In the often understated world of play-by-post roleplaying, few institutions have stood the test of time like the Simming Prize. For decades, it has served as a hallmark of excellence, celebrating creativity, leadership, and community within a niche but vibrant digital subculture. Yet in recent years, the Simming Prize has been the subject of internal controversy and organizational schism—one that has left the community grappling with a central question: which version of the Prize is legitimate?
Two factions now claim stewardship of the Simming Prize—the so-called “.org group” and the “.com group”—each operating their own website, issuing their own awards, and interpreting the Prize’s history and governance in sharply divergent ways. But when the dust settles and the facts are examined, one conclusion becomes increasingly difficult to deny: the .com Prize is not only the legitimate Simming Prize, but it also better upholds the spirit and historical continuity of what the Prize was always meant to represent.
A Trustee System Without Oversight
To understand why the .com Prize has a stronger claim to legitimacy, we must first examine the circumstances that led to the split. According to the established Trustee model, as outlined in foundational documents and reaffirmed in the January 2018 Handbook, each Trustee bears the responsibility of selecting their own replacement. This model ensured continuity and independence—until it broke down.
When Trustee Lelia Vasilescu nominated Charles Star as her replacement in January 2021, she acted in accordance with this system. Her action was consistent with historical precedent, especially since previous Trustees, including Azanialix Ja’arda herself, had returned to active roles after long periods of inactivity without objection. Yet this time was different. Instead of honoring Vasilescu’s nomination, active Trustees Bremer and Ja’arda—along with Administrator Nugra—summarily rejected it, citing external roles Star once held but had already stepped back from. This rationale not only sidestepped the established selection process, but it also reeked of selective enforcement. Their simultaneous and opaque appointment of Nugra as a Trustee, kept hidden from the community, only compounded the perception of a power consolidation that betrayed the Prize’s collaborative roots.
Upholding the Rules—or Ignoring Them?
The .com group’s response was not reactionary but rooted in principle. Troubled by breaches of the Handbook—such as awarding Starbase 400 a third Prize and Outpost Phoenix a back-to-back award in violation of Prize guidelines—Star and his cohort took corrective action. They did not do so in secrecy; they published their concerns, issued formal notices, and grounded their decisions in Section 2.1 of the very Handbook the .org group claimed to uphold.
Importantly, the .org group never produced a new version of the Handbook to support their claims of procedural superiority. Instead, they leaned heavily on an assertion of continuity through domain ownership and dismissed dissent as “a hostile takeover.” But control of a domain name is not the same as legitimacy. Legitimacy comes from adherence to rules, transparency of process, and the community’s trust.
Controlling the Narrative: Twitter, Wikis, and the Truth
The controversy surrounding the Simming Prize Twitter account is emblematic of the .org group’s attempts to rewrite history. Despite documented evidence that Chas Hammer had transferred control of the account to Star in 2020—months before the crisis began—the .org group accused the .com group of hacking. This accusation was not only baseless but demonstrably false, as Star had been managing the account publicly for years with no objection. The fact that Bremer had received the password years earlier but never used it does not retroactively establish authority.
Similarly, accusations of dishonest Wiki edits were made against the .com group, when edit logs clearly showed that only Bremer made changes during the disputed timeframe. When facts become inconvenient, the .org group has repeatedly defaulted to deflection and misrepresentation rather than open dialogue.
Failed Mediation, Missed Opportunities
Twice, both sides attempted to mediate. In both cases, the .com group approached negotiations in good faith, proposing balanced solutions such as mutual resignations, equal representation, and new governance frameworks. Both times, the .org group focused instead on symbolic concessions—most notably, demanding control of the Twitter account—without offering reciprocal compromise. The rejection of equitable proposals and the subsequent awarding of yet another Simming Prize to Starbase 400 and then to Nugra himself speaks volumes about the .org group’s priorities.
Mediation should be about resolution and renewal. But when one party treats it as a path to consolidate power, and not as a vehicle for compromise, the process becomes a farce.
The Verdict of History
Ultimately, the legitimacy of the .com Prize rests on three pillars: adherence to the established Trustee selection process, enforcement of the Handbook’s rules without favoritism, and transparent engagement with the wider simming community. The .org group, by contrast, has responded with secrecy, self-congratulation, and procedural inconsistency.
Yes, the .com group acted boldly in 2022. But boldness is not the same as illegitimacy. Sometimes, preserving tradition requires difficult choices. It requires challenging the status quo when the status quo ceases to serve its purpose. In this case, the .com group acted to preserve the legacy of the Simming Prize—not to fracture it, but to save it.
For a community built on collaborative storytelling, integrity must matter. And on that basis, the .com Prize is not just the rightful heir to the Simming Prize’s history—it is its most faithful continuation.