Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="billd91" data-source="post: 1687073" data-attributes="member: 3400">If this is what you think of my logic, then you clearly don't understand logic. I didn't say that there was an objective definition of good either. I said that if there are systematic biases in the selection process, then it's worth trying to weed them out. And interjecting nominations based on sales is a pretty systematic bias.Well now welcome to the real challenge of coming up with a nomination processes. How to take all of this and making something work. Nobody expects it to be perfect but by broadening the nominating group to include all publishers who actually get a product to market that year, having that group pick a subcommittee to finalize the nomination list, and maybe tightening the rules for nominating and making decisions about the nominations, the current situation can be improved without resorting to using the loaded sales factor. There could be real solutions to the real problems of the Origins awards that are fair and equitable to the vast majority of game products that wouldn't bias the awards toward the larger companies with stronger distribution and marketing. Dancy's sales suggestion isn't one of them.</blockquote>