Just a reminder that voting for the CY Awards ends on the 8th. Still time to cast your votes 
http://vote.cyawards.com/
You can pick up your login temporary password in Cyawards world if you need it.
Just a reminder that voting for the CY Awards ends on the 8th. Still time to cast your votes
http://vote.cyawards.com/
You can pick up your login temporary password in Cyawards world if you need it.
Results of the CY Awards:
As you can see, the voter turnout for the CY awards is totally representative of the AW community as a whole. Yepyep.
Congrats Ant
Ty
It’s totally representative of the people who still give a shit about the CY Awards. *smirk*
I voted, but I did not go to the ceremony. Out of the winners, the only ones which I also voted for are Hyper Anthony and MaxPoly’s kitchen set. Congrats Ant!
Dying community yay! Absolute shit. Except Ant of course.
That’s my line!
I am kinda with Espilae on this one, I mean I really thought the best build would be between Ferr and Sirqus, but Veger wins? He is good if were still in 2002. Its a sad day when the years best build comes from Mars, especially with all the other great builds *sigh*. I am still pissed about how last year they had two of my builds competing against eachother in the same category which not only is unallowed, but also makes it impossible for me to win. Whatever though, with the exception of Ant and Bach Zhaa winning (Cuz they really deserved it) The rest of the CY awards are basically freedomfuks group of friends who are ignorant about what real building is.
I am not complaing (that much) But it kinda urks me to see them masquerade around like they are the best in show for AW, when really they are mostly modelers and not actual builders, I dunno. Are we as Alpha builders, in the traditional sense of manipulating standard path objects, a dying breed?
It’s more representative of the few people who remain interested in the CY Awards, anyway. Given how small the community is, people put a lot more importance into starting up their own events and awards (like prizes for quests in SWI, or prizes in Anthony’s speed builds). Those who don’t contribute that much put all their effort into a rather antiquated award ceremony that doesn’t mean much of anything, these days. I don’t care about the CY Awards at all. If you think a fairer voting system can be made, maybe a different awards ceremony can be made. The CY Awards are just one of the many events that people can start up with their own initiative, except with little meaning other than a circlejerk among a few friends.
At least the coordination behind the AW Reunion and the speed builds have actually produced something more than the same old voting system.
No need to rant, the event is run as fairly as they could make it. If you want to complain, take it out on voter turnout. AFAIK most of the community around this circle don’t bother voting, for example
I didn’t nominate or vote this year. Mostly because I forgot it was even coming. I don’t even bother to read the AWI forums anymore… which I never would have thought would happen a year ago.
Threads like this setback any chance at some semblance of a community by like 5 years. Good work!
*sigh* was so afraid it would be interpreted that way. It wasn’t a rant in the slightest of sense. It was just a longer way of saying “If you don’t like the CY awards, start up something of your own.” I was affirming the ability for individuals with ideas to create great events, and that the CY awards was one of those events, of which its value is only weighted by how many people care. I thought that was pretty obvious.
How does it set back community?
This.
Just like the real elections, if you don’t vote (or even nominate, for that matter), then you don’t get to bitch about the results. If you want the CY Awards to mean something again, then you gotta rock the vote.
I voted, and saw the results as strangely contradictory, just like the last several years. This led me to question the relevance of the CYs in the first place, pointing out that anyone can start up their own award ceremony and garner up enough support to make it into something significant (SupportAW Awards). For instance, I wouldn’t be surprised if the disparity in voter turnout resulted from the amount of exposure the voters got of the CY Awards. The people responsible for setting it up, surely, can provide updates to people on their contacts list, and word spreads from there. If I were running the CYs, it would be very easy to respond to an IM’d “how are you” with “I’m just working on setting up the page/world/forum post for the CY Awards!”
However, if people want to keep the CY Awards relevant, maybe a different voting system would be fairer. As far as I know, the current system is First Past The Post, while I’d be curious to see something like Instant-runoff Voting. Such a system would work much better, especially with so many possible things to vote for, compared to the size of the population of people.
I was kinda hoping you guys would have joined in with me. ~ Where can a butt hurt builder go to rant and amass an unruly crowd of haters in peace? Dayum!
I didn’t quote you, maybe I wasn’t directing that statement at anybody specifically?
I’m guessing none of you voted for Sevens or I?
I did
You do know that it’s pretty common knowledge among non-freedomfuks that the awards are rigged, right?
I might not like the results of the CY’s, generally, but I don’t see any conclusive evidence supporting that rather outrageous claim O_o
o.
While there might not be any conclusive evidence, you can ask pretty much anyone and you’ll get relatively the same response.
Sounds like irrefutable proof to me!
I did! I was really frustrated to see Greensville not win anything!
My most difficult vote however, was between Ferr and Sirqus for best build. I thought Sirqus’ Cobra Wing was really unique and well done, but I ultimately chose Ferr’s Right Angle Offices because not only did it look good but I thought the geometry was unique, and especially that it was done nearly 2 years ago, and deserves alot more attention than it has received. I mean Veger’s Mars Central really shouldnt have even come close to winning imo.
I mean go to AWMix07, you’ll see all the whole clique of people there, and they all have photoshopped pics of their cavs up, like they are a super club, Veger, Za, Maxpoly, Class3, they are all there, I am telling you the whole circle jerk thing is true. And even if you dont agree with it, I am sure you can agree with the fact that not everyone who won deserves to have have the title of year’s best or whatever.
maybe there should be something more of an Academy Awards rather than a People’s Choice Awards?
(hint to whoever don’t understand my point: Academy Awards voted by members of the Academy, while the People’s Choice Awards is voted by the general public)
God help us if this turns into the Kids Choice Arards
Then, it’s not knowledge! That, my friend, is known as hysteria
There was something similar to the Academy Awards: Support AW Awards.
I’m kinda sad maki stopped doing those. They were infinitely better than the Cys and gave awards to those who sincerely deserved them.
My thing is its easy for me to point out whats wrong with something, but not so easy to offer a solution. So if I were to figure out some kind of “fair” awards system, I would want it to be something along the lines of what Alex was talking about. But to me I have always wanted to see an awards system where they really scrutinize entries, to the point of writing small papers on a builds or communities assessment. CY awards does one thing very well, and that one thing is popularity, it proves not what is the best, but only what is the most popular, that is a simple thing to find.
If it had to be based only on public votie, I would like the voting system suggested by Ferr where you vote for not just one single best, but top three, thus you could actually never be voted best at all, but because more people per capita consider you top 3 over small spikes here and there, then you win.
But ultimately anything that would truly be called “top build” or “top community” or “top event” is going to have ridiculous amounts of time behind it. There is nothing quick and easy in AW, all great achievements are backed by great amounts of effort. Thus, a great amount of effort should be put into what deserves to be considered the best. Personally I would like to see the nominees (whether they are nominated by someone, or by themselves) they should write all about the build, not just a “I like it, its a good build.” But talk about what they believe qualifies it as the best. I dont like it when people think “I hope I win.” When in fact they dont believe it is the best. If they want it to win, then they have to believe it is the best, and treat it like so, even if it is seen as blowing your own horn.
Normally a nominee wants a judge to go from knowing nothing about their entry, to then learning everything about it. like a 0 – 100 type of thing, but I am proposing that the judge hears all about it, then after reading the nominees assessments, makes his own, and finds if this really is the best, like a 100 – 0 type of thing. I want to do away with the whole “Oh geez I hope I am lucky enough to win, I deserve it boo hoo.” And I want to do more along the lines of “I deserve it this year because I earned it, and I will challenge anybody else who thinks they deserve it more than me.” It wont be a pissing contest, but a real assessment between nominees, where it is a real challenge to find what is the best, even if peoples feelings get hurt. Ultimately though it is left to the judges, and hopefully the judges can be fair. Possibly you could have not just one person, but teams representing a build. So sure a build like Veger’s might be the most popular and have more people behind it than say me, who would stand alone behind one of my build’s and challenge that whole team.
On that note, there should be “best build” for multiple categories, and the winners of each of those categories are then assessed to see what ultimately is the best build. Kind of like how they do it on Deadliest Warrior at the end of the season.
I agree completely. I mean, how many people have been working for a total of five years on one single build only to lose to a build which was probably completed in a month or less.
The problem with the SAW awards, or anything similar, is that there are not many people in the AW Universe who have a broad view over everything to know what’s out there. For example, I could never be a judge. I don’t venture outside of SW City that often to know what else is out there.
You could perhaps get it to work if you had a panel of judges whom are all avid explorers. Maybe then their combined knowledge would truly allow them to decide on a best of the best. Earendil should be a judge
The inherent problem with the CY awards (and any award system) is it will always be biased, as it is right now. Who runs the CYs? A subset of people in the community! Those people have friends who will surely get more informed of their existence, as well as how the voting is done. The Support AW awards happened the same way. The community isn’t really homogeneous, nor is there a standard system of advertising awards. Some people get informed that they need to vote by friends telegramming them, while others read the forum. Some people read the newsletters, while others don’t read any of it, and just use AW to build.
So, is an awards ceremony really that important? The best case scenario, as things are set up, is an awards ceremony who appeals to only a small demographic of the entire list of subscribers to AW. Perhaps, in the past, the community amounted to a huge, contiguous, urban agglomeration, but as it has shrunk, those connections are a bit more tenuous, with islands of similarly minded people, so an awards ceremony for everyone makes much less sense these days, because it’s much harder to push.
I used to get my panties all up in a bunch back a few years ago but now, well…
I’m quite tuned in the way the cy’s work. we don’t have enough people on “the other side” to vote resulting in a decent turnout for all parties. Groups favor their own kind, huggles will vote huggles 7 out of 10 times. When I got my CY for best effects back when I took over the AWFX world, I only got that CY because it favored the majority (gate-like-people). lol I knew what it was
– Funny thing is I wouldn’t have had half as much experience as I did then if noble clock didn’t give me the jump start he did. I just used some basic photoshop skills and popped out some cool textures that worked great for the desired effect as I just knew how they’d look after having my first lesson in particles. Simple stuff though, anyone could and have done it already. Then at that moment in time, I was rolling with the ‘gaters and just getting into teh nougat city (swcity). Meh…
I voted for CCG’s website.
I already created a proposal for an academy-based system back in 2005. Parts of it were used in the Support AW Awards. A few highlights:
1. Academy members chosen are on a per-category basis. Members will have some familiarity with the thing they are judging. People can be chosen for multiple categories.
2. Nominations are submitted by citizens. This is similar to what the CY Awards nominations process is.
3. Prizes!
http://www.scribd.com/doc/43230930/AW-Academy-Awards-Proposal
I scanned through it and most of it is relevant to our current population size, imho, although the judging forms may have some balancing issues that need worked out and the organizing and committee portion may need to be streamlined. Anybody has my permission to take this idea and run with it.
What was the population of our uni like back in 2005 compared to now? O_O
I vaguely thought of such an idea, though I see a few problems.
Some categories have such few experts as it is, so I could see the judges for, say, bots, being a good percentage of the total bot programmers.
Also, obviously, there’s the issue of arguing over credibility. “Who says that’s the expert on building??”. I mean, as it’s been pointed out before, the current voting system is as fair as such a system can be. However, there still exist people who blindly claim it was rigged!
Maybe voting should be more on multi-category point system. What I mean is similar to how building contests are judged in the recent years. There is aesthetics, complexity, originality, detail, etc. Yes those are mainly building and object related descriptions, but similar thing can be brought up for bots, worlds, towns, etc.
Also, I did mention the Academy Awards, but also I remembered that that too is not a perfect system. Many times critics have different likes than the general public. There are classic examples of this. For example, the very first Star Wars: A New Hope, was nominated in many categories at the Academy Awards that year, but it did not win Best Picture, that went to Annie Hall, a Woody Allen movie. What, just because Woody Allen directs something they need to make it a best picture. I am sorry, but if it was directed good, give him Best Director, but let actual films that were the best get Best Picture.
Yes, my proposal would need some tweaking since it was made in 2005 and things have changed a bit since then. In the bots category for instance, whatever I called it, voting members would probably not just be limited to programmers but people who are familiar with using bots. That would widen the margin enough to make it viable.
People will always complain, but you can stave some of that off by being as transparent as is possible without compromising the process. So you can publish your procedures and selection criteria, but obviously you would want to avoid publishing who the academy is and leave it up to the individual members to reveal themselves.
Yes, that’s exactly what my proposal strives to do.