154 réponses à ce sujet

[Tybae]

If I thought for one second that the AME voting and nominating systems were biased in any way shape or form, I'd leave the AME then and there. You are free to think and feel however you wish. I know how the AME works and I know what goes on there. Unless you are, or have been, a member, you don't. Either way, I'm tired of having the same arguments with the same people over and over again.

[Failed.Bard]

Tybae wrote...

You are free to think and feel however you wish. I know how the AME works and I know what goes on there. Unless you are, or have been, a member, you don't.

I believe it's this part that's the source of the problem, perception wise.

[Pstemarie]

Tybae wrote...

If I thought for one second that the AME voting and nominating systems were biased in any way shape or form, I'd leave the AME then and there. You are free to think and feel however you wish. I know how the AME works and I know what goes on there. Unless you are, or have been, a member, you don't. Either way, I'm tired of having the same arguments with the same people over and over again.

Well said.

[AndarianTD]

Failed.Bard wrote...

Tybae wrote...

You are free to think and feel however you wish. I know how the AME works and I know what goes on there. Unless you are, or have been, a member, you don't.

I believe it's this part that's the source of the problem, perception wise.

Then why not join? As I wrote before, it's not as though we haven't been posting calls for volunteers on the forums for as far back as I can remember. We've even restructured the AME's organization and procedures so that it's more friendly to casual membership from individuals with limited time or a more specific focus among the awards.

Modifié par AndarianTD, 26 août 2011 - 12:11 .

[Arkalezth]

I joined the AME two months ago. I have a question for those who have a bad perception of it from outside: take a look at the past awards (finalists, winners...). Do you think any of them don't deserve it? Of course, you may have a personal different favorite, but I don't think you'll find a bad module or author among them.

And if Funky or anyone else wants to create some sort of "public academy", by all means, go ahead, no one will stop you. I'll probably even vote.

Modifié par Arkalezth, 26 août 2011 - 02:58 .

[WebShaman]

I actually kind of like Funky's suggestion, of having a "I like it" +1 and a "I don't like it" - 1 sort of thing.

That does seem to really get the "gist" of PUBLIC opinion about what is good and not.

Now, I DO understand that the AME is more aimed at getting professional opinion involved in the process. I also understand why this is so - only a professional really understands what has gone into the producing of something - thus, a vote for or against something has more weight in tha sense.

But these things aside, I think Funky raised a valid issue. I do find that some answered his questions rationally and without...fevor, if you will.

[Tybae]

Since it was brought up, here is the list of Academy of Motion Pictures members by category. As you can see, there are dozens of them that are Oscar winners and/or nominees. Just because you're a member doesn't mean your work is not worthy of nomination or winning an award. The same applies to the AME. The Academy of Motion Pictures does not allow public voting either. Does that then mean that they are a "secretive" organization? Either way, I can talk until I'm blue in the face. People will think what they want to think and it always seems to be the same handful of people doing the bashing, badmouthing and accusing. If you really want to know what goes on, become a member. Our member requirements have become less and less as the game has less and less builders and players.

As far as the "professional standpoint" goes. I am not a modder or CC creator of any measure. I play modules, playtest works and provide constructive criticism from a players perspective, which is often what authors desire as they tend to be overly critical. We have a few members that are just like me. No modding experience whatsoever besides playing. It is important to have that balance for numerous reasons. The two main ones being the player offering a fresh perspective on the work and the modder educating the player as to how, what and, most importantly, why they do what they do when building.

Funky may have raised a valid issue and I feel the issue has been addressed and I have no problems with those valid issues. What I do have problems with is that when the issue is addressed and it continues to be an issue just for the sake of argument then turns into a thing measuring contest, for lack of a better analogy. I have no plans on suggesting any changes to the AME's procedures based upon a few views. You can't please everyone and trying to do so is setting yourself up for failure. There will always be doubters in anything in life no matter what it is. I am perfectly content with that.

[WhiZard]

Tybae wrote...
Funky may have raised a valid issue and I feel the issue has been addressed and I have no problems with those valid issues. What I do have problems with is that when the issue is addressed and it continues to be an issue just for the sake of argument then turns into a thing measuring contest, for lack of a better analogy.

Well then simply admit "valid issue" and move on.  I agree that multiple posts to demonstrate the same issue, when the issue has already been admitted can dampen credibility; however, multiple answers to questions that simply try to nail in "the AME is beyond reproach" even when they do admit something here and there have the same effect of dampening credibility.  If the AME can speak for itself, just let it.

[Bannor Bloodfist]

beat horse == dead

[AndarianTD]

WebShaman wrote...

Now, I DO understand that the AME is more aimed at getting professional opinion involved in the process. I also understand why this is so - only a professional really understands what has gone into the producing of something - thus, a vote for or against something has more weight in tha sense.

That's part of it, but as Tybae suggested there's more to it than that. Rather than "professional" opinion, I'd call it serious opinion. As I said earlier, the AME is made up of a synergistic combination of modders and reviewers (the more "professional" element), and of serious players. Aside from the ability to work with fairness and integrity, the main criteria for AME membership is simply a passion for modding. Players who enjoy playing mods, rating them, thinking seriously about what they like about them and what makes them good, exchanging ideas with others who feel the same way, and who want to help recognize and reward those who take the time to make good modding content, are among our most valuable contributors -- even if they're not what one would call "professional" (or as professional as one can be as a modder, given that modding is essentially an amateur activity).

Modifié par AndarianTD, 26 août 2011 - 09:10 .

[FunkySwerve]

AndarianTD wrote...

FunkySwerve wrote...

By contrast, in a small group, there's a good chance that the members' relationships to one of the group will sway their thinking, whether or not that member actually participates in voting. There's also the risk of upsetting that member if content they feel is inferior is picked over their own.

It's interesting that you'd assume that such dynamics would necessarily dominate a group such as the AME, when in all my years of experience with it what I've overwhelmingly observed is precisely the opposite.

I'm not assuming a single thing. I'm describing a structural problem in your voting setup based on fundamental human nature. It's completely true that this problem may not hold sway over any given decision - but it's still there. To pretend otherwise is to commit the same mistake as Marx did in outlining communist government - to expect that humans will act not out of self-interest, but according to their better angels. That key difference - reality vs ideology - is what drove the success of the market system. One could outline the issue in purely economic terms, were they so inclined. No amount of 'oh but WE'RE not like that' can address it. This is why you don't see ANY awards organaization that operates in such fashion (as already noted, the comparisons to the Academy Awards are severely off-base).

Is this problem of earth-shattering import? Eh, not so much. But it certainly has ramifications for your credibility in the community. As someone whose career revolves around studying and analyzing systems of rules, seeing something like this sets my teeth on edge. It's just a bad system, because of how it creates and handles behavioral incentives, regardless of how nice the people faced with that system of incentives may be. Even when a decision is made in spite of those incentives, there will still be a question as to whether they played a role - they poison the well.

In any event, my point has been made. Do with it what you will. In the interest of community harmony, I won't post on it again after today.

Funky

[FunkySwerve]

Arkalezth wrote...
And if Funky or anyone else wants to create some sort of "public academy", by all means, go ahead, no one will stop you. I'll probably even vote.

Why on earth would I want to do that? As already noted, the Vault fills much of that role, as flawed as its system of ranking may be. AME is, as has been noted, trying to establish a separate standard - 'serious' voting, as Andarian put it. I can see the angle they're going for, but they way they went about it is, to borrow a phrase, fraught with peril. If the AME feels that public voting any under circumstances is insufficiently 'serious' for its purposes, the next best alternative would be to make themselves more like the Academy Awards - diluting potential self-dealing with numbers. This wouldn't really fix the problem, but it would mitigate it, to a degree dependant on the added numbers of voters. The larger a group, the less a factor interpersonal dynamics will play in outcomes. And, to their credit, the AME has been TRYING to do just that, but without a great deal of success, according to Andarian, which is understandable given waning numbers in NWN overall. My point is not that they are bad people bent on giving themselves all awards; rather, it is that they've set up a bad system with the potential to distort outcomes. Much easier to fix the problem than to reinvent the wheel.

Funky

[Bannor Bloodfist]

What is so truly funny though, is that you waited 5 friggin years before posting your concerns. FIVE YEARS. The AME has announced winners every year since 2006. Those winners have always been selected from content uploaded to the vault during the prior year. ALL content. Then reviewed, all of it gets reviewed, THEN voted on, finalists are announced and then the winners... So figure at min 2 NEW posts per year announcing finalists and then winners, and you wait until this year to post a negative comment.

Many, MANY folks are capable of setting aside friendship and honestly critiquing submitted works. Too bad that you feel you are not honest enough to do that, and that you feel you must accuse everyone else of being as low minded.

The AME is not a conspiracy to take votes away from anyone's efforts. They have made that very clear over the years. They voluntarily recuse themselves from voting on any content related to anything they have that has been submitted. They have consistently asked for other volunteers to help with the reviewing/critiquing process.

Has anyone bothered to check their rules? Has anyone bothered to see who are the current members? Has anyone bothered to see if something that was voted on by the team as a winner did not actually earn that winning vote?

Nope. Otherwise you would be spouting proof of your false accusations.

The analogy to the Academy Awards is spot on. In the Academy Awards, a person is not even notified that they are being considered, so they can not vote for themselves regardless. Which is exactly what the AME is doing.

Sure, the numbers to dilute the votes are smaller, but whose fault is that?

Comparing the AME to the financial world, driven entirely by greed is in fact accusing the AME of acting in the same fashion. They don't. They HAVE proved it. For 5 full years.

[AndarianTD]

FunkySwerve wrote...

AndarianTD wrote...

It's interesting that you'd assume that such dynamics would necessarily dominate a group such as the AME, when in all my years of experience with it what I've overwhelmingly observed is precisely the opposite.

I'm not assuming a single thing. I'm describing a structural problem in your voting setup based on fundamental human nature.

*Blink*

Um, yes, Funky. That's the assumption I was pointing out: your implicit and contemptuous view of human nature.

I think I'm done here.

Modifié par AndarianTD, 27 août 2011 - 04:41 .

[jmlzemaggo]

FunkySwerve wrote...
That key difference - reality vs ideology - is what drove the success of the market system.

I can't believe one tried to use such a questionable if not fishy personal opinion as some "supposed to be universal, legal and final" statement... and still, pretends talking for justice. 
"The success of the market system..." Yeah, sure... It's so obvious, just look around the world. 
I never thought I would read anything as dumb as this in these NWN forums. 
One should keep his own ideological but personal opinions for himself, regarding a gaming forum neutrality.
To allow me to do the same with mine. 
Thanks. 

Modifié par jmlzemaggo, 27 août 2011 - 09:04 .

[FunkySwerve]

Bannor Bloodfist wrote...

What is so truly funny though, is that you waited 5 friggin years before posting your concerns. FIVE YEARS.

Yes, clearly I have been lying in wait, plotting against you that entire time. That, or I responded to a request for feedback. Clearly, you should go with the paranoid conspiracy theory option.

Many, MANY folks are capable of setting aside friendship and honestly critiquing submitted works. Too bad that you feel you are not honest enough to do that, and that you feel you must accuse everyone else of being as low minded.

It's not that I feel I'm not honest, I'm simply aware that people, by and large, are not perfect. Pretending otherwise is folly. Our entire market economy is premised on rational self-interest. Systems that are not have a demonstrable tendency to fail horribly - check your history.

The AME is not a conspiracy to take votes away from anyone's efforts.

Is someone saying it is?

Has anyone bothered to check their rules? Has anyone bothered to see who are the current members? Has anyone bothered to see if something that was voted on by the team as a winner did not actually earn that winning vote?

I've dealt solely with what it's members have said about them - mainly the fact that they allow members to be nominated. There's nothing more to check - it's there that the defect lies, as I've said several times now.

Nope. Otherwise you would be spouting proof of your false accusations.

Which accusations have I made that are false? Quotes, please, and be specific. Certainly YOU would not FALSELY accuse me of making false accusations, would you? 

The analogy to the Academy Awards is spot on. In the Academy Awards, a person is not even notified that they are being considered, so they can not vote for themselves regardless. Which is exactly what the AME is doing.

Sure, the numbers to dilute the votes are smaller, but whose fault is that?

Whose fault it is isn't relevant - it's a problem regardless. No one is blaming you for having small numbers, just pointing out a flaw in your process. Why are you so threatened by this? As other posters have pointed out, this rabid facts-be-damned defense only makes you look suspect.

Comparing the AME to the financial world, driven entirely by greed is in fact accusing the AME of acting in the same fashion. They don't. They HAVE proved it. For 5 full years.

I wasn't comparing the AME to the financial world, I was pointing out that its voting system, like all voting systems, is subject to economic analysis, which makes its flaw very plain. Voting for or against the work of fellow members, who, from your zealous defense of them, it's clear you feel a connection to, involves rational self-interest that must, at times, run counter to unbiased voting. It makes for a error-prone setup.

Funky

[FunkySwerve]

AndarianTD wrote...

FunkySwerve wrote...

AndarianTD wrote...

It's interesting that you'd assume that such dynamics would necessarily dominate a group such as the AME, when in all my years of experience with it what I've overwhelmingly observed is precisely the opposite.

I'm not assuming a single thing. I'm describing a structural problem in your voting setup based on fundamental human nature.

*Blink*

Um, yes, Funky. That's the assumption I was pointing out: your implicit and contemptuous view of human nature.

I think I'm done here.

It's not a contemptous view of human nature - it's the core assumption of our market system - rational self-interest. It's as simple as the assumption that, faced with two identical candy bars, one of which is half the price of the other, you'll buy the cheaper of the two. There's nothing tawdry about it, and not a shred of contempt. You clearly haven't taken an econ class, or you would not have read my remark in that light.

That self interest, in the market system, is used, by pitting it against the interests of others, to acheive what are called 'pareto-efficient' outcomes - outcomes which distribute scarce resources to those who value them most - it is a system based on utilitarian morality. Of course, market failures abound, especially in today's setup, which sees gross injustices arising from things like campaign contributions and income gaps - instances where the market system has been undermined. The financial sector is an excellent example of this, but this is getting very far afield of my remarks, which you managed to radically misconstrue. Take an econ class if you want to learn more. Suffice it to say, if you study law (or even just politics or history), you learn that any system set up with flaws like yours will eventually have those flaws exploited - the greed of the financial sector which Bannor was bemoaning is a paradigm example. And they'll protest their good intentions the whole time, too. In fact, such systems often create a 'race to the bottom', morality-wise, which is why you actually see some CEOs (the ones with a conscience) calling for stricter regulations of their industries. Long story short, operating on any other assumption than rational self-interest is hopelessly naive. Just ask the USSR.

Funky

[FunkySwerve]

jmlzemaggo wrote...

FunkySwerve wrote...
That key difference - reality vs ideology - is what drove the success of the market system.

I can't believe one tried to use such a questionable if not fishy personal opinion as some "supposed to be universal, legal and final" statement... and still, pretends talking for justice. 
"The success of the market system..." Yeah, sure... It's so obvious, just look around the world. 
I never thought I would read anything as dumb as this in these NWN forums. 
One should keep his own ideological but personal opinions for himself, regarding a gaming forum neutrality.
To allow me to do the same with mine. 
Thanks. 

It's not opinion, it's fact. The market system is demonstrably superior in efficiency to a command economy. Of course, a FREE market, unfettered by regulation, is just as big a disaster as a command economy, and that's what the US is lurching towards at the moment, and I think what you have in mind. Mixed market economies - like the *gasp* socialism you see in Europe - are much more efficient. And yes, economics is fundamentally a study of ethics - it's grounded in utilitarianism. I'm not dealing in ideology by any definition, but in economic theory, and you don't have any idea what you're talking about. But thanks for playing.

Funky

[jmlzemaggo]

FunkySwerve wrote...
... you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

That's rude, pretentious.
Vain.  
Did I forget to say wrong even... 
Who do you think you are. 
Can't you just understand this is not the place for your kind of political or economical smartness, if not self-awarded superiority? 
Please?
This is a gaming forum. And I'm sure your highness's got the humanity to understand such basics. 
Please?

Modifié par jmlzemaggo, 27 août 2011 - 03:20 .

[TimG]

besides, FunkySwerve, it's just not relevant. None of the concerns you have posted here are relevant. This is a gaming community and no one in the AME profits by their actions. Instead they do the work of sorting out good modules for players to try. When I started playing NWN in 08 I didn't understand the Vault or Mods or any of the esoteric crap that goes along with playing NWN but once I did start to learn it then it didn't take long to see that a Golden Dragon mod was probably worth downloading. The AME helps clarify the Vault system by adding a little more emphasis to certain modules. The NWN community appears to have forgotten how lucky it is. We (the community) have the BSN, the Vault, a brilliant selection of builders, coders, and modders, and people like the AME that try to narrow down the cream of the crop. Most folks don't have time to play through a lot of weaker modules to find what is really good. The two tiered system of public voting on the Vault and private voting by the AME (where almost anyone is welcome to join) makes a superb system.
Everyone here is pulling in the same direction on the same team, your efforts with the "securing your server" thread are an example. The AME's efforts to review are another. None of the community members gain by bashing each other.
We should all be united against the common enemy: "The Judean Peoples Front!", just kidding, if there's a common enemy it is probably EA...

[Arkalezth]

FunkySwerve wrote...

Arkalezth wrote...
And if Funky or anyone else wants to create some sort of "public academy", by all means, go ahead, no one will stop you. I'll probably even vote.

Why on earth would I want to do that?

FunkySwerve wrote...

This would be less an issue if voting was by the public, naturally.

Funky

Since you're now talking about the market, economy and that kind of off-topic crap, I think it's time for me to leave the thread too. I may be back if it ever gets back on topic.

Edit: Oh, and I believe you haven't answered my question, which was the main purpose of my previous post.

Modifié par Arkalezth, 27 août 2011 - 02:41 .

[Queensilverwing]

FunkySwerve wrote...

Suffice it to say, if you study law (or even just politics or history), you learn that any system set up with flaws like yours will eventually have those flaws exploited

.

Firstly, let me say in no uncertain terms, that I am not here to attack you in any way Funky. I, like other posters, merely wish to express/discuss the subject at hand.

As to flawed systems, I don't personally think that there is a system out there, be it law, economics, Vault voting, Reviewer's Guild scoring or AME regulations, that isn't flawed. If it can be made, it can be broken, tampered with etc...should a person wish to try and do so. That does not however mean, that that person won't be caught in the act, just that all things are possible.

You can only try and make something as fair and hopefully, impartial as possible, but no one person, or organization can guarantee 100% that it is full proof.

Long story short, operating on any other assumption than rational self-interest is hopelessly naive.

OK, let's play a little bit here, and so no one gets upset, lets use me as an example

I'm not a builder, CC creator. I'm a (sometime) reviewer, module player and a member of the AME since it began. let's say I've privately bug tested a module before it's been released to the Vault for public BETA testing. Now a year later, that module has been nominated in say, the RP category of the awards. However, before that certain module was nominated I made a nomination of my own in that category for a different module. I am now no longer allowed to participate in the whole RP category because I have had to vote a COI (conflict of interest) on the module that I privately bug tested.

How then am I able to exercise self-interest in getting my own nomination through to the finals? The only communication I have with my fellow AME members is via the AME forums. If I had wanted to, I could have kept quiet about bug testing privately and continued my participation in that whole category...if I had wanted to undermine the whole spirit of the AME that is.

But I don't, and other members do not...because it is not in my or anyone else's interest to spend countless hours downloading, playing and testing content nominated by fellow AME members. It is not what the AME is about. We want to award a GDA to an author, module, tileset or other CC work because we as a group have expressed our admiration and respect for that work. Moreover, we believe, that above the other finalists, that work was the best of the three finalists that made it through.

I don't participate in all the GDA categories, ergo, I don't vote on all of them either. I trust and respect my fellow AME members, it is also a good bet that anyone who wanted to cheat wouldn't last the course because the whole AME system is a long and time consuming commitment...whatever categories you have committed to. Most people who want to ruin a system or use it to their own advantage, do not have the patience to spend months on and off seeing that self-interest through. It's not really like clicking a button to make a one time vote.

As for being 'hopelessly naive', guess I am, because if I were to work under your assumption that most of us work under the premise of 'rational self-interest' I would have closed the doors of the Reviewers Guild a long time ago. Why don't I? Because there are 178 people who read our last
mini review, 38 of them this month alone (in contrast to the 1000 reads per week we got a few years back) Whether it's a mini review or full one, our team spend hours playing, writing and then re-writing a review to follow our no doubt flawed, but I hope fair, guidelines. A reviewer will go through peer review that can be brutal, painful, funny and fun...and all so 178 people can read that review, never make a comment (good or bad) and perhaps glean some idea if that module is the kind of module they'd like to play.

The AME are no less dedicated than the Reviewers, and in many ways, more so because they work for months on end on nominations, testing and finals. In the end, I don't believe there has ever been a GDA awrded to an inferior module, author, tileset or other CC. Does anybody else think there has? If not, then how fawed is our system really?

Did I do good or what? *grins and winks at Flunky*

Modifié par Queensilverwing, 27 août 2011 - 04:08 .

[FunkySwerve]

jmlzemaggo wrote...

FunkySwerve wrote...
... you don't have any idea what you're talking about.

That's rude, pretentious.
Vain.  
Did I forget to say wrong even... 
Who do you think you are. 
Can't you just understand this is not the place for your kind of political or economical smartness, if not self-awarded superiority? 
Please?
This is a gaming forum. And I'm sure your highness's got the humanity to understand such basics. 
Please?

Unfortunately, it was true. You accused me of spouting ideology. I wasn't. As for this being a gaming forum, I'm aware - we're discussing gaming-related issues, and I'm bringing my outside experience to bear in relevant ways on the issue at hand.

As for your calling me pretentions, vain, and accusing me of being self-congratulatory, and then calling *me* rude...you know how silly that looks, I hope?

Funky

[FunkySwerve]

Arkalezth wrote...

Since you're now talking about the market, economy and that kind of off-topic crap, I think it's time for me to leave the thread too. I may be back if it ever gets back on topic.

It's all on-topic as it relates to the flaw in AME's voting, as you'll see if you read my posts.

Edit: Oh, and I believe you haven't answered my question, which was the main purpose of my previous post.

What question was that?

Funky

[Arkalezth]

FunkySwerve wrote...

It's not opinion, it's fact. The market system is demonstrably superior in efficiency to a command economy. Of course, a FREE market, unfettered by regulation, is just as big a disaster as a command economy, and that's what the US is lurching towards at the moment, and I think what you have in mind. Mixed market economies - like the *gasp* socialism you see in Europe - are much more efficient. And yes, economics is fundamentally a study of ethics - it's grounded in utilitarianism. I'm not dealing in ideology by any definition, but in economic theory, and you don't have any idea what you're talking about. But thanks for playing.

Funky

This doesn't seem very on-topic to me. You can relate one thing to another infinitely, but the market economy in Europe doesn't have much to do with the AME.

The question was:

Arkalezth wrote...

I have a question for those who have a
bad perception of it from outside: take a look at the past awards
(finalists, winners...). Do you think any of them don't deserve it? Of
course, you may have a personal different favorite, but I don't think
you'll find a bad module or author among them.