Login

Samsung virtual assistant · 08-18-2022, 12:07 PM

If an IA outperforms everyone they deserve to win the award and the actives who gets mad about it should be ashamed that they got beat by an IA lmao.

***RAmenAmen*** · 08-18-2022, 12:29 PM

Put me in the "only actives get awards" camp. Our league lives and dies by user activity, and that effort should be rewarded.

While we're at it, cap all IAs at like 300 TPE, and 155 in the J.

**brickwall35** · 08-18-2022, 03:23 PM

08-18-2022, 09:39 AMAnthique Wrote: We look at first at the best players, active or inactive. We still want the best to win someting but it's not always possible. After that for the noms we look at the activity if the players deserved it.

For the coach/GM, I agree with you that it should be more clear who do what.

If you're not going to give the IAs awards, don't bother nominating them.

***Anthique*** · 08-18-2022, 03:39 PM

08-18-2022, 03:23 PMbrickwall35 Wrote:
08-18-2022, 09:39 AMAnthique Wrote: We look at first at the best players, active or inactive. We still want the best to win someting but it's not always possible. After that for the noms we look at the activity if the players deserved it.

For the coach/GM, I agree with you that it should be more clear who do what.
If you're not going to give the IAs awards, don't bother nominating them.

I might have explained poorly my thought, but that's what I meant. We look at all the players and after we look if he's active or not before the noms.

**brickwall35** · 08-18-2022, 03:54 PM

08-18-2022, 03:39 PMAnthique Wrote:
08-18-2022, 03:23 PMbrickwall35 Wrote: If you're not going to give the IAs awards, don't bother nominating them.

I might have explained poorly my thought, but that's what I meant. We look at all the players and after we look if he's active or not before the noms.

Ahhh okay, thank you for the clarification. Makes much more sense.

***WannabeFinn*** · 08-18-2022, 04:01 PM

08-18-2022, 12:29 PMRAmenAmen Wrote: Put me in the "only actives get awards" camp. Our league lives and dies by user activity, and that effort should be rewarded.

While we're at it, cap all IAs at like 300 TPE, and 155 in the J.

Not really practical. Users go inactive and bounce right back into activity all the time. Trying to manage active builds and inactive builds for 300+ players would be quite the PITA.

***RAmenAmen*** · 08-18-2022, 04:19 PM

08-18-2022, 04:01 PMWannabeFinn Wrote:
08-18-2022, 12:29 PMRAmenAmen Wrote: Put me in the "only actives get awards" camp. Our league lives and dies by user activity, and that effort should be rewarded.

While we're at it, cap all IAs at like 300 TPE, and 155 in the J.
Not really practical. Users go inactive and bounce right back into activity all the time. Trying to manage active builds and inactive builds for 300+ players would be quite the PITA.

Completely agree, but I can dream.

***sve7en*** · 08-18-2022, 05:00 PM

08-18-2022, 04:01 PMWannabeFinn Wrote: Not really practical. Users go inactive and bounce right back into activity all the time.

Not the intent, but I love extrapolating this to the IA award argument

***_Blitz_*** · 08-18-2022, 06:39 PM

08-17-2022, 08:05 PMRomanesEuntDomus Wrote: What exactly should that look like? We have Awards streams or forum threads were the hosts talk about the contributions of the nominees, in some years we have articles about the various award candidates and me or other members of the Committee are usually there in those threads to answer any questions you might have.

But usually how it goes is that someone simply complains that one of their teammates didn't get some nomination and once we reply and ask for some more detailed feedback or even push back against an incorrect narrative then those people usually go silent. It doesn't feel like the highest form of conversation to engage in most times.

I get where you're coming from, I think. Explaining it to each person looking to raise some Hell has to be exhausting. I don't mean it to come off as another whinge on that sort of topic, but I can see how it looks that way.

While I am guilty of having some opinions that run contrary to results, it usually comes from not understanding how you see things versus how I see them. It feels like every time someone new joins the committee or a rule changes, the way awards are graded changes. While some of that is to be expected, I think the way it's communicated leaves something to be desired. I think a lot of the disquiet that people, myself very much included, have about awards is that there's not a clear indication of "In the case of X award, the committee generally views A Stat and B Stat with the highest priority, C Stat with a secondary priority, and D, E, and F Stats as tertiaries." So it precipitates, at least for me, as "Why didn't I get nominated for this award? I had a pretty good season in A Stat, C Stat, and F Stat," and I'm missing the piece of the puzzle where my B and D Stats weren't good enough and that was the deal breaker. I've tried a few times to retrace steps to see how you might've gotten to a conclusion, and it's not usually very successful.

I think the best understanding of awards that I've had was a Trips article that included notes from members of the committee on their thought process. It's been some time since I've seen something like that.

In the case of Awards Presentations, I haven't been able to make them for a couple of seasons. They've been a little late for me since I wake up early.

***HabsFanFromOntario*** · 08-18-2022, 09:12 PM

I guess it'd increase award voting responsibilities by submitting why you voted this person for the award and give like a mini script to the person presenting.

***RAmenAmen*** · 08-18-2022, 09:29 PM

08-18-2022, 06:39 PM_Blitz_ Wrote: I think the best understanding of awards that I've had was a Trips article that included notes from members of the committee on their thought process. It's been some time since I've seen something like that.

Speaking as the J Awards head (though I'm sadly on my way out since I'm GMing), Awards are tough, voting is tough, and the rationale behind each committee member's vote is different. In my time on the J committee, I've made it a policy *not* to share ballot results, because I don't think it would do anything but create unneeded controversy and take away from celebrating the award winners. I'm not opposed to what you're referencing either, but a few things would absolutely need to change in order to make this happen.

First, the awards committee, while an awesome job to have, is not a lucrative job. The pay for a season of awards work is about the same as 1-2 media pieces a dedicated user could write up in a few hours. That's not to say the committee doesn't work hard on their decisions, but that many committee members are spending their SHL time working on other jobs or media to make sure they earn enough to keep up with training, coaching, and their trading card addictions. Committing to more extensive writeups to back their award ballot decisions would take a lot more time, and would *need* to be backed by additional pay to justify the expected work. It would also likely delay getting results out to the rest of the site. While the decision process begins at the end of the regular season, we also each have players invested in the season, streams to watch, and many of us have war rooms to participate in, which get much busier during the playoffs, when we're also hard at work discussing awards and filling out ballots. If the expectation from the committee is to write some in-depth analysis, it would either need to delay the awards presentation by another week or two (something nobody wants), or it would need to be a separate task to be done during the early stages of the following season (again, adding an extensive amount of expected work).

I love this kind of analysis, and maybe this *is* the direction we want to go, but if it is, please be patient with your awards committees. And also pay them more.

***Anthique*** · 08-18-2022, 09:30 PM

08-18-2022, 09:12 PMHabsFanFromOntario Wrote: I guess it'd increase award voting responsibilities by submitting why you voted this person for the award and give like a mini script to the person presenting.

Like when the SMJHL GM vote the Onoprienko for the most underrated player.
Some even wrote a novel but at least we have a justification.

***sköldpaddor*** · 08-18-2022, 09:34 PM

I don't even think it needs to be a super LONG justification just a "I looked at these stats and while this player had six more points, they also did so while playing six more minutes of ice time per game, so I found the contribution of this other player to be more deserving of individual recognition due to efficiency" or something like that. Just the slightest explanation as to the thought process that went into it.

***HabsFanFromOntario*** · 08-18-2022, 09:42 PM

^ But from the actual awards committee, not an outside presenter guessing at it.

jumpSeat · 08-19-2022, 02:17 AM

More of a question than an opinion, but just reading between the lines of this thread there seems to be a lot of sentiment focused toward user recognition. It's been stated multiple times (and I'm paraphrasing here), that awards are for players not users yet the whole active versus inactive debate seems to further trigger this discussion. So being a relative newb, my question is - is there an existing award for most dedicated user or something along those lines?

I'm thinking of something that might be roughly the equivalent of a Lady Byng, so as to have a specialized set of criteria applied. Say an award evaluated by outstanding play (but not necessarily THE absolute best), combined with outstanding activity. Just wondering if an approach like this might help assuage the apparent sticking point of inactives potentially trumping actives?

Navigation

Extra Menu

About us