This image was lost some time after publication.

In a year in which the new Emmy nominations process has robbed the public of promising tabloid cat-fights between various Desperate Housewives by snubbing all of them, we're all going to have to look a little harder to find anything compelling about the run-up to the upcoming awards show. Awards site The Envelope turn to the nominations procedure itself to generate some controversy for Oscar's Paste-Eating Cousin™, but when the quarrel involves the phrase "seemingly arcane rule change" and a discussion of poor adjective choices on the TV Academy's evaluation materials, chances are good the muted uproar won't make anyone forget how fun it would be for Eva Longoria to "accidentally" plant a stiletto in the back of Felicity Huffman's neck as she hunts for an errant contact lens. Welcome to AdjectiveGate:

A member of one drama committee said that in a morning session, he and his colleagues watched single episodes of HBO's "Big Love," ABC's "Boston Legal" and FX's "Rescue Me." Immediately after each episode was shown, committee members were given a piece of paper that asked them to rate the episode with an "A" (excellent), "B" (superior) or "C" (fair).

Some voters said they asked for clarification — since the middle rating, "superior," seemed to be a higher ranking than "excellent." "I was dismayed by what I thought was the confusion in the adjectives," one voter said. "If you think the very best program is being given a secondary adjective, it didn't make sense to me."

The Academy has learned its lesson from this adjectival disaster, hoping to court the thrilling buzz that only further procedural shenanigans can provide by altering its final ballots in similarly confusing ways. On the decisive ballots, members will have to check off boxes labeled, "A" (good enough to win), "B" (the ultimate expression of excellence in our medium), or "C" (I liked this quite a bit), with an undisclosed point value tied to each of the options deciding the winner in all categories. Viewers of the awards telecast will tune in to experience the heightened sense of involvement from wondering whether Sean Hayes' dreams were justly crushed by an honest evaluation of his work or by the tragedy of simple voter confusion.