of appears -- or at least has good chance -- to be about popularity. The possibility exists: that is too much room or chance for "error".
But sure, sure.... go on about the business as usual. Just know that what I propose is fair, more objective......... and LOGICAL :laugh4:
Now if you'll excuse me... it is monday morning (unfortunately).
Can i win a prize just for being awesome?
You don't need a prize. Being awesome is its own reward.
It would be awesome if you would all sign up for Capo de Tutti Capi II...Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
Get out of here with your fiendish self-promotion!Quote:
Originally Posted by Andres
I nominate my dong...
But who gets to chose the members that can rate others? Surely this is a subjective first step which will make all the outcomes from such subjective...Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijo
I think you need to read up Intelligent outcome via dumb agent group.
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/nps/pam/si_pam.htm
We would all like to nominate our dong's, but bias by Tosa Inu's huge dollar always stops our dong's being noticeable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave
I already left this thread to rest, but you just HAD to step in and ask questions, hm?
Why, why.... the one (or ones) capable? If I could only find a smilie with a dunce cap. Those who look at the cold hard facts, quality, quantity, who recognize the parameters mentioned before, and so forth, and who are not lead by "personal opinions", popularity influence, personal preferences, and so on. Can it be even more clear? If I would receive an HoF award based on mere popularity I would immediately reject the award.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
The Dutch don't do dongs and dollars. :wink2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikeus Caesar
Bijo: It's just a fun popularity contest. No need to get serious over it.
I think we all know there is only one man who truly deserves a HOF award.
http://media.canada.com/8c8b3290-2b0...70504_hoff.jpg
If the Chosen One lurks among us, i'm all for giving him a HOF award. Ahawhawhaw.Quote:
Originally Posted by TinCow
Call the award a Hassel-HOF. ~D
Soo, when exactly is voting going to be done for this? Is HoF going to be done soon, then?
Hmm challenge to find a dunce's cap:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijo
:santa3: nope
:party2: nope
:party3: nope
Ah ha:
:dunce:
:wall:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gregoshi
:laugh4:
You are teh master Gregoshi :bow: