TvK wrote on 10/09/11 at 11:38:18:A Runnelid wrote on 10/09/11 at 09:48:27:Lafungo wrote on 10/09/11 at 09:35:54:Well then, is there a particular rule that states only 3 people can be nominated? I mean, why not have 5 people, since that reflects the amount of activity this quarter?
-Christophe.
This is a very valid point. I was not aware it was a set and may I add surprisingly low number of candidates for an award spanning a quarter of the year. I take it there is no official ruling on this matter. What if there were to be 100 active players for one quarter. Is there an appointed committee consisting of news updaters and site officials? Are other people besides active people for the specific time frame involved?
Please note that I have now updated my post with more highly relevant questions. I would very much appreciate for them to be answered in sufficient detail.
There is no such thing as a committee of news updaters in charge of poq awards. At first the awards section of this site was hardly updated, because the Gaff was the only person who updated the site now and then (nobody blames him because it was practically impossible for 1 person to maintain the entire site). Later April joined the staff as chief updater. But she, too, was busy with stuff of her own and only 1 update once every 2, 3 weeks was made.
So Gaff and April decided to try and set up some sort of updating system with regular updaters who could spread the work so the site would be updated nearly daily. Timur, Mick, I and several others were in this project (it started last year's summer iirc). Us three were also in charge of the news updates, because before this there were only 4 news updates a year, and as beginning updaters we were only allowed to award POWs. POMs and POQs were awarded by April, without voting. When April was away for a while, she left me in charge of POQ awards. I asked her if I could do votings to award them, and she said it was OK.
Before I started awarding the POQs, there was never a voting for an award except for the POY. Because almost entire 2009 and half of 2010 had no awards. Gaff and I went back searching through the yahoo groups and stuff to give away the missing awards, so those were awarded without a voting either. I just implemented the voting because I found it more fair.
To answer your other question, the three people that are nominated for the POQ, are the players that statiscally performed best that quarter, as I explained to Christophe. And after that, the community can decide for themselves which one of the three stastically best players performed best in their eyes. I know that Christophe also deserved to be in the poll, but if three people did better in this quarter, than I find it hard to give him a chance to win an award that only the best player deserves. Again no offence to you Christophe, you did a great job last quarter, I have tons of respect for your CCI times, but I hope you understand the way I think.
Thank You for this response. I do know a lot of the backstory behind the site, and I also know that there was a site well before Tom and company start developing the site into what we see today. Yes, I am that old as an MKSC player and sadly also as a person.
I can understand and appreciate the qualification basis for the POQ, my qualm lies not so much there as with the scarce amount of nominations over what it is a fourth of an entire year's time. This is long enough of a period that the award at least to me carries significantly more weight than POW awards (which oftentimes ironically see a longer or equally long list of candidates.) and rightly should be acknowledged as a distinction of magnitude.
Competition has seen far more meager days than now, and for this not to be reflected in the awards by nominating more players feels devalving of the allure of the award itself and the competition for it.
It's not a popularity contest, (although that would certainly explain my lack of MK awards. The only week I got an SMK award was the week when nobody else was playing.
OK, so I did get POW once when Mark Jones updated the MK:SC site, but as evidenced, nobody remembers that.)
I don't think anybody meant to convey they thought it was. Increasing the number of slots or extending the reports for the quarterly activity could mean added incentive for more players to remain active. A lot of people would be perfectly contented with the recognition of being nominated or receiving a mention in the write-up, perhaps. I know I'd be. And I am not in the least saying this hoping to procure the least bit of acclaim myself.
Let's say three of our foremost players in MK64 Michael Jongerius, Matthias Rustemeyer and William Lacey are battling it out over the summer. Knowing beforehand there would be three nominations for POQ, I'd certainly feel the award was well beyond reach, perhaps so much so that I stopped playing to the best of my standards even though I know I they are ridiculously far from being at match with their skills. It needlessly takes a lot of the excitement and joy out of it for those who are a bit further down the advancement ladder. They already know they likely won't win the award, so having something else - however small - would be positive. I'm not saying there has to be a ceremony with a Mario face cake, funny banners and red shells, but I would like for it all to be a bit more of than it is now.
My last question was addressing the fact that I believe all or the vast majority of the active news updaters for said quarter could if not should be involved in the selection process to some degree.
Pages: 1 
