Alternative History
Register
Advertisement

Additions[]

I've added a few more awards to this one than there was last year, and in addition have split up a few. If you've any questions, feel free to ask.

Note that if anyone else has any ideas for a new award, please let us know here. I'm willing to add any that are reasonable.

Overall, the rules are the same as last year, as well.

Lordganon 09:14, December 1, 2011 (UTC)

Since we're a bit lacking on nominations in a few areas, I'm thinking I'll open nominations in all categories so that the creator can nominate something of theirs. Unless someone objects, this will happen tomorrow. Lordganon 15:59, December 24, 2011 (UTC)

...Well, almost all. Only lifetime writer and TSPTF member ones remain. Have fun, everyone, and a Merry Christmas!

Lordganon 23:59, December 25, 2011 (UTC)

Questions[]

For the map game one, does it have to have been made in 2011, or just begun? Because Principia Moderni was made in the latest days of December 2010, but it didn't begin until 2011 (plus it was sort of excluded from the stirlings last year as it was made after them but still in that year, so it is sort of unfair that it can have been made right after but be disqualified as it is 5 days or so early). LurkerLordB 01:49, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

Has to be made and begun this year. Lordganon 01:54, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

Worst thing about this time of year. I have to save all my good ideas for January just so they have a shot at the Stirlings. CrimsonAssassin 02:34, December 3, 2011 (UTC)

Sort of a pity, since Principia Moderni's probably the best map game, but it was made 5 days too early... Then it died for a month and then Kenny resurrected in in January of 2011 and then it actually began. LurkerLordB 16:49, December 3, 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone vote? DeanSims 16:16, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

So long as you have more than a hundred edits, yes. Lordganon 17:55, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

Doomsday Nominees[]

Occurred to me that most of you won't see this, so I'm putting the articles graduated this year here.

Well, I think that's all of them. Think this should dispel the idea that it's dying, lol.

May the best one win!

Lordganon 02:01, December 6, 2011 (UTC)

Chances are people think its dying because the map games get so many edits by so many people they clog up the most active pages and the recent activity things. LurkerLordB 02:05, December 6, 2011 (UTC)

Award[]

Perhaps a "TL wit most potential"? Flag of South Korea PitaKang- (Talk|Contribs) 00:24, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

Maybe that would work as "Best PoD"? Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 01:35, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. *cough cough* A Soviet AxisFlag of South Korea PitaKang- (Talk|Contribs) 02:37, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

That'd be one for next year. Lordganon 06:29, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

The Cut-Off[]

Currently, almost all users on the page on the Map Games section (except for LordGanon) think that Principia Moderni should be allowed to be nominated as it was not created until late December, once the nominations were pretty much done and before any real content could be added to the page. Currently, this is seen unfair by many, due to the fact that it pretty much disqualifies any TL, Map Game, or anything created in December, as the voting starts at the beginning of that month and nothing would get so big and get so noticed in such a short time for it to be able to win in that time. As this is unfair to anything created in December, I propose that the Cut-Off be not the beginning of 2011, but the beginning of the nominations for last years' awards. LurkerLordB 01:03, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

I support changing the cut-off to the beginning of last year's awards[]

I support keeping the cut-off at 2011's beginning as it is[]

I have my own idea (post)[]

Discussion[]

We are not changing it at this time. Bring it up next November. Lordganon 01:08, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a change, this is a different interpretation of the rules. The original intent of the rules wasn't to exclude perfectly good games for unnecessarily strict reasons, such as being created (although not started) less than two weeks outside the cut-off. We're a community trying to promote excellent community work on the site, and we're not a DMV. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 02:29, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

No, it is a change. Notice the "2011" on the page? Not an interpretation, at all.

I gave ample opportunity for adjustments more than a month ago. No one took it. So, you can bring it up in November.

Lordganon 02:47, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

You clearly saw this coming, and you were definitely aware of this issue beforehand, judging by your omnipresence on the site… Which gives me reason to believe you would have struck down the idea if it had been brought up earlier. At least I got that feeling, which is why I didn't bring up the subject earlier, and which may be why no one else did.

There is no reason it cannot change now, and there is no issue of fairness if all parties concerned (those who nominate or wish to nominate games, or be nominated in this case) agree. On the other hand, this decision is most certainly unfair if the entire community except one person believes it to be unfair. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 04:20, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

You give me far too much credit, Kenny. I can honestly say that I had no idea when PM was created, until checking up on nominations, and had assumed it to be 2011. Heck, I copied last year's rules word for word for that section.

Both South and Oer have now stated, more or less, that it is not changing for this one. We'll disscuss it for the future, but you were given a very long chance quite some time ago, and failed to notice.

Because of all of this unneeded foolishness I've made a note to add some better categories to solve the issue next year.

Now, this is done. Take it up somewhere else - preferably, the section on the "Main" talk page where I asked for such things more than a month ago - or wait until November.

Lordganon 05:03, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

More or less? More like not at all. I know that being one of the most dedicated members of the site, you are almost never wrong, but if this is one of those times where it is humanly possible you made a mistake, you need to have some leeway. I ask you to give a number of people, a number of TSPTF, a ratio, or any other condition for that matter, under which you would give into the needs of the community. I don't care where you need it to be 5 to 1 or 5000 to 1, but I need to see that you are willing to cooperate, if this does happen to be one of those times. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 05:22, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

Needs? More like your gratification.

I suggest that you go an read their statements again.

Oer: "Well I think with the nature of map games the rules next year should change."

South: "But, as things go, the words "created in" are clear."

South's is a little hedgy, but Oer's isn't.

I've already given you a concession. To quote: "Because of all of this unneeded foolishness I've made a note to add some better categories to solve the issue next year." But you're angry enough that you didn't notice.

Lordganon 06:46, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

Whether PM wins is not my main worry here. Sure it would be nice, I'm not denying anything, but that's irrelevant. My point here is that you are leading a front against the entire community alone, and somehow getting away with it. And you realize that Oer may have given in to you, but that doesn't mean he agrees with you. There is a huge difference. Maybe he is a bit less outspoken than you are, but that does not mean you should immediately discredit his actual opinion. He had explicitly stated that he wished exception to be made for Principia Moderni.

Unneeded? Who gave you the right to decide that others' opinions are unneeded and therefore unimportant to the site? What makes the repeated insistence of me, LurkerLordB, Oerwinde, SouthWriter, and others unneeded? Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 07:30, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

Please. For you, that's entirely relevant. You're extremely biased on the subject.

Oer did not give in. He noted that I had a point after I noted that it was eligible last year. Nor did I discredit him at all. As for your "explicitly" remark, I suggest you actually take the time to read what he said after that.

Excuse me? Since when did I say others were "unneeded?" I suggest that you actually read that sentence again. What I said was that I consider it unneeded.

South and Oer did not support you. Lurker is also not demanding what you are. So, that leaves you, with your bias because it is your game in question. Three guesses on that one.

Lordganon 08:16, December 13, 2011 (UTC)


VonGlusenburg's proposal[]

First let me say that the awards are for time lines created in 2011 so since Principia Moderni wasn't created in 2011 it shouldn't be a candidate for this year's Stirling Awards. It is clearly stated; but these "Best ____ of the Year" awards have the fatal flaw of basically overlooking content made in December, as this content is still in the process of being created, and in order to become the best of that year, I think you need some time to make a very good time line.

For example lets assume I come up with an even better map game now, and its simply the best. I probably won't be able to win the best map game of 2011 award because map games (like all over articles) take time to mature.

To compensate this problem I think you need to move the Stirling Awards into the next year, so we have ample time for time lines & articles to mature, and so nominators have ample time to decide who they want to nominate.

This "mulling/maturing period" solves the problem of articles being overlooked, as changing the cut-off date just moves the problem, if LurkerLordB's proposal was implemented, it means that articles created in November would be mostly overlooked as November articles most likely won't have enough time to become the best of that year.

  • Proposal A: Now I propose, we keep the Stirling Awards the same, but change the "Best of ___ Awards" to congratulate content made the previous year. E.g. This year's Stirling Awards, "Best of 2011 Awards" would change to "Best of 2010 Awards". This would give content ample time to mature, and so we can mull over 2010 content with much more fairness, as they've had a year to mature and become good.
  • Proposal B: Alternatively, this year's awards are run as normal, and next year we change the Stirling Awards to being just the "lifetime achievement" type awards, and they operate as normal. Then in May we can have the "Best of ____ Awards" to applaud the best content created in the previous year. I say May, as 5 months should be long enough for the "mulling/maturing period." Thus making the Stirling Awards for the best content on the site, and making the "Best of ___ Awards" for the best in that year.

I'm personally not concerned with the actual Principia Moderni problem, more the root/core problem of content created in the nominations period being overlooked. To the Principia Moderni problem I'd just award it a "Best Map Game" award, as in for lifetime achievement, and have that as a new category; because its not fair something from last year should take the award from something made this year.

Anyway, I hope this helps you guys with your problems :) VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 17:00, December 13, 2011 (UTC).

At this point I think it would just be difficult and confusing to change the dates on the current and past awards; furthermore, a whole year is a tremendously long period to wait when measured in Internet Time. I don't see "A" going forward for those reasons.
Lifetime Achievement has been a part of the awards before, so I don't see any harm in "B".
If I were to weigh in on the specific issue of Principia, I'd say it definitely should count as a 2011 addition to the wiki. It was created too late for last year's awards, so therefore it is part of the 2011 season, as it were. If Principia just belongs to no year, and is thus never allowed to "compete" because of this technicality, this would seem to go against the purpose of the awards, namely identifying the wiki's best content. If someone created a timeline next week and it blossomed over the subsequent months, I would likewise want it to be recognized for 2012. Benkarnell 19:01, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

If it wasn't brought up before and it was rejected I'm sorry that I mentioned it in advance, but can we not just have a Lifetime Achievement Award: Map Games section for the best map games in the wiki's entirety? Map games are the only thing that doesn't have a section for a lifetime award. That way Principia Moderni can then still be nominated and still have a chance to win something... ChrisL123 20:31, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

Map games are overly under-represented on this wiki, but when I tried to bring up another case of their underepresentation, I found out that a bunch of the more serious Althistorians find them sort of ridiculous, and that the wiki can't promote them as much as they should without appearing ridiculous to those people. Sort of odd, as they are the most popular part of theis wiki (at this time). LurkerLordB 21:36, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Ben about "A." That is not only confusing, but really doesn't make all that much sense, to be honest.

"B," however, really doesn't work either. Part of it is the period of time, as Ben said. But, that really doesn't work either.

I admit, I'd thought about a "Timeline of the Year" award, and etc., but thought better of it because of the two sections already covering it. It would appear that may have been a bad choice, mind. The same applies, to some extent, to a "Lifetime" award for the Map Games - given the turnover rate for those games, there was not - and really still isn't much of one, honestly - any point to the idea - the last thing we need is a long-dead item getting an award, you know?

As said above, I'd actually thought PR was created in 2011. I was really quite surprised to find out a few days after I posted the awards that this was not the case, when I checked to make sure of its eligibility, like I've done with every nomination thus far. Too late to do anything about it, in that regard.

Note, too, that I did ask last month for suggestions, or pointers, but almost none were given. And that I did copy the Map Game section, word for word, from last year's awards.

Technically, it was eligible last year - I really wish that Mitro had made it open for creators to nominate their own works in this category, as it likely would have been nominated. It may have taken off this year, but that was after dying for three weeks and then getting reborn.

I've already stated that the matter will change. The dates of the awards.... unlikely. But I will ensure that "Timeline of the Year" and etc. will get added to the "New" awards and the "Lifetime" ones. Heck, when the time comes, I'll nominate PR for the lifetime one, despite how ASB I honestly do consider it, because of its size, and for reasons that baffle me, its staying power.

As for all of this on here with Kenny, he's really the last person who should be arguing, since a "victory" would only benefit him.

@Lurk

Yeah, we've a little bit of a bad rap because of it. It's overblown, I admit - Ben will attest to this, I'm sure, given his previous comments elsewhere on the matter - but it does exist. And I would much rather gain timelines than map games, which runs counter to us having them. As I said to your post about that originally, there is no point at all to having a featured map game. A link, maybe, but even that is sketchy.

To see the original stuff about this....

http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Alternative_History_talk:TSPTF#Map_Games

Lordganon 07:31, December 14, 2011 (UTC)


If you don't address the problem of content being overlooked during the nomination period, this sort of stuff will just happen again. VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 12:36, December 14, 2011 (UTC)

You're right, Ganon, that my position has always been that the "wider AH community" (AH.com) can stuff it - they were negative about this wiki before the Map Games, and they have been negative since the Map Games. As long as we exist, AH.com will not like us.

An interesting random thought: the AH.com forum doesn't show RecentChanges in the same way a wiki does. But if they did, I'll bet that "Shared Worlds" games and political chat would appear to dominate their site just as much as the Games appear to dominate ours. By their very nature, they involve more, faster posts than ordinary alternate history internet writing. I agree with Ganon that the Timelines should remain the centerpiece of our site just as they are at AH.com, with the Games remaining basically a side project. Even if their post count is high, it's somewhat deceptively so. (That doesn't mean that they should be shunned, by any means; just kept in perspective.)

One final interesting thought (maybe off topic). What do you have when a Map Game is concluded? A timeline. If you believe the Games are getting under-represented, I would suggest taking the best of the Game timelines and nominating it to be a featured timeline. See what the community thinks. I agree that having a separate Featured Game would over-represent them. But having a link would be quite appropriate.

Benkarnell 00:02, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

I agree, just keep map games eligible for the Lifetime Achievement timeline award when they are done, and then we can just bring up moving the cut-off to the beginning of these awards next november. So, I guess that is sort of settled. Map games have improved on the most part, since the days of Europe 1430 (for the most part). LurkerLordB 01:29, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

The key problem with all about the map games is that none have ever come close to finishing. PR and 1430 have been the closest, with PR being currently just under three hundred years off, and 1430 having ended just under 200 years off. No other game has even broke the halfway point, and really can't think of any that have gotten too close to even that. Calling most of them timelines would be a stretch too, though for a few I do agree with the concept.

Basically, a lifetime award, by and large, would be granted to either abandoned or just started games, more often than not. There's just no real point to that, you know?

I've no doubt that the majority of posts on AH.com are there, too. Not that they would ever admit it - and I bet such a thought posted on that site would get you banned, too, lol.

Lordganon 08:18, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

Currently there are three games listed as finishing, the original and one other made it to the present (even if they were crazy implausible) and then some colonization game for islands finished once everything was colonized (but the moderators had it finish before the present). Really, only Principia Moderni has a large amount of articles, and I think that if everyone really started working on making articles for their nations, it could theoretically turn into a timeline. I don't know if it is worthy enough for a Lifetime Achievement award, but we'll have to see if it is nominated next year. LurkerLordB 23:42, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

Have to eat a little crow here, didn't know about the Rebirth one. The original, however.... that one, really ended long before where it is right now when it quit being even remotely plausible, and the anons and one rather... implausible? user finished it - somewhat, the same applies to the Rebirth one. The Atlantic one really doesn't count, either, given its stated goals. Lordganon 00:22, December 16, 2011 (UTC)

LordGanon[]

I quite frankly don't believe LordGanon really deserves to be the Male Writer of the Year. He's hard-working, I'll give you that. But I believe that it is how one "plays with others" that really makes a difference. KS takes suggestions and ideas for his timelines freely, and LG spends much of his time putting down any idea that does not fit his narrow view of things. To be the best writer in a community like our wiki it is essential you are a team player, and as such LG should be disqualified until he learns to drop his superiority complex.

Yank 20:00, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

Probably something that should have come up during the nomination process, not after voting has already begun and he has gained significant votes. Either way, both KingSweden and NuclearVacuum are ahead of him.Oerwinde 20:06, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

As I've said several times now, if you don't like a nomination, then do not vote for it.

Yank, you need to calm down, and quit making posts with that tone.

Lordganon 02:06, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the point of voting to say who you think is the best winner for the award? LurkerLordB 02:36, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

...Yeah, that's more or less what LG said. I agree with Oerwinde and LG; If you don't want somebody as a nominee, don't vote for it instead of starting a vendetta against him like the one you've started, Yank. Fed (talk) 04:01, January 3, 2012 (UTC)
Advertisement