Discussion in 'Role Playing Resource Archive' started by Imperial_Hammer, Mar 7, 2008.
Well, I voted. And, I feel great about it.
Well, I voted...
In the future, there should be a clearer distinction for the past winners in terms of who won for best GM and who won for best player, unless winning one makes you automatically ineligible to win the other next round.
Thats correct Lightwarden. The whole reason why the awards even care about past winners is that NP believed it was good to spread the colors around. Since both best GMs and best RPers get colors, it doesn't matter which one you get really. If you got colors in the awards, you won't be getting em until another year passes.
I've gotten something to the tune of 13 votes! Keep it coming people!
I voted! ...do I get a pat on the head now?
*pats spacey on the head*
You want a cookie as well?
You should consider removing that. I mean, back in the days when the Yankees performed well in the postseason, Bud Selig didn't disqualify them from winning the title the next season (one of the few intelligent things he's done in his tenure as MLB's Commish). And it was back in those days that were the most exciting and memorable. Remember the 2001 World Series? Yanks vs. Diamondbacks? The ultimate David vs. Goliath story, and one of the greatest World Series' in baseball history. No one expected the D'backs to win, but they did, and in glorious fashion.
And take Tom Hanks, back-to-back Best Actor Oscar winner for his roles in Philadelphia and Forrest Gump respectively. When he won in '94, the Academy didn't disqualify him for the trophy in '95.
Point being, I'm of the mind that believes things are more exciting when you've got a dynasty in place. Doesn't it encourage people to perform better to usurp their reign? I mean, you might have one player who wins a Best RPer award for three consecutive seasons, and then you've got people saying "Alright, I need to do something here that will make people vote for me instead of them." But if you disqualify a winner not only for the next season, but for the next three seasons (which I find ridiculous), you've got people saying "Alright, they're out of the way, maybe I'll win next time," with little to no motivation to improve.
That's my two cents on the matter. Take it how you will.
I disagree, Reynar.
Sometimes in these awards, it's popularity, and sometimes it's damn decent roleplaying; so sometimes a winner will win because they always get nominated and people think highly of them, and sometimes it's because a player has really stepped up, going above and beyond expectations of what we think of as "good" roleplaying.
So if we were to abolish the current disqualifying system, we could a string of wins that don't really mean much - a player who, albeit very good, doesn't deserve it in light of someone else's contributions, could dominate.
Of course, the system we have now also means that a great GM who suddenly becomes a great RPer won't win anything, no matter how much they deserve it.
If that makes any sense, then my job is done.
Perhaps a good way to solve that problem is to post the exact character and game that you are nominating the player for. That makes it more like the Oscars, where actors are nominated for an outstanding performances in specific roles, not just for being an actor.
I have been completely uninvolved on this site since last July, so I am going to skip entering in a vote this time around.
I do however want to wish everyone the best of luck, and remember to have fun.
Damn, I missed my chance to vote. Oh well, I haven't been much involved lately myself...so I'll just wait to congratulate the winners.
Sorry for the double post, just realized I looked at the end of the nomination round, I can still vote. Yay!
Or, perhaps the length of the disqualification could be shortened to one season...?
I kind of agree with Reynar, and I agree with what we have now, as well. I mean, I believe it would be a cause of more competitive RPing if this system wasn't in place. Though, that's not what this is forum is about. It's about having fun, and sometimes, competitiveness can take the fun out of it. With not being allowed to win consecutively, it allows for other, newer players to shine. So, I guess I think the ineligibility rule is for the best.
Nemy beat me to it. There's legitimate arguments pro and con, so what if a winner is only ineligible for two awards cycles, instead of three? Or one?
I'd say one award cycle is best.
Personally I like Jango's idea. If people actually see how well the person is posting by reading what they are being nominated for it makes for a much more interesting contest. That would in effect negate most of the popularity area.
Perhaps when nominating a person an example of their writing can be posted as well.
Just like the Oscars, scenes are always shown from the role in which they are nominated.
I agree with LZM, but would add that it should be done when the nominees are locked in so that it cuts down on the clutter.
Or, a link to a page where they have an example, so as to not have all the clutter. If at all possible, one could find the post in their view latest posts, that way, a provided link would go directly to their post. (I realize this could be kind of confusing, so if you need clarification, just say so )
Are you taking notes, IH?????