Newsgroups: rec.games.int-fiction
Path: news.duke.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!nntp-out.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.skycache.com!Cidera!news-reader.ntrnet.net!uunet!ash.uu.net!world!buzzard
From: buzzard@world.std.com (Sean T Barrett)
Subject: Re: Best Use of Medium award (was- Re: [Announce] Degeneracy
Message-ID: <GBJH3z.KIn@world.std.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 19:07:11 GMT
References: <3AC65801.FDE85DFC@nightlightpress.com> <3AD152DE.80648BF1@jump.net> <GBJ4Bo.LHn@world.std.com> <3AD2025B.17EA45D4@jump.net>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Lines: 33
Xref: news.duke.edu rec.games.int-fiction:62210

J. Robinson Wheeler <wheeler@jump.net> wrote:
>I proposed having
>an award honoring advancement in the science/technology of IF,
>a fancy way of honoring a new library or compiler or VM, say,
>rather than a game. There was also talk of establishing an
>IF Hall of Fame.

In the face of resistance, creating new awards is easier than changing
existing awards: if there is general interest in the idea but resistance
from the XYZZY administrator, you can feel free to issue your own
award. If you get participation from enough people in choosing the
award, it'll be taken seriously. (I wouldn't make redundant awards,
though, just things that the XYZZYs don't have that people seem
interested in.)

There are enough games released every year that "the best game
of the year" is pretty meaningful.  There aren't that many
technical advances--especially, say, libraries, compilers, and VMs--
so being forced to award one and exactly one such award every year
would be pretty unsatisfactory, I would think.  Traditional
awards systems that use voting often have "special achievement"
awards and the like which I assume are not voted upon.  It
might be possible to structure a voting system (everybody votes
yes/no on whether something deserves the award), or one could
use a cabal of judges; however, the latter sort of award would
probably not feel as significant as full peer voting. But
I worry that people having to vote negatively (yes/no, instead
of picking their favorite) would have bad social consequences.
Perhaps the best solution would be a cabal of judges which are
chosen "objectively"--the last N winners of various XYZZYs or
competitions, or something (or as many as will participate).

SeanB
