Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
36 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » BoardGameGeek Related » BoardGameGeek Awards

Subject: 'For your consideration' Promos rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Matt Anticole
United States
Pittsburgh
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
OK. Here is a thread you can post your 'Consider this Game!' items to. Posters, videos, fansite links, etc, if you want it to be seen by the BGG community, here is the place to be!

Good luck and good gaming!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt Anticole
United States
Pittsburgh
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I whipped up a little video trailer for 'Nature of the Beast' and posted it at 'You Tube'. Enjoy and thank you for your consideration!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9So_Df_4yFc

(It is a silent clip, so don't adjust your sound trying to find the inspiring orchestral accompaniment.)



 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
They call me....
United States
Riverside
California
flag msg tools
Games? People still play games??
badge
Specious arguments are not proof of trollish intent.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well that made me want to buy the game, the hell with the award.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Santa who?
United States
Allen Park
Michigan
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mb
MisterCranky wrote:
Well that made me want to buy the game, the hell with the award.

I played an abbreviated round at Origins and bought both sets. I've played it at least a couple of times a week ever since and I really enjoy it. Even my wife likes it and she's generally not a fan of more complex games.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Alden
United States
Dallas
Texas
flag msg tools
admin
badge
Aldie's Full of Love!
Avatar
mbmbmb
MisterCranky wrote:
Well that made me want to buy the game, the hell with the award.

Same here...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
EyeLevel wrote:
OK. Here is a thread you can post your 'Consider this Game!' items to. Posters, videos, fansite links, etc, if you want it to be seen by the BGG community, here is the place to be!

Good luck and good gaming!


In my opinion, this thread only underscores why the notion of the Geekies Awards is an unworkable concept in its present form: Unlike most entertainment awards where the voters are actually expected to have seen all the nominated movies and documentaries or listened to the nominated CDs before voting, the Geekies apparently does not require or set any standard that its voters must have actually played all nominated finalist games prior to voting in order to be qualify to be able to cast a vote at all. Unfortunately, unlike movie studios and recording companies which send out DVDs and CDs to members of their respective voting academies, the game companies aren't going to be able to send copies of all the nominated finalist games to those BGG members allowed to vote.

So, if voters who haven't played a nominated finalist game(s) are unduly swayed or even moderately influneced by advocacy promos and gamer endorsements, then they'd be voting based NOT on the actual merits of the nominated games themselves based on actual game play BUT only -- or mostly -- on the biased opinions, hearsay and say-so of others.

Moreover, this entire alternate award-voting process seems to impugne and call into question the integrity of the established game-rating system on BGG because if the votes aren't already in via the established game ratings, then conducting another separate game-rating process -- an exclusionary one at that -- isn't exactly a vote of confidence in BBG's established game-rating system.

So, whereas I can appreciate a video, audio or written review of a game, if a game is genuinely worthy of its established reputation and current regular BGG rating, it doesn't require advocacy endorsements or promos. To the best of my knowledge, movie studios and recording companies actually pay for advocacy/promo ads in their respective industry publications not only to tout the alleged, if not actual, artistic merits of their respective products but also to enhance their commercial value as well.

Therefore, if there's to be Geekies Awards at all, why not let every BG Geek vote in the most openly democratic sense of fair play and let the game companies pay for promo/advocacy ads for the finalist games? (Either that, or restrict voting by BG Geeks to those who have been registered members for at least a year, like, let's say, as of July 31, 2005.)



 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rich S.
United States
North Hollywood
California
flag msg tools
badge
Well, this is just silly.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Meh.

Nearly every award given out for anything that has people voting on it contains votes from folks that haven't FULLY experienced whatever it is they're voting on. Someone or something is nominated, and people make their best guesses.

It's not the perfect system, but it's nothing new.

Oscars. Employee of the Month. Best Hot Dog.

It's all subjective anyway. Just because a game/actor/employee/hot dog wins... doesn't mean it's the BESTBESTBEST of its category. It's just the most popular, and that still counts for some points in my book.

By the way, I want to try Nature of the Beast too, I'm a BGG Awards voter, and I'm not ashamed.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Gisli Sigtryggsson
Canada
Amherst
Nova Scotia
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
EyeLevel wrote:

Excellent work. That bumped NOTB up a few slots on my to-buy list.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Geoff Bohrer
United States
Hereford
Arizona
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Besides...the "geekies" ain't the Oscars (in the sense of an "academy") award. They're a "People's Choice" award. The difference being a popular award vs. an award by a panel of experts in the craft.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rich S.
United States
North Hollywood
California
flag msg tools
badge
Well, this is just silly.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
gbohrer wrote:
Besides...the "geekies" ain't the Oscars (in the sense of an "academy") award. They're a "People's Choice" award. The difference being a popular award vs. an award by a panel of experts in the craft.
'zactly. Plus, even the "academy" is comprised both of experts in the craft and popular folk, some of whom see none, or only one, of the nominated films and vote based on who they like or who they think deserves the win.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
T. Rosen
United States
Arlington
Virginia
flag msg tools
admin
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
EyeLevel wrote:
I whipped up a little video trailer for 'Nature of the Beast' and posted it at 'You Tube'. Enjoy and thank you for your consideration!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9So_Df_4yFc

(It is a silent clip, so don't adjust your sound trying to find the inspiring orchestral accompaniment.)


Wow, awesome video Matt! thumbsup

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Richard S. Dolen: "Meh."

And to your "Meh", I say, "Feh!"


Richard S. Dolen: "Nearly every award given out for anything that has people voting on it contains votes from folks that haven't FULLY experienced whatever it is they're voting on. Someone or something is nominated, and people make their best guesses."

"Nearly every award"??? I don't think so.

Even so, you're readily admitting that some, if not many, awards aren't given on the actual merits of a work (movie, CD or other work of art/entertainment) but just given on guesswork. In essence then, you've made my point for me in other indirect terms: The Geekies SHOULD stand for something more.


Richard S. Dolen: "It's not the perfect system, but it's nothing new. Oscars. Employee of the Month. Best Hot Dog."

There is no "perfect system" anyway, but there ARE practical meritorious systems that are better to emulate, and you know better.

Don't you think that only Geekies voters should be allowed to vote who have affirmed in their "Games Played" and/or "Owned Games" sections of their profiles that they have actually played (if not own or owned) at least one or more of the finalist games for the Geekies?

Shouldn't there be a set period of the games' release for which the nominees should be determined? (For example, the 2007 Grammies, its voting academy only considers CDs released from the period of Sept. 1, 2005 through August 31, 2006.)

Doesn't this entire alternate award-voting process seem to impugne and call into question the integrity of the established game-rating system on BGG?

Why couldn't the winners be automatically determined using the already-posted BBG ratings?


Richard S. Dolen: "It's all subjective anyway."

Ah, but you're talking about subjectivity based on mere perception of other's opinions about a work (which can be unduly hyped out of meritorious proportion) versus your individual actual experience of a work. That's like judging a book by its cover or a work by its advertising.


Richard S. Dolen: "Just because a game/actor/employee/hot dog wins... doesn't mean it's the BESTBESTBEST of its category. It's just the most popular, and that still counts for some points in my book."

No, the voters of the Oscar are required to have actually viewed the finalist films. Indeed, just a few years ago, the movie studios succeeded in getting the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences to allow them to provide Oscar voters with advance DVDs of the nominated films to better ensure the integrity of the voting system in terms of making their films more accessible to busy actors and industry workers. Fortunately, most, if not all, of the Academy voters are natural-born avid movie-goers and -watchers anyway.

So the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences can vouch for the integrity of their voting process and that the Oscar actually stands for excellence. What the Academy will have to further negotiate is the timing of their awards program as they're still trying to find the happy medium for their Oscar awards show that's not too early or too late.


Richard S. Dolen: "By the way, I want to try 'Nature of the Beast' too, I'm a BGG Awards voter, and I'm not ashamed."

I would be ashamed to cast a vote for ANY finalist work which I had genuinely not experienced in its entirety or for any appreciable length of time, because in such case, I would not be able to justify or base my vote on my having made any genuine objective critical analysis of the work much less to compare and contrast it with other competing finalist works under consideration of my vote.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Geoff Bohrer: "Besides...the 'geekies' ain't the Oscars (in the sense of an 'academy') award. They're a 'People's Choice' award. The difference being a popular award vs. an award by a panel of experts in the craft."

In other words, are you saying that the Geekies Awards shouldn't have any voting standards that require its voters to have already affirmed in their "Games Played" stats that they have actually played at least one or more of the finalist nominated games?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Geoff Bohrer: "Besides...the 'geekies' ain't the Oscars (in the sense of an 'academy') award. They're a 'People's Choice' award. The difference being a popular award vs. an award by a panel of experts in the craft."

Richard S. Dolen: "'zactly. Plus, even the 'academy' is comprised both of experts in the craft and popular folk, some of whom see none, or only one, of the nominated films and vote based on who they like or who they think deserves the win."

No, the Academy voters ARE required to see most, if not all, films in most categories and in the case of documentaries and the five Best Motion Picture nominees, they are required to affirm that they have seen them *all.*

But no, to the best of my knowledge, there is no outside-the-industry popular vote (voting by moving-going citizens) in the voting of the Oscars. Even so, the People's Choice Awards *could* be a more prestigious award if it actually stood for something, and it can only stand for something if/when they decide to upgrade its voting process to genuinely qualify that its citizen voters have actually seen most, if not all, of the movies under consideration. Moroever, their limiting their finalist categories to only three works per category doesn't impress me in the least.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Geoff Bohrer
United States
Hereford
Arizona
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
I would be ashamed to cast a vote for ANY finalist work which I had genuinely not experienced in its entirety or for any appreciable length of time, because in such case, I would not be able to justify or base my vote on my having made any genuine objective critical analysis of the work much less to compare and contrast it with other competing finalist works under consideration of my vote.

Simple enuff...don't, then.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Geoff Bohrer
United States
Hereford
Arizona
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
Geoff Bohrer: "Besides...the 'geekies' ain't the Oscars (in the sense of an 'academy') award. They're a 'People's Choice' award. The difference being a popular award vs. an award by a panel of experts in the craft."

In other words, are you saying that the Geekies Awards shouldn't have any voting standards that require its voters to have already affirmed in their "Games Played" stats that they have actually played at least one or more of the finalist nominated games?

Personally, yes, in fact, I do..if only in fairness (to ensure that "best game" doesn't translate as "most slickly promoted game"). But I ain't running the show, and I think you're right in that the "geekies" will continue to be a relatively low-status award until something of the sort is instituted.

But it might be fun, anyway.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
James King: "I would be ashamed to cast a vote for ANY finalist work which I had genuinely not experienced in its entirety or for any appreciable length of time, because in such case, I would not be able to justify or base my vote on my having made any genuine objective critical analysis of the work much less to compare and contrast it with other competing finalist works under consideration of my vote."

Geoff Bohrer: "Simple enuff...don't, then."


Well, you've inadvertently hit the nail on the head in a way you hadn't suspected when you said that because I won't because even if I wanted to, I can't anyway because in its present form, the Geekies Awards excludes me from participation altogether.

Moreover, I am not impressed by voting qualifications which even hint of any pay-to-vote notions. As an avid history buff, such notions really rankle my sensibilities altogether and smack of elitism in no uncertain terms.

Or weren't you aware that voting in America was once restricted to only those who who owned land and were of a certain sex and race?

By the same token (if not game token), the notion of having to pay to vote rankles me along similar lines. In my opinion, it would have made a lot more fair-play common sense if voting for the Geekies were restricted to users who had members for at least a year, who would have joined no later than July 31, 2005. After all, such restrictions (as in age restriction in voting for government officials) is more even-handed and more democratic in the best sense of the word.

(My opinons on this matter may be better understood once you've read the book "The Right to Vote: The Contested History of Democracy in the United States" by Alexander Keyssar.)

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
> Geoff Bohrer: "Besides...the 'geekies' ain't the Oscars (in the sense of an 'academy') award. They're a 'People's Choice' award. The difference being a popular award vs. an award by a panel of experts in the craft."

James King: "In other words, are you saying that the Geekies Awards shouldn't have any voting standards that require its voters to have already affirmed in their 'Games Played' stats that they have actually played at least one or more of the finalist nominated games?"

Jeff Bohrer: "Personally, yes, in fact, I do.. if only in fairness (to ensure that 'best game' doesn't translate as 'most slickly promoted game')."


That doesn't make any sense and actually implies *the exact opposite* of what you're arguing, because if a voter hasn't even affirmed in his/her online Game stats that he/she has played at least even one of the finalist nominated games, then he/she is idealy suited to be unduly influenced and swayed by the hearsay and hype of those finalist games' fans and promoters.



Jeff Bohrer: "But I ain't running the show, and I think you're right in that the 'geekies' will continue to be a relatively low-status award until something of the sort is instituted."

In other words, have I read you right by my inferring that you're content for the time being that the Geekies Awards not stand for genuine excellence in gaming?



Jeff Bohrer: "But it might be fun, anyway."

Only if your notion of "fun" makes you willing to pay to vote by dubious standards.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Geoff Bohrer
United States
Hereford
Arizona
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
> Geoff Bohrer: "Besides...the 'geekies' ain't the Oscars (in the sense of an 'academy') award. They're a 'People's Choice' award. The difference being a popular award vs. an award by a panel of experts in the craft."

James King: "In other words, are you saying that the Geekies Awards shouldn't have any voting standards that require its voters to have already affirmed in their 'Games Played' stats that they have actually played at least one or more of the finalist nominated games?"

Jeff Bohrer: "Personally, yes, in fact, I do.. if only in fairness (to ensure that 'best game' doesn't translate as 'most slickly promoted game')."


Actually (though my syntax was admittedly murky) I was agreeing that, in my ideal world, voters would have had to have at least one candidate list in their "played" list.



Quote:
Jeff Bohrer: "But I ain't running the show, and I think you're right in that the 'geekies' will continue to be a relatively low-status award until something of the sort is instituted."

In other words, have I read you right by my inferring that you're content for the time being that the Geekies Awards not stand for genuine excellence in gaming?

Sure...we already have a CSR award (though that only applies to wargames). And I don't feel that BGG is the forum to create an academy; BGDF, maybe.



Quote:
Jeff Bohrer: "But it might be fun, anyway."

Only if your notion of "fun" makes you willing to pay to vote by dubious standards.


Sure! If you don't agree, don't pay and don't vote. But feel free to shoot off about it anytime *grin* Besides, as a supporter, I don't think I have to cough up GG to vote (not sure...I'll have to check).

Might check your spelling, too...you got my name right in the last post, but not this one
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rich S.
United States
North Hollywood
California
flag msg tools
badge
Well, this is just silly.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
In my opinion, this thread only underscores why the notion of the Geekies Awards is an unworkable concept in its present form...


See, this is what I was referring to in the first place, although, to be fair, I didn't do it very clearly.

Prior to your post (and maybe after as well, but I haven't read all of it word for word), no one had claimed that they were going to VOTE for Nature of the Beast based on the video, they simply said they were interested in playing it.

And when I said I wasn't ashamed, I said I wasn't ashamed to be interested in the game because of the video.

I'm still not ashamed.

And, personally, I will not/have not cast any votes for games I myself haven't played. That's my own personal choice, and others may choose otherwise. It's really no one's beeswax 'cept their own.

Now, on the Academy Awards stuff, I was speaking of the couple people I personally know on the academy. They have admitted that they haven't seen all of the movies each year, and they vote anyway. So it happens, that's all I'm saying. Not for the better, I agree, but it *is* a people's choice award.

ALL OF THAT BEING SAID: I look at the Geekies in the way I *think* they're meant to be seen; I see them as a chance for the BGG community, which is non-exclusive, to have a little fun suggesting games it feels deserves a little spotlighting. Again, I choose to vote on games I have played, but unless Scott makes it mandatory to have played the game or prove so, I leave everyone else to do whatever the hell they want.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
>> Geoff Bohrer: "Besides...the 'geekies' ain't the Oscars (in the sense of an 'academy') award. They're a 'People's Choice' award. The difference being a popular award vs. an award by a panel of experts in the craft."

> James King: "In other words, are you saying that the Geekies Awards shouldn't have any voting standards that require its voters to have already affirmed in their 'Games Played' stats that they have actually played at least one or more of the finalist nominated games?"

> Goeff Bohrer: "Personally, yes, in fact, I do.. if only in fairness (to ensure that 'best game' doesn't translate as 'most slickly promoted game')."

James King: "That doesn't make any sense and actually implies *the exact opposite* of what you're arguing, because if a voter hasn't even affirmed in his/her online Game stats that he/she has played at least even one of the finalist nominated games, then he/she is idealy suited to be unduly influenced and swayed by the hearsay and hype of those finalist games' fans and promoters."

Goeff Bohrer: "Actually (though my syntax was admittedly murky) I was agreeing that, in my ideal world, voters would have had to have at least one candidate list in their 'played' list."

What artless dodging! "Murky syntax," my patoot! Just the same, you were answering another question altogether that I didn't ask, NOT the exact question which I did ask, which was:

*Are you saying that the Geekies Awards shouldn't have any
voting standards that require its voters to have already affirmed
in their 'Games Played' stats that they have actually played at least
one or more of the finalist nominated games?"


Your original response was that such a minimal standard shouldn't exist. And quite frankly, I'm apt to believe a person's first response to a question because more often than not, such responses are more often more candid, more revealing and more off the cuff than not.


Goeff Bohrer: "But I ain't running the show, and I think you're right in that the 'geekies' will continue to be a relatively low-status award until something of the sort is instituted."

James King: "In other words, have I read you right by my inferring that you're content for the time being that the Geekies Awards not stand for genuine excellence in gaming?"

Geoff Bohrer: "Sure... we already have a CSR award (though that only applies to wargames)."

Again, you seem to be answering a question I didn't ask rather than the exact one which I did ask. So I'll ask you again to please provide a direct and unambiguous response to my direct question:

Without regard for any other gaming awards, did I read you right
by my inferring that you're content for the time being that the
Geekies Awards not stand for genuine excellence in gaming?


Geoff Bohrer: "And I don't feel that BGG is the forum to create an academy; BGDF, maybe."

Since I didn't make any such suggestion as to the formation of an "academy" in the first place, I'm not exactly edified by that disingenuous and oblique dodge of my original question.



> Goeff Bohrer: "But it [the current proposed form of the Geekies Awards] might be fun, anyway."

James King: "Only if your notion of 'fun' makes you willing to pay to vote by dubious standards."

Goeff Bohrer: "Sure! If you don't agree, don't pay and don't vote."

And yet, the awards are NOT called the "BGG Supporters Awards," are they?

If they'd been call such from the outset, then there'd probably be a lot less contraversy about it. As it is, whatever awards are bestowed are likely to be wrongly inferred by others outside of BGG to have been voted on and conferred by all BBG members.

Moreover, *any voting process* that requires payment and/or property ownership in order qualify to participate is tainted from the outset because it's already predisposed to being exclusionarily elitist rather than inclusionarily democratic.


Goeff Bohrer: "But feel free to shoot off about it anytime *grin* Besides, as a supporter, I don't think I have to cough up GG to vote (not sure...I'll have to check)."

Spoken and written like a true elist! I congratulate you on your hoity-toitiness. Perhaps you'll consider nominating "Hoity-Toity" or "Awards Show" as Best Games in that same spirit.


Goeff Bohrer: "Might check your spelling, too... you got my name right in the last post, but not this one."

Spelling Bees may not qualify as games, but it's a sad oversight that the Geekies aren't including Best Word Game as a category.

But then again, since the awards aren't actually merit-based in substance, perhaps it's just as well.


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James King
United States
North Central Louisiana / No Longer A Resident of the Shreveport/Bossier City Area
Louisiana
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
James King: " In my opinion, this thread only underscores why the notion of the Geekies Awards is an unworkable concept in its present form: Unlike most entertainment awards where the voters are actually expected to have seen all the nominated movies and documentaries or listened to the nominated CDs before voting, the Geekies apparently does not require or set any standard that its voters must have actually played all nominated finalist games prior to voting in order to be qualify to be able to cast a vote at all."

Richard S. Dolen: "See, this is what I was referring to in the first place, although, to be fair, I didn't do it very clearly. Prior to your post (and maybe after as well, but I haven't read all of it word for word), no one had claimed that they were going to VOTE for 'Nature of the Beast' based on the video, they simply said they were interested in playing it."

The name of this thread, "For Your Consideration Promos" located here in the BoardGameGeek Awards forum folder, was nonetheless created for the promotion for different games for Best of their respective categories in the Geekies Awards.

As I stated later on in that post:

So, whereas I can appreciate a video, audio or written review of
a game, if a game is genuinely worthy of its established reputation
and current regular BGG rating, it doesn't require advocacy endorsements
or promos.


In other words, noteworthy games are *already* reviewed and rated on BGG. But the whole notion of this folder is to sell people on *nominating and voting for particular games* for the Geekies Awards regardless of whether they ever actually get to play the game before voting. Doesn't it stand to reason that if you've played a game and genuinely liked it, then you aren't going to be swayed about its merits either way by somebody else's ad for it?


Back in 1987, Saturday Night Live ran a sketch with Steve Martin as the host of a Jeopardy-like game show called "Common Knowledge" in which the "correct" answers to the questions were NOT the actual right answers BUT only those that most people *erroneously assumed were true.* Comedian Nora Dunn played then-U.S. embassador to the U.N. Jeanne Kirkpatrick who finally caught on to the actual underlying concept of the show and hilariously began scoring after providing the "correct" erroneously-assumed answers to questions of "Common Knowledge." (In published form, "Common Knowledge" would make a hilarious spoof of trivia games since the idea is to provide the most common erreoneously-assumed hearsay response to a question rather than its correct answer.

In a similar sense, I can't help but feel that the notion of a "For Your Consideration Promotions" forum folder is a similar contradiction in terms since the posters are apparently hoping that voters will vote for their game recommendations based on the quality of presentation of their "For Your Consideration Promo" recommendations even if the voters aren't able to actually play those games before voting.

I wish more gamers would do video reviews; however, regardless of format -- written, audio or video --, the promo presenations don't resolve the irregularities of the Geekies Awards' current voting proces and the contradiction in terms of the existence of current BGG ratings for all the games anyway.


Richard S. Dolen: "And when I said I wasn't ashamed, I said I wasn't ashamed to be interested in the game because of the video. I'm still not ashamed."

And that's a false issue and beside-the-point matter altogether since I never addressed any such matter to begin with. I *did* however ask you a question which you never directly answered. So allow me to re-ask:

Why not let every BG Geek vote in the most openly democratic sense
of fair play and let the game companies pay for promo/advocacy ads for
the finalist games?



Richard S. Dolen: "And, personally, I will not/have not cast any votes for games I myself haven't played. That's my own personal choice, and others may choose otherwise. It's really no one's beeswax 'cept their own."

In other words, are you saying that you DON'T believe that there should be any minimal standard that BGG members have already affirmed in their "Played Games" stats that they have played at least one of the nominated finalist games?


Richard S. Dolen: "Now, on the Academy Awards stuff, I was speaking of the couple people I personally know on the academy. They have admitted that they haven't seen all of the movies each year, and they vote anyway. So it happens, that's all I'm saying. Not for the better, I agree, but it *is* a people's choice award."

No, the Academy Awards is NOT a "people's choice award" since voting is done only by members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences, and the "the people" -- the public at large -- do not have a vote in that process.


Richard S. Dolen: "ALL OF THAT BEING SAID: I look at the Geekies in the way I *think* they're meant to be seen; I see them as a chance for the BGG community, which is non-exclusive, to have a little fun suggesting games it feels deserves a little spotlighting."

Although the BGG community may be non-exclusive, the BGG Geekies Awards *are* exclusive. Indeed, Scott Alden wrote the following in 16-point bolded text at the conclusion of the post that began the thread announcing the awards:

"The BoardGameGeek Awards are reserved for BGG Site
Supporters or you can spend 20 GeekGold to participate."


As of this writing, voting is NOT open to BGG members at large NOR to regular BGG members who have been members for at least a year or more.


Richard S. Dolen: "Again, I choose to vote on games I have played, but unless Scott makes it mandatory to have played the game or prove so, I leave everyone else to do whatever the hell they want."

Therefore, would it be fair to say that you don't particularly think that the BGG Geekies Awards should stand for genuine excellence in gaming?

If so, then what exactly *does* -- or should -- the BGG Geekies Awards stand for?

If not, then how do you reconcile your responses above with your apparent shrugging acceptance of the fact that the Geekies Awards' current voting process lack any minimum standards for nominating and voting for games?


You may not see where I'm coming from this without my volunteering that I have directed two songwriting contests before, and I had to deal with quite a number of accountability factors in order to be prepared for the unexpected as well as the possible. For example, when the ages of two composers of a song entry would otherwise place one in one age-range category and the other in another, in the name of Fairness, I had to add up their respective ages in total number of days lived through December 31st of that year, divide that number by two, then by by 30 and then by 12 to get the average of their ages. The average of their ages determined which age-range category they would compete in. The contest had to pass muster in the way the songs were scored pointwise for creativity, originality, theme, etc. as well.

Although we did have entry fees, the songwriting contests were stand-alone competitions and not part of any ongoing assocation of songwriters.

Because I'd adequately researched all the mechanics of conducting a song contest beforehand, I was not beset upon afterwards by any chalenges to the entry and judging processes.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt Anticole
United States
Pittsburgh
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
First, thanks to all those who’ve complimented the vid and/or the game so far! Eye-Level Entertainment appreciates your generous words. If you like what I can whip together in about three hours with no video production experience, then imagine what Eye-Level Entertainment came up with after years of rigorous development for 'Nature of the Beast'!

Second, I would like to emphasize that I am NOT trying to sway people into nominating for my company’s game without every having played it. I am all for people having played games before voting on them. Rather, I’m trying to sway everyone into BUYING our game in advance of the August 31st deadline, playing it, falling in love with it, and THEN nominating it. Just wanted to clear that up.

That said, Eye-Level Entertainment would like to do what we can to help ensure the validity of Geek Award voting. To help folks try NOB before nominating it, we’re bringing back the ‘Free Shipping’ offer from last month. Go to www.Key20.com, order BOTH Battle Boxes, and enter the code ‘Vote2006’. Eye-Level will cover the cost to ship them world-wide. Not quite a complimentary Oscar copy, but we do what we can. (Limited time offer!)

Finally, why is Golden Geek vote is needed at all? BGG has no deficit of data and certainly any number of statistically-savvy users could whip up a list of the best games via ranking or number of users, etc. Well, sometimes an election is about the under-dog and, even though they don’t always win, there is value in the race. If everyone assumed that a newer game was lousy simply because it has fewer ‘owners’ or because it wasn’t officially ranked, then the BGG community would miss out on a lot of really good games (and some of those games don’t even involve a secret animal war in the shadows of humanity).

Good luck to the ‘big-guys’; I respect and mildly envy you all! However, let’s remember that this is an election, not a coronation. We’re here to celebrate great games, and those come in all sorts of shapes and sizes.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
フィル
Australia
Ashfield
NSW
flag msg tools
designer
badge
I am the wasp / that burrows in! I am the shriek / of twilight din!
Avatar
mbmbmb
ShreveportLAGamer wrote:
>> Geoff Bohrer: "Besides...the 'geekies' ain't the Oscars (in the sense of an 'academy') award. They're a 'People's Choice' award. The difference being a popular award vs. an award by a panel of experts in the craft."

> James King: "In other words, are you saying that the Geekies Awards shouldn't have any voting standards that require its voters to have already affirmed in their 'Games Played' stats that they have actually played at least one or more of the finalist nominated games?"

> Goeff Bohrer: "Personally, yes, in fact, I do.. if only in fairness (to ensure that 'best game' doesn't translate as 'most slickly promoted game')."
James, please use the Quote button... it's next to the Reply button, and it makes things a lot easier on the eye.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rich S.
United States
North Hollywood
California
flag msg tools
badge
Well, this is just silly.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Oooooookay.

First off, just for kicks, let me fix my name: It's Rich. Olen is my middle name. I'm the second, hence "RichardOlen2." "S" is the initial of my surname. Not that it really matters, but it finally started bugging me.

Here's what I think about the awards: They are one of two things. They are either:

a) Whatever each user (who is allowed to vote) wants them to be, or

b) Whatever Aldie wants them to be.

Until Aldie lays out strict guidelines for what these awards are, they are whatever I (or you or they) want them to be. Personally? I choose to vote for games that I have enjoyed playing in each of the provided categories. Others may choose to vote for the game they feel "deserves it" (not unlike when Russell Crowe won for Gladiator, when it was (in my eyes) clearly a late award for The Insider). It doesn't matter to me why people vote the way they do.

Aldie said:
Quote:
In order to avoid voter fraud, we have adopted the following restrictions. Voting is restricted to either supporting users (having a supporter badge from any year is sufficient) or voters who pay a one-time 20 GeekGold fee. Anyone caught stuffing the ballot box will have their votes removed and will be banned from the site.

I would argue that if a person can pay $10 and be allowed to vote, then the voting is open to anyone (who's willing to pony up the $10). Being a supporter does not make you more of a game expert, but it lets you cast a vote.

You asked:
Quote:
Why not let every BG Geek vote in the most openly democratic sense
of fair play and let the game companies pay for promo/advocacy ads for
the finalist games?

Aldie's preemptive answer to that:
Quote:
You are welcome to campaign, discuss voting and nominations, etc, as much as you like...
I would imagine that includes the publishers themselves.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2  Next »   |