Board Thread:News and Announcements/@comment-27391152-20180904100425/@comment-27391152-20180914073546

Wcplays wrote: Tozza so coming from a writers perspective, not tie breaking is the wisest choice, especially since it's been tradition to just let both people win. We love when people state their opinion as fact.

Wcplays wrote: If it's a fanon then the people view both fanons or authors or whatever as equally funny, dramatic, shocking, amazing or whatever people judge their criteria on. The thing is, it's literally impossible for two fanons/episodes/whatever to be liked perfectly equally. Just because two nominees ended up receiving the same amount of votes, due to a combination of not everyone voting and the small sample space, does not mean they are equally liked. In addition, in many situations, there are people who voted for the third nominee that wasn't involved in the tie, and obviously, that person is going to have a preference one way or the other over the nominees that are tied. The whole point of this ceremony, and the reason why there are so many rounds, is to find the best of each category. And while this system is never going to pinpoint the true answer every time, shouldn't we want to do our best to get as close to it as possible?

Wcplays wrote: Like no one had an issue with sharing in the past, so no one should have issues with it now. And I'm sure that if we had tiebreakers from the beginning, nobody would be complaining either. While I wouldn't say I have an "issue" with it, I'd still much rather have tiebreakers even if I was a writer. Like, even with the tie I'm involved in right now for Best Editor, I'd prefer to lose to Yyaku so at the very least I still have the chance to win next year as opposed to sharing the title for this year.

Wcplays wrote: There shouldn't be honor in trying to win, these awards are here to recognize great authors doing great things in this community. People shouldn't be proud if they win an award? Huh? Of course you should be wanting to win, especially if the purpose, as you said, is to recognise great authors. And that's not to the say that people that don't win aren't also great, but if nobody cared about winning, then what's the point of even having these awards?

Wcplays wrote: These awards arent the oscars or the emmys, these awards and here to help recognize great work being done, and encourage them to continue in their great work. This isn't supposed to be a competitive nature type thing but sadly it's become one as Greg said, it's become a popularity contest in a way.

I completely agree that the purpose of these awards is to celebrate great work, but if we're giving out more and more people awards, doesn't that lower the value of actually winning? Getting an award is supposed to be a good thing because it shows that people feel like your episode/fanon/whatever is THE BEST; that's what makes it special and is why many people want to win. The more ties we have, the less special it becomes and I feel it makes the whole process kind of redundant because what's the point in even having this third round when the top 3 from round 2 could all be co-winners? We can't give everyone an award, so at the very least we should make those that do win feel proud of what they've accomplished.

Wcplays wrote: No saying the popular people deserve it, but I know some people may see this as people not caring about their fanons because the bigger ones are overtaking the smaller ones.

I care about fairness in this community and I feel as though some of the ways we do these are a bit unfair, I kinda want the award system to be modified so the newer/underated authors have a more equal chance to the older/popular authors. I think this is a different discussion that I think would be worthwhile because I do agree it feels a bit lopsided at times. If you yourself had any suggestions, that would be great.

All in all, I'll ignore the tiebreakers for this year since that seems to be the consensus but I honestly don't think it's even that big a deal. As for what Uke suggested, I dislike the ranking rule because that adds an element of strategy as some people could purposefully rank some popular nominees lower in order to give their favourite a greater chance of winning. I think the tiebreaker system works much better if we do decide to change things up, but I'm open to other suggestions as well. :)