Quote:
It's kind of a complicated issue for that - on the one hand, most arcs constantly evolve, so the arc someone wrote last year will probably be a lot better by the time the next awards rolls around. On the other hand, if someone already got nominated, but didn't win, they might be tempted to submit the same arc again, and if they get nominated AGAIN, it would be kind of a shame to see a lot of the same arcs.|
Originally Posted by Zamuel
I sort of disagree with this idea or at least on the specific date. While it would seem like a filter would be needed, it may wind up blocking some good arcs that didn't get submitted the first time around or got some heavy fixes since then. Also, MA will no longer be the new shiny so there is less of a worry about being flooded with submissions.
|
Also MA is kind of already no longer the new shiny :P. Most of the people still using it are the people who really love it, unlike at release where EVERYONE was using it (Suppose that's kind of a double edged sword - on the one hand, the average quality of arcs goes up when the only people making them are the ones who really care, but on the other hand it's a lot harder to get anyone to PLAY those arcs).
Astoria in D Minor, a horror arc. Arc ID: 41565 - The Beating Heart of Astoria: A Play in Five Acts. Arc ID: 170547 - Ignition of the Machine, a story with robots. Arc ID: 318983
Captain Skylark Shadowfancy and the Tomorrownauts of Today. Arc ID: 337333 - Signal:Noise, where is everybody? Arc ID: 341194
@The Cheshire Cat - Isn't it enough to know I ruined a pony making a gift for you?
12 second horror stories - a writing experiment.
Captain Skylark Shadowfancy and the Tomorrownauts of Today. Arc ID: 337333 - Signal:Noise, where is everybody? Arc ID: 341194
@The Cheshire Cat - Isn't it enough to know I ruined a pony making a gift for you?
12 second horror stories - a writing experiment.
If an arc is constantly improving, to the point where it's a much different contender, then it could be republished, or published with a new name ("Director's Cut") to have it eligible within the next award period. Republishing would lose the ratings the arc had before, but it's not the arc you had before, is it?
Arc: 379017: Outbroken See all your old friends in the Outbreak Tutorial sequel!
Arc: Coming Soon: The Incarnate Shadow Shard of Fire and Ice Mender Rednem needs you!
Massively.com opinion poll: Please Help Save CoH!
Quote:
As I said, I'm just making a guess, although I think it's a pretty rational guess.|
Originally Posted by Zamuel
I sort of disagree with this idea or at least on the specific date. While it would seem like a filter would be needed, it may wind up blocking some good arcs that didn't get submitted the first time around or got some heavy fixes since then. Also, MA will no longer be the new shiny so there is less of a worry about being flooded with submissions.
|
Most yearly awards are for work done in the previous year. Sometimes good work in a year goes unnoticed or unappreciated, and sadly, they miss out (happens in the film and music industry more times than any of us care to notice). Imagine the firestorm if, for some reason, next year the same nominees are submitted and selected or worse, the same winners win. Or if arcs that were submitte dhtis year are resubmitted and nominated over arcs that were nominated this year. Compound that with what happens if some of the same nominees are nominated next year and the winners aren't nominated even though they were submitted.
While I would be highly amused should Sabrina's Tale get a nomination for two years running, I definately wouldn't want to be in the middle of the firestorm it would create. I imagine most, if not all, of the other nominees feel a similar way.
Yearly cutoffs mean everyone starts with a basically even potential playing field and eliminates the hassel of having people question your selection process even more agressively than they already have and will. No arc has had nearly two years of feedback and tweaking in the live environment. No arc has been judged by the Dev's previously for the award.
They many not do it, but I won't be surprised if they do and am acting accordingly by coming up with new material for the next year, which would be another "plus" for the Devs in having the Awards have begin and end cutoffs, a constant flow of new material.
Quote:
Considering that part of the prize package ended up being Dev Choice status, what makes you think that the winning arcs of this year would even be eligible for nomination next year?|
Originally Posted by Redbone
As I said, I'm just making a guess, although I think it's a pretty rational guess.
Most yearly awards are for work done in the previous year. Sometimes good work in a year goes unnoticed or unappreciated, and sadly, they miss out (happens in the film and music industry more times than any of us care to notice). Imagine the firestorm if, for some reason, next year the same nominees are submitted and selected or worse, the same winners win. Or if arcs that were submitte dhtis year are resubmitted and nominated over arcs that were nominated this year. Compound that with what happens if some of the same nominees are nominated next year and the winners aren't nominated even though they were submitted. While I would be highly amused should Sabrina's Tale get a nomination for two years running, I definately wouldn't want to be in the middle of the firestorm it would create. I imagine most, if not all, of the other nominees feel a similar way. |
Actually, while there was no official "Existing DC/HoF arcs not allowed" rule I wouldn't be surprised if there was an internal guideline to not nominate them if they did get submitted.
Quote:
Exactly the point. We flat out don't know enough. Therefore, it's reasonable to look at it as if it will have the tightest restrictions that can reasonably be placed on it while still maintaing a fairly level playing field. If we're wrong, no real harm, no real foul. If we're right, we're ready or very close to it.
|
Originally Posted by Lazarus
Considering that part of the prize package ended up being Dev Choice status, what makes you think that the winning arcs of this year would even be eligible for nomination next year?
Actually, while there was no official "Existing DC/HoF arcs not allowed" rule I wouldn't be surprised if there was an internal guideline to not nominate them if they did get submitted. |
Quote:
*raises hand* |
Originally Posted by Eva Destruction
You also have to take into consideration that all of those arcs (Death to Disco, Teen Phalanx, MacGuffin and Astoria in D Minor) have been around since the early days of MA, have been highly publicized, and already had hundreds of plays. Many of us have already played them.
It would be interesting to see what the official contest and the player contest did for arcs with few plays. |
Redoubt Operations #1: Fires over Kalago (1297) and Redoubt Operations #2: Wrath of the Imperium (269283) both got about a dozen plays out of it, from what I can guess from what I remember their totals being and what they were after the nomination. Redoubt Operations #1 has the most plays at 51. Though once again, after the contest the new play-throughs pretty much came to a halt.
If an arc wasn't locked (i.e. if it wasn't granted Dev's Choice or some similar permanent, icon affixed, status) and it was modified in any way to make it a better product than the one submitted in 2009, it should be eligible. The Academy Award analogy doesn't work for the fact that, unlike the movie industry, we can change our creations to make them better.
If arcs posted since the previous award period are better, then they'll get the nomination and possible win over arcs posted earlier and modified. If they aren't better, then it older arcs should be just as able to be nominated.
Had they handled the awards somewhat differently, this would have been far less of an issue. A new award-based icon, and arc lock for winners and Dev's Choices for the two runners up for each category, and Bob's your uncle. But it's a little late for that.
The SOLUS Foundation - a Liberty and Pinnacle SG
"The Consequences of War" - Arcs # 227331 and 241496
Quote:
Sure the movie industry can change their product to make it better. They're called Director's Cuts. I own far to many versions of Blade Runner to say differently.|
Originally Posted by Dalghryn
If an arc wasn't locked (i.e. if it wasn't granted Dev's Choice or some similar permanent, icon affixed, status) and it was modified in any way to make it a better product than the one submitted in 2009, it should be eligible. The Academy Award analogy doesn't work for the fact that, unlike the movie industry, we can change our creations to make them better.
If arcs posted since the previous award period are better, then they'll get the nomination and possible win over arcs posted earlier and modified. If they aren't better, then it older arcs should be just as able to be nominated. Had they handled the awards somewhat differently, this would have been far less of an issue. A new award-based icon, and arc lock for winners and Dev's Choices for the two runners up for each category, and Bob's your uncle. But it's a little late for that. |
As for Dev Choice/HoF locked arcs being disqualified, that's not really a deterant to an old winner winning again. After all, the Dev solution to having your arc go Dev's Choice but needing an edit is to reupload another copy of it as a "Director's Cut" and edit that. To be fair, that's also a way around a time restriction. Just delete the old version, give up the ratings and republish fresh.
At any rate, I'm just hypothesizing based on other awards given annually. People are definately free to ignore or accept my hypotheses as they see fit. For me, I'd rather restrict myself and be wrong, which I can recover from easily, than assume the best and be wrong, which I can't recover from in a short time frame.
Quote:
Everyone knows that there is only ONE version of Blade Runner. |
Originally Posted by Redbone
Sure the movie industry can change their product to make it better. They're called Director's Cuts. I own far to many versions of Blade Runner to say differently.
|
Anyhow, the movie industry is not going to put out over a hundred director's cuts of the same movie over the course of the year. Every edit to a story arc is a director's cut already and multiple ones can happen in the same week. Final hardly means final for most MA authors, the only reason I even set that flag was because the contest required it otherwise they'd all still be marked as Looking For Feedback.
Plus, I don't think director's cuts are eligible for Oscars? I don't recall one ever being nominated.
Astoria in D Minor, a horror arc. Arc ID: 41565 - The Beating Heart of Astoria: A Play in Five Acts. Arc ID: 170547 - Ignition of the Machine, a story with robots. Arc ID: 318983
Captain Skylark Shadowfancy and the Tomorrownauts of Today. Arc ID: 337333 - Signal:Noise, where is everybody? Arc ID: 341194
@The Cheshire Cat - Isn't it enough to know I ruined a pony making a gift for you?
12 second horror stories - a writing experiment.
Captain Skylark Shadowfancy and the Tomorrownauts of Today. Arc ID: 337333 - Signal:Noise, where is everybody? Arc ID: 341194
@The Cheshire Cat - Isn't it enough to know I ruined a pony making a gift for you?
12 second horror stories - a writing experiment.
Quote:
This.|
Originally Posted by Lazarus
...the only reason I even set that flag was because the contest required it otherwise they'd all still be marked as Looking For Feedback.
|
And, as far as Dev' Choices and other locked arcs being ineligible, I wasn't referring to an assumption that they are unchangeable. I meant that the rules for future contests should simply specify that awarded arcs - be they previous years' MA award winners, Dev's Choices, Guest Authors, or Hall of Fame - are ineligible. Given the relatively short supply of player/creator incentives, it seems only fair to me that the wealth be spread no matter how good an arc is.
The SOLUS Foundation - a Liberty and Pinnacle SG
"The Consequences of War" - Arcs # 227331 and 241496
-----
Mission Architect Handyman