| Veknoid_Outcast said: Jaicee, I appreciate you being thoughtful about ways to improve the process and make the experience better for everyone involved. |
I wasn't intending to argue anything, but rather to propose two ideas for the improvement of our annual awards process: one aiming to further democratize the process and the other seeking to balance the inevitable consequences of that out with a structural guarantee of visibility for games created by smaller developers. I see that we're not going to discuss either here though, so let's just forget I ever posted this thread and move on.
(I remarked about my emergent distrust of the process only in order to suggest that further democratization of the process has merit. That distrust was rooted primarily, but not exclusively, in this post explaining that the overall winner was separated from the runners-up by a margin of 1.5% while also pointing out that the winner was neither the first nor even the second choice of the staff. In consideration of the fact that staff votes are weighted, effectively counting as more than one vote per person, this math suggests that TLOU2 in reality got substantially more votes than the competition and that the weighting of the staff vote is the only reason the contest was close. This had been my primary, circumstantial basis for suspicion, but I had other reasons as well. Regardless though, if you say there was no coordination involved, I believe you. Sorry for being I guess kind of an annoying sore winner; I just really liked TLOU2 and the reaction to it winning, together with the staff positions, has unfortunately left me a little bitter. Anyway, my aim was to highlight the difference that a simpler, more transparent process might make in terms of ensuring trust. Though it appears I've been the only distrustful person in reality. *sighs* Whatever. I'm done with this thread and will not respond to follow-up posts. Bye.)
Last edited by Jaicee - on 20 March 2021
