• 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.

Mr. Capiatlist

Mademoiselle Gothique (she/her/hers)
88 Badges
Dec 4, 2003
19.916
2.848
nhkendall.com
  • Crusader Kings II: Holy Knight (pre-order)
  • 500k Club
Yeah, so I am counting votes and I am convinced that the voting is flawed. First thing: I don't vote, at all. This is a professional thing, but I might have to this year. We have several columns with multiple winners and one column with eight. Eight. Eight AARs with one vote each and at least one that had already been voted for in another column.

Which brings me to point two: aldriq is winning the award for most schizophrenic fans as xyr AAR was a contender in three columns... No fault to aldriq of course, but come on! The votes are public!

I want to institute these reforms:
  1. Victoria is being merged with Victoria II, it got a total of 8 votes and only one definite winner.
  2. You cannot win with one vote, you need at least two. Many columns are dominated by as many aars as votes.
  3. We need to find a way to regulate voting so that AARs can win the proper category, and I believe this will take the action of writers to tell their readers who to vote for.
  4. If an AAR wins more than one category, it only wins the one it got the most votes in.

I think we really need to discuss #3 as it will be the hardest to enforce, the others are just up to me. #4 can be done a few ways... either as I have or it will win the one where it controls the greatest percentage of the total vote. I think that we should try to spread winners out, and it is not common, but I do believe it happens often enough or at least gets close to happening.
 
Last edited:
Alright, so here's my input:

1) Seems to be a valid point. The Victoria page currently shows 13 AARs, Vicky 2 shows 150, HoI2 shows 50.

2) That might be problematic if the voting-morale doesn't improve.

3) You have two options here: either force the WritAArs to determine their style, which would force their (our) hands OR introduce some rule about how you can vote.
For the first option, you wouldn't really need to only use that style though, only to determine which one you want to use the most, which is the main focus. People usually do this when/if they sign their AARs in the appropriate LibrAAry. But of course readAARs won't look up the AARs in the LibrAAry, since they are not really kept in ordAAR...
Forced rules have the drawback of forcing down votes. For example, if you say that the first vote determines the category, that can cause quite some confusion. If you say that only AARs with explicitly stated styles are eligable (which would solve the problem instantly), you would rule out a lot (most?) of the AARs. And what about mixed styles? I was thorn up with CptEasy's AAR, but the narrative part appealed to me more than the gameplay part.
If there were enough votes, it would also be possible to determine the style based on the most votes, but with 1 vote in three different styles, you are not helped out...

There's also a third option, which would complicate things a lot, but probably worth the effort in the long run: the votAAR doesn't specify the category, only the AAR itself, then the writAAR would have to specify the category. Everyone would still be allowed to have four votes per game. VotAArs would be advised to try and spread their four votes, since if they vote wrong, they might create competition for their favAARite.
Obviously the problem comes from the added effort necessary to reach the writAArs, which I assume would necessitate some more muscle to do the legwork. So I guess this would only really be feasible if there were some voluntAARs to help Mr. Capiatlist out with this daunting task :)

4) Perfectly valid point. I would go with this version, not with calculating percentages.
 
1) Sounds good to me. I was a supporter of combining Vicky with Vicky 2 for a while now.

2) I also think that is a good idea. I know that in some cases, there are not many voters. However, as a writAAR, I would not like to win an award based off of receiving one vote. Some may agree with me, others may not. But, I think that it is a good rule of thumb that you may not win a category unless you receive two votes for your AAR.

3) This has ALWAYS been a problem when it comes to the AARland Choice Awards. I think the best way is to tell every author to choose what category they want their AAR to be voted for. I believe that most authors (at least the ones that care about these awards) will follow suit and choose a category and then proceed to tell their readers. For the AARs that are mixed, I believe the author can still choose one. Now, of course the author has the right to choose whatever category he or she sees fit, as long as their AAR does fit that category in some way. I believe, that in some cases, an author with a mixed AAR may choose a category for strategic purposes (if another category has a more popular AAR for instance.) I do not think there is anything wrong with that, but it's their choice. Also, once an author chooses a category, they SHOULD NOT be allowed to change it (just because a more popular AAR ends or so on.)

So overall, I believe let/make the authors choose a category as long as it fits with their AAR. Once chosen, they are unable to change it unless their AAR takes a drastic change to a different category.

Also, I must say that often times it is not the author's fault but the voter's. I've seen many cases when an author in their AAR specifically says a certain category, but then a voter goes and votes for it in a different category. This sometimes is done due to either not paying attention to the author's wishes or the voter likes another AAR as well and chooses to pick both even though they are basically the same category. I believe the latter happens more often then not, and which causes much of the problems.

4) I agree with this, and then the 2nd place AAR in the other category will win.

Just my two cents.
 
This sometimes is done due to either not paying attention to the author's wishes or the voter likes another AAR as well and chooses to pick both even though they are basically the same category. I believe the latter happens more often then not, and which causes much of the problems.

There could be a rule to disqualify a voter if voting the in wrong category. Or at least that vote. But again, that would need separate consideration for each and every case, which needs manpower.

@Mr. Capiatlist: If you decide to go for a reform that needs more labour to carry out, I voluntAAR to help out! :)
 
I'd agree with some of what Eber says above, esp about using one of the categories as a means to vote for a second favourite AAR (I'm probably am/have been guilty of this). Can I go back to something I've mentioned before - it might be handy to set out a quick idiots guide to the categories. Its obvious that those of you who have been around these fora for some time have an understanding of the differences but I have to be honest I still don't and to me a lot of AARs can be read as narrative/history book/game play quite validly. Even the comedy category is a bit blurred - some AARs set out to be funny, others are just written in a very amusing manner etc.

Ok some are clear, General_BT's Byzantine opus has to History Book, most of Naggy's/Prawnstar's are extremely well written game plays. But a lot aren't. Is a HOI one that starts by showing the politics/tech screens and choices gameplay, narrative or history book? Could be a start to any of those.

Equally a lot of potential voters want to vote for one AAR, they aren't (unfortunately) engaging more widely, so introducing restrictive/relatively complex rulse may just lose their current very limited participation.

Sorry this makes few useful suggestions, except that it would be handy if some really quick rule of thumb could be devised that at least helps with categorising AARs ... and then that is flawed if, as so many seem to do, the AAR straddles style either at particular stages in its evolution or constantly by choice (basically history book but with a couple of well developed characters as an example)?
 
What if, rather than voting for all these different categories, we just voted our top 3 favorites in each game. The #1 gets 3 points, #2 gets 2 points, #3 gets 1 point. Most points in each game gets a Golden AARLander, second most gets a Silver AARLander and 3rd most gets a Bronze AARlander.

This takes care of the 'catagory' issue and, probably, the 10 aars winning with 1 vote each issue


Example Ballot:

EU3 -
1 -Prawnstar's World Conquest playing with just my left hand
2 -Branddenburg III's Yes, I am totally insane.
3 -Rennslear's "The AAR that will end sometime around EU5"

HOI 1/2 -
1 -Kurt Steiner's Petiocolypse Now
2 -Armiosa's Cinemax presents: World War II
3 -loki100's Uncle Joe vs. the Martians

Rome -
1 -Stuckenschmidt's I am the only person still playing Rome
2 -Alfred Packer's Super-Fantastic AAR To Be Abandoned Any Moment Now


So right there, since there aren't categories, nobody accidently wastes a vote, since its based on order of "favorite" it cuts down on the likelyhood of ties, since people will rate these AARs differently. The amount of participants in a given sub-forum will naturally regulate the number of possible winners. Maybe for higher volume forums like HOI or EUIII you can award a 4th and 5th place (copper and pewter)

And I strongly suggest awarding them on some basis of "Gold-Silver-Bronze" or "Emperor of EUIII, King of EUIII, Duke of EUIII, Count of EUIII, Serf of EUIII" as any sort of 'name title' is cool whereas "this aar was 4th runner up!" does not sound fun or cool.
Does this make any sense?

EDIT: Ooh! We can call the award "The AARnie," so, like, when advertising in the sig, you could Put a link to "World Conquest With Maldives, winner of the 2011 Q3 Silver AARnie and the Q4 2011 Golden AARnie!"
 
Last edited:

I like this, Alfred, but I agree with loki that we cannot over complicate the voting process. I would also like to point out that this might overwhelm some AARs. I like the current system, it is the enforcement that is the problem (though I shall consider yours, regardless).
 
I like this, Alfred, but I agree with loki that we cannot over complicate the voting process. I would also like to point out that this might overwhelm some AARs. I like the current system, it is the enforcement that is the problem (though I shall consider yours, regardless).

You're the one who has to do the work, so no worries if you decide not to use it...you should pick the system you like the best. And you are right, it isn't perfect, but we don't know yet what sort of AARs would wind up the losers (I'd guess narratives in general would lose out, though canonized's success in 07 and 08 might beg to differ)

I did think it would simplify the process though. I mean, last time, I could easily come up with my favorite AAR for each game, but as for splitting them into categories? I just never had time to do it.
 
What if, rather than voting for all these different categories, we just voted our top 3 favorites in each game. The #1 gets 3 points, #2 gets 2 points, #3 gets 1 point. Most points in each game gets a Golden AARLander, second most gets a Silver AARLander and 3rd most gets a Bronze AARlander.

I actually think this is a fine idea. It would eliminate the problems with categories, however I will say that it then starts a new problem. Gameplay AARs/Comedy AARs are usually the most popular AARs out there. If we did it your way, the top 3 AARs could possibly be all of the same genre. Now, I understand that, in a way, this is not bad; for the most popular AARs will be chosen. However, I must say that this could cause some problems for narrative and history book AARs. It's a well-known fact that most readers usually follow gameplay AARs (like Sforza) over other AARs. Of course, there are exceptions like Coz1's narratives or Timelines. I just think that certain AARs that deserve credit may not receive it due to the vast popularity of certain AARs. Maybe, I'm wrong though.

Overall, I think it's a solid idea, but I also understand if Mr. Capiatlist would rather stick with the current system. Though I must say I really like the whole idea of a Golden AARnie or Silver AARnie and so on. Has a nice ring to it. I also think that it easily simplifies the awards. As Alfred Packer said, one usually can immediately think of their top 3 AARs, but splitting them into categories (especially mixed ones) can be time-consuming and/or difficult.


3 -Rennslear's "The AAR that will end sometime around EU5"

I just found this incredibly funny. So true! :D
 
It might be a case where we use the Aarnie as a once a year award or as a separate award for an over-all feel. But one must admit that the Oscars/Grammies/Emmies etc are all divided into categories to maximize the number of winners.
 
It might be a case where we use the Aarnie as a once a year award or as a separate award for an over-all feel. But one must admit that the Oscars/Grammies/Emmies etc are all divided into categories to maximize the number of winners.

Very true...I don't know. It's tough to figure out what to do and how to enforce it.
 
I like the gold-silver-bronze idea, but take Eber's point about swamping by comedy AARs.

Could we have a gold-silver-bronze system with fewer categories per game? Most people should be able to tell the difference between:
1) Comedy
2) Pure Gameplay
3) Narrative/Historybook.

I know that I certainly struggle to tell narrative & historybook apart. I couldn't really say for certain which I am writing.
 
Last edited:
Most people should be able to tell the difference between:
1) Comedy
2) Pure Gameplay
3) Narrative/Historybook.

Unfortunately, this is not true. Many AARs look like narrative because they have characters who say things, but they remain Gameplay AARs regardless, because of an overabundance of in-game references or behind-the-scenes pictures. Since we are (mostly...) writing about events in a game, all AARs have gameplay roots, the question is how much of that comes forward. An AAR that I may consider to be History Book may be considered Gameplay by someone else because you get explanations about the decisions the player made. Also, in a character-driven AAR may become a Comedic one simply because the characters are aware of game-mechanics (like the Order of the Stick being aware of the D&D rules and useing them in everyday conversation). What would that be? Comedy? Gameplay? Narrative?
So no, it is not that trivial to determine the style. The only really working way to keep the categories and clear up the confusion would be to somehow force the writers to pick a "main-style" and label their work with that. Which still wouldn't be perfect. What if I want to write an AAR in which I cycle through all the currently used main styles? Each chapter can be different. I could make my first King in EU3 a thinker, using Gameplay style, then the next one could be a fool, resulting in Comedy, the third one a warmonger, again Gameplay style, the fourth one could have a historian, chronicling his deeds, the fifth one could even have friends, and some adventures... You get the point. Of course you can state that such "special" AARs are not eligable for votes, but I'm not sure that is the intention.
 
Unfortunately, this is not true. Many AARs look like narrative because they have characters who say things, but they remain Gameplay AARs regardless, because of an overabundance of in-game references or behind-the-scenes pictures. Since we are (mostly...) writing about events in a game, all AARs have gameplay roots, the question is how much of that comes forward. An AAR that I may consider to be History Book may be considered Gameplay by someone else because you get explanations about the decisions the player made. Also, in a character-driven AAR may become a Comedic one simply because the characters are aware of game-mechanics (like the Order of the Stick being aware of the D&D rules and useing them in everyday conversation). What would that be? Comedy? Gameplay? Narrative?
So no, it is not that trivial to determine the style. The only really working way to keep the categories and clear up the confusion would be to somehow force the writers to pick a "main-style" and label their work with that. Which still wouldn't be perfect. What if I want to write an AAR in which I cycle through all the currently used main styles? Each chapter can be different. I could make my first King in EU3 a thinker, using Gameplay style, then the next one could be a fool, resulting in Comedy, the third one a warmonger, again Gameplay style, the fourth one could have a historian, chronicling his deeds, the fifth one could even have friends, and some adventures... You get the point. Of course you can state that such "special" AARs are not eligable for votes, but I'm not sure that is the intention.

I agree with Slan. This is a good idea but hugely complex.

Certainly my current CK game used to pick up votes in the gameplay category which I felt was fair enough - it uses the game events to drive the story and form the characters whose doings are reported in the AAR. It now seems to be seen as a comedy (which I don't mind at all - the underlying standard of the gameplay was pretty dire), mainly as the main character has evolved into some sort of celestial incompetent & I'm a huge fan of those comedy writers who tell indirect jokes (PG Wodehouse being still the classic of this approach). Even my current HOI3 which is pretty deliberately pitched at History Book is obviously just another way to report the game events and has a number of posts looking at the AI, supply and other game mechanics. The real narratives are those like Directors Special Providence where you can no longer see the game - in fact it could be written without playing the game.

In part this is why I find AP's suggestion so attractive. If the result is that gameplay/comedy orientated AARs tend to win, I'm not so sure that is such a problem.
 
Throwing in my 2 centimes worth –

I agree with proposals 1, 2 and 4. In particular, I agree with using the rule of thumb of most votes rather than highest proportion of votes as it gets too arcane otherwise.

As to proposal 3 which seems to generate the most discussion, I firstly make the following statistical observation. On my review of the last round of voting, there was a total of 42 members who voted. Of those 42, 16 members (38%) voted for more than 3 categories within the 1 game, and of those, 5 members (12%) voted for more than 3 categories in 2 games – needless to say, these diligent people were all long time stalwarts of AARland. Although I noticed the trend half way through my count, it also appeared to me that only Vicky 2 and EU attracted these >3 category votes.

From this, I make the observation the majority of voters already nominate 3 or less AAR’s for each game.

Philosophically, I have no problem with a 3-2-1 system although that may be because it is so familiar to me from picking best & fairest in football.

From my observations, the style of AARs evolve over time as the game matures, starting out mostly gameplay and then progressing to history book and narrative as people come to grips with the mechanics and are looking for a new twist to their story. Comedy tends to be fairly constant after the first few months following the release of a new game as players get over the initial shock. There are some exceptions where people push gameplay to extremes in mature games but these generally also include some novelties (such as rebel body counts and gravel) to distinguish them from just another WC.

I also have no objection to continuing with the existing categories. However, if we are to do so, then I suggest that the opening post each voting thread should include a brief description of each category as a reminder to voters of what they are looking for.

I would also suggest that rather than having the author nominate what type of AAR they are writing at the start of the story, instead the author should make a post shortly after each poll is opened, inviting readers to vote and specifying what category of AAR the author would like to be voted for. This would serve the purpose of resolving the Polonius dilemna (Hamlet Act 2 Scene 2 lines 400ff) which has been well put by Slan.

More importantly, such a post may assist with the more chronic issue of low participation rates amongst readers in voting. I have observed almost embarrassment in authors inviting their faithful public to vote. If there is 1 thing I admire about canonized (and there is certainly more than 1 thing to admire about that author), he is wonderful in galvanising his readers into action. So no matter which system is used going forward, it would assist if authors, especially those at the top of the mnplastic bell curve, actively encouraged the people to exercise their democratic rights for the betterment of AARland

Finally, it is all aldriq’s fault!!!
 
I think, more than author posts and official decisions we need a guide and examples.

So we could come out with a key.

  1. Is it meant to be funny? Yes, then it is comedy. No, continue.
  2. Do characters drive the plot without referencing the game mechanics (meta reference)? Yes, then it is narrative. No, continue.
  3. Do events drive the plot without referencing the game mechanics (meta reference)? Yes, then it is history book. No, then it is game play.

The differences can be subtle, comedy is a genre rather than a style. So here is a set up:
You are playing, it is about 1314 in CK and your king gets the realm duress trait after changing his inheritance to by-pass his eldest son, with whom he is estranged.

Narrative:
The King paced back and forth, his head a spinning mess of apprehension and anger. It was his Kingdom, which was his through blood and blood alone. His father ruled as he saw fit, his grandfather and all his ancestors as far as anyone could remember ruled as they saw fit; why was he a big exception? Why did the nobles do this to him? His eldest son, the Prince of Wales, had long-ago fallen from his favor, after refusing the marry the Princess of France and instead left for the Crusader. He did not return a hero, the whole trip a waste, so the King had given him Wales to keep him from the court. But now the King had a new heir, his youngest son, the Prince of Cornwall. But after the King had his new son crowned, the nobles showed their disdain by refusing to pay their taxes and to make matters worse news of nobles flocking to the Prince of Wales's side was trickling into London.

History Book:
In 1314, after exiling his eldest son from the court in London, the King of England experienced a series of rebellions. Nobles chose to support his eldest son, the Prince of Wales, over the newly crowned Prince of Cornwall. They disagreed with the King, claiming that even though he was King, he could not change the succession laws without their permission first.

Game Play:
Damned, then right after I got my new heir and made him a Duke, I got the realm duress trait. I must have had an unloyal vassal in Scotland.

I don't think I need an example for comedy, just make any of the above funny (I am not all that funny as a writer). But you can see that there are significant differences in style. Many game play aars are written in a matter-of-fact form. There is no need to flesh out anything. You can also see that narrative and history book deviated from what really happened (if the game play was the truth). This isn't necessary, but since history book and narrative have plots, authors will not want to throw weird plot changes into their stories and then try to justify an unruly game system by telling "white lies".
 
Interesting discussion - I pretty much stopped paying attention to the awards after the last set of reforms.

I would suggest that the problem is a lack of participation. On that basis AP's suggestion has a lot of merit as it's very easy for people to list their three favourite AARs for each game. As well as the winners perhaps there should also be an honourable mention for anyone who got a vote - a 'Campaign Medal' so to speak.

Suggestions about strengthening categories seem overly complex and more than a bit artificial. People just don't agree - I think as I suspect most people will that I write Gameplay AARs - a no brainer - yet I've had votes in History book before :confused:
 
Interesting discussion - I pretty much stopped paying attention to the awards after the last set of reforms.
Which reforms were those and why did you dislike them? I think you've made an edit, I remember seeing a bit more when I read it last. Certain ones are not up anymore. There is no limit to the number of times you can win in a given year.
 
Which brings me to point two: aldriq is winning the award for most schizophrenic fans as xyr AAR was a contender in three columns... No fault to aldriq of course, but come on! The votes are public!

My fans are all lovely people, including however many multiple personalities they wish to have or display... and even Davout :rolleyes:

All the voices inside my head agree with all your proposals except the third one. Voice #7 doesn't like the idea of imposing yet more hurdles in the voting... voices #3 and #5 are up for AP's simplified voting, but voice #6 rightly argues that the complete removal of categories would mean some really good AARs never get awarded; if categories are preserved, voices #2 and #5 see the merit of asking the authors to suggest a single category to the readers before each award round, however voice #7 cautions against imposing this decision on voters/readers, who might feel slightly patronised/downright insulted if the freedom to choose what they personally value the most in an AAR is taken away from them, especially with so many hybrid AARs these days...

Time for the medicine...