AARland Choice AwAARds Discussion Thread

[anonymous4401]

I think that it's time for a thread discussing the ACA and giving feedback about the ACA and complaining about the ACA and whatnot. Hey, the Advocate gets one! For reference, here is the ACA Result Archive, which I just updated.

As you may or may not know, the next ACA is coming up, to run from Oct 01 to Oct 28, covering AARs that were updated between Jul 01 and Sep 30 2006. It will be the fourth ACA done for the entire forums, and in fact with its completion we would have had a full year of AARland Choice AwAARds!

Now, in the last round we had roughly a 75% increase in the number of voters from the round previous. For the Final Round, we had only a few more voters than the main round. And of course here at ACA Industries the sky is the limit! More voters and more votes next round, that shall always be our goal! What marketing strategies could we implement to increase our base saturation? Perhaps an advertising campaign?

The last round was also a first: The implementation of a final round, a 'Final Round', if you will. In poll format, it was decried by some as a return to the old paradigm of award-giving that the ACA was so lauded for breaking form with, but don't quote me on that. However, participation was high, though not as high as the more optimistic projections, and feedback was more evenly spread across the four boards than anticipated. So should it be making a return?

There is also the question of categories. Category participation across the board, with the exception of Gameplay, Crusader Kings was satisfactory. Meanwhile, the Favorite New Writer category was a bit borderline, considering that it was an Overall category yet was actually second-to-last in number of votes in category. (Dead last is Gameplay, Crusader Kings, of course) Should the category continue as is, or should there be some alterations to the criteria, or should it be abolished altogether? A possible change might be to allow all first AARs that were started in the past four months, rather than three, and have updated in the quarter, as those stragglers in the last quarter may not have had time to build up a good amount of updates. Of course, that still does not address the issue of low category participation. An idea might be to assemble a list of actually eligible AARs, though I am reluctant to do that as that is not done for any other category. However as this category actually has very well-defined, objective criteria, it would certainly be much more feasible.

Also there is always the suggestion of the implementation of new categories, as well as what this quarter's 'Special' category should be. Last quarter's was the New Writer category, but feedback might indicate that that might be favored as staying on as a permanent category. So what should the special category be? Best Multiplayer AAR? Best Short AAR? Most Unique AAR?

So what say you, shareholders?

[coz1]

What's wrong with using this thread anonymous?

Seriously, sounds like a good idea for another round.

[anonymous4401]

Well, that thread's title makes it specific to the last round. This thread will be for all time, and will be bumped every time preparations for the next ACA begins!

[Veldmaarschalk]

About a new category, my choice would be best MP AAR

They are really in a league of their own, and it is easier to find MP AAR's then finding someone who starts his first AAR

[King of Men]

There aren't very many MP AARs, though. :doubtful:

[fj44]

Originally Posted by King of Men

There aren't very many MP AARs, though. :doubtful:

IIRC, there's at least 3 Vicky MP AARs. If you toss in the ones from all the other games, you probably have enough for a category. Of course, the category will be a little light for the smaller sections of AARland, but perhaps it will be workable. Perhaps it should be a category like: 'Best Multiplayer AAR, Any Forum'?

[CatKnight]

If you combine the MPs from all the games, then I think that works.

New writer's....certainly a nice idea, just sounds hard to administrate, ratify that this is the chap's first effort, etc.

The categories in general are good. Personally the overlap's always... struck me the wrong way. (Is this AAR historical? Is it a narrative? Etc.) It works as well as we can hope though.

I don't care for the Favorite AAR, All Forums 'championship' from last round. If you'll recall there that thread there was one person who felt the results were biased because of the number of EU/VIC/CK players here vs. HOI. There were others who felt the results suggested people weren't reading the AARs thoroughly.

These awards are ideally designed to bring us together, not factionalize us. A second round among the favorite AARs encourages this competition. It encourages players to vote by game, because if I (as an example) don't like Vicky/Ricky, then I'm less likely to be able to get into a Vicky AAR no matter how well it's written. Anyway, in many cases just because of the nature of the games we're comparing apples and oranges.

I'd drop the second round.

[anonymous4401]

...the HOI AAR didn't win. The Vicky AAR got within two votes of the HOI AAR.

[CatKnight]

:erase erase erase:

I went and reviewed the thread so I could be sure of my facts. I interperted one of the posts there a certain way at the time, but upon review (and knowing how hard it is to really communicate with words on a screen!) it's probable I misunderstood what he meant, so I withdraw the specific comment.

I still wonder at the value of effectively comparing apples and oranges, however: I think each game breeds slightly different AAR styles, and if I, again as an example, don't frequent the Vic forums it might be harder for me as a voter to fairly compare the Vicky winner to the others.

[coz1]

Originally Posted by anonymous4401

...the HOI AAR didn't win. The Vicky AAR got within two votes of the HOI AAR.

I would note that Yogi, Mett and Renss are all prominent in HoI, either by writing or reading there. Thus, the results of that final vote was blessed by having multiple people who were "known" there. I hate to say it, but I doubt we would have seen the same type of result were we dealing with four writers primarily known only in the game they were writing in - i.e. MacRaith in CK. His AAR was surely just as good, but was no where near competing with the other three. I maintain that I'd rather not see the four games compete with one another, but prefer to keep this a celebration of the great work done in all four games.

I was pleased with the turn out for the final round, to be sure, but I note we don't see those numbers in the individual game polls currently going on. Given the great strides AARland has taken and the results reached in overall forum interaction, it just doesn't seem needed to utilize something that runs the risk of messing with that.

[anonymous4401]

Well, as for MacRaith's AAR, a reason was given, and that was that it was abandoned, and also not as long as the others. Many gave these reasons as to why they did not vote for MacRaith's AAR. And a sample size of one is hardly enough to make a good estimate anyways.

Though really, does this interforum rivalry really exist? If there is any it seems to be low-key, so why would an anonymous poll affect anything? Ironically the only way it would happen is if people started decrying the poll as being biased towards one side...

Also, are Rensslaer and Mettermrck really that well known in HOI? They are certainly more active than MacRaith was, but their participation in HOI is far less than the average reader of HOI.

Also, the Final Round gets people to read at least one very good AAR in another forum. And just how are the numbers being bigger in the Final Round than the individual game polls an indictment against it? It is the opposite, if anything!

[CatKnight]

Actually that's precisely what I'm saying: One of the comments looked very much like someone felt the poll was in danger of being biased. As I said, it's possible I misinterperted the statement...but the perception exists.

Does the rivalry exist? It is certainly lower key than it was, but once in awhile...

I don't know how well Renn's known in HOI circles. Actually, I can't really speak for HOI circles at all, of course....but I'd point out Mett wrote 'Advantages without Obligations' in HOI 1, and I'd be very surprised if people had forgotten that.

As for getting people to read one very good AAR in another forum.... well, that is a good justification for it. It's the raison d'etre for many of our awards, including the Weekly Showcase.

I'm curious what others think - DID you read the stories in the games that don't normally interest you? When you voted, did you give it as much credit as you would if the AAR was in your 'regular' games?

[anonymous4401]

I should correct Mettermrck's participation in HOI to HOI2 in specific, I suppose.

And really, rivalry? On the fan-fiction boards of a strategic game company? How silly is that? If there is any, it's bound to be by only a handful of very silly people, because I can't imagine anyone getting worked up over that. I'd conjecture that there is more hubbub caused by the worrying of a rivalry than the rivalry itself!

[stnylan]

I don't think it is rivalry really - though there may be one or two people that way inclined. Put simply that many members in HoI rarely, if ever, venture outside that game. I'm not saying that they should be made to read other AARs. Clearly that would be ridiculous. But when compared to the followers of the other 3 games - well, most posters in EU2/CK/Vicky (though admittedly not all) will post in the other forums too - whereas plenty of posters in HoI 2 (probably for lack of interest - which is no crime!) will not. Given HoI2s comparative size, well, the odd ripple here and there is also to be expected. And also I feel that there is a far greater sense of AAR-land itself as a community now than existed a year or more ago.

That said I too dislike the idea of pitting the games into competition directly, just because this is not a competition, and because the games produce rather different AARs. And also because of the inevitable distance put between nominations and voting that a second round entails.

I would keep all the categories. CK voting will likely always be lower, but I do not see that as a reason to treat the game any differently.

An MP category - as I rarely read MP AARs not something I can comment on, but I would say the idea sounds good if it is across forum. Try it and see what happens.

New Writer, personally I would keep but is not something I have strong thoughts of either way.

I'm not a fan of ideas like Best Short/Unique etc. categories. Define short. 5 pages? How about an AAR that is 5 pages long but averages only 2-3 comments per update compared to one that averages 10-12 per update?

[anonymous4401]

It is hardly pitting the games into competition! It is giving a chance for an AAR to be given the highest award possible, that of favorite over all of AARland. You could ask why there would be a need for such a thing, but in that case, you might as well question the need to award awards at all! Really, it seems that people are worrying about hurt feelings and intergame rivalries because of this 'pitting'. But I ask you, is there any example of it, besides the people that are worrying about the possibility of hurt feelings and intergame rivalries springing from this?

And the games producing vastly different AARs? Even if you think this, which I do not, look at the best of the best AARs. Like, say, the four AARs that were in the last final round. What were they? Deeply involved narratives, all. So involved that one could mistake them for not being based off of a game at all, all. They have much more in common with each other than any four AARs you could pick from an individual game subforum.

[stnylan]

Originally Posted by anonymous4401

It is hardly pitting the games into competition! It is giving a chance for an AAR to be given the highest award possible, that of favorite over all of AARland.

Well anonymous, not the games true, but rather the respective subfora. And it is admittedly not something that particularly appeals to me. In some respects you say it yourself - highest award possible - isn't that all rather serious for something that is primarily meant to be a bit of fun? These awards especially are meant to be less serious than the others, or so I originally understood.

Edit: Oh, and your PM box is full

[Snake IV]

As I see it we could reform the final round. I do not like the fact that eatch forum is represented by one AAR. That do encourage rivalty between the forum even if not very much. What I would suggest is that we do have a vote about the best AAR overall in the first round and then pick a number of those who got most votes and do a poll with those, of course we have to make sure that every forum is represented. That will do so it is more AARs from bigger forums and votes that are put on a game just because it is from your forum will then be spread over several AARs taking away most of the bonus an AAR gets because of it's forum. This I think will eliminate most of the issues of that the AARs are from different forums. However, this do not come without side effects. I do not know how good it is to have more AARs as that can hurt the number of voters. I myself did not vote in the final round last time as I only had read MacReith's AAR and did not find my time to read the others.(this was however due to that I was almost not home at all dring that time) Next time I will take my time to at least scum through some of every AAR. I could see people not bothering as they don't think it is worth it to put the effort in it to vote. I would like to have it but if we would drop the final round altogeather I will not cry blood.


If we are going to have a MP cateory we will have to define what goes as a MP AAR as it is not clear. First we have the kind of which is a normal MP game in which every competitor contributes to the AAR. That one is of course in the category. Then we also have the kind of AAR where the authors do not play at the same time but rather just for a period and then next player takes over. I would like to see that one in the category too. Last we have the kind of AAR about a normal MP game but with just one author and just one veiw on the game. I do not think I should express myself in that question as I myslef write an AAR like that which also would get no other chance to be included into the ACA otherwise if this kind of AARs is no MP.

[coz1]

Clearly, anonymous, nothing anyone suggests negatively about the final round will make much sense to you as you seem to have your mind made up about it, as you did the last time when half the people that responded to your question suggested it was a bad idea and yet you stil went forward with it. I wonder why you asked the members in the first place. Sorry to be short about it, but that's the way it appears to me.

If you are asking people to vote on one of four works, what is that but competition? And I would entirely agree with stnylan - it is not a rivalry as much as the voting numbers bias of HoI, filled with readers who generally do not look at work from the other games (and as he said - not a crime, to be sure; but it also means those works from other areas may not get full scrutiny.) You may argue all you like about who is known where, but I have a pretty solid idea of who comments where and thus who is familar with and by the various games.

I actually would prefer Snake's suggestion if you absolutely must have a large poll, however, I would also say we have many polls already in AARland and I mentioned very early on that I did not wish to see this project take away from the various OscAARs, etc. But if you want one that badly, then choose those AARs that got the most votes regardless of games.

My major quandry with the final round is that I do not wish to foster a rivalry, and like it or not, a poll pitting one AAR from each game runs the risk of doing that. I don't think that would be good for AARland and it would not be good for Paradox, who is very gracious by allowing us this place to write in the first place. If you desire my input, there it is.

[Rensslaer]

Anonymous, if it helps, this was my rationale for not holding such a "final final" contest when I ran the couple rounds of the AARLand Choice in your absence...

I really felt like the whole AARLand Choice -- which I think is a TOP notch idea! -- would be cheapened by having a final final round. Without such a round, we produce four "top" winners. But a final round then takes those four winners and makes three of them "losers."

I know that's not how it's meant, but I feel that's inevitably how it seems. And I didn't mind coming in 3rd -- I in fact preferred the two winners to my own! and voted as such -- but there are others who might feel like their "top award" from the individual forum was less meaningful because they didn't fare so well in the final round.

Secondly, I'm feeling particularly "outpolled" right now. I'm advertising 3 different top-rank award polls in my .sig, and thankfully I'm not having to advertise AARLand Choice right now also.

I voted in the VictAARian Cross because I know those AARs. But the other two polls involve AARs I've never seen. I'm making a special effort to finish reading the EU II AARs for the OscAARs, even though I most decidedly don't have time. I'm doing so because I'm embarrassed at the low total number of votes these awards are receiving right now, and also because I think it's important to honor distinguished writers who might have no other method to be recognized. Sadly, I'm not sure if I'll make it to the CrusadAARs Chalice voting, because I'm seriously short on reading time. The fact that I spent a couple weeks' worth of reading time on three admittedly very worthy AARs (and the time spent very worthwhile too!) for the AARLand Choice Final Round is partly why I'm so behind on reading other things in AARLand, and I'm not sure I'm ready to take on another final round.

I think in polls like these, there must be balance. I think we've overdone it just a bit because of the number of polls competing for our time, and I bet I'm not the only one who's spent the majority of my reading time recently exclusively for polls!

Anyway... I feel very honored to have even been a contender in the AARLand Choice Final Round, and I'm grateful for not just those who supported me, but also for those who put in the effort to even READ my work!

I'm just not sure a repeat is such a good idea. I would rather AARLand Choice do what it does best -- getting the whole forums involved in reading a variety of AARs they might not otherwise see and producing a couple dozen "top" AARs from among them, rather than sorting a huge number of AARs into a very small number of "best of the best". I think that role should be left to the higher awards.

That said, thank you very much for the effort you put into this, and for putting forth the initiative to get it started in the first place! It's a needed and welcome addition to the forums!

Rensslaer

[Snake IV]

Originally Posted by Rensslaer

But a final round then takes those four winners and makes three of them "losers."

Which also is fix IMHO if there are more AARs to choose from. Not winning in a group of four is another ting to not winning in a group of seven, or ten. I can easily see how people would look upon the three not winning as "losers" in the last final round while I think it is another thing altogeather whit the OscAAR where there are many more to choose from.

I want to add one thing to my suggestion. One thing that can help solve the issue with too many AARs is to make a nice PDF file ready for the printer. It would contain a nice little reveiw of every AAR and one or two updates from them too, depending on how long the updates are. I could think of togeather with some else from here hold in this. It shouldn't be too much work if we let the authors choose the update and seek through the readers for one who is willing to write a short reveiw.