Jury Awards Thread

Plotinus i would be unpleasantly surprised if i thought you did not think that making a jury, a select-few, to give half of the awards was not an intrinsically problematic idea. But then again maybe i am wrong, i am not infallible.
For what it is worth i would still have this view even if more jury awards were for me. I just do not see why a jury had to be made, other than inner politics of this site, or if politics is probably too heavy a word, inner circles and their mutual shoulder-taping.

Obviously this is not a place for rhetoric- who would i try to convince, after all? it is a bit like Joseph K. trying to take the audience in the trial on his side, only to discover that that audience was none other than the people who moved the strings of his trial.

I am anyway perfectly happy with the non-jury awarded prize, which i plan to keep in my signature. But placing the jury one there would be wrong on my part, for reasons i hinted at, and which shined hopefully a minor bit, despite their metal being attacked by rust.

Edit: But i accept that it was not really an apt time to speak on this issue. I shall refrain from making more comments, and accept that i should have not mentioned something bound to shake the dust.
 
Kyriakos, I have already told you that these threads are not intended for people to complain about the process. If you don't like the awards, fine - keep it to yourself. The time to raise objections was when the awards were being proposed and planned, not a fortnight after they've been announced. This is not the kind of comment that makes any constructive contribution at all, and it is certainly not the kind of comment that reflects well on the person making it.

Might I request that we have the offending post through here struck from the thread? A lot of good will and serious effort is being demeaned in what is, after all, meant to be celebratory.

Sincerely,

Oz
 
Might I request that we have the offending post through here struck from the thread? A lot of good will and serious effort is being demeaned in what is, after all, meant to be celebratory. Sincerely, Oz

You'd have to go back and delete most of what's been said since the original post, too, I'm afraid, else you couldn't purge the effect in its entirety. Leave it - every wedding has an Uncle Fred, and we do too. I'm ready for a dance.
 
Kyriakos, I have already told you that these threads are not intended for people to complain about the process. If you don't like the awards, fine - keep it to yourself. The time to raise objections was when the awards were being proposed and planned, not a fortnight after they've been announced. This is not the kind of comment that makes any constructive contribution at all, and it is certainly not the kind of comment that reflects well on the person making it.
The awards, were, uhm, proposed and planned in private.
Might I request that we have the offending post through here struck from the thread? A lot of good will and serious effort is being demeaned in what is, after all, meant to be celebratory.

Sincerely,

Oz
He does have a bit of a point at the group being self-appointed. This whole swathe could constitute a discussion of its own… :mischief:

In all seriousness, a few people have been left out.
 
The awards, were, uhm, proposed and planned in private.
The awards began as a suggestion by Rob (R8XFT) in this thread. You participated in that conversation. Plotinus opened the anniversary Forum on June 14, and the conversation moved to the Categories thread, among others. Blue Monkey first suggested a Jury Award there in post #56. Thereafter, it became a part of the conversation on other threads, particularly in the Decade Awards Main Forum Discussion Thread, where the idea was thoroughly discussed, culminating with Plotinus appointing me to assemble a jury on Aug. 31 in post 106. It took ten days to assemble the jury, and the first post in their private forum was Sept. 21. They did what they could in the next month.

So, for about four months, every discussion about the awards, including the Jury Awards, was completely public, and you participated in some of those discussions yourself.

He does have a bit of a point at the group being self-appointed. This whole swathe could constitute a discussion of its own… :mischief:

Not self-appointed: invited. See above. The jury chose their foreman, Vuldacon, from among them. I did not have a vote, but was allowed to make suggestions. As was noted on the OP, no member of the Jury was allowed to nominate themselves.

In all seriousness, a few people have been left out.

Yes, and it's been said throughout that only the forshortened time period in which there was to work, and the huge amount of possible nominees - a decade's worth - prevented the jury from making more awards than they did, and they feel terrible about that. How many more awards were reasonable, or possible, do you think? 25 more? 50 more? Mightn't someone still be missed? Would they hit an overflow bug after 32?

Moreover, there were three rounds of open nominations for inclusion in the Decade Awards Polls specifically so that everyone could get included who deserved to be. We tried.

By the way, to everyone who complimented the write-up of the awards: I had a lot of help. There are many quotes there from the jury themselves, and Vuldacon was a huge help with finding the correct quotes and/or wording for each award, and also invaluable for finding lots of last minute edits. As for it being elegant - yeah, I'll take that compliment from a published author, you bet! Thank you.
 
I enjoyed reading through the awards and was happy to be recognized among the best unit creators. Thanks! I'm feeling all nostalgic now. :)
 
I think all of the winners were deserving of the awards they got, so congratulations.

...although I'm somewhat disappointed that I didn't at least get an honorable mention for almost single-handedly erasing the unit gender gap in Civ III, but oh well.

BTW, I'm planning on getting back into the swing of things and finally finishing up the Final Fantasy mod, among other things.
 
I think all of the winners were deserving of the awards they got, so congratulations.

...although I'm somewhat disappointed that I didn't at least get an honorable mention for almost single-handedly erasing the unit gender gap in Civ III, but oh well.

BTW, I'm planning on getting back into the swing of things and finally finishing up the Final Fantasy mod, among other things.
Which Final Fantasy, and kudos for your work!
 
As a long time lurker and a person that did not contribute, but benefited greatly from all the hard work everyone put in to Civ III, I thank all the winners, nominees, and all those that were not awarded, but contributed greatly to my enjoyment of the game.

I still consider III to be the best game of them all, but then again, I've yet to play Civ V as my old, beat up PC just can't handle it. That's the only caveat.

Again, Congrats to all that made the enjoyment of playing Civ III and all of it's off shoots greater than it would have been otherwise.

Edit: Sorry for raising a dead thread, but I really wanted to make sure people know there are many like me that benefited from all the hard work, but never really engaged in the forums.
 
I know this is way overdue, but I also wanted to express my thanks for the award.

While Civ III has been off my radar screen for awhile due to RL changes etc, I also look back fondly on my time spent helping with various mods and my thanks to El Justo and Rocoteh for how much I learned about modding with Civ 3.

Grinding through various beta versions of whatever scenario I was working on has given me a healthy appreciation of what playtesters go through in development of a game. Many people are anxious to jump in on beta playtesting so they can play the game "early" only to find out how much work it is to take notes and also the repetition of playing the same scenario over and over after changes are made.

It is a tribute to the Civ 3 mod community and the player base that Civ 3 has been as active as it has been over the years. Thank you again.
 
I just checked my PMs for the first time this year -- apparently I'm fashionably late to this party. :lol:

Pink Dot(TM) had long legs, eh? That's pretty cool. Interesting that the comic relief made a bigger impression than the dot map itself.

In my first succession game, I had a vision of cooperation between players. It seemed unproductive and generally unfun to have players playing in isolation, possibly drawing the civ in radically different directions. Neither is it good for one person to dominate; they might as well play single player if they want to control everything. But somewhere in the middle, I figured, there ought to be a happy medium where players could get on to the same page, in terms of strategy. Where to plant cities was a big part of that.

The map is the game's main visual, so it flowed naturally from there to take a screen shot of the map and point out potential city sites. I could have pointed with arrows, but big fat dots were just as easy to draw in MS Paint as arrows, if not easier. So I'd take the screenshots and paste them in to a jpg program, crop them, import them in to MS Paint and use different colored dots to mark tiles. Paint had about six or eight colors on the default palette and I just used those. I'd then export the image back to my other image program, which was better at compressing images, so each image would take up as little memory space as possible -- so I could use a lot of pics!

I called it the Dot Map because, well, it was all marked up with dots. Pink was the brightest color, most in contrast with the colors naturally present on the game map, so I went with that to draw attention to a particular dot I felt was most important for whatever reasons. And being a goofball, I'd make a big deal about it; being also a windbag, I'd talk about the dots a lot, and the pink dot the most.

It's kind of neat to see the term "dot map" imbedded in the vernacular. The concept is basic and someone else would have come up with it if I had never been there, but maybe they would have used squares or triangles or arrows, and we'd be talking about square maps. :lol: But nope. I guess dot was just the way it was meant to be. :cool:


Civ3 remains my favorite Civ game. Civ4 and Civ5 each bring vital upgrades and innovations -- and having worked on both as a developer, I am proud of those achievements and steps forward -- but they also left behind some of the magic that made Civ3 so much fun for me. Dot Maps are at the center of that, as the franchise has been moving in the direction of allowing player fewer and fewer cities of smaller and smaller population counts with which to play. Gone are the Civ3 huge maps with a dozen dots on the Dot Map. Fishing villages and deciding for oneself how many cities can be safely supported, and when to grow upward vs outward -- replaced by hardwired city limits that decide for you.

I couldn't go back now and play more Civ3, as it would be hard to live with old problems that have been overcome since then -- but as I continue moving forward in the industry, I still hold the flavors of Civ3 in my heart and my memory, and work toward adding that magic in to the games I'm working on.

Thanks for the award and the walk down memory lane. :)


- Sirian
 
While I know this is a bump on an old thread (but it's a sticky thread, so it's fine, right?), I do have to say that reading through this has just made me realise yet again why this is the best forum in the world. I'm glad to be a part of it :)
 
Top Bottom