For next years awards, i like Bjorn's idea about a committee

[Mentor]

I like the idea of a committee, however i do not think Mike (or anyone) should be picking it. I think everyone who qualifies should be allowed to vote (unless they are banned from the forums). I think the committee should have specific criteria as well.

I think the community can still make their nominations, i see no issue with people nominating who they want.

In terms of the committee, it should be people who are:

- VIP.

- Have a certain amount of posts in the forums (not too many, something around 50).

- Have achieved a minimum rank in the top 100 at some point (they do not need to necessarily need to be high ranking now).

- They need to be playing the game now (ie active and logging in regularly).

Basically, everyone who has the above can qualify, they will be added to a separate forum, where they can vote. If we implement this, the "alliance cap rule" should be removed as well, "mass alliances" will have little effect if they lack quality.

I also think that some basically criteria for each nomination should be added, now it is totally based on bullshit.

The only problem with the above is does Mike have access to such data? It should be pretty easy to do, take the list of VIP, see which members have 50 posts, from those guys have a look to see which had a top 100 rank and remove all of them that did not log in the past 2 weeks. That should give you a compact list, for the next year it will be easier to do, you just need to see who was active + VIP, plus look up any new guys.

[Gator001]

if you are going to have committees no problem but in real life people on voting committees cannot be considered for awards, so it would remove a lot of deserving people from being nominated

 

The best option I saw is having CLEAR criteria as there is no real criteria for most of the awards at the moment

 

Just thoughts

[bjornmma1]

if you are going to have committees no problem but in real life people on voting committees cannot be considered for awards, so it would remove a lot of deserving people from being nominated

 

The best option I saw is having CLEAR criteria as there is no real criteria for most of the awards at the moment

 

Just thoughts

 

There is a simple solution to that I believe;

 

If a committee member is nominated, then they should not vote for that award.

If they are not following this rule, their vote will not be counted and they would be kicked out of the committee.

[Mentor]

if you are going to have committees no problem but in real life people on voting committees cannot be considered for awards, so it would remove a lot of deserving people from being nominated

 

The best option I saw is having CLEAR criteria as there is no real criteria for most of the awards at the moment

 

Just thoughts

 

I think i should rephrase the word committee, essentially it is not a committee, it is basically all legit / active members that fulfill the criteria. Also, i see no issue to do what Bjorn says, their vote wont count if they vote for themselves.

[bjornmma1]

 

I think i should rephrase the word committee, essentially it is not a committee, it is basically all legit / active members that fulfill the criteria. Also, i see no issue to do what Bjorn says, their vote wont count if they vote for themselves.

 

I see it a little different still than you though.

Main difference is the following:

 

You would let all members nominate and vote, who fit certain criteria.

Depending on how strict the criteria are, this could mean 20- 1000ish voters.

 

I on the other hand would prefer a selected committee.

All members would still be able to nominate, but the voting is done by a small committee (maybe 5 member or so, but not much more)

[Gator001]

 

There is a simple solution to that I believe;

 

If a committee member is nominated, then they should not vote for that award.

If they are not following this rule, their vote will not be counted and they would be kicked out of the committee.

yeah fair enough

[Rei]

Well, that's certainly one long-winded way to get around the alliance cap rule.

 

I also think that some basically criteria for each nomination should be added, now it is totally based on bullshit.

 

Nah. You want this so that people can't vote for Pulse FC for Best Org because they don't have the attendance numbers or PPV buys that GAMMA does (for example). With solid criteria like the ones you will definitely suggest, players can no longer nominate promotions they genuinely love the most, nor for the promoters they feel provide the best service just because they don't have the same numbers as the big three. What's the point in leaving it to the community anyway if its going to be decided purely by 0's and 1's? Certain clothing companies can't be nominated because they don't have a set amount of hype? Bollocks to that.

 

Leave nomination and voting largely as it is, but just set clear guidelines and rules.

[Mentor]

Well, that's certainly one long-winded way to get around the alliance cap rule.

 

 

Nah. You want this so that people can't vote for Pulse FC for Best Org because they don't have the attendance numbers or PPV buys that GAMMA does (for example). With solid criteria like the ones you will definitely suggest, players can no longer nominate promotions they genuinely love the most, nor for the promoters they feel provide the best service just because they don't have the same numbers as the big three. What's the point in leaving it to the community anyway if its going to be decided purely by 0's and 1's? Certain clothing companies can't be nominated because they don't have a set amount of hype? Bollocks to that.

 

Leave nomination and voting largely as it is, but just set clear guidelines and rules.

 

The criteria will need to be pretty lenient, for example:

 

-The org needs to be active for the whole year.

- It needs to be ranked in the top 10.

- The org needs to have a certain level of top 100 ranked fighters (to be decided).

 

If an org is inactive, does not have talent in it and is ranked outside the top 10, then it cannot realistically be considered the "Best org in the game".

 

I remember 1-2 years back, the "Best fighter of the year" won the award while competing just 7 months. Obviously if you have just 7-8 fights, there is more chance you will have a perfect win record in comparison to someone who fought 12-15 times. I think for less objective criteria (such as best Avatar), there could be no criteria.

[Mentor]

I on the other hand would prefer a selected committee.

All members would still be able to nominate, but the voting is done by a small committee (maybe 5 member or so, but not much more)

 

I think having such a small group would be largely frowned upon. Maybe having such a small group makes sense in terms of the criteria for the voting.

[bjornmma1]

 

I think having such a small group would be largely frowned upon. Maybe having such a small group makes sense in terms of the criteria for the voting.

 

In what way would a committee be frowned upon?

If it is a committee with a mix of respected veterans from different 'alliances/groups', I think the awards would be easier and also hold more value.

[JakeF]

I find it really funny how Mentor starts a thread with "I like Bjorn's idea" , then a few posts later he is already arguing with Bjorn about the said idea. Anyone else?

[bjornmma1]

I find it really funny how Mentor starts a thread with "I like Bjorn's idea" , then a few posts later he is already arguing with Bjorn about the said idea. Anyone else?

No.

He is discussing options and together trying to find an as good as possible solution.

[Rambo]

5, 7, or 9 members.

 

Simple. 1 per alliance. No need to rant or argue about it. Rules? Vote. Mike will reveal results when he passes out trophies.

[ClubberWinger]

I find it really funny how Mentor starts a thread with "I like Bjorn's idea" , then a few posts later he is already arguing with Bjorn about the said idea. Anyone else?

Think you lost the plot King sir humble KendRick.

[Rei]

5, 7, or 9 members.

 

Simple. 1 per alliance. No need to rant or argue about it. Rules? Vote. Mike will reveal results when he passes out trophies.

 

If there is going to be a committee rather than free community voting then this is obviously the way to go about it. Removes bias and prevents alliance swarming.

 

This can even be done in a way that allows the community to nominate with more leniency, leaving it up to the committee members to interpret the awards as they see fit.

[Monsieur.Camara]

I find it really funny how Mentor starts a thread with "I like Bjorn's idea" , then a few posts later he is already arguing with Bjorn about the said idea. Anyone else?

What’s even more hillarious is he starts a thread based on an inactive (under his own penis cream guidelines) members post.

 

He’s been chomping at the bit since we enforced the cap on alliance votes but to not wait until voting was finished is extra douche.

[Mentor]

5, 7, or 9 members.

 

Simple. 1 per alliance. No need to rant or argue about it. Rules? Vote. Mike will reveal results when he passes out trophies.

 

Currently everyone can vote and alliances have up to 5 votes. You propose to remove all voting power from people not in alliances and reduce alliance votes from 5 to 1. What is stopping people making multiple 2 man alliances to gain the maximum amount of votes possible? Frankly speaking, the easiest and best solution is to keep this simple, maybe simply do it:

 

-All VIP's get to vote, non VIP's do not get any vote.

 

This will limit the chance of multi account's dominating the voting (which was prominent in this year's voting).

[imcool]

 

Currently everyone can vote and alliances have up to 5 votes. You propose to remove all voting power from people not in alliances and reduce alliance votes from 5 to 1. What is stopping people making multiple 2 man alliances to gain the maximum amount of votes possible? Frankly speaking, the easiest and best solution is to keep this simple, maybe simply do it:

 

-All VIP's get to vote, non VIP's do not get any vote.

 

This will limit the chance of multi account's dominating the voting (which was prominent in this year's voting).

 

But won't limit the LODs ability to sway any vote they want.

[Mentor]

 

But won't limit the LODs ability to sway any vote they want.

 

Please show me one vote we have swayed this year?

[bjornmma1]

 

But won't limit the LODs ability to sway any vote they want.

 

 

Please show me one vote we have swayed this year?

 

Lets perhaps not bicker about such stuff on here for once and try to work constructive for next years' awards.

[imcool]

 

Please show me one vote we have swayed this year?

 

I was speaking theoretically. With so many people in your alliance, if you wanted to win something, you would just tell your members to go vote for you/whoever. The alliance limit HAS to stay, otherwise the awards will be an even bigger joke(hard to believe that's possible, considering the shit camara and humors have been pulling).

[macleana]

As someone who joined LOD when I came back to the game, and as someone owes Mentor a lot for showing me the org ropes and getting me back interested in playing, he has never told me to vote for anyone, nor have I seen it (albeit Im new). Im not saying it doesn't happen or hasn't happned. But I dont think its a big an issue as you think. A much bigger one would be multi accounts stacking an already small pool of votes in their favour - I dont know if you had noticed but the forums are hardly a hive of activity.

I mean LOD currently has 64 members, can you see a single award where it is obvious we picked the winner? Did Mentors picks win every award even?

This line of discussion is massively off course. Make a system that works better than what we have now (almost any will), and worry about fixing if it ever happens. I mean this years awards were interesting werent they? But we all lived, no system is perfect, it can be tweaked.

Non VIPs should not get to vote, maybe an alliance cap is ok, but not because Mentor is picking winners.

[Monsieur.Camara]

As someone who joined LOD when I came back to the game, and as someone owes Mentor a lot for showing me the org ropes and getting me back interested in playing, he has never told me to vote for anyone, nor have I seen it (albeit Im new). Im not saying it doesn't happen or hasn't happned. But I dont think its a big an issue as you think. A much bigger one would be multi accounts stacking an already small pool of votes in their favour - I dont know if you had noticed but the forums are hardly a hive of activity.

 

I mean LOD currently has 64 members, can you see a single award where it is obvious we picked the winner? Did Mentors picks win every award even?

 

This line of discussion is massively off course. Make a system that works better than what we have now (almost any will), and worry about fixing if it ever happens. I mean this years awards were interesting werent they? But we all lived, no system is perfect, it can be tweaked.

 

Non VIPs should not get to vote, maybe an alliance cap is ok, but not because Mentor is picking winners.

 

Also, just for everyone`s information here is the final data:

 

1- All Humor`s alt account votes were removed from each category.

 

2- All same IP votes were removed from all categories.

 

3- Alliances were capped at 5 votes per alliances.

 

 

TJ Mitchell did a tremendous job, he thoroughly vetted each category, each candidate, and here is the most important piece of information:

 

ALL WINNERS FROM EACH VISIBLE CATEGORY REMAINED THE SAME.

 

Meaning that this year`s was possibly not just the most popular Awards polls ever but als the most honourable.

[macleana]

Id missed that part of the discussion. Multi accounts must not of been a factor* (though we all know there could be ways round that right?).

That said forum voting is always going to be a popularity contest. This doesnt always mean the most knowledgable or full effort posters are going to get what they think is the most sensible option. It depends whether people think this game belongs to old timers/effort posters/elite players, or to everyone.

I have no opinion on that last bit except to say non VIP shows a certain level of commitment I am ok with not having a vote.

[jjsquirrel]

Sorry but that is not final data. Data would have been how many multi votes were removed etc. That is just polishing a turd, shining it up with some legitimacy from poor TJ.

 

I appreciate TJ doing what he does, still he can only fix what he knows about. Running multis on different IP:s are trivial enough that even Humors could do it. Votes from mass mails are perhaps not illegal, but not exactly the most honourable ever either. The more nominees you have the more you spread out the legit votes, giving others more influence. Even if removed in the final count just seeing the votes will influence other votes. Could go on but focus now should be coming years awards.

 

Bjorns committee idea sounds like the best one yet I suppose as it would solve most current problems. Sure there would probably be some new ones like complaints about who is on the committee and how they got there.