NationStates

We're going kinda slow, don't you think?

The Starlight wrote: [*]Fantasy: To Fell an Empire 3.0- OOC and IC

Isn't nominating yourself against the rules?

Finland SSR wrote:We're going kinda slow, don't you think?

Christmas holidays perhaps? Maybe we should start doing some advertising for this thing.

No, I don't believe it is.

Of the Quendi wrote:

The Starlight wrote: [*]Fantasy: To Fell an Empire 3.0- OOC and IC

Isn't nominating yourself against the rules?

Finland SSR wrote:We're going kinda slow, don't you think?

Christmas holidays perhaps? Maybe we should start doing some advertising for this thing.

You can nominate your own RP.

Not yourself or your posts, though.

Finland SSR wrote:We're going kinda slow, don't you think?

Very slow, perhaps to holidays.

Or it might be that people are intimidated by the link requirement?

Perhaps we could do away with it for everything but the stuff that requires judging? Sadly, it would then become a popularity contest. We might alleviate that by asking people to explain why they're nominating someone.

Pulling links has been impossible for me over the last two weeks. I have people I want to nominate but finding links is like finding needles in a haystack. Perhaps we can bump the cut off date an extra week (making the deadline 8 Jan) in order to make changes to the non-judged nominations?

Cerillium wrote:

Finland SSR wrote:We're going kinda slow, don't you think?

Very slow, perhaps to holidays.

Or it might be that people are intimidated by the link requirement?

Perhaps we could do away with it for everything but the stuff that requires judging? Sadly, it would then become a popularity contest. We might alleviate that by asking people to explain why they're nominating someone.

Pulling links has been impossible for me over the last two weeks. I have people I want to nominate but finding links is like finding needles in a haystack. Perhaps we can bump the cut off date an extra week (making the deadline 8 Jan) in order to make changes to the non-judged nominations?

That's really one of the reasons I've put off doing my nominations until the last minute is that it is a time-consuming process now.

New Neros wrote:

Cerillium wrote:Very slow, perhaps to holidays.

Or it might be that people are intimidated by the link requirement?

Perhaps we could do away with it for everything but the stuff that requires judging? Sadly, it would then become a popularity contest. We might alleviate that by asking people to explain why they're nominating someone.

Pulling links has been impossible for me over the last two weeks. I have people I want to nominate but finding links is like finding needles in a haystack. Perhaps we can bump the cut off date an extra week (making the deadline 8 Jan) in order to make changes to the non-judged nominations?

That's really one of the reasons I've put off doing my nominations until the last minute is that it is a time-consuming process now.

I agree; I haven't had too much time and I've spent what I have on getting posts out.

Cerillium wrote:

Finland SSR wrote:We're going kinda slow, don't you think?

Very slow, perhaps to holidays.

Or it might be that people are intimidated by the link requirement?

Perhaps we could do away with it for everything but the stuff that requires judging? Sadly, it would then become a popularity contest. We might alleviate that by asking people to explain why they're nominating someone.

Pulling links has been impossible for me over the last two weeks. I have people I want to nominate but finding links is like finding needles in a haystack. Perhaps we can bump the cut off date an extra week (making the deadline 8 Jan) in order to make changes to the non-judged nominations?

Finding links to the OOC and IC for me is not hard, but copy paste the links...is a bit hard to do. On the other hand, finding links for the players that I know of are good to be nominated, like the IC posts...is hard.

Yes, making changes may be a great idea, Cer.

Cerillium wrote:

Finland SSR wrote:We're going kinda slow, don't you think?

Very slow, perhaps to holidays.

Or it might be that people are intimidated by the link requirement?

Perhaps we could do away with it for everything but the stuff that requires judging? Sadly, it would then become a popularity contest. We might alleviate that by asking people to explain why they're nominating someone.

Pulling links has been impossible for me over the last two weeks. I have people I want to nominate but finding links is like finding needles in a haystack. Perhaps we can bump the cut off date an extra week (making the deadline 8 Jan) in order to make changes to the non-judged nominations?

An extra week would be stellar, actually.

Let me see what I can do to push for an extension, and a bit of a restructure.

Cerillium wrote:

Finland SSR wrote:We're going kinda slow, don't you think?

Very slow, perhaps to holidays.

Or it might be that people are intimidated by the link requirement?

Perhaps we could do away with it for everything but the stuff that requires judging? Sadly, it would then become a popularity contest. We might alleviate that by asking people to explain why they're nominating someone.

Pulling links has been impossible for me over the last two weeks. I have people I want to nominate but finding links is like finding needles in a haystack. Perhaps we can bump the cut off date an extra week (making the deadline 8 Jan) in order to make changes to the non-judged nominations?

The link requeriment strikes me as time-consuming, yes, but also necessary to ensure that nominations are justified.

Extending the deadline to another week on the other hand is a good idea.

I agree with Zark about the links. Even if it's something brief a nominee posted, it still shows us a bit of their talent.

Let's go two weeks out? Some people are returning to school/university next week. It'll be bedlam for them.

Swith Witherward wrote:I agree with Zark about the links. Even if it's something brief a nominee posted, it still shows us a bit of their talent.

Let's go two weeks out? Some people are returning to school/university next week. It'll be bedlam for them.

Seconding this. For next year's awards, the nominating should probably start in November so judging can begin in early December (with nominations continuing until the end of December and awards distributed in January).

Highfort wrote:

Swith Witherward wrote:I agree with Zark about the links. Even if it's something brief a nominee posted, it still shows us a bit of their talent.

Let's go two weeks out? Some people are returning to school/university next week. It'll be bedlam for them.

Seconding this. For next year's awards, the nominating should probably start in November so judging can begin in early December (with nominations continuing until the end of December and awards distributed in January).

+1.

Although given the reality of people's schedules, I'd like to propose nominations to begin in August. Given the diversity of the P2TM community, it'll probably take that much longer to really get things going for that aspect.

Tiltjuice wrote:

Highfort wrote:
Seconding this. For next year's awards, the nominating should probably start in November so judging can begin in early December (with nominations continuing until the end of December and awards distributed in January).

+1.

Although given the reality of people's schedules, I'd like to propose nominations to begin in August. Given the diversity of the P2TM community, it'll probably take that much longer to really get things going for that aspect.

I think last year we briefly discussed the possibility of doing the Awards biannually. Might be good to compare the pros and cons of that versus keeping them annual.

Alrighty, a bunch of people have asked for an extension. "The NOMINATION DEADLINE is 15 JANUARY, 2016, 1800 UTC" sound good? But it means we can only nominate stuff that took place in 2015.

Swith Witherward wrote:Alrighty, a bunch of people have asked for an extension. "The NOMINATION DEADLINE is 15 JANUARY, 2016, 1800 UTC" sound good? But it means we can only nominate stuff that took place in 2015.

Sounds good to me.

Swith Witherward wrote:Alrighty, a bunch of people have asked for an extension. "The NOMINATION DEADLINE is 15 JANUARY, 2016, 1800 UTC" sound good? But it means we can only nominate stuff that took place in 2015.

Yep, it's good.

Maybe we need to do some advertising for this? It seems awfully quiet and dead.

Of the Quendi wrote:Maybe we need to do some advertising for this? It seems awfully quiet and dead.

Or maybe we could actually nominate people instead of talking about how dead this is?

Finland SSR wrote:Or maybe we could actually nominate people instead of talking about how dead this is?

No one is stopping you.

Of the Quendi wrote:

Finland SSR wrote:Or maybe we could actually nominate people instead of talking about how dead this is?

No one is stopping you.

Hey, I already did my part. Now I'm just waiting for everyone else.

Of the Quendi wrote:

Finland SSR wrote:Or maybe we could actually nominate people instead of talking about how dead this is?

No one is stopping you.

Hey, I already did my part. Now I'm just waiting for everyone else.

Finland SSR wrote:

Of the Quendi wrote:No one is stopping you.

Hey, I already did my part. Now I'm just waiting for everyone else.

I don't reacall, but -

Judges can nominate, right? They just can't judge their own nominations.

The Burning Sun wrote:

Finland SSR wrote:Hey, I already did my part. Now I'm just waiting for everyone else.

I don't reacall, but -

Judges can nominate, right? They just can't judge their own nominations.

Yes.