On Wed, Jun 9, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Bryan Stout <stoutwb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The idea of awards categories hasn't been abandoned necessarily, but > I've just let it simmer to allow more feedback while I've posted about > other aspects of the awards enterprise. The feedback has been mixed > so far: "I sympathize, but no", "I agree, but have concerns", "no". > Thanks for your own feedback. Even if it isn't done this way, > splitting the games into categories like this really speeds up my own > thinking: within a category I can easily pick my favorites, and more > easily rank them; and then I can merge the two lists together if need > be. Let this award grow organically. In this inaugural year, when we really don't know how many people will participate in the judging at Origins, just have a single award. It can be tempting to put all sorts of structure there that maybe will be appropriate down the line, but has the potential for stifling it. Remember that we on this list have a biased perspective; in reality, no-one knows that this award is even happening. Let's keep it simple. Have a single award (no categories), recognise finalists (but don't have a 2nd/3rd place). That makes things very simple, and gets things going. IN future years, people will know about it, be expecting it, can plan for it, and it can grow into something bigger. Especially as I believe Looney Labs is intending to focus more on Pyramid games next year. While I think of it, once the finalists have been chosen, it may be an idea to email Eric Martin of BoardGameNews.com with who the finalists are and details of judging at Origins, so that he can let people know through that website. Timothy