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.
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.