My criticism of the PIA awards and a consideration for next year, is to increase the pool of those voting. Criticism of the major awards shows in the past have revolved over the pool of electors not being representative. In response, the better shows expanded their voters and public ire was tamped down.
For instance in 2014, the Academy awards was composed of 99% white males at the average age of 65. This year it is expected to be 50% women and 30% minorities. So they have worked hard each year to increase representation and today they have overcome perceived biases. I don’t think PIA has the same kind of biases, but it does have a perception problem to conquer.
With a base of 40 judges, the pool of judges is too damn small. Figure out a way to expand it to 100 and you will have made excellent progress. This is commonly achieved by creating subgroups of judges within the pool and extending invitations to vote. The funny thing is nobody questions the qualifications of the judges for the major awards shows, but what qualification do these people really need? If they have a pulse and belong to a subgroup, they are invited to vote. Same should apply to PIA awards by inviting pinball media to fill 50% of voters and use other subgroups to comprise the balance that are non TPN members. There is plenty of room for improvement after reaching this milestone too, but diversity prevents any possibility of collusion.
Otherwise, I am following this years show with enthusiasm. I applaud the organizers of this year’s event and think they have created something that is entertaining, significant and worthwhile.
