CW Awards?

[vcs]

Should introduce the Ellyse Perry imo. The poster you most want to bang for the week.

 

[slowfinger]

Go for it, it'll be fun ^_^

 

[archie mac]

Would be good to see them back. They were only ever met to be fun, and we always said they were not official

It was surprising just how much time and effort they took, so atm I could not help out

I still think the very first Skull was a classic

I am surprised that anyone would think that the judges were putting themselves above other posters? I went to great efforts to make sure that was not the case and I know Marc was also very careful to make sure that we were never supersilias (spelling)

 

[slowfinger]

Will make a petition for Bruce Campbell to win

 

[Cevno]

Sounds Great.

 

[Sanz]

We already have layers of posters (mods, stafff members etc.) I dislike the idea of having a self selected group of members judging others. A) What makes them qualified (because quite frankly some of the previous self selected judges were hardly ideal?) and more importantly B) IMO, members and posters should be all equal with as few divisions as possible. The idea of posters judging and rating others makes me cringe and adds another layer to the hierarchy of posters. I dislike the idea. As much as possible, everyone on the board should be equal.

CW awards aren't an attempt at judging or selecting the best/worst poster, we as members already have made that choice in our mind. These awards are just for fun, for lightening up the general mood of the forum.

I don't think slighting the members or their posts was ever the idea/intent of the awards, we do that already without the awards, CW awards were just the opposite, all IMO ofcourse.

 

[archie mac]

CW awards aren't an attempt at judging or selecting the best/worst poster, we as members already have made that choice in our mind. These awards are just for fun, for lightening up the general mood of the forum.

I don't think slighting the members or their posts was ever the idea/intent of the awards, we do that already without the awards, CW awards were just the opposite, all IMO ofcourse.

Well said Sanz, awta

 

[Goughy]

CW awards aren't an attempt at judging or selecting the best/worst poster, we as members already have made that choice in our mind. These awards are just for fun, for lightening up the general mood of the forum.

I don't think slighting the members or their posts was ever the idea/intent of the awards, we do that already without the awards, CW awards were just the opposite, all IMO ofcourse.

I agree. I dont think slighting members is the idea either. I just dont like the idea of a self appointed group of people judging the worth, value and quality of posts. I dont think the panel/judges behaved badly, looked down on others, or were haughty. It is the general concept of some placing themselves in a position to judge others I find objectionable, not the actual execution.

If they were done by a group of staff members and were official then I wouldnt have any issue. Its just it leaves a sour taste in my mouth when people decide themselves fit to place themselves in a postion to judge their peers. Im not commenting specifically on this case but in general.

Anyway, thats my last post on the topic. The OP asked for opinions and I have given mine. I dont really want to get bogged down debating it and defending my position as it is my opinion only and that isnt what the thread is for.

It isnt a big deal. I was just expressing my opinion as the OP asked for. If they come back and increase other peoples enjoyment of the forum then great.

 

[fredfertang]

If the awards had never been run before I'd agree with Goughy 100% on this - everything he says makes sense.

When I joined CW the awards were just drawing to a close but I found they were hugely entertaining despite Goughy's sound argument that the idea is potentially divisive. In fact in my opinion they actually helped foster a sense of community which, the way CC has been of late, has been sadly lacking for ages and to try and foster the return of that would be one good reason for bringing them back

The apparent contradiction was resolved by the brilliant way in which they were run/organised which would be my only concern. Wasn't it Archie and SJS who were the mainstays latterly? If so if Archie now can't and as SJS presumably won't then I do think its important that their places are taken by others who were heavily involved before - I'm not saying there is any reason why newer members shouldn't be involved just that its essential the original spirit is maintained.

 

[Jono]

I'd personally like to nominate Goughy for the Bradman

 

[PhoenixFire]

It's not like they're in an official capacity or anything though. Just a group of posters saying what they think is the funniest post, best post ect, nobody is saying their opinion is absolute or anything like that.

 

[G.I.Joe]

It's not like they're in an official capacity or anything though. Just a group of posters saying what they think is the funniest post, best post ect, nobody is saying their opinion is absolute or anything like that.

CW awards

 

[weldone]

Agree with Goughy, Joe etc.


















Btw, am I gonna be a judge?

 

[Uppercut]

If the awards had never been run before I'd agree with Goughy 100% on this - everything he says makes sense.

When I joined CW the awards were just drawing to a close but I found they were hugely entertaining despite Goughy's sound argument that the idea is potentially divisive. In fact in my opinion they actually helped foster a sense of community which, the way CC has been of late, has been sadly lacking for ages and to try and foster the return of that would be one good reason for bringing them back

The apparent contradiction was resolved by the brilliant way in which they were run/organised which would be my only concern. Wasn't it Archie and SJS who were the mainstays latterly? If so if Archie now can't and as SJS presumably won't then I do think its important that their places are taken by others who were heavily involved before - I'm not saying there is any reason why newer members shouldn't be involved just that its essential the original spirit is maintained.

I'd agree with this. Any moral objections are outweighed by the fact that the awards were actually really good craic. Particularly enjoyed the Greig for worst prediction.

 

[Matt79]

I'd agree with this. Any moral objections are outweighed by the fact that the awards were actually really good craic. Particularly enjoyed the Greig for worst prediction.

Believe this standard should be applied to all the great moral questions of the day - "yes sir, clubbing seals is abhorrent, but it's loads of fun!"

 

[Uppercut]

I'm pretty sure that IS the most frequent line of defence regarding fox-hunting.

 

[GIMH]

I thought it was that foxes are horrible little ****s

 

[BoyBrumby]

Think as long as they're not taken too seriously there's not any real harm. Towards the end when a certain individual was heavily involved, the fun (such as it was) was rather sucked out of them tho, IMHO.

Mainly ragged off because I was diddled out of at least two Skulls tho, tbh.

 

[fredfertang]

Mainly ragged off because I was diddled out of at least two Skulls tho, tbh.

links?

 

[BoyBrumby]

links?

Ha, nah, sorry. Don't even remember who beat me or the posts I made that were (IMHO) funnier. Just recall a sense of injustice at the time and the bitterness lingers as the details grow sketchy.