Hrm, I'm not sure splitting up the nominees is a good idea. I'm concerned about not getting very many votes to begin with. And then we split that small amount, while doubling our own efforts, and make the amount of fFirst and second place winners go up -- essentially reducing the value of being "The Best." I see your point, and I think it's reasonable. Two very different games being held against each other is somewhat unfair. Nevertheless, I advocate letting the general populace decide what type of game is "Best." In general, I like the idea of having only a handful of games be considered. I have a couple in mind that I think are great nominees -- I have a couple more games to play, myself, before I can say fFor sure, mind you. But, like, I think most people at Origins have a lot on their minds and it will be unlikely that lots of people will be devoting large blocks of time to playing a dozen new games. I'd really like to see an efficiently stream-lined list of three to fFive. On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 11:17 PM, Bryan Stout <stoutwb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > So I propose that we give two "best of" awards: Best Strategy Game, > and Best Light Game.