Game Maker Awards 2007 – Results In.
September 15, 2007
The results of the somehow ‘Official’ and this year very controversial (to some people anyway) Game Maker Awards 2007 are now in. Thank goodness, hopefully this saga can finally come to an end.
GMKing came third in the website category. Obviously the winner for this category was the site that is always going up and down and deserves the YoYo name more than anyone else, 64digits.
Some people think campaigning for votes should have been banned, whereas I live in the real world.
15 Replies to “Game Maker Awards 2007 – Results In.”
np phil, right now we all work from home, I shall remember you all when I am a famous newpaper editor. [I wont give you money, but remember you all somewhere]
Haha, when you get the office set up drop me a mail and I will come and visit you. 😉
I already have contact him, I may sell him the idea for a couple million and use it for a office for GM Tech. Anyway yea I contacted him, and I shall wait a reply
I wasnt saying you were wrong Eyas, in fact i didnt read any replies, so sorry if I made my post sound like what your saying is wrong.
I think for this sort of thing, maybe some one could of setted up a site which allows members to have a campaign page as you kinda suggested.
Then everyone knows there allowed to ask for votes and then no one could say he shouldnt of one since he asked for votes.
But the whole point of award type things is to get people to vote for you. So sending out a mass email to your 100members wont be a problem, as long as you dont force them to vote for you.
I should of advertised GM Tech alot more, so we would of at least got nominated, well done to all anyway.
That’s not a problem, I was just making my post clearer. That idea is actually good, maybe someone could talk to roach about that.
What I’m trying to say is, those 100 members are willingly voting for you — you’re just adding more members to the quota who like you.
Let me make it clearer. For example, before US presidential elections, some opinion polls take place. Let’s suppose one is to take place by picking people randomly who pass through a certain block for example. Chances are, people will represent different opinions equally, and therefore bring an semi-accurate image of the results.
However, if the democratic candidate asked all his followers (without forcing them, and they did so willingly) to go to that block and walk around. Then, the chances for the democratic candidate will rise unfairly.
Now sure, the GMA is not an opinion poll, but my point is — a site or game might be winning without deserving it. So I think that it’s either that everyone should campaign, or no one should — in this case, only BlaXun did, so it seems wrong, however, everyone else had the ability to.
I think a better alternative would be having the GMC send out a mass e-mail asking people to ‘vote’ in the topic, and then the members decide to whom to vote for.
I think being cocerned about campaigning for votes is a valid concern. Independent of whether or not it is ethical or legal, the idea is that NOT EVERYBODY participates in the GMA.
The regular quota that determines a ‘fair win’ is random, yet fair — that is because only people who are active in the GMC, or come across the topic, vote and participate. This means that their orientation towards one site or another completely random, which makes the chance of having the more popular site win.
However, it is very true that urging the members of your community to vote will affect the process in an unfair way to others. IT is true that all voters are legitimate. But let’s take these numbers for example:
60-50 people voted for 64 digits
Any small site could easily have 100 members. If I send e-mails to those 100, I could easily win the whole thing.
I’m an admin at the Dutch GMC where I could bulk send an email to 2000+ members, some of which are members at the GMC as well. I could have placed a big promotional banner on top of Game Maker.info or my Game Maker website or used the Game Maker.info account system to solicit votes. I’m certain that I could have easily gotten in the top 3 for best website that way.
However, what does the result mean if I am rated higher then the rest but I was in a strategic advantage as well during the voting? At least to me that would be a pointless victory and would mean nothing about my site actually being better.
Regardless of whether or not the rules state this is illegal or not, I did not do this as the rest in my category didn’t do it either and therefore I would feel like I was cheating. I’m happy to say that I won 3 awards last year because people apparently found I deserved it. I did not announce any of my projects at the GMC this year and did not expect any awards, I’m just happy to get 3 nominations.
Competitions are about more then just winning.
Apparently so, in the warped world of the GMC a little campaigning for votes is seen as breaking the rules (which didn’t specify this) by some.
Yay! I won by cheating…. [/sarcasm]
We’re in the top three websites chosen by the GMC! They love us!!!
Think about it in another way: third out of how many? 😀
I always knew we’d be getting third. But now I’m surprised it was only a one vote different.. kinda sad 🙁 Oh well, life.. at least that’s still better than Al Gore’s luck 😛