Scummies 2010 Nominations

[Adel]

I see so many ways for it to go horribly, horribly right.

ALL HAIL DISCORDIA!

[Adel]

I should have probably whored it a bit more to get people to notice it.

possibly.
my first game as scum, which nobody happened to notice.
the game I won a scummy for, after whoring it up a bit but apparently not enough to turn off the judges. I suppose the player list we got our flawless win against mattered.

[Adel]

Sooo, is nominating yourself allowed? I don't know if it is. In any case, I'd like to put my name forward for consideration for

Best Performance Third Party

for my win as the SK in Revenge of the Crimson King. I usually hate tooting my own horn but I was actually very thrilled with my win there. I don't win often =)

3 layers of fail
1. a self nom
2. was a nk & investigation immune sk
3. called Glork a "sore loser" in the post game.

[Adel]

My main objection to self-noms stems from my experience as a scummy judge: there are too damn many nominations for any judge to make a truly informed decision.

Allowing self-nominations will only exasperate the problem.

[Adel]

My main objection to self-noms stems from my experience as a scummy judge: there are too damn many nominations for any judge to make a truly informed decision.

Allowing self-nominations will only exasperate the problem.

*exacerbate

noted. that is the word I was attempting to use. thank you.

[Adel]

My main objection to self-noms stems from my experience as a scummy judge: there are too damn many nominations for any judge to make a truly informed decision.

Allowing self-nominations will only exasperate the problem.

Wouldn't more games = more informed decision. As is you're not picking the best, you're picking the best nominated.

as I see it

more nominations = more games for the judges to review = less attention for each nom = less chance of the judges picking the "correct" nom to award with a scummy

[Adel]

3. called Glork a "sore loser" in the post game.

What's wrong with posting the truth?

nothing, which is why Glork isn't a sore loser.

[Adel]

Nominate: Hoopla for Professor Mafia

for this http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 94#2185294

This contribution is huge. Not only does it take a long time, but it helps to stop the endless chatter without any data. Data is good. It helps us make informed comments without relying on simple anecdotal evidence that is fraught with problems.

I am grateful for the contributions made already on behalf of some essayists, but to my mind, Hoopla's contribution here is something that helps Mafia Discussion (Professor Mafia=Contribution to Mafia Discussion) in ways that essays can't possibly hope to do.

werd.

second

! Data driven mafia discussion is a huge improvement, and it takes hard work and dedication.

[Adel]

Look, I accept we're going to have differences of opinion on things like these, and I can accept that she gets nommed for collecting the data - ultimately the judges will make the decision as to what they think is most important. But I don't see what hoopla is adding as that notable.

Don't get me wrong, I really appreciate it and I hope she continues to get data for analysis, but what does the data actually tell us? I mean, it's just a list of win percentages relating to different setup types. It's a great starting point for discussion about balance, and I hope people take up that opportunity (I'm going to make some comments in a bit). But this kind of thing has been done before: there are countless people who have run stats on newbie games win percentages, and I know that I myself have done something like this before, and a google search reveals that you have too, Adel. What makes this particularly noteworthy?

(As to why I think the things I nominated to are particularly noteworthy, as someone is inevitably going to throw this in my face: I think that both JD and shea are raising topics that aren't often discussed yet have relevance to the way that people play mafia. JD's is more self serving and shea's is more notable imo, but I'm interested in seeing what JD adds in the continuation of his series.)

This is intended to spark debate btw. If you disagree, please please please say why and don't just blow me off. Adel, I'm looking at you here.

Her methodology:
1. Collect data (her sample size was 336, which is huge compared to the work you and I have done before)
2. Analyse it.
3. Write essay incorporating her experience with the results of her analysis of the data. See: http://www.mafiascum.net/forum/viewtopi ... 12#2187212

everyone else typically just jumps to 3, without their analysis being based upon data.