• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
A very good AAR, Gensui Yamamoto. Keep up the good work!
 
Ok, this is a comment from all the moderating team for the AAR forum, even if under my name.

We've been talking about participation and how to sustain interest in the bits and pieces that make this forum something a little bit more than a collection of great writers and knowledgeable, informed, commentators. For the most part that is things like the various libraries, the ACAs and these awards.

Now in the last couple of years, I've lost count of the number of times one of us has stepped in to keep these moving. We usually chase both the current holder and the person who last made a nomination and usually that produces a response (we do this as we know that people drop in/drop out of the forum due to their other commitments). Sometimes the responses are of the ilk - I'm too busy/I can't be bothered/I don't know how.

Now it currently seems as if this award has gone into abeyance.

Which is a real pity. Judging by the pleased responses of both recipients and other commentators, these awards (this, fan of the week, weekly showcase, character writer) are indeed part of the strange glue that holds AARland together. It motivates writers (certainly motivates me) and is a very direct way in which we can express appreciation to someone.

But

we've decided, we are not going to step in and make an award to get this moving again, nor will we on the other awards either.

Instead

here's a question to you as a community. Do you value these awards, and, if so, what do you suggest is done to prevent the all too frequent problem that they become stuck?
 
I definitely don't think this award should end. Perhaps if the recipient has not named a new winner after a week we should have a vote in which every member can nominate one AAR/WritAAR he or she thinks is worthy and at the end of the week give the award to the WritAAR with the most votes?
 
I definitely don't think this award should end. Perhaps if the recipient has not named a new winner after a week we should have a vote in which every member can nominate one AAR/WritAAR he or she thinks is worthy and at the end of the week give the award to the WritAAR with the most votes?

I would be game for this!!!
 
I definitely don't think this award should end. Perhaps if the recipient has not named a new winner after a week we should have a vote in which every member can nominate one AAR/WritAAR he or she thinks is worthy and at the end of the week give the award to the WritAAR with the most votes?

Could also just ask the last author who nominated someone and is still around to nominate a different person? That should get it back on track quickly, I would imagine.
 
Could also just ask the last author who nominated someone and is still around to nominate a different person? That should get it back on track quickly, I would imagine.

As loki100 said, we're already doing that if reminding the winner doesn't help. And we've had to send reminders a lot recently, which in itself is a bit sad unless there's a real reason. But the main problem is, contacting the previous winner doesn't always help either so we've had to do the awarding as well.

And, well, these are community awards, not "moderators' choice" ones. Either award recipients need to show that there's interest in these awards and up their game - again, I'm not referring to being absent due to RL as that's inevitable, but to not awarding "just because" - or there has to be some kind of a change. Much like loki100 I also value the awards so any suggestions are indeed welcome. :)
 
It's a pity if this award ends, it has given me so much new to read over the years that I probably wouldn't have discovered otherwise. I do understand the mods' position on this though. Last week I was thinking when I saw this thread being dead that if a long time, say two weeks, goes by without a new nominee, it should be possible for whatever poster to give it on to a new recipient. It might become messy if it becomes a discussion, but if it's first come first served, it could work. It's worth the try at least.:) This is the community's award, so let the community take part in keeping it going.
 
It's a pity if this award ends, it has given me so much new to read over the years that I probably wouldn't have discovered otherwise. I do understand the mods' position on this though. Last week I was thinking when I saw this thread being dead that if a long time, say two weeks, goes by without a new nominee, it should be possible for whatever poster to give it on to a new recipient. It might become messy if it becomes a discussion, but if it's first come first served, it could work. It's worth the try at least.:) This is the community's award, so let the community take part in keeping it going.

Agreed. Not a perfect system, by any means, but I think this has a better chance of working than making it a voting decision. With a nomination and voting process, you add more time where no-one's recipient, plus it adds another layer of organization (someone's got to keep track of the votes, after all. And what would be the voting timeframe? How do you resolve ties?).

I like Nikolai's idea because it's simple and should kick this thing back into life - if it mutates too horribly, we can always try to retool, or, in the last resort, put it back in the shallow grave it's currently residing in. :)

Now, just to figure out what the timers are (specifically this: ideally, we want the current holder to hand it off exactly a week later. If he/she doesn't, then how long does the award lie fallow before John Q Public can jump in?) and how to clearly communicate the deadline until the nomination 'opens up', so that everyone visiting this thread will understand the new rules... This might be asking for too much, but could the Mods add to the (hypothetical) current winner's post a statement like 'Awarded on 5 Nov 2012, has until x Nov 2012 to nominate successor before nomination becomes open to the public'?
 
Speaking for myself, it would be a shame to see the award disappear just because of some bad luck.
 
As much as I love these awards, I totally understand the mods position on this. As per Nikolai's answer, I don't like having just anyone come up and make a nomination. Perhaps if the writer doesn't want to nominate someone, the community could designate a "super judge" to nominate someone in case of a deadlock?
 
Well, in my opinion there are two good solutions (Stopping this is not):

1. The writer that elected the current winner (in this case, TheBromgrev), will elect a second winner.
2. There will be a three-day long vote among the commenters to decide the new winner. This leaves the winner four days to elect a new one.

Both of these options will allow the awards to continue, and the moderators to moderate (currently that's mostly fighting spambots, kudos to you for the good work).
 
I'm fine with either, as long as this continues.:) FWIW, I have a potential winner in mind.
 
Now, just to figure out what the timers are (specifically this: ideally, we want the current holder to hand it off exactly a week later. If he/she doesn't, then how long does the award lie fallow before John Q Public can jump in?) and how to clearly communicate the deadline until the nomination 'opens up', so that everyone visiting this thread will understand the new rules... This might be asking for too much, but could the Mods add to the (hypothetical) current winner's post a statement like 'Awarded on 5 Nov 2012, has until x Nov 2012 to nominate successor before nomination becomes open to the public'?

We could do the statement I think, if people really feel it necessary, but that would be just another rule/measure/babysitting more. I'd prefer people to use their common sense. It's a weekly award so if the current winner hasn't announced a new nominee after about two weeks I'd say it's up for grabs. That is just my opinion, not necessarily that of the other mods.
We do prefer the award to be handed over in a Friday<->Monday window because the winners have been listed since several years as winning on a Sunday, to keep it neat and as weekly as possible, when possible (also true for the other weekly awards).
 
Why not simply appoint four or five volunteers to each week pick a new WritAAR? They can discuss it privately until a consensus has been reached. That way we don't get multiple people from the public trying to award different people.

Alternatively, you could appoint one person as a "moderator" for the award, and people pm them with their suggestions, and they pick one from those offered up each week.
 
Hi folks! After talking with the mods, I've got the next nomination ready.:)

The writer I was thinking on for WritAAR of the Week, was Alerias. He's made a wonderful CK2 AAR about the Latin Empire, which sadly was abandoned a few days ago because of lack of time. He's never won the award before as far as I can see, and I think he deserves some recognition for his late AAR.:)

So give a hand to the new WritAAR of the Week, Alerias!
 
Now this is the boring mod rules post.

First, we as a moderator team will not intervene beyond what is set out below. This is (& all the other awards) a community award so we're think that as a community its in our interests to keep them alive. I personally agree with many of the comments above, not least in that I too use these awards as a means to pick up on interesting AARs that otherwise I'd miss.

So the bring bit:

a) primary responsibility for keeping these awards moving rests with the awarder. If you haven't heard from your nominee by the following sunday, then its your responsibility (& pleasure) to pick again;
b) if the award goes missing for two weeks, one of the mods will post in the thread. This might indicate that it will be passed on asap. Lets face it we all take breaks from the forum and its unfair to deny someone a chance to pick their nominee just because they are exceptionally busy or taking a holiday;
c) on the other hand, this might indicate that the award is stuck. At that stage making a nomination for a new nominee is first come, first served. The proposals around voting are too difficult to manage in reality and the delight of all these awards is they are idiosyncratic, its what an individual llkes, not, as with the ACAs, what we as an AAR community like.

oh and while I am up on my soapbox, here's something else to read for those who are so interested:

 
Congratulations Alerias, I admit I haven't read your AAR but I'll definitely have to give it a chance at some point. The difficult ones are always the best.