How do you define a "new author"?

This forum has been extremely slow, so I thought I'd bring some discussion into it, as well as something to help me out for next month's Player's Choice Awards - suggested by PoliceWoman and inspired by the new year, it will be dedicated to new and/or lesser known authors (and arcs). So I ask you, what defines a "new author"? Less than 50 plays? Less than 100 plays? Only 1 published arc? Only arcs published within the last 3 months? Someone who doesn't post to this forum?

I would think it would be determined by number of arcs created in total. That would be tough to determine though. An author with say only one arc posted 3 weeks ago may have made 30 arcs prior to that over the last 4 years that we simply never heard of before.

I know I'M new, because I've only made 2 arcs in my entire life. Of course, there is no way of verifying this independantly - at least not that I'm aware of. Am I wrong on that?

Hehheh - well ok, maybe not 4 years, but you get my point

The problems that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has to deal with every year are suddenly made painfully obvious to us all. Although to be honest, there is no Oscar for "best new" anything. Perhaps the category should be "Early Bird" and only accept arcs published during the month of January. Since it's quite impossible to tell how many arcs an author might have created before.

Lesser known authors is a gigantic pool. Plus, just because someone posts here a lot and thus has a name recognized by the community doesn't mean that their arcs are well known. Recent months aside (damn Dragon Age being so awesome) I've been a regular poster here, yet I'll guess that most people here haven't played any of my arcs, or have maybe played one or two. Not a complaint, just an observation. So while I could be classified as a well known author, my arcs are very much less known.

New is a different beast. Do you classify new by timeframe, or do you classify new as in not very well known? (See above for problems with that.) New author is especially mindboggling. I'd venture a guess that it'd be impossible to define new author in a satisfactory way. New arc is more managable. Simply defining it as "Published within the last month" is a reasonable definition.

Long story short, if you were to do a category like this, it's probably best to make the category "Best arc published in the last month".

I agree with what everything LJ said. Well except the Dragon Age bit, I only just recently got that and haven't had much time to play it.

Hmmm, I think that New Arc sounds like a better category like lJ and FsvB suggested. To avoid entanglement with Dr Aeons challenge and the excellent arcs to be found there, I would suggest to only take arcs published after his deadline.

That said, we could do a best Public Vote for Aeon challengers as well.


Edit: And I must check out Dragon Age you talk about.

Perhaps you might consider a contest for authors who have no Dev's choice arcs, have not won any official COH arc contests and have not won your Player's Choice contest.

This criteria would be easy to verify and would give us a chance to encourage and support authors who have not been "winners" before.

Wouldn't it be easier and faster to do a list of the known authors?

I think it largely depends on what you are trying to accomplish. If you are trying to get a wider pool of authors played, then you need to establish a criteria that excludes the authors who are widely recognized, because if the contest is for 'best recent arc,' then the authors who are widely known will create an arc for the contest. Their arcs, (and I am as guilty of this as anyone), will get more plays because, 'Oh, I'll play PW's arc because I know she always makes good arcs.'

And our preconceived impressions of them as authors will probably even color our opinions of the arc they submit. That is certainly no unheard of... even in Hollywood competitions like the Oscars.

If, on the other hand, the goal is simply to reward recent work, then you might as well make it a rolling 'Arc of the Month' contest.

The goal is to reward authors who aren't as prolific or well known as some of the favorite authors here. I think total plays across all arcs might be a good measure of popularity, but what's a good magic number?

About less than 40 ratings for any one arc I would say.*

*Edit: off the top of my head anyway.

I have seven arcs up. If I unpublish one of them, and I have considered it, I have less than 40 plays. Maybe even less than 30 plays.

DO you intent to check every arc an author has written to see if he got 40- plays total? I would think that a good way to define new author is when nobody on this forum says, hey i know that guy.


Edit: Woot 2000 posts.

This is partly my fault as I suggested "Best New Author" as a category, so I had better chime in.

My original idea was to provide some recognition to people who are just getting into writing Mission Architect and haven't had a lot of public exposure. You see stuff like "best new author" or "best new actress" in award ceremonies for other media all the time, and I was thinking we should have something similar.

I guess it is hard to say who is "new" and who is not, though.

I would suggest that "new" authors should not include anyone who:
* has a Developer Choice or Hall of Fame arc
* was nominated or won in the official Architect Awards
* was in the top 5 in any category in the Players Choice Awards
* is an established MA Stories & Lore forum personality (mainly, arc reviewers)
* has received 3 or more formal arc reviews (over all their arcs) prior to some cut-off date

I'm not sure number of plays is a good metric because a story arc could conceivably be "new" and yet catch fire/go viral/whatever and get 100 plays in 1 week due to word of mouth. (Hey, it happens.)

Anyway, just some ideas.

I have to say I like PW's suggestion the best, though the term "new author" is a worse term the more I think about it. It has implications that are impossible to define in a way that is satisfactory (this small group of posters has thrown out quite a few definitions already, all of them different) and I don't think the implications of the word new really serve any valuable purpose.

Lesser known is probably a better term overall. If the purpose of the category is to attempt to highlight arcs that haven't gotten much recognition on the forum, then that term is perfectly acceptable as long as A) that definition is explicitly stated and B) the terms of the category are similar to what PW has suggested.

Honestly, I think that's probably the best way to go with it. People who fall into PW's categories (except for perhaps the last one) are visible enough so that they don't really need to "break out", as it were.

Perhaps a change in terminology from "best new author" to something like "discovering unknown authors" would help give the idea some clarity.

I know it's hard for people to "break out" as authors and get people to try their arcs, and I thought it would be nice if we had some way of giving recognition to architects who might not be well-known (yet) but are still generating quality work.