AE Grandmaster
Posted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 2:46 am
Gentlemen,
Some sports reward excellent practioners with titles which are awarded based on their accomplishments in the sport. In chess titles such as Grandmast (GM), Internation Master (IM) and Fide Master (FM) are awarded based on performance. Many Asian orginated sports have their own titles, such as Black Belt. Some team sports reward selection to the national (in same cases also the tier one level below such as state/province) team with a nickname. In the case of Rugby Union, an Australian who wins selection to the national team is thereafter known as a Wallaby, a New Zealander similarly elevated to the national team is known as an All Black (and accorded great respect by the community for the rest of their life even if they only ever played one test match for New Zealand).
I have noticed a growing tendency amonst some of the regulars to the AE forum in making reference to AE Grandmasters, but never identifying any individuals who should be viewed as an AE Grandmaster. I also recall how, from time to time, someone raises the possibility of establishing a list of reliable/worthwhile PBEM players (and conversely a list of those to avoid would become obvious). This latter idea is always lampooned for several reasons; the pejorative connotations figuring most prominently.
It seems to me that the title of AE Grandmaster (AEGM) would have no pejorative connotations. It would only be awarded to players who have demonstrated a very high skill level in playing the game (as evidenced by their AARs) or for those who do not maintain an AAR (which is the absolute and overwhelming majority of people who have bought and play the game) by the quality and accuracy of their constructive contributions to the forum which demonstrate mastery of the game.
Unfortunately neither an objective committee or objective thresholds to determine who could qualify as an AEGM is realistic. Nonetheless, I would suggest that if an individual is nominted by 4 others (be they 4 played opponents or regular constructive forum contributors, or maybe even just lurkers who have learnt how to play the game properly in all/most of its aspects from reading the nominees regular posts) could be awarded, by general accolade the title of AEGM. Having four nominations will assist in maintaining a consensual agreement as to the worthiness of the holder of the AEGM title.
To set the ball rolling I would nominate Nemo as the AEGM. His extensive writings on his own and other's games where he explains how to play the game well plus the results he achieves in demolishing opponents, I believe would be agreed by all as making him a worthy receipient of the title. Would there be 3 others to equally nominate Nemo? Who else should be nominated and receive the additional three confirmatory nominations?
Perhaps once the initial list of AEGMs is created, they could form a committee to vet the nominees for the title of AEGM. That would mean the initial list of title holders should clearly stand shoulders above the rest of the AE community with absolutely no doubt as to the worthiness of their suitability to hold the title.
Alfred
Some sports reward excellent practioners with titles which are awarded based on their accomplishments in the sport. In chess titles such as Grandmast (GM), Internation Master (IM) and Fide Master (FM) are awarded based on performance. Many Asian orginated sports have their own titles, such as Black Belt. Some team sports reward selection to the national (in same cases also the tier one level below such as state/province) team with a nickname. In the case of Rugby Union, an Australian who wins selection to the national team is thereafter known as a Wallaby, a New Zealander similarly elevated to the national team is known as an All Black (and accorded great respect by the community for the rest of their life even if they only ever played one test match for New Zealand).
I have noticed a growing tendency amonst some of the regulars to the AE forum in making reference to AE Grandmasters, but never identifying any individuals who should be viewed as an AE Grandmaster. I also recall how, from time to time, someone raises the possibility of establishing a list of reliable/worthwhile PBEM players (and conversely a list of those to avoid would become obvious). This latter idea is always lampooned for several reasons; the pejorative connotations figuring most prominently.
It seems to me that the title of AE Grandmaster (AEGM) would have no pejorative connotations. It would only be awarded to players who have demonstrated a very high skill level in playing the game (as evidenced by their AARs) or for those who do not maintain an AAR (which is the absolute and overwhelming majority of people who have bought and play the game) by the quality and accuracy of their constructive contributions to the forum which demonstrate mastery of the game.
Unfortunately neither an objective committee or objective thresholds to determine who could qualify as an AEGM is realistic. Nonetheless, I would suggest that if an individual is nominted by 4 others (be they 4 played opponents or regular constructive forum contributors, or maybe even just lurkers who have learnt how to play the game properly in all/most of its aspects from reading the nominees regular posts) could be awarded, by general accolade the title of AEGM. Having four nominations will assist in maintaining a consensual agreement as to the worthiness of the holder of the AEGM title.
To set the ball rolling I would nominate Nemo as the AEGM. His extensive writings on his own and other's games where he explains how to play the game well plus the results he achieves in demolishing opponents, I believe would be agreed by all as making him a worthy receipient of the title. Would there be 3 others to equally nominate Nemo? Who else should be nominated and receive the additional three confirmatory nominations?
Perhaps once the initial list of AEGMs is created, they could form a committee to vet the nominees for the title of AEGM. That would mean the initial list of title holders should clearly stand shoulders above the rest of the AE community with absolutely no doubt as to the worthiness of their suitability to hold the title.
Alfred