Originally Posted by Uranium - 235

1) The system is run entirely behind closed doors from the first step to the last. The nominations are secret, the votes are secret, the outcome is secret, and only an elite cadre, chosen not by us, but by themselves is the authority on this. All we see out of the blue is 'Hey, Player X just won the same award for the 4th time!' Big whoop says I.

If you went and looked at the ribbons that have been awarded, you'll see that basically nobody wins an award for the 4th time. In fact, it is not common for people to even get to Level 2 of a given ribbon, and level 3 is rare. Point being your perceptions are rather wrong and not based on fact.

2) There's no checks or balances built external to the system.

Wrong. The checks and balances lie in the fact that there is criteria for each ribbon, the ribbons are voted on by the entire Battlefield admin team. This means not just the admins for BF2142, but also BF2, PR, PoE. For the most part, the admins from one game don't know the admins from another game except through ribbon voting discussion. This in and of itself prevents collusion, and Lorax somehow shooing in all his buddies from the 9th through the ribbons process. In addition you have Apophis and asch overseeing the whole thing.

3) Trust hinges entirely on blind faith. Why should I care to trust ANY of these people that NONE of us had a single say in?

Who is 'us'? Admins are picked from among the TG BF2142 community for having shown several things, not least of which is maturity, good judgment and a good understanding on what TG is all about. In other words, they are players just like you, but perhaps with more maturity and better judgment

Until then, you could give me the TG Medal of Honor and it wouldn't mean a thing with any admin simply saying 'just trust us' with a shark's smile.

Your writing teacher called. He said you need to lighten up on the drama

You know, this really goes for everything. Why do the admins feel that they're above us mere players in every matter? I launched that big discussion on vehicle ramming, and at least three times the admins stated in perhaps nicer terms that it didn't matter one whit what we said in that thread, that I should have instead submitted a private inquiry to the admin team, who then would've held a private discussion, and I'd have to simply hope to be told of the private outcome.

It's a simple fact that the more people there are who get involved in a discussion on the internet, the greater the chance of lunacy. This is simply good management in keeping a discussion focused and productive. And of course it plays right into your tendency for drama.

There's a reason I didn't do that.

Not enough attention?

Ultimately I just feel the inevitable reply 'This isn't a Democracy it's run by us and blah blah blah' coming on, and that's fine. But that will also answer any questions as to where I put my trust. I assure you it's nothing personal.

Look. The whole rebellious, questioning authority because there's a conspiracy thing only works if you meet two criteria.
1) You're a teenager
2) It's 1990

You should try the whole emo thing. It'd be less annoying and more with the times.

That sincere advice aside, spend a little of that prodigious brainpower thinking about the community and the process.
1) IHSs tend to attract the best, most dedicated players
2) The best, most dedicated players are more likely to meet the criteria for the various ribbons
3) The best, most dedicated players are most likely to notice other people's achievements and nominate them for awards

This is nothing underhanded. This is just about skill, initiative and giving a damn. So few people ever bothered to write ribbons when I was an admin. The vast majority (95% or more) were written by members of IHSs, and they nominated people from other IHSs or people not in IHSs more often than not. You're looking for some "pat my back and I pat yours" taking place behind the scenes but it just isn't there. First of all the way the system is set up makes it difficult to take place. Secondly the type of people who are chosen to vote on it make it even less likely to do so.