This should be self-evident from the title, but I'm curious if the community would like to create an award listing and maybe some categories for games that we believe should be recognized and praised.
Considering that game journos are all Leftist pinko trash who should be helicoptered to the nearest volcano as the enemies of the people, and are at the very best: best a bunch of worthless bio-lenninst failures who's only goal in life is to be nothing more than corporate cock-sleeves using access-journalism to gatekeep themselves into positions of narcissistic self-importance within a giant incestuous harem of degeneracy and corporate cuckoldry, of which, even the light & majesty of God can not re-moralize. Given all that, we should probably just rely on our own experiences to disseminate the valuable human capital of what is, and is not, a shitty game.
Given that there is not much in the way of anti-Leftist gaming institutions, and given that any institution that is not explicitly anti-Leftist is destined to be subverted by Leftism, I was thinking that we could serve as an anti-Leftist platform that could give praise and attention to game developers as an anti-parallel institution to Leftists.
If you want, I can offer up some categories and an electoral process that I think would work and would prevent fraud, corruption, and brigading. I'll leave my ideas in the comments, but I'd like your input on if we should undergo such an award system.
The fairest election system is to setup a third party poll that doesn't display results, and you announce the results from the windowless counting room.
And is counted by unauditable proprietary software based in Germany.
paging Eric Coomer
Hah! I see what you did there!
Hey guys I know we thought we had finished this poll, but a e-mail just showed up from [email protected] and it dropped off 100,000 lost votes that happened to all go to The Last of Us 2 for the Woke-free GOTY award.
Do not question this, nothing to see here at all. There is no such thing as poll fraud you racist bigots.
I was thinking some basic categories for generas, but also some anti-subversion categories (like best anti-leftist messaging, best response to censorship), and also the obvious overall game of the year. Maybe also subversion demerits like "most cucked", "gamers are dead", and "blatant corruption".
Best Anime Tiddies better be on the board, and I'll nominate Moero Crystal H for it.
I think that probably is for the best. I wonder if we should have other nerd categories like "best card game" "best anime" etc.
I'll do it!
We definitely need a "faggiest game of the year" award.
Best Weebshit
Most Surprisingly Good
Most Likely to Get Trapped in Development Hell
Etc
Is Faggiest the best term, or is "degenerate" the best term.
Faggiest will cause a lot more butthurt than degenerate.
They should be separate categories, you can still be a cool fag without being a faggot, one doesn't imply the other.
So would that mean we're judging based on multiple criteria per game? Like gameplay, story, dev and pub etc?
I think that trying to create specific criteria might be too bureaucratic and restrictive. We shouldn't want to have a massive bureaucratic point system. The electors should simply vote their conscience however they decide to vote. If we want to specify specific categories on what to vote on, we could do that separately.
The last thing we want to do is repeat the failures of the current middle managerial class tyrannical bureaucracy, by creating such a bureaucracy.
So, rather than saying:
"This is the category for best shooter: Let's each assign points based on gameplay, story, and characters."
We would say:
"This is the category for best shooter." If we need a new category: "This is the category for best shooter story."
The best kind of 'messaging' is one that is not preachy, that you don't even perceive. For example, 1984 is not a screed. That is its power. Their weakness is that the only way they can message anything is by preaching, which no one likes.
True.
I just had an idea. The establishment are creating this "Golden Joystick" as their top award.
What if our award is a Golden Minecraft Penis that has "There are only two genders" inscribed on it? Or maybe that's not based enough. "There are 0 genders and 2 sexes."
Golden "joystick" but it's been up Ana Valens' ass.
You're welcome.
This joke is a reference to the insane "I played Fall Guys with a dildo in me" article
Oh man, we should totally have a demerit category: The Zoe Quinn award for most Hotdog-down-a-hallway developer who slept their way to influence.
I don't think anyone other than her would be in contention.
As for demerit awards...
The Golden Pooh for most subservient to the CCP - Everyone will give it to Epic though.
The (insert whichever radfem name here you want) award for most blatant feminist propaganda of the year - Lots of options here.
The "Gamers are dead" award for shittiest gaming journalism of the year - PC Gamer "incel review of TLOU2" is my pick, honestly.
The Brand™ award for most pathetic virtue signal - Soyny. There isn't even another option in my opinion.
Maybe.
I like this one.
"The White Feather Award", a reference to when Feminists were shaming men for not enlisting in WW1.
There just has to be one like that, though I think that award might go to the biggest journalistic media blitz of the year. How about shittiest article gets the "Kotaku Classic" award?
The "Consoom Brand" award.
That's certainly an idea.
Gears 5 came immediately to mind.
White Feather Award is good.
Wouldn't that just be a list of TDS, because that was the overarching theme of literally every media article of 2020.
Kotaku Classic award is too basic. What about some kind of learn to code joke?
Edit : Gone Home award for most overrated piece of shit game.
Learn To Code is probably the better one.
Also, Gone Home award is a good idea.
There's plenty of competition yet. You never know.
The topic of initial comment of this thread deserves it's own category:
The crossed wires award - For the most egregious personal fetishes forcibly inserted into your professional writing.
Not a bad idea, tbh.
Oh god, you're not even joking, are you?
I am not. I'm sure you could find it if you searched.
Ana Valens is an MTF game journo who writes primarily about what makes his dick twitch. Basically a total fucking perv, but because he gobbled some estrogen pills, he gets write about his masturbatory habits and call it journalism.
Seriously: https://www.dailydot.com/author/ana-valens/
Scroll through these headlines and count how many you see that basically boil down to 'Here's what I've been jacking it to this week'.
He straps a fleshlight to his stomach so he can get off by humping the air.
Are we giving awards of games or for gay porn?
What's the difference?
Gay porn produced in 2020 is actually entertaining?
Oof
Sounds like a good idea.
Lets do this!
As for an electoral process, I was thinking that we could have a kind of electoral nomination process.
We would have Qualified Voters and Electors. We would have to define Qualified Voters in some way (Like approved submitter status). Electors could be mandated to be individuals with significant repute within the community (like minimum number of post or comments).
More simply:
Seem reasonable? Universal suffrage and loose border controls are clearly the enemy of anti-Leftism.
If you think universal suffrage is bad, just wait to see in what kind of immense trouble we would be if only the supposedly intelligent - the sociology professors, the Ibram Kendi orbiters - were able to vote.
I would caution against making stuff too complicated. I can barely follow this as it is.,
But that's because you're stupid...
No, just kidding.
But seriously, I don't think we are going to form an intellectualist class when people are being nominated by a vast array of people.
Damn these tyrannical jannies, first robbing me of my right to vote, and now calling us, the common people, stupid.
REVOLUTION NOW!
The major trouble today is that every idiot elected to public office is a white-collar/lawyer/etc., which is why you get their preferences no matter who is in office. I'd like more coal miners and truckers as politicians.
Okay, but these are not public offices, and there is no bureaucracy for them to maintain.
I think I can explain it.
Trusted users pick three people they'd like to represent us. The top 12 are chosen.
They are then told to pick a winner for each category, with a 9-3 majority needed to agree it.
To me it seems this is not really the thing conducive to 'representation'.
Well, it's either that or it gets brigaded. I see the reasoning behind it.
My biggest issue is that if we're true to our beliefs, we can't have played many, if any, new games because of the various boycotts we're supposed to be doing.
No, there's always piracy. But I wouldn't want to play many of those games to begin with, even at the price of free...
Well, we already have a pseudo-vote system in the form of upvotes. Just do a nominations thread to filter out the top X games (or top per category) and then a regular vote/poll to pick the winners.
Alright. I think people will be surprised by my choices.
We should be careful to make it anonymous, otherwise drama can ensue.
I'd rather have the nominations and elector votes be public because that is the only real way we can create transparency. You all can potentially influence the electors arguments however you want, though.
Yeah, I like our fag- I mean mods, but it's always better to keep things public.
Whatever drama might ensue, people in general should to learn how to handle properly handle their shit in public anyway.
Mods are faggots by definition.
2 faggots make enormously gay butt sex which is even more gay than two individual faggots, so I assume that the process is additive rather than destructive.
laughs in nominating HaterJuiced as a joke
Like, that could still be an option as an attack on the institution if it was clear that us establishmentarians had fucked up. You all just nominate Hater and Biowarrior as a giant 'go fuck yourself dom'.
I feel like it might be because
a) it reduces the power of us janny's to miscount any votes on the primary issue.
b) it prevents the weaponizaiton of universal suffrage with brigadiers, trolls, bots, and algorithms.
I nominate myself as Supreme Overlord of the High Council.
I hereby vow to be completely and absolutely biased and to abuse my worthless internet position to the best of my abilities.
You're looking for KIA1 with that resume.
Nah I'm banned on at least three accounts there.
If I wanted tranny janny status on KiA1 I'd just talk about how good I suck girlpeen. I'm sure those faglords would love it.
At the very least, it might be entertaining to give ourselves interesting titles to spice things up. Instead of "electors" we can call ourselves "Democracy Warlords" and instead of Electoral Body Politic we could call it "The High Council Tribunal of Death"
I've got one main problem with this. I'm familiar with several users around here, but only in terms of culture war ideology. Like, if we're nominating an elector for the White Feather category, I'd pick TheImpossible1 because I expect him to have a hyperactive insight into it. But, for a normal category like Best RPG, I have no clue because I rarely see rpgs discussed here and couldn't form a meaningful opinion about who might have even an adequate insight into the genre.
Well, by picking the electors, you're deferring to their decision, and they'll basically make the decision instead. They can accept pressure and arguments from the remainder of the userbase.
That's kind of what I'm getting at. I wouldn't be able to pick more than a few category's electors because I would refuse to defer to the decisions of others except in particular cases where I believe that they have better insight than I do (because if I have better insight, why is my decision being outweighed by theirs). And that's assuming the electors are stuck in particular categories - if the electors are general category, I'd just refuse to vote for any electors because I would find too much fault in the possible results and process.
My knee jerk solution is democracy (plus whatever you think is fair for reducing troll weight and bad faith votes), but that alone is boring to say the least. Perhaps only give each participant a number of votes that is less than the number of categories? Then each participant's nominations/votes will be more carefully considered (and hopefully more knowledgeable/accurate). A straight up democratic run could be good in a different way, but I think the goal you want is better served by having most participants less incentivized towards frivolous voting.
Also, I have a nagging dread of rising "ecelebs" in any online group I'm a part of, because it tends to make things gay and dumb (I wish I could describe this properly), so I'm reluctant about any operation that might encourage such ego inflation.
If you have no desire to defer to someone else, then there would be no point to be involved (or you could just ask to be nominated as an elector yourself). After all, the point is to provide an alternative outlet for people wanting to avoid Leftist partisanship in gaming by contributing what amounts to an anti-Leftist partisan award. The only people interested in the award itself are people who are interested in deferring their own investigations to see what we have to say.
There would not be electors for each category, only 12 electors that would decide on all of the categories.
That would probably take weeks for me to tabulate if done by the Qualified Voters. The purpose is not even to decide 'what game is objectively best in each category'. No such thing exists. All value is subjective, hence why I'd rather see the electors be nominated, and then be persuaded by our userbase. People who like the electors will probably already have an idea of how to speak to them and reflect & affirm their similar ideas. People might also be able to argue against other electors positions. This will generate both content, community involvement, and activity. Whatever initial compelling arguments are made will bring up a good number of games and information to the uninvolved masses.
The debates by the electors themselves will also cause further dissemination of information and analysis.
Once the electors post what their decisions were, this will also cause further debate and interest, and allow more information to be shared about the games they chose.
I don't think it's enough to clearly generate eThot-ery at the moment. We're simply too small. However, part of social media allure is a form of influence peddling. We have an audience (that's you). The nomination of electors is the audience peddling some influence to the electors that they likely can't get on their own content creation/generation. It also may advertise themselves as well. This system isn't a reliable money making scheme, however. It's a once year thing that's relegated to frequent users, and generates no real money. So, eThot-ery is useless in this environment because there is no revenue stream, just an opportunity for influence gain.
I just had an idea. The establishment are creating this "Golden Joystick" as their top award.
What if our award is a Golden Minecraft Penis that has "There are only two genders" inscribed on it? Or maybe that's not based enough. "There are 0 genders and 2 sexes."
Edit - We could just inscribe each testicle with "Two" and "Genders"
I like the idea, but I'm honestly not sure what decent games came out this year. The only 2020 "releases" I can recall buying and playing any decent amount of are Mount and Blade: Bannerlord and Hardspace: Shipbreaker, and since both of them are early access titles I don't think I'd count them as qualifying for awards.
Well, we don't have to count games that came out in 2020. I think we'd all prefer it, but 2020 games are trash, we could help people see that there are good older options out there.
I don't know what you mean.
You've never heard of the Razzies?
They're like reverse Oscars. They're for movies that are incredibly shit, like 50 Shades or anything with Adam Sandler.
I forot that that's what "Razzies" meant.
I'd support it if any games worth playing were released in 2020...
Who said they had to be released in 2020?
"This year sucks, here's some old games that are much better."
Oh come now, then you know what game is going to win.
Obviously the classic RPGs from the early 2000s.
Dark Sun.
Then the people have spoken.
As much as I’d love it, are we big enough for that?
I'd rather we start building now, rather than wait until we are big.
In the long run, I don't think it matters because there should be something to counter a Leftist march through institutions. Now is as good a time as any... might even be a little late. Besides, we can also use it as a form of influence. If some consumer hates SJW bullshit in their games, but also knows that we hate it even more, they can use our input to inform their decisions. It would work better than simple individual opinions.
Also, it could generate content that could be shared to other sites. Someone can link one of your arguments about the game to share to others about why this or that game isn't being given a fair shake by the journos.
The fundamental point here is that we must build anti-parallel institutions sooner rather than later. Otherwise, we're only just continuing to react to an enemy advance.
Isnt there some guy with a website where he does short review to rate games on wokeness? Maybe see if he wants some content from our crew of shitlords
I don't actually know. The closest thing I'm aware of is effectively Razorfist and ShortFatOtaku.
Vee does game reviews on his second channel, but they're pretty infrequent.
Arch does some game previews (I don't know if they're in depth enough to call them reviews) as well, but with a very limited scope (pretty much just Warhammer-related titles or strategy titles)
that looks like it, last was was at the end of october so not sure if the guy got bored of posting it
We can do a "What are you playing" on the side one way or another.
Great idea! I’m all for it.
Should get a kia website up for it too to make it more official.
Why can't we use this one?
cause it looks ghetto to do it in a sticky
What do you want me to do, rent out some website with SquareSpace or something?
I mean, I don't want you to do anything. I'm just pointing out that if the goal is to 'build an institution' having a website would go well with having an award list. Doing it in this forum only will limit its exposure to just this community.
It's an interesting idea though. If I actually publish website to store the awards, it could work to garner attention.
Though, technically, it might be a better idea to run the awards on multiple platforms.
Hmm. We could potentially make posts on other social media to direct back here, or even do video platform sites where we would read forum posts. That could at least garner more attraction back to the site. I think maybe we could do that for next year, rather than this one, and see how it goes.
I think it would be great, I'm always interested in more things to play (as if I need more) and others here seem to share my thinking a lot more. Don't even care the categories as I am all about nothing more than fun games that aren't trying to push an agenda on me.
I don't know about lists, but I want a thread of what everyone's been playing this year and what they feel are good games.
I think the lists would basically generate that by default.
If we get to a point where SJWs are targeting award winners, there is no way to counter that because they will be monitoring award winners and attacking them regardless of how they are named.
I don't think it is necessary for us to play a reactionary game of trying to break their programming. I think it is simply better to openly praise and support what we want and the SJWs can simply ESAD.
Particularly at our size (which is minimal), we have no ability to shill these awards as value to any developers. However, their directness could be a weapon to shill these games to consumers who have no other reference to an anti-SJW perspective.
As for 1), we may want to develop more verification procedures, but I think that what I've mentioned so far should work.