# 2006 ENnies Judge Voting Poll/Thread



## Dextra (Oct 1, 2005)

Hello, and welcome to the Vote for the 2006 GenCon EN World RPG Awards ("the ENnies") Judges!

We have a great spread of ages, locations, backgrounds, judging and gaming experience, so thank you to everyone who has put forth their name!

This poll will be closed the morning of October 11th.  The Board of Directors will confirm Judge selection, and reserves the right to make adjustments to the panel should any conflict of interest, confidentiality, or other factor detrimental to the continued success of the Awards (including, but not limited to, the necessity to have a Submissions Coordinator) arise.  

The panel of 2006 Judges will be announced October 14th.

You may vote only once, but may vote for multiple judges.  Since we only have five judges, I suggest you only vote for five candidates- but vote for at least one judge who has "SC" written next to their name (this denotes their willingness to act as Submissions Coordinator).  Being a judge entails a lot of responsibility, so please choose wisely.  

If you wish to learn more about the judges, please check the following thread: 
2006 ENnie Judge Nomination Thread.  The nominees are as follows:


Ankh-Morpork Guard (Graham Johnson)
Crothian (Chris Gath)
Cthulhu's Librarian (Richard J. Miller), SC
diaglo (David Temporado)
Eridanis (Matt Bogen), SC 
JediSoth (Hans Cummings)
JoeGKushner (Joe G Kushner)
Keeper of Secrets (Matthew Muth)
Mixmaster (Leslie Foster), SC
nakia (Nakia S. Pope)
Quickbeam (Kevin Bopp), SC
RavenHyde (Selma McCrory)
Tarondor (Scott Nolan), SC
Teflon Billy (Jeff Ranger)
trancejeremy (Jeremy Reaban)
Umbran (Arnis Kletnieks)
Xath (Gertie Barden), SC


----------



## Xath (Oct 1, 2005)

Where's the poll?

EDIT: Must have looked too soon.


----------



## IronWolf (Oct 1, 2005)

Xath said:
			
		

> Where's the poll?




It's there now.  Setting up polls here is a bit strange sometimes.  You message gets posted and then you create the poll, so there is usually a touch of lag time when a poll is first posted.


----------



## Xath (Oct 1, 2005)

Hey, Dextra.  FYI, the poll results aren't hidden.


----------



## IronWolf (Oct 1, 2005)

Xath said:
			
		

> Hey, Dextra.  FYI, the poll results aren't hidden.




They weren't hidden last year either if I recall correctly.  It helps make the running commentary more fun!


----------



## Xath (Oct 1, 2005)

IronWolf said:
			
		

> They weren't hidden last year either if I recall correctly.  It helps make the running commentary more fun!




Nod, for some reason I thought I read that she wanted to keep them hidden....

Oh well, can't find it now.


----------



## Dextra (Oct 1, 2005)

I was hoping to have the results hidden to reduce strategic voting, but for whatever reason it didn't work.  No biggie.  Less suspense this way.  

Anyhow, last year, 545 ENWorlders cast their votes.  I'm hoping to break 1,000 voters this year.  Spread the world, y'all!

Good luck to all of the nominees- any way the vote goes, I look forward to working with the new crop of judges!


----------



## fusangite (Oct 1, 2005)

Dextra said:
			
		

> I was hoping to have the results hidden to reduce strategic voting, but for whatever reason it didn't work.  No biggie.  Less suspense this way.



Yes. It's important to note that the ENNies judge elections, unlike the awards themselves, use a system that entails strategic voting.


----------



## DaveMage (Oct 1, 2005)

Go Ankh!

 


And where the Hell is Psion?

How can we have an ENnies without Psion as a judge?


----------



## Dextra (Oct 1, 2005)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> Go Ankh!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Last year he was wasn't certain he could dedicate the time (mostly online time) required to properly judge, so I offered him a Board of Directors position instead.  He's still involved- just making policy decisions and running the show behind the scenes, rather than judging.


----------



## Psion (Oct 1, 2005)

Dextra said:
			
		

> Last year he was wasn't certain he could dedicate the time (mostly online time) required to properly judge, so I offered him a Board of Directors position instead.  He's still involved- just making policy decisions and running the show behind the scenes, rather than judging.




I definitely considered picking up the judge mantle again this year, and the missus even green lighted it knowing about the extra time investment it would involve. But the early vote sort of blind sided me, with me being in the final hours of getting ready for -- and going on -- a family vacation, I didn't have time to really contemplate whether I should volunteer this year (something that anyone entering should _definitely_ spend time doing). 

So maybe next year. I did do some work with the judges simmering the nominations down and doing policy stuff.


----------



## DaveMage (Oct 1, 2005)

Alright then.


----------



## Buttercup (Oct 1, 2005)

Shouldn't this be stickied so it doesn't get lost?


----------



## KB9JMQ (Oct 1, 2005)

Voted and bumped


----------



## Dextra (Oct 1, 2005)

Buttercup said:
			
		

> Shouldn't this be stickied so it doesn't get lost?




Yes.  Yes it should.  And as soon as a moderator for General gets around to reading my request from this morning in the Staff Forum, I'm sure it'll be done.


----------



## Xath (Oct 2, 2005)

Gak!  I'm falling behind!

*bump*


----------



## Umbran (Oct 2, 2005)

Dextra said:
			
		

> Less suspense this way.




Too late now, I suppose.  But less suspense will, in general, act as a disincentive to vote.  If you're bucking for more voters, what you've got doesn't serve the purpose as well.


----------



## Rasyr (Oct 2, 2005)

The results so far (9:08 AM, Sunday October 3nd) slightly re-arranged to make reading a little easier.


```
133	Teflon Billy (Jeff Ranger) 			70.00%
124	Crothian (Chris Gath) 				65.26%
116	JoeGKushner (Joe G Kushner) 			61.05%
102	Cthulhu's Librarian (Richard J. Miller), SC 	53.68%
64	diaglo (David Temporado) 			33.68%
50	Ankh-Morpork Guard (Graham Johnson)  		26.32%
39	Xath (Gertie Barden), SC 			20.53%
27	Keeper of Secrets (Matthew Muth) 		14.21%
26	nakia (Nakia S. Pope) 				13.68%
25	Umbran (Arnis Kletnieks) 			13.16%
21	RavenHyde (Selma McCrory) 			11.05%
20	trancejeremy (Jeremy Reaban) 			10.53%
17	Quickbeam (Kevin Bopp), SC 			8.95%
16	Mixmaster (Leslie Foster), SC 			8.42%
13	Tarondor (Scott Nolan), SC 			6.84%
11	JediSoth (Hans Cummings) 			5.79%
8	Eridanis (Matt Bogen), SC 			4.21%
```


----------



## MavrickWeirdo (Oct 2, 2005)

*Gallop Poll update*

The poll has been open over 24 hours and already we have 33% of the last turnout (182 voters)

The clear favorites are those with previous experience as judges; Teflon Billy (128 votes), Crothian (121 votes), JoeGKushner (114 votes), & Cthulhu's Librarian (97 votes).

Cthulhu's Librarian may be in 4th place, but he has secured his position by running as a SC candidate, and is currently the highest SC candidate.

Once again it seems that the real competition will be for the “5th position”, although if there is an issue where any of the leaders needs to “drop out” (like last year) then the 6th position can become very important.

Diaglo (64 votes) is currently ahead, closely followed by “The Flankers”, Ankh-Morpork Guard (48 votes) and Xath (37 votes). 

Keeper of Secrets (25 votes), Umbran (23 votes) and Nakia (23 votes) are making a good showing.

RavenHyde (20 votes) is bringing in the lurker vote (RavenHyde’s current postcount is 2)

Trancejeremy (19 votes), Quickbeam (17 votes), Mixmaster (16 votes), Tarondor (11 votes), and JediSoth (10 votes) are still trying to distinguish themselves in this race. 

Eridanis (6 votes) is clearly very distinguished.


----------



## CRGreathouse (Oct 2, 2005)

The candidates I voted for are doing very poorly... I don't think any of them will win. Pity; so much for the fresh blood.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Oct 2, 2005)

Go diaglo!

For someone whose hat of d02 know no limit, it's amazing the number of votes he's getting to judge d20 awards.


----------



## MavrickWeirdo (Oct 2, 2005)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> Go diaglo!
> 
> For someone whose hat of d02 know no limit, it's amazing the number of votes he's getting to judge d20 awards.




They aren't d20 awards


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Oct 2, 2005)

Shhh!  You're spoiling my irony!


----------



## Hor Kai Lan (Oct 3, 2005)

CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> The candidates I voted for are doing very poorly... I don't think any of them will win. Pity; so much for the fresh blood.




Fresh blood combined with some experience is the idea panel IMO... 

oh wait... what's that??? line 1 EnWorld... something about a popularity contest


----------



## Crothian (Oct 3, 2005)

Hor Kai Lan said:
			
		

> Fresh blood combined with some experience is the idea panel IMO...




well, top five at this point would be someone doing it for the 6th time, one for the 4th time, one for the third time, one for the second time, and one for the first time.  Sounds like that is people with experince as well as people learning the ropes.  



> oh wait... what's that??? line 1 EnWorld... something about a popularity contest




Its only a popularity contest if people are not basing the voting on who they think will be the best judges.  I don't think anyone can say what the voters intentions are.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Oct 3, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> well, top five at this point would be someone doing it for the 6th time, one for the 4th time, one for the third time, one for the second time, and one for the first time.  Sounds like that is people with experince as well as people learning the ropes.




Yep, its looking to be a very diverse group experience wise...which is a good thing. 

And man, Diaglo's got the staying power. He just keeps slowly creeping farther ahead bit by bit.


----------



## The_Universe (Oct 3, 2005)

Voted and bumped - I'd like to see my man Ankh Morpok Guard give this a whirl.


----------



## MavrickWeirdo (Oct 3, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> And man, Diaglo's got the staying power. He just keeps slowly creeping farther ahead bit by bit.




Actually if you compare the "%'s" Rasyr posted this morning, you'll see he has lost a little ground. The "%'s" have kept fairly steady (within 1 or 2 %) since I checked it last night.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 3, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Its only a popularity contest if people are not basing the voting on who they think will be the best judges.  I don't think anyone can say what the voters intentions are.




I don't think one can realistically deny the correlation between popularity and performance in the polls.  All one can argue is about causation - do people win because they are popular, are they popular because they have the qualities we like in judges, or something else?


----------



## CRGreathouse (Oct 3, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Yep, its looking to be a very diverse group experience wise...which is a good thing.




I don't consider 80% repeat judges a diverse group w.r.t. experience.  I'd be happier with 2-4 new judges and 1-3 repeat judges, myself.  On average this group will have judged more than twice each before.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Oct 3, 2005)

CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> I don't consider 80% repeat judges a diverse group w.r.t. experience.  I'd be happier with 2-4 new judges and 1-3 repeat judges, myself.  On average this group will have judged more than twice each before.



 True, but with some of these guys(Crothian and TB, especially) people really trust them...or something.  They're obviously getting voted for again for some good reason. Truthfully, I think its good that not ALL the judges return. If the same ones ran every year, they would keep getting voted. But one to two new judges(right now, its looking like its going to be 1) means that there's still some new blood in there to add something. And, if they do a good job, it might be safe to say they would be voted for next year for the same reason the other repeat judges are.


----------



## MavrickWeirdo (Oct 3, 2005)

Hor Kai Lan said:
			
		

> oh wait... what's that??? line 1 EnWorld... something about a popularity contest




If it was then Queen Dopplepopolis would win, because she's the most popular girl on the internet


----------



## scourger (Oct 3, 2005)

It's beautiful to see democracy at work.  Best of luck to all those elected.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Oct 3, 2005)

CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> I don't consider 80% repeat judges a diverse group w.r.t. experience.  I'd be happier with 2-4 new judges and 1-3 repeat judges, myself.  On average this group will have judged more than twice each before.




Aw, now you're just being hurtful 

Seriosuly man, if enough people share your view, it will come to pass. 

If they don't...it doesn't deserve to.


----------



## diaglo (Oct 3, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> I don't think one can realistically deny the correlation between popularity and performance in the polls.  All one can argue is about causation - do people win because they are popular, are they popular because they have the qualities we like in judges, or something else?



i hope mine is infamy and not popularity.


----------



## Dextra (Oct 3, 2005)

CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> The candidates I voted for are doing very poorly... I don't think any of them will win. Pity; so much for the fresh blood.




I agree- I love the past judges, and couldn't say who I'd want to bump, but I was hoping for two new faces on the panel.  One will do, though- it's amazing how just one new voice can stimulate discussion!

Any hopes of you running again next year?  Or being more involved in some capacity, BTW?


----------



## CRGreathouse (Oct 3, 2005)

Dextra said:
			
		

> Any hopes of you running again next year?  Or being more involved in some capacity, BTW?




I might get involved in some way, but I can't forsee having enough free time to be a judge for next year.  I really enjoyed my time as judge, but the spectre of reality is such that I can't now commit to that kind of time.



			
				Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> Aw, now you're just being hurtful




"You know I love you, man!"



			
				Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> Seriosuly man, if enough people share your view, it will come to pass.
> 
> If they don't...it doesn't deserve to.




The problem is that everyone could vote for one repeat judge and 4 new people, and because of the way the votes are spread out we could still get 4 repeat judges and just 1 new face.  It isn't enough for many people to share my views.

In any case, regardless of my feelings on experienced judges, it's good to have you on the 2006 team.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 3, 2005)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> If they don't...it doesn't deserve to.




Because large populaces are always known for forward thinking and intelligent choices when casting their ballots? Because folks are never known for sacrificing the future for the sake of the now?  

*shrug*.  Neither here nor there, I suppose.


----------



## MavrickWeirdo (Oct 3, 2005)

After two days there is over 63% of last election’s turnout.

Does Postcount Matter?

The more often an Enworlder posts, the more “recognized” they are. It is only natural that (all other things being equal) a well recognized candidate would do better than a newcomer. It is clear that 5 leading candidates each have over 4,000 posts, while the last 5 each have less than 1,800 posts.

Yet postcount is not the only factor. 

Teflon Billy is leading in votes, but has the 7th highest postcount.  
RavenHyde has by far the fewest posts, yet is 12th in votes.
Xath (who doing much better than her postcount) is only a little behind Ankh-Morpork Guard (who doing much worse than his postcount).

Post count comparison 

_1 Vote Rank _7 Postcount Rank*	Teflon Billy (Jeff Ranger) 
_2 Vote Rank _1 Postcount Rank*	Crothian (Chris Gath) 
_3 Vote Rank _4 Postcount Rank*	JoeGKushner (Joe G Kushner) 
_4 Vote Rank _6 Postcount Rank*	Cthulhu's Librarian (Richard J. Miller), SC 	
_5 Vote Rank _2 Postcount Rank* diaglo (David Temporado) 

_6 Vote Rank _3 Postcount Rank* Ankh-Morpork Guard (Graham Johnson)  
_7 Vote Rank	10 Postcount Rank*	Xath (Gertie Barden), SC 
_8 Vote Rank _5 Postcount Rank*	Umbran (Arnis Kletnieks) 

_9 Vote Rank	12 Postcount Rank*	Keeper of Secrets (Matthew Muth)

10 Vote Rank _8 Postcount Rank*	trancejeremy (Jeremy Reaban)
11 Vote Rank	13 Postcount Rank*	nakia (Nakia S. Pope) 
12 Vote Rank	17 Postcount Rank*	RavenHyde (Selma McCrory) 

13 Vote Rank _9 Postcount Rank* 	Quickbeam (Kevin Bopp), SC
14 Vote Rank	14 Postcount Rank*	Mixmaster (Leslie Foster), SC 
15 Vote Rank	16 Postcount Rank*	Tarondor (Scott Nolan), SC 
16 Vote Rank	15 Postcount Rank*	JediSoth (Hans Cummings) 
17 Vote Rank	11 Postcount Rank*	Eridanis (Matt Bogen), SC 

*Postcount ranks were calculated on the 1st day of the poll, and may change over time.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 3, 2005)

I like to think that my being a reviewer, long term, both here and at other places, such as RPG.net, Pyramid (in the past), OgreCave, d20 Filtered, Shadis and other sources, might be one factor in the votes cast my way.

As far as the older judges returning, people need to start asking for more options en mass. 2 years on, one year off, etc... One lone voice in the wilderness is not going to effect change.


----------



## MavrickWeirdo (Oct 3, 2005)

The results so far (9:38 AM, Monday October 4th) slightly re-arranged to make reading a little easier.


```
244	Teflon Billy (Jeff Ranger)    			70.93% 
220 	Crothian (Chris Gath)    			63.95% 
209	JoeGKushner (Joe G Kushner)    		        60.76% 
184	Cthulhu's Librarian (Richard J. Miller), SC     53.49% 
110	diaglo (David Temporado)    			31.98% 

 84 	Ankh-Morpork Guard (Graham Johnson)    	        24.42%
 69	Xath (Gertie Barden), SC    			20.06%
 52	Umbran (Arnis Kletnieks)    			15.12% 

 52	Keeper of Secrets (Matthew Muth)    		15.12%

 40	trancejeremy (Jeremy Reaban)    		11.63% 
 36	nakia (Nakia S. Pope)    			10.47% 
 33 	RavenHyde (Selma McCrory)    		         9.59% 

 32	Quickbeam (Kevin Bopp), SC    		         9.30% 
 22	Mixmaster (Leslie Foster), SC    		 6.40% 
 22	Tarondor (Scott Nolan), SC    		         6.40% 
 17	JediSoth (Hans Cummings)    		         4.94% 
 15	Eridanis (Matt Bogen), SC    			 4.36%
```


----------



## Teflon Billy (Oct 3, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Because large populaces are always known for forward thinking and intelligent choices when casting their ballots? Because folks are never known for sacrificing the future for the sake of the now?




Hey, now don't go putting words in my mouth

Firstly, I'll quote Chruchill (and I'm sure you know what's coming here) 



> "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried...




And I tend to agree. Not just becasue I am doing well (thanks all!) but because, honestly, what  do you think would produce results better reflecting the Zeitgeist than the calssic "One Person/One Vote"  model? 

Anything more complex than that is an effort to skew voting, which is fine if you are looking for a specific result...but I would hope that the specific result that we're looking for here isn't _that_ complex.

Secondly...I don't think it's fair to categorize any of the previous judges as being a "Sacrifce of the future for the sake of the now". I've worked with all of them, and am perfectly confident in their ability to do the work required.



> *shrug*.  Neither here nor there, I suppose.




I don't know about that. It seems to come up every year in one form or another. I'm just not sure that any "fix" I can imagine does anything but punish incumbents for successfully doing their jobs. :\

Is it "fair" to do that for the sake of...I don't know what?


----------



## Xath (Oct 3, 2005)

I was excited to see so many women running this year.  I was hoping that we'd get at least some estrogen on the judging panel, even if it's not me.  But it looks as though testosterone will win out again.  

But there's still time left.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Oct 3, 2005)

Xath said:
			
		

> I was excited to see so many women running this year.  I was hoping that we'd get at least some estrogen on the judging panel, even if it's not me.  But it looks as though testosterone will win out again.
> 
> But there's still time left.




I voted for you

But you didn't get my vote because you are a girl. You got it becasue I was reading your posts and being imporessed for months without my realizing you were a girl.

Which is to say: you know your stuff and you can make it interesting.

That, and I think your boyfriend is cool 

(I kid! I kid because I love!)


----------



## Xath (Oct 3, 2005)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> I voted for you
> 
> But you didn't get my vote because you are a girl. You got it becasue I was reading your posts and being imporessed for months without my realizing you were a girl.
> 
> ...




You keep your hands off of my boyfriend!

I loan him to you during Gencon, but during the rest of the year he's mine.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 3, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> As far as the older judges returning, people need to start asking for more options en mass. 2 years on, one year off, etc... One lone voice in the wilderness is not going to effect change.




It is unlikely you'll get any discussion of the matter "en masse".  We barely get voting en masse .

I have the sneaking suspicion, though, that the matters are linked.  I am not convinced we'll see really hearty and enthusiastic voting unless the election becomes a bit more competetive.            , by whatever means.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Oct 3, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> ...I am not convinced we'll see really hearty and enthusiastic voting unless the election becomes a bit more competetive, by whatever means.




Is that soemthing you'd like to see?

Becasue honestly, the competition is there if people vote that way isn't it?

Would artificially skewing the results, in an effort to increase voting serve any non-recursie purpose (I mean, it sounds like you are talking about warping the results of the vote to try and increase the voter tunrout...would the plan then to warp _those_ results for some purpose)?


----------



## Eridanis (Oct 3, 2005)

MavrickWeirdo said:
			
		

> Eridanis (6 votes) is clearly very distinguished.




Well, you know, you have to have someone trustworthy at the back of the party, so you don't get jumped by a group of sneaky ninjas. 

Looks like it's shaping up to be another excellent judges' pool this year. I'm honored that I've gotten more than two votes (mine and the missus') with this kind of company!


----------



## diaglo (Oct 3, 2005)

Eridanis said:
			
		

> Well, you know, you have to have someone trustworthy at the back of the party, so you don't get jumped by a group of sneaky ninjas.
> 
> Looks like it's shaping up to be another excellent judges' pool this year. I'm honored that I've gotten more than two votes (mine and the missus') with this kind of company!





i thought i was on everyone's ignore list. 

but as of this post... i guess at least 134 people read my posts...



diaglo "i ain't gonna be the cow trap detector" Ooi


----------



## freebfrost (Oct 3, 2005)

diaglo said:
			
		

> i thought i was on everyone's ignore list.
> 
> but as of this post... i guess at least 134 people read my posts...



Maybe they have been spending too much time on Blizzard software's boards and think you are diaBLO?


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Oct 3, 2005)

diaglo said:
			
		

> i thought i was on everyone's ignore list.
> 
> but as of this post... i guess at least 134 people read my posts...




I read your posts, if that adds another to that number. 

One thing I do find interesting, though, is that I bet diaglo's getting votes more through his old stanby that shows him to be a tough judge(or, hopefully does, I guess). He didn't really put anything else into his information for in the nomination thread, so it seems like his votes are more likely to come from previous exposure to him than some of the others might.

Not that I'm complaining...heck, I even voted for him before he rocketed ahead of me.


----------



## MavrickWeirdo (Oct 3, 2005)

diaglo said:
			
		

> i thought i was on everyone's ignore list.
> 
> but as of this post... i guess at least 134 people read my posts...




Either that or it means that 134 people haven't read your posts


----------



## Rystil Arden (Oct 3, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> I read your posts, if that adds another to that number.
> 
> One thing I do find interesting, though, is that I bet diaglo's getting votes more through his old stanby that shows him to be a tough judge(or, hopefully does, I guess). He didn't really put anything else into his information for in the nomination thread, so it seems like his votes are more likely to come from previous exposure to him than some of the others might.
> 
> Not that I'm complaining...heck, I even voted for him before he rocketed ahead of me.



 They're obviously voting for him because anyone who has a secret double life as an evil cultist in the Wilderlands box set must be cool


----------



## DaveMage (Oct 3, 2005)

freebfrost said:
			
		

> Maybe they have been spending too much time on Blizzard software's boards and think you are diaBLO?




He's NOT Diablo?

Oh, man.  I need to change my vote...


----------



## Umbran (Oct 3, 2005)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> Becasue honestly, the competition is there if people vote that way isn't it?




Yes and no, TB.  If everyone were you, perhaps.  But I doubt you conform to the norms of human psychology (and I mean that as a complement).  Taken in mass, folks tend to fall into certain voting patterns based upon the information available and the voting system used.  Those patterns tend to get in the way of real competition between all the candidates.



> Would artificially skewing the results, in an effort to increase voting serve any non-recursie purpose




What purpose would be served?  Well, as I write, some 1527 people are online.  Fewer than 400 have voted.  Our voter turnout stinks, TB.  If we want to claim we've got a handle on what the gaming world really considers to be "quality", we want more votes being cast. But people just don't care.  If we don't care, what does that say about our awards?

Not that it matters, but I'd not consider any artificial skewing of votes after they've been cast.  I'd only consider  putting the elegibility requirements for nomination to scrutiny, and looking at our voting procedure.


----------



## CRGreathouse (Oct 3, 2005)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> And I tend to agree. Not just becasue I am doing well (thanks all!) but because, honestly, what  do you think would produce results better reflecting the Zeitgeist than the calssic "One Person/One Vote"  model?
> 
> Anything more complex than that is an effort to skew voting, which is fine if you are looking for a specific result...but I would hope that the specific result that we're looking for here isn't _that_ complex.




There are legion voting methods, and we're not even using the method you mention -- we're getting up to 5 votes each.  Approval voting, the (shudder) Borda count, any of the Condorcet methods, first-past-the-post with variable votes, IRV, reverse vote, block voting... the list goes on.  All of these methods have their advantages and disadvantages, and suggesting that FPTP 1-vote is the only way (or the only "democratic" way) is a little deceptive.

Like I said, I'm glad you're going to be a judge this year -- you're a good guy and a competent judge, at least in my opinion.  I enjoyed working with you on the ENnies way back when.    Still, I wonder about other ways to set up the voting system.

As far as the analysis of postcount vs. vote rank, I see that 7 of the top 8 vote-getters are in the top 8 for postcount.  That's not all bad, but it does once again make me wonder.


----------



## The_Universe (Oct 3, 2005)

Xath said:
			
		

> I was excited to see so many women running this year.  I was hoping that we'd get at least some estrogen on the judging panel, even if it's not me.  But it looks as though testosterone will win out again.
> 
> But there's still time left.



 And the presence of a Y chromosome effects RPG product judging how? 

Voting for women for the sake of having women on the panel is silly, just as it would be to vote for the dudes for the simple sake of making sure that "testosterone" is properly represented. Vote for individuals based on their merits, not based on what they may or may not carry between their legs. Sheesh!


----------



## Teflon Billy (Oct 3, 2005)

CRGreathouse said:
			
		

> There are legion voting methods, and we're not even using the method you mention -- we're getting up to 5 votes each.  Approval voting, the (shudder) Borda count, any of the Condorcet methods, first-past-the-post with variable votes, IRV, reverse vote, block voting... the list goes on.  All of these methods have their advantages and disadvantages, and suggesting that FPTP 1-vote is the only way (or the only "democratic" way) is a little deceptive...




Hey, don't get me wrong, I am more than willing to admit that you (and Umbran I guess) have more on the ball about voting systems than I do, and if I gave the impression that I thought "One Man/ One Vote" was the only real way to do things, then I mirepresented myself.

What I was trying to point out (apparently without success) is that Changing the Voting structure or the Eligibility Standards for the express purpose of trying eliminate "Voter Preference" (for want of a better term)--which seems to favor incumbency more than unknown quantities--I just wonder what the point is.

Umbran claims that it is to get more people voting...but more people voting _to what end_ if it starts to eliminate candidates who currently draw large amounts of the voter interest?

At what point do you just make it a raffle?




> As far as the analysis of postcount vs. vote rank, I see that 7 of the top 8 vote-getters are in the top 8 for postcount.  That's not all bad, but it does once again make me wonder.




Well, it's an internet message board Man If you are making your voting decisions based on familiarity with the Candidate, then I would hope that it has something to do with their posting habits as well as their stated qualifications


----------



## Teflon Billy (Oct 3, 2005)

The_Universe said:
			
		

> And the presence of a Y chromosome effects RPG product judging how?
> 
> Voting for women for the sake of having women on the panel is silly, just as it would be to vote for the dudes for the simple sake of making sure that "testosterone" is properly represented. Vote for individuals based on their merits, not based on what they may or may not carry between their legs. Sheesh!




I was wondering that myself.


----------



## MavrickWeirdo (Oct 4, 2005)

Xath said:
			
		

> I was excited to see so many women running this year.




I'm going to assume that RavenHyde (Selma) is female. I don't see any evidence that any of the other judges is femail. So if 2 out of 17 qualifies as "so many" then I am happy for you.



			
				The_Universe said:
			
		

> And the presence of a Y chromosome effects RPG product judging how?




Voting for a canidate _Just_ because she is a woman is a bad thing. Having a good number of women canidates on the ballot is a Good thing.

Personally I voted for Xath because she is good with a sword   (I hear being a judge can be dangerous     )


----------



## Cthulhu's Librarian (Oct 4, 2005)

MavrickWeirdo said:
			
		

> So if 2 out of 17 qualifies as "so many" then I am happy for you.




I think the past two years have only had 1 female in the running, so having two this year is a 100% increase.


----------



## Brad Hindman (Oct 4, 2005)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> Well, it's an internet message board Man If you are making your voting decisions based on familiarity with the Candidate, then I would hope that it has something to do with their posting habits as well as their stated qualifications




It's also a reasonable stance that post count might indicate a dedication to the community. Which in my opinion isn't a bad quality in a judge.

*** Low sigh at my own feeble post count ***


----------



## Xath (Oct 4, 2005)

The_Universe said:
			
		

> And the presence of a Y chromosome effects RPG product judging how?
> 
> Voting for women for the sake of having women on the panel is silly, just as it would be to vote for the dudes for the simple sake of making sure that "testosterone" is properly represented. Vote for individuals based on their merits, not based on what they may or may not carry between their legs. Sheesh!




You misinterpret.  I'm not saying it effects product judging.  Nor am I suggesting that anyone should vote for anyone based on their gender.  I'm saying that I'd like to see a female judge on the panel for a few personal reasons.  One is that I'm female and I'd really like to be a judge; thus, I'd really like to see a female judge on the panel.  Two (and others may find this odd) but as a woman I feel more connected to women.  I'd just feel as though my views were a bit more represented if there were a woman of the panel.  There's no real basis for this, because everyone has different tastes in RPGs, but there is at least a general correlation of tastes among women.  

I just voiced an opinion.  Sheesh!


----------



## Xath (Oct 4, 2005)

MavrickWeirdo said:
			
		

> I'm going to assume that RavenHyde (Selma) is female. I don't see any evidence that any of the other judges is femail. So if 2 out of 17 qualifies as "so many" then I am happy for you.




Hmm...Perhaps I misinterpreted some of the names...


----------



## Dextra (Oct 4, 2005)

*Interesting Discussion!*

First of all, I'd like to point out that it's only been two and a half days since I opened the poll, and we've already got over 400 votes cast.  Last year we only had 542.  So yay ENWorlders for voting!  Keep it up! 

I definitely want to encourage more voter turnout, hence me spamming some other boards.  Hey all you nominees, include a link in your sig to the poll, and increase your post count!  

There are plenty of other methods of judge selection.  I was hoping that the results would be hidden, but the poll system here doesn't allow for that.  It would've been a nice start.  Hopefully next year we can get Michael Morris to set up an alternative/instant runoff vote similar to what we did for the products for the judges.  It'd also mean that non-ENWorlders would have an easier time voting, which might keep some publishers happier.  Maybe next year we'll have two voting rounds: one for the experienced judges panel of 2-4 judges, and one for the remaining n00b spot(s) to enforce some turnover.  Maybe we'll only allow nominees approved by the Board of Directors to be included on the polls.  Heck, maybe we'll allow non ENWorlders to run!  All sorts of possibilities exist and will be explored.

I just wanted to get the selection done in an expedient manner, and the poll system was there and ready to go.  It ain't perfect, but heck, neither are humans.  It'll do for this year.

As for the estrogen thang... well...  I like Xath.  She was brave and dressed up for the costume competition at Gen Con Indy (IIRC in a Game of Thrones-related gown she sewed).  She volunteered for the ENnies ceremony the year before.  She outgeeked us all by bringing up character stats in polite conversation at a party.  I voted for her not because she's a chick, but because she's a great gamer, and a breath of fresh air.   The gender's just a bonus.  So when I said earlier that I was happy to see some girls joining in, I should've specified qualified gamer girls.


----------



## Dextra (Oct 4, 2005)

*What influenced your vote?  What makes a good judge?*

So people, I'd be interested to know what has influenced your choice in judge selection.

Familiarity with their name?
Familiarity/agreement with their views?
Quality and/or Number of Reviews posted?
Past gaming professional cred?
Perceived dedication to ENWorld?
Past experience and/or performance as ENnies judge?
Gender?
Age?
Location?
Post Count?
Campaign Speech?
Personal connection with nominee/met them IRL?

Also, what do you think makes for a good judge?

Familiarity with multiple game systems?
Impartiality?
Shared bias with your preferences?
Eloquence?

Please share, there are a lot of nominees who are very interested to know!


----------



## Crothian (Oct 4, 2005)

And also, more general then Dextra's post what do the people voting think makes a good judge?  Which of course she asked too.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 4, 2005)

Somehow, I missed this one earlier...



			
				Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> Hey, now don't go putting words in my mouth



Questions don't put words in your mouth.  They give you the opportunity to clarify, if you so desire  



> And I tend to agree. Not just becasue I am doing well (thanks all!) but because, honestly, what  do you think would produce results better reflecting the Zeitgeist than the calssic "One Person/One Vote"  model?




There's any number of good voting models.  But there's things that can bring odd results to your election other than the voting model itself.  For example - having the results available before the polls close is known to affect voting patterns.



> Secondly...I don't think it's fair to categorize any of the previous judges as being a "Sacrifce of the future for the sake of the now". I've worked with all of them, and am perfectly confident in their ability to do the work required.




No individual judge has ever been a bad choice, to my knowledge.  But that doesn't mean the _pattern_ of chosen judges is necessarily the most desireable one.  Of course, there's the question of what constitutes "most desireable" there.  Each will have their own opinons on that.



> I don't know about that. It seems to come up every year in one form or another.




That's rather why I think it doesn't matter that much.  



> I'm just not sure that any "fix" I can imagine does anything but punish incumbents for successfully doing their jobs. :\




You make it sound like judgeship is a right, so that taking away that right is punishment.  I view judgeship as a service one can render to the community.  Being held off from performing a particular service every once in a while doesn't seem like punishment.  YMMV.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Oct 4, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> You make it sound like judgeship is a right, so that taking away that right is punishment.  I view judgeship as a service one can render to the community.  Being held off from performing a particular service every once in a while doesn't seem like punishment.  YMMV.




Well, my "mileage varies" quite a bit

I certainly don't think Judgeship is a "right", and I'm not sure where you get that.

I would think that running for the position (an option open to anyone in the community) is probably something I'd consider a right...and one that most of the fixes I've heard described seem to be interested in removing. 

And even _that_ doesn't get my back up too much.

What does though is the idea that the idea that one would be "held off from performing a particular service every once in a while" for no other reason than they keep getting voted in by the general populace...seemingly the acid test for whether they should be doing the job (YMMV).

I mentioned it above once, but I think it kind of got lost, so at the risk of repeating myself; if  the general populace wants incumbent judges out of the Judging Panel, a mechanism is _already_ in place for making that happen.

But it looks like they largely don't. 

If you start monkeying with the system because you don't like the results generated by the voting public...well, yeah, my mileage varies on that one quite a bit


----------



## Xath (Oct 4, 2005)

*In my opinion...*



> Familiarity with their name?




This certainly helps.  After all, I can't have much experience of who they are or what kind of judge they'd be if I've never heard of them.  The nomination blurb helps, but I'd like to see more.



> Familiarity/agreement with their views?




Familiarity yes, agreement no.  I tried to vote for people with a wide variety of views.  I felt that this way the results of the Ennies would be more applicable to the entire gaming population.



> Quality and/or Number of Reviews posted?




Not particularly.  More like quality of posts.  I read reviews, and they tell me a bit, but you can learn just as much about a person from their posts.  



> Past gaming professional cred?




It helps, but it's not everything.  Variety of experience is just as importance as variety in gaming preferences.  It helps get more well rounded results.



> Perceived dedication to ENWorld?




Yes.  These positions require a lot of dedication.  I give some corrolation to dedication to ENWorld and the ENnies. 



> Past experience and/or performance as ENnies judge?




Yes.  I think all of the previous judges have done a good job.  It stands to reason that they would do so again.



> Gender?
> Age?
> Location?




Again for variety.  Not required by any means, but nice to have.



> Post Count?




Not particularly. People can have a high post count without contributing to the community.  Others can have under 500 posts, but their posts were all well thought out and meaningful.  (Not to imply that this is always the case, but I tend to look at quality as much as quantity).



> Campaign Speech?




I read them all.  But I don't know how much they influenced my decision.



> Personal connection with nominee/met them IRL?




Yes, definitely.  The internet can be very misleading, and people only see as much of you as you want them to see.  In person, it's a bit more difficult to hide things.  I have met and liked almost all of the people I voted for.  (As in I havn't met one, not that I don't like him)



> Also, what do you think makes for a good judge?
> 
> Familiarity with multiple game systems?
> Impartiality?
> ...




Familiarity with multiple systems is very important.  It makes it that much easier to understand and appreciate a new system that may be submitted into the competition.  Impartiality is useful, but so is bias.  You may be able to judge a mechanic by being impartial, but there's no such thing as an impartial vote on "best art."  And as I said above, I'd prefer a variety of bias.  Eloquence?  Meh.  As long as they can get their point across.  Don't get me wrong, the ability to express onesself goes a long way, but I only care about eloquence if they have to pull PC's duty of podium host.  That's where eloquence matters.


----------



## diaglo (Oct 4, 2005)

Xath said:
			
		

> I just voiced an opinion.  Sheesh!



if it helps any, i've got 3 sisters. one of them my twin. i also am a second generation graduate from the U of Md. Go Terps.



i voted based on reviews, posts, familiarity, and past experience. no, i didn't vote for myself. but i tend never to do that.


----------



## Hor Kai Lan (Oct 4, 2005)

A few random things:

1) On some level I find the ongoing disagreement between Telfon Billy and Umbran about voting patterns and policies funny since I voted for both for very different reasons. I now feel even better about my votes now. Honestly. Disagreement can be healthy.

2) Earlier I quoted someone else about "fresh blood" and made a tongue-in-cheek joke about this being a popularity contest and I was going to pull out the "Postcount" card... but that usually brings out the hounds... but regardless it seems that to at least a few of us there should be a built-in method to ensure new judges are added... Even Dextra alluded to the possibility... Well anyway... and this is directed to TB... but I'm curious to anyone's answer...

It seems on the surface you are against any changes to the electing/voting process... am I misreading that??? Isn't "fresh blood" a good thing every so often???

just honest question... and remember I voted for ya


----------



## der_kluge (Oct 4, 2005)

Dextra said:
			
		

> So people, I'd be interested to know what has influenced your choice in judge selection.




I'll bite.

I voted for TB, Crothian, CL, Diaglo, and Joe.

Here are my reasons:

I know most of these people, and I know that they know what they are doing. I know they are all opinionated enough, and know enough about various systems to make an informed decision.  At least, that was my reasoning with Crothian and TB. I voted for CL since I consider him a good friend, and I know he also has several years worth of experience doing this.

I voted for Diaglo because if anyone can be critical of a d20 product, I know he could. And I've read enough of his posts to know that he runs a good game, and his I value his ideas and opinions.

I voted for Joe because he's been an Ennie judge in the past, and the dude has over 400 reviews to his credit on ENWorld alone. A lot of the other folks wanting to be a judge have 0 reviews to their name. That's an important qualification. I'd like to see a comparison of review count to vote count.


I think those factors are what are important to me. I wanted to vote for Nakia but I don't feel like he has enough exposure to a wide variety of game systems like some of the others have. He might, but he doesn't post enough for me to know. I've met him, and while I really like Nakia, and think he's a great person, I'm not sure he'd be opinionated enough to do it. 

I wanted to vote for Xath because I really like her, and have met her in RL, but I also am not sure she is opinionated enough. She seems far too mild-mannered and polite to be an Ennies judge. 

So, I don't think age, or gender, or the speeches, or any publishing experience, or anything else really matters. I think what matters to me is whether or not someone has a broad range of experience, and I know can be opinionated enough for the job.  I'm certain post-count might play a large role in that, because unlike a single voting period from this thread, in my mind, people run for this job all year long.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 4, 2005)

Why is fresh blood good?  Or more importantly, why is it better then a few years or more experience of doing the job?


----------



## Umbran (Oct 4, 2005)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> Umbran claims that it is to get more people voting...but more people voting _to what end_ if it starts to eliminate candidates who currently draw large amounts of the voter interest?




Candidates who currently draw large interest from those wo voted, perhaps.  But large interest overall?  I see 1200 people currently logged in, and so far in days of voting, only 404 votes.  Nobody here is getting large interest, relative to the potential voting population, TB.  The whole election isn't getting much interest.



> At what point do you just make it a raffle?




Good question.  And at what point do you just take the five folks you kow are gong to win anyway, and dispense with the time-consuming formality?


----------



## Teflon Billy (Oct 4, 2005)

Hor Kai Lan said:
			
		

> It seems on the surface you are against any changes to the electing/voting process... am I misreading that??? Isn't "fresh blood" a good thing every so often???




I literally have no idea. it certainly isn't a "given" if that's what you are asking.

I certainly wouldn't make a blanket statement to that effect, as I would have to have some idea that the "new blood" was at least as competent as the "old blood" before I'd be willing to say they deserved a spot.

I guess what I am saying is that "Fresh Blood" isn't "a good thing every so often" simply becasue it's Fresh.

That said, I voted for Xath, Keeper of Secrets and Quickbeam as well as CL and Crothian... so I guess I'm not totally averse to the idea.

But it's got nothing to do with their having never been judges before.



> just honest question... and remember I voted for ya




Why thank you for your support citizen


----------



## Hor Kai Lan (Oct 4, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Why is fresh blood good?  Or more importantly, why is it better then a few years or more experience of doing the job?




Well this is the 2nd time in this thread that you've posted after me challenging my view Crothian... its ok... its all good... a paranoid person might think you're after me... then I realized with your 37k posts there must be 3645 other posters like me with 10-20 posts where you have posted immediately afterwards   I know its not personal 

Anyhow... well how bout for starters because a few people in the community this year and by the sounds of it previous years expressed an interest in doing so... and those people who have said "fresh blood" is something we should explore range from me (the everyman lurker) to a few people running to Dextra who's organizing the whole ball of wax. So its just not the ramblings of someone who might be bitter because they were passed over for selection. I believe its being suggested for healthy good reasons.

My question back to you would be... why does it appear you are desperate to hold on to this power??? Why is so important that the same people judge??? You must have read the other 1st timers' qualifications like I did. Some of those people striked me as responsible, dedicated people who wish to make the Ennies a success. Did I miss something???

I'm sure if the same people judge every year... the event would be ok. But isn't there a desire to evolve??? Isn't possible that someone new might bring that one idea that everyone else says, 'but of course... why didn't we think of that' ???


----------



## MavrickWeirdo (Oct 4, 2005)

Hor Kai Lan said:
			
		

> Well this is the 2nd time in this thread that you've posted after me challenging my view Crothian... its ok... its all good... a paranoid person might think you're after me... then I realized with your 37k posts there must be 3645 other posters like me with 10-20 posts where you have posted immediately afterwards   I know its not personal




Yup, that's how he got his high post count.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 4, 2005)

Hor Kai Lan said:
			
		

> Well this is the 2nd time in this thread that you've posted after me challenging my view Crothian... its ok... its all good... a paranoid person might think you're after me... then I realized with your 37k posts there must be 3645 other posters like me with 10-20 posts where you have posted immediately afterwards   I know its not personal




Don't be paraniod you are a good hour and half to 2 hours away.    



> My question back to you would be... why does it appear you are desperate to hold on to this power??? Why is so important that the same people judge??? You must have read the other 1st timers' qualifications like I did. Some of those people striked me as responsible, dedicated people who wish to make the Ennies a success. Did I miss something???




Judging is damn hard work, previous judges who want to do it again (and not all of them do) have proven their worth and are ready to rise to the challenge again.  I really like the ENnies and I know these judges do to and they are willing to do the hard work to make the ENNies great.  While there are some people running that I think might do a good job I really don't know that they won't break in the middle of trying to read and evaluate 200 RPG books.  It is harder then it sounds.  My first year was way harder then I imagined even after reading from all the previous judges how much work it really is.  And that was an easy year since we had mostly d20.



> I'm sure if the same people judge every year... the event would be ok. But isn't there a desire to evolve??? Isn't possible that someone new might bring that one idea that everyone else says, 'but of course... why didn't we think of that' ???




Or maybe they won't.  Maybe they will be in fact not be any good.  I'm not against new blood, but its a chance and a gamble.  A previous judge is a known factor.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Oct 4, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Candidates who currently draw large interest from those wo voted, perhaps.  But large interest overall?  I see 1200 people currently logged in, and so far in days of voting, only 404 votes.  Nobody here is getting large interest, relative to the potential voting population, TB.  The whole election isn't getting much interest.




And you're certain that the way to draw interest from the crowd is to eliminate incumbency?



			
				TB said:
			
		

> At what point do you just make it raffle?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Answer it. 

I'll answer yours below



			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> And at what point do you just take the five folks you kow are gong to win anyway, and dispense with the time-consuming formality?




Simple. _Worry about it when that happens_. 

There has yet to be an identical 5 person judging comittee in the history of the awards. So far the judges have been...


Mark CMG
CRGreathouse
Eric Noah
Piratecat
Joe G Kushner
Crothian
Alsih2o
Psion
Cthulu's Librarian
Colonel Hardisson
Teflon Billy

If I've missed anyone, hey; Bygones

And yes, the voting has favored the incumbents; but in the absence of misconduct or incompetence _it should favor them_.

But that said, there has usually been one new face in the crowd each year, and again--on the absence of misconduct or incompetence--that's pretty good as well.

All I'm saying is that the current system seems to be working. The Awards are growing in prestige, the job is getting done to the satisfaction of the electorate...even the number of voters participating grows every year (and seems to be this year as well) which is the concern you expressed.

And yet you posit some kind of _explosive_ growth in voter turnout--rather than the steady growth we've seen--if you eliminate (or limit) incumbency.

I'm just not sure why you posit that.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 4, 2005)

You forgot Darkness


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 4, 2005)

It appears the voting is going quite well!


----------



## Teflon Billy (Oct 4, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> You forgot Darkness




Bygones!


----------



## MavrickWeirdo (Oct 4, 2005)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> And yet you posit some kind of _explosive_ growth in voter turnout--rather than the steady growth we've seen--if you eliminate (or limit) incumbency.
> 
> I'm just not sure why you posit that.




I am not against incumbency, but historically a "close race" tends to "bring out the vote".

Another factor that no one has commented on is the # of candidates. A longer list of candidates favors incumbants. I'm not suggesting we stop anyone from entering the race, but the "newblood" vote is being split 13 ways, while the "incumbant" vote is only split 4 ways


----------



## JediSoth (Oct 4, 2005)

> Or maybe they won't. Maybe they will be in fact not be any good. I'm not against new blood, but its a chance and a gamble. A previous judge is a known factor.





I would say that not all of this is neccessarily true. We all know that being an ENnies Judge is a lot of really hard work. Maybe the previous judge has a plethora of real life issues crop up just as judging really starts to get underway. Maybe 4 months after being elected, they have a massive attitude shift and no longer care to do a good job. Everyone has slumps. It's a chance and a gamble whenever someone is popularly elected to do a job.

Now, I'm not saying that will happen. I'm just saying that its a misconception that incumbants will automatically do a good job. I could bring up several real life examples, but politics aren't allowed on these boards.

For the record, I don't have a problem with anyone who looks likely to win. Heck, I'm just thrilled that I got more than 1 vote. I know my post count isn't very high and there's a reason for that. Most of the time, by the time of day I get in on a thread, anything I would have to add has already been said. I hate being repetitive. I generally only post if I have a question or I feel I can contribute positively to the thread (though, I have hijacked a thread or two over the last several years).

Good luck to all us running. And whoever wins, I'll see you at the ENnies! I have to bring the display cases, you know.  Dextra, they're doing just fine. I game near them every other week, so they don't forget what they're for.

JediSoth


----------



## Dextra (Oct 4, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Why is fresh blood good?  Or more importantly, why is it better then a few years or more experience of doing the job?




I think that we need one new voice every year, lest we become too predictable or stale.  Stir things up a bit.


----------



## DaveMage (Oct 4, 2005)

Dextra said:
			
		

> So people, I'd be interested to know what has influenced your choice in judge selection.




I voted for a balance of old judges and new judges based on their reviews and/or their posts on EN World.


----------



## MavrickWeirdo (Oct 4, 2005)

After three days the voting has slowed down, at 408 votes this is 75% of last years turnout. 

We have seven people running this election who also ran in the last election. All but one have a higher percentage of the vote, in spite of there being more canidates (Mixmaster is running 1/2 of one percent behind last year.) The most dramatic change is Xath who doing twice as well (percentage wise) than last year. 

So it seems that just running for Ennies Judge can help in future elections.


```
2006 Judges Election (17 candidates, 7 from previous year) 

[color=red]Teflon Billy (Jeff Ranger)    			285 	69.85% [/color]
[color=orange]Crothian (Chris Gath)    			263 	64.46% [/color]
[color=yellow]JoeGKushner (Joe G Kushner)    		        244 	59.80% [/color]
[color=green]Cthulhu's Librarian (Richard J. Miller), SC     220 	53.92% [/color]
diaglo (David Temporado)    			138 	33.82% 

Ankh-Morpork Guard (Graham Johnson)    	         94 	23.04%
[color=plum]Xath (Gertie Barden), SC    			 84 	20.59%[/color]
[color=blue]Umbran (Arnis Kletnieks)    			 62 	15.20% [/color]

Keeper of Secrets (Matthew Muth)    		 61 	14.95% 

trancejeremy (Jeremy Reaban)    		 46 	11.27% 
nakia (Nakia S. Pope)    			 42 	10.29% 
Quickbeam (Kevin Bopp), SC    		         37 	 9.07% 

RavenHyde (Selma McCrory)    		         36 	 8.82% 
Tarondor (Scott Nolan), SC    		         30 	 7.35% 
[color=purple]Mixmaster (Leslie Foster), SC    		 27 	 6.62% [/color]
JediSoth (Hans Cummings)    		         22 	 5.39% 
Eridanis (Matt Bogen), SC    			 18 	 4.41%
```


```
2005 Judges Results (16 candidates, one removed himself)

[b]Piratecat    		424   	77.80%[/b]
[b][color=red]Teflon Billy    	346 	63.49%[/b] [/color]
[b][color=orange]Crothian    	        310 	56.88%[/b] [/color]
[s][color=yellow]JoeGKushner    	        258 	47.34%[/s] [/color]
[b][color=green]Cthulhu's Librarian    	234 	42.94%[/b] [/color]
[b]alsih2o    		228 	41.83%[/b]

Darkness    		142 	26.06%  
die_kluge    		116 	21.28% 

BardStephenFox    	 92 	16.88% 

[color=blue]Umbran    		 65 	11.93% [/color]
Maldur    		 52 	 9.54% 

[color=plum]Xath    		 50 	 9.17%[/color]
Nisarg    		 45 	 8.26%  
[color=purple]Mixmaster    		 39 	 7.16% [/color]
Macbeth    		 38 	 6.97%
omokage    		 30 	 5.50%
```


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 4, 2005)

Dextra said:
			
		

> I think that we need one new voice every year, lest we become too predictable or stale.  Stir things up a bit.





Yet per the rules, so to speak, there is nothing that actually enforces that viewpoint.


----------



## Xath (Oct 4, 2005)

MavrickWeirdo said:
			
		

> After three days the voting has slowed down, at 408 votes this is 75% of last years turnout.
> 
> We have seven people running this election who also ran in the last election. All but one have a higher percentage of the vote, in spite of there being more canidates (Mixmaster is running 1/2 of one percent behind last year.) The most dramatic change is Xath who doing twice as well (percentage wise) than last year.
> 
> So it seems that just running for Ennies Judge can help in future elections.




For me, I think it has to do with the fact that I've been a lot more vocal on the more well-traversed boards this year than I was last year.


----------



## Quickbeam (Oct 4, 2005)

Now it's time for the Entish candidate to speak for the trees -- since I do not believe the Lorax is available. 

I believe that my own attempts to secure a spot on the panel are representative (to a degree) of what we see happening across the board.  First, I'm gonna go out on a limb and attempt to explain why I'm doing so poorly this year in comparison to my efforts two or three years ago.  IMHO there are several factors which play critical roles in the number of votes I've received each year.  In the past 12-14 months my post count has nearly flatlined, whereas I was very vocal prior to that.  Post count by itself only matters in the sense that it means an individual is more visible. Yet, being visible increases the likelihood that you will be remembered by other community members come election time.  And while I do not agree that there is no such thing as bad publicity, notoriety does have its benefits.

Furthermore, a large body of work (high post count) also means that you are probably engaging in conversations/debates of some duration with other community members.  Certainly it's possible that you just post an voluminous array of superficial commentary, but it's more likely that you are also taking part in ongoing community discussions.  That means folks will begin getting a better impression of you as a person, and unless you're a flamethrower (or completely irrational/obnoxious) it is likely to increase the level of respect you garner.  I believe that to be true even when you hold the minority opinion -- perhaps even moreso in such situations if you defend your position well.

I know that I received T-Bill's vote (thanks Jeff!) and maybe votes from other notable EN Worlders too.  I'd like to think that's becuase my participation in this community is generally positive (albeit less frequent) and centered around the intent to help move things forward.  I firmly believe that continued visibility and constructive participation will pay off in a spot on the panel somewhere down the road.


...until then...
I would like to reaffirm my support of an election process which insures some degree of turnover in the ENnies Judging Panel from year to year.  I know T-Bill and Crothian personally and have voted for them once again despite my desire to see new Judges find their way onto the panel.  I vote for them because I respect their dedication, commitment, insight and sincere desire to see excellence in the RPG industry recognized.  I also voted for CL (as I did two years ago when I drew into contention for a spot on the panel) because I value the experience overlap his career provides when it comes to evaluating material.

But that does not mean others (Xath, Umbran, myself, etc.) are incapable of exhibiting all of those same traits while providing a different perspective.  We could debate all year until the next set of elections whether or not change for the sake of change is "good."  I'm not suggesting that it is.  What I'm suggesting is that we won't _know_ whether guaranteed turnover of a spot (or more) each year to a rookie judge is "good."

We all know that the job performed by Jeff, Chris, Rich, et al, is admirable.  I have no idea whether forcing change will result in something better, worse, or simply different.  I'd just like to see it happen, for both selfish reasons and because I'm a firm believer in giving other folks a chance to shine.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 4, 2005)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> I certainly don't think Judgeship is a "right", and I'm not sure where you get that.




From "punishment".  Holding back an opportunity is only punishment if it's something you'd expect to be allowed to do otherwise.  



> I mentioned it above once, but I think it kind of got lost, so at the risk of repeating myself; if  the general populace wants incumbent judges out of the Judging Panel, a mechanism is _already_ in place for making that happen.




Not really, TB.  At the moment, each individual imposes his own personal set of criteria, right?  There is no coordination, which means none of the criteria really get met.  If all 400 people say, "I only want to see three incumbents on the panel", and they don't all vote for the same three incumbents, you likely get more than three incumbents on the panel.

Here's the funny thing - by your logic, we shouldn't have judges at all!  You argue against putting a "filter" on who can be a judge - but the judges themselves act as a filter for the products!  If we really want to be democratic, why don't we skip the judges altogether, and just let the populace vote on the products they like directly?  If the populace is so good at enforcing their own thoughts through voting, the judges are redundant, and in fact stand in the way of true democracy and the will of the people.



> If you start monkeying with the system because you don't like the results generated by the voting public...well, yeah, my mileage varies on that one quite a bit




See above - pot calling the kettle black, and all that.  You're part of a system that already explicitly doesn't trust the voting public to figure things out for themselves, TB.  



> And you're certain that the way to draw interest from the crowd is to eliminate incumbency?




Certain?  Of course not.  Certainty is for people who don't want to think.  



> Answer it.




Okay, let's see... At what point do you make it a raffle?  Well, when you feel that random choice among the candidates will do as good a job of meeting the needs as the vote will.  Note that we have not yet agreed on what "the needs" are.

You seem to think the only needs that ought to be considered are the immediate ones of the panel itself.  I'm thinking that the health of the awards are not served by being so focused in our concerns.



> Simple. Worry about it when that happens.




Eh, it is happening right now.  Anyone familiar with this place could pick the winners from the list of candidates TB.  



> And yes, the voting has favored the incumbents; but in the absence of misconduct or incompetence it should favor them.




I am not sure I agree.  But that's a thread of discussion all on it's own.  



> ...even the number of voters participating grows every year (and seems to be this year as well) which is the concern you expressed.




I don't have access to the data, but my impression is that the growth of participation may not be keeping up with growth of the site.  I fear that the _percentage_ of participating folks is decreasing, and that's not at all good.
\


> And yet you posit some kind of explosive growth in voter turnout--rather than the steady growth we've seen--if you eliminate (or limit) incumbency.




Follow your own advice about putting words in mouths, TB.  Never did I say, or imply, "explosive" anything.  I suggested that increasing competition might increase participation, and that limiting incumbency is one way we might increase competition.


----------



## Hairy Minotaur (Oct 4, 2005)

Please preface with "In my opinion" as I am not all-knowing.   

I voted the way I did because, I knew I was not going to be a judge, and so in looking at the candidates I picked the 5 people who most closely match my opinions (on gaming products at least).

Teflon Billy was an easy choice (for me anyway as I often ask myself WWTBD?  ) and the other 4 people are all below the top half of the current votes. 

I think TB has a valid point, if there is such an outcry from people over who's going to get the judgeships, then you would have seen it reflected in who actually got the votes. 

If you think that TB doesn't deserve another run at it, then don't vote for him. But that apparently didn't happen as he leads in votes. If you think that it's a waste of time as the top five have such a lead, that voting would be pointless, you might have an argument there since the total # of votes is well below the total # of members on this site. If that is the case however then a candidate would only need 90% of their total vote within the first day to create such a gap to discourage any other voting.

If the remaining members came to vote and saw the totals and were outraged by who was leading and they all voted for the those at the bottom of the list, then the list gets flipped on it's end. That's not happening however, so either people are comfortable with how this is shaping up or they aren't motivated to change it.

Either way I think we'll continue to see these kinds of results year after year, until something causes enough of the remaining members to vote.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 4, 2005)

How hard would it be to send an e-mail to those registered with En World with a link to the voting poll reminding them to vote? I know RPG.net uses something similiar for that with the Quicksilver reviews to insure that we're checking the lists of new products.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 4, 2005)

MavrickWeirdo said:
			
		

> After three days the voting has slowed down, at 408 votes this is 75% of last years turnout.




Hm.  Another piece of data we dont' have handy - the time-dependance of voting.  My vague recollection is that last year was similar, in that there was an initial burst of voting, and then the rate of new votes bottomed out.  It would be itneresting to see a comparison of votes per day for each year.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Oct 4, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> From "punishment".  Holding back an opportunity is only punishment if it's something you'd expect to be allowed to do otherwise.




Well, I could use your terminology and refer to it as "Wihholding priveleges", but I think--at least from a parenting background--that the therms could be used almost interchangable, and I don't reeally intend to argue semnatics.  



			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> Not really, TB.  At the moment, each individual imposes his own personal set of criteria, right?  There is no coordination, which means none of the criteria really get met.  If all 400 people say, "I only want to see three incumbents on the panel", and they don't all vote for the same three incumbents, you likely get more than three incumbents on the panel.




I have no idea if that's true, but I think you've proven on more than one occasion that you have a better grasp of voting models than I do.



			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> Here's the funny thing - by your logic, we shouldn't have judges at all!  You argue against putting a "filter" on who can be a judge - but the judges themselves act as a filter for the products!  If we really want to be democratic, why don't we skip the judges altogether, and just let the populace vote on the products they like directly?  If the populace is so good at enforcing their own thoughts through voting, the judges are redundant, and in fact stand in the way of true democracy and the will of the people.




Again with the putting words in my mouth

The reason I think we should have judges is that they are the ones who ensure that unfamiliar products get a fair look...there are far too many products on the market for most people to have familiarized themselves with them all.

The reason I don't apply this same thought to the Judging Panel is that it is possible for the  voting public to be acquainted with their candidates...if only from the nominations thread and general interaction, a level of familiarity that is much harder to accomplish with _most every  product released last year_.



			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> You seem to think the only needs that ought to be considered are the immediate ones of the panel itself.  I'm thinking that the health of the awards are not served by being so focused in our concerns.




Now I _know_ you misunderstand me. I don't care one whit about the "needs" of the Panel other than that it be capable of doing its job. Make no mistake, it's said often enough, but it bears repeating: this job is _hard_. Every year we try to ease the time crunch on the judges, but it almost always comes down to a massive no-sleep. no-anything else marathon session in the last few weeks. 

I _think_ most anyone on the panel might be capable of it, but I _know_ the incumbents are.




> Eh, it is happening right now.  Anyone familiar with this place could pick the winners from the list of candidates TB.




Then why, if it's as easy as that, is there anyone but the Myself, CL, Crothian, Joe and Diaglo with any votes at all? I think you overstate the surety of it. 

Why do you feel the winners are obvious? I voted early on and never would've expected Diaglo to have such a strong showing (no offense David).  

I agree the results needed to be hidden ("Secret Ballot") , but "Anyone familiar with this place could pick the winners from the list of candidates" is a statement I disagree with.



			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> I am not sure I agree.  But that's a thread of discussion all on it's own.




Unfortunately, it's the heart of my argument, so if you could spare more than a sentence dismissing it, I'd be really interested. 

Maybe you can boil down somehting quick on why you think that "in the absence of misconduct or incompetence" incumbent candidates should be excluded. 




			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> I don't have access to the data, but my impression is that the growth of participation may not be keeping up with growth of the site.  I fear that the _percentage_ of participating folks is decreasing, and that's not at all good.




I don't have access to the data either.



			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> Follow your own advice about putting words in mouths, TB.




What, and work with a handicap 



			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> Never did I say, or imply, "explosive" anything.




Ok, I misused an adjective. 



			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> I suggested that increasing competition might increase participation, and that limiting incumbency is one way we might increase competition.




Can we agree that you were implying a "greater level of voter participation growth" than the steady growth we are currently seeing? 

Otherwise I'm not sure what your point is.


----------



## MavrickWeirdo (Oct 4, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Hm.  Another piece of data we dont' have handy - the time-dependance of voting.  My vague recollection is that last year was similar, in that there was an initial burst of voting, and then the rate of new votes bottomed out.  It would be itneresting to see a comparison of votes per day for each year.




I'm wondering if there will be a "Rush" on the last day.

As I said before, the voting patterns (percentages) from each day to the next are remaining consistant. 

The Major "voter intrests" so far seem to be 

Experience
"New Blood"/Diversity
Reviewers
Contrairians (or devil's advocate if you prefer)

(*this is a an anidotal list)


It looks like all the judges are from the North American Continent (Hi Bill), so geography does not seem a major role this year.

The Submission Coordinator issue was made almost moot by Cthulhu's Librarian volunteering. (If he were to for some reason drop out, then Xath is the next highest SC, allowing her to out manuver Ankh-Morpork Guard. Not that I'm wishing for it.   )


----------



## Quickbeam (Oct 4, 2005)

OK folks, as a diversion from the ongoing debate I shall commence my amazing push up the polls.  Maybe


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Oct 4, 2005)

MavrickWeirdo said:
			
		

> The Submission Coordinator issue was made almost moot by Cthulhu's Librarian volunteering. (If he were to for some reason drop out, then Xath is the next highest SC, allowing her to out manuver Ankh-Morpork Guard. Not that I'm wishing for it.   )




Heheheh. That would be how things work for me normally.  

It'd be nice if there was a way to get more people to vote, though. No idea how...that's really a problem that every system involving voluntary voting runs into.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 4, 2005)

MavrickWeirdo said:
			
		

> The Submission Coordinator issue was made almost moot by Cthulhu's Librarian volunteering. (If he were to for some reason drop out, then Xath is the next highest SC, allowing her to out manuver Ankh-Morpork Guard. Not that I'm wishing for it.   )




Well good luck to him on that. I did it for one year and man, I wanted people to die at the end of that shift. Ugh. Worst gaming related memory evar!


----------



## Crothian (Oct 4, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Well good luck to him on that. I did it for one year and man, I wanted people to die at the end of that shift. Ugh. Worst gaming related memory evar!




There is a reason for 5 years we have had five different SCs


----------



## nakia (Oct 4, 2005)

Re: "New blood" and the Umbran/TB discussion:
There's discussion about what "we" want and need from judges and the election process, but it seems to me there are different "we's", each of which has different interests which impact the discussion.  If we mean "we" in the broadest sense -- every member/potential voter – then the open nomination and “one person, one vote” mechanism we have in place seems the best.  It’s the only way to assure everyone the opportunity to have his or her voice heard.

Part of the problem (if I’m understanding Umbran correctly), is that the “we” seems to be limited to a rather small percentage of the ENWorld population.  Not everyone votes.  How to expand that “we” lies at the heart of the issue.  Will changing the categories/nomination procedures expand that “we”?  Honestly, I have no idea.  I don’t think anyone could know unless it was tried.  The “we” of voter participation is balanced by the “we” of potential judges.  Changing the nomination process/holding slots for “new blood” would limit that pool.  I would want to keep both “wes” as broad as possible

There’s another “we”; the ENWorld “powers that be” – Dextra, Morrus, and the others who have taken it upon themselves to look out for ENWorld in a manner more encompassing than the average user.  They have interests as well.  I would imagine those include making the Ennies as fair, popular, and meaningful as possible, so that they become more recognized and known in the industry and the gaming community.  If the “powers that be” feel the site and the awards best interests are better served by changing the nominations and/or voting process (because “new blood” draws more voters and thus, more involvement and popularity), then I think they are within their rights to do so.

I’ll also echo the sentiment that it would be helpful to keep the results hidden.  Percentages haven’t changed significantly since Sunday; it seems decided already.  Keeping the results hidden would at least help the “my vote does not matter because it’s already finished” attitude.

Anyway, that's my .02.


----------



## nakia (Oct 4, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> There is a reason for 5 years we have had five different SCs




Perhaps in the future the Submission Coordinator could be a seperate spot, with some (free Gen Con pass or something) form of compensation.  It could serve as a way to gain experience and involvment without being a judge; sorta like a Vice Presidency.


----------



## Quickbeam (Oct 4, 2005)

Nakia makes a few excellent points, and I particularly like the suggestion to keep the SC position as a separate slot _if_ the voting process is not adjusted.  Although, having never been the SC, I cannot say whether such a position is reasonable to bestow upon a n00b ENnies panel member.

In any event, I will simply point out that this conversation is repeated in one form or another pretty much every year.  And IMHO a few concepts are fairly unassailable:
1) Hiding the results will make it less likely that a potential voter skips casting their ballot because they believe the election to already be a foregone conclusion.
2) There are people who'd like to see a "fresh blood" guarantee/rotating panel/term limits, but nobody can say for certain whether or not this will improve the awards.  It is likely to change them based on a whole array of subjective criteria and personal biases, but that doesn't mean they'll be any better...or any worse.
3) None of the pressure brought to bear on voting/election reform is connected to the effort provided by the incumbent slate of Judges -- TB, Crothian, CL and even JoeGK who's back in the hunt.  They've done a fine job on behalf of the community, and unless a change is mandated or one (or more) of them voluntarily step aside, they will likely be elected each and every time they run.

You can argue that if it isn't broken, don't attempt to fix it, and I can see the wisdom in that point of view.  I just wonder what the harm would be in assuring a couple different faces each year.  Either way, I tip my hat to those who accept this responsibility on behalf on the entire EN World community!


----------



## Teflon Billy (Oct 5, 2005)

Quickbeam said:
			
		

> Nakia makes a few excellent points, and I particularly like the suggestion to keep the SC position as a separate slot _if_ the voting process is not adjusted.  Although, having never been the SC, I cannot say whether such a position is reasonable to bestow upon a n00b ENnies panel member.




We really can't make it a seperate position, and here's why...

Basically, what the SC does is get all of the submissions sent out to him from the publishers, sort them into seperate "piles" for the judges, and mail them out.

If the SC isn't a Judge, we add one more set of Shipping Expenses then would otherwse be incurred as the Judge (who used to be the SC) no longer gets his stuff directly.


----------



## nakia (Oct 5, 2005)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> We really can't make it a seperate position, and here's why...
> 
> Basically, what the SC does is get all of the submissions sent out to him from the publishers, sort them into seperate "piles" for the judges, and mail them out.
> 
> If the SC isn't a Judge, we add one more set of Shipping Expenses then would otherwse be incurred as the Judge (who used to be the SC) no longer gets his stuff directly.




Makes sense, at least from a cost point of view.   I'm sure those who have been judges before have kicked this around a bit already and know more about the cost/benefits than I do.  Still, it seems like A LOT of extra work, on top of the significant work associated with judging.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 5, 2005)

nakia said:
			
		

> Makes sense, at least from a cost point of view.   I'm sure those who have been judges before have kicked this around a bit already and know more about the cost/benefits than I do.  Still, it seems like A LOT of extra work, on top of the significant work associated with judging.




It is a lot of extra work.  But it does have one single advantage that does help, the SC gets the books earlier then the judges so he does have more time to read the books.


----------



## fusangite (Oct 5, 2005)

Umbran,

I voted for you because I normally see a high level of reasoning from you but I really question your idea that the way to compensate for low voter turnout is to restrict voter choice. 

In your early posts on this thread you really emphasized that there was a problem in there being very low turnout and that many of your concerns sprang from that source. It seems to me that our goal should be to increase turnout, not to assume that low turnout is a permanent feature of the system and try to somehow compensate for it.

In my view, having strong incumbents in the system does not simply maintain my right to vote for the candidate of my choice, it also increases voter turnout in two ways: first of all, incumbents tend to be higher-profile individuals who will alert people to the election and mobilize them to vote more effectively than lower-profile, less popular individuals; secondly, those wishing to challenge incumbents will know that they have to mobilize a significant number of voters in order to win. 

If we restrict voter choice while simultaneously reducing the incentive to mobilize voters, turnout will drop, as will the legitimacy of the awards. If people want term limits, they have to show that these limits will increase turnout/legitimacy; if they can't, I'm not sure what these limits are for.


----------



## fusangite (Oct 5, 2005)

Another question I am interested in as a voting systems advocate: do people feel that the current multi-member plurality system is adequate? There are a number of other available options: Single Transferrable Vote, Single Non-Transferrable Vote, Limited Vote and Cumulative Vote. They might reduce or increase voter turnout. They may produce different results. 

I think it's worthwhile asking ourselves what we can do to promote better turnout. One is keeping choice as broad as possible. Another is to choose the system that best encourages people to vote. Another, probably, is to increase the privileges judges enjoy so as to encourage people to run for the position and mobilize voters. There are probably other ways too. I'm interested in hearing thoughts on these too.


----------



## Quickbeam (Oct 5, 2005)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> If the SC isn't a Judge, we add one more set of Shipping Expenses then would otherwse be incurred as the Judge (who used to be the SC) no longer gets his stuff directly.




Fair enough.  I just thought this might be a viable method of grooming future judges, sort of a J.I.T. (Judge In Training) program.  As you (and others) have pointed out, being an ENnies Judge is very demanding and it might not be a terrible idea to give folks interested in the job a taste of what they're signing on for.

Just something for you, Crothian, CL, Dextra and the whole ENnies gang to chew over.


----------



## MavrickWeirdo (Oct 5, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> In my view, having strong incumbents in the system does not simply maintain my right to vote for the candidate of my choice.




I realize that your comments were dirrected to Umbran, but I would like to reply. I actually agree with your first point. Term limits restrict voter choice. 



			
				fusangite said:
			
		

> it also increases voter turnout in two ways: first of all, incumbents tend to be higher-profile individuals who will alert people to the election and mobilize them to vote more effectively than lower-profile, less popular individuals;




This is an oversiplification. When there are more strong canidates than elected positions available, then voter turnout increases. (People are as often voting "against" the other canidate as for their own.)

However no one seems concerned that Cthulu's Librarian (as an example) might loose so they don't bother voting.

Meanwhile no one at this point expects Umbran to win (no offence, I voted for you) and so they don't bother voting.

If Cthulu's Librarian was not in the race at all (and the votes for him spread evenly) then the competition between diaglo, Ankh-Morpork Guard, Xath, Umbran, & Keeper of Secrets would be much more dramatic. 

*Drama increases voter turnout*


----------



## IronWolf (Oct 5, 2005)

Dextra said:
			
		

> So people, I'd be interested to know what has influenced your choice in judge selection.
> 
> Familiarity with their name?
> Familiarity/agreement with their views?
> ...




Familiarity with the candidates name helps for a couple of reasons.  One because you tend to notice them and recognize their name and because it probably shows some form of active involvement with EN World.  I don't necessarily always have to agree with their views, if their posts have tended to show at least thought out opinions.

I think having done some reviews also helps.  I think it again shows some dedication to EN World and the fact that the people have some experience reviewing material.  Is it absolutely necessary?  No.  But it can help turn me to one over another.

Gender, Age and location means little to me in terms of voting for a candidate.  The campaign speeches were interesting, but a persons posting history meant a little more to me.  Though the experience with gaming systems bit helped get that down all in one place.

Having met some of the nominees can be a slight edge too.  I think you are more likely to vote for someone you actually met.  With that said I had not met all of the judges I voted for.



			
				Dextra said:
			
		

> Also, what do you think makes for a good judge?
> Familiarity with multiple game systems?
> Impartiality?
> Shared bias with your preferences?
> Eloquence?




Familiar with multiple systems is a plus, it just gives them a wider background to draw from in judging.  They don't have to agree with my preferences as mentioned above.  But if you don't agree then I am probably going to expect more in some of the other areas of the judge traits.  Eloquence can be a factor, but more for the total package evaluation than a determining factor.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 5, 2005)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> Well, I could use your terminology and refer to it as "Wihholding priveleges", but I think--at least from a parenting background--that the therms could be used almost interchangable, and I don't reeally intend to argue semnatics.




Well, let's argue meaning then - is any real harm done to someone who has already served as a judge (perhaps already served multiple times) if you occasionally say "not this year"? 




> The reason I don't apply this same thought to the Judging Panel is that it is possible for the  voting public to be acquainted with their candidates...if only from the nominations thread and general interaction, a level of familiarity that is much harder to accomplish with _most every  product released last year_.




Right.  As if there's enough information in the nominations thread to claim real familiarity?  We could apply that to the products too: publishers wouldn't have to submit products - they could submit some advertising copy.  Those products with larges name recognition and the best ad copy win!  




> Now I _know_ you misunderstand me. I don't care one whit about the "needs" of the Panel other than that it be capable of doing its job.




That's cool.  You've just defined what needs you feel need to be met.  I simply think there's things to consider outside of that, too.



> I _think_ most anyone on the panel might be capable of it, but I _know_ the incumbents are.




Well, we out here actually don't know that, because we don't see the detailed workings of the panel.  All we see are end results, and lack of public complaint by other judges. 

How many new faces have ever failed to meet the requirements?



> Then why, if it's as easy as that, is there anyone but the Myself, CL, Crothian, Joe and Diaglo with any votes at all? I think you overstate the surety of it.




It is statistics, my man.  Statistics.  In even the most clear-cut race, there will be some outlying votes.  But that doesn't imply that there was any reasonable chance those dark horses would win.



> Why do you feel the winners are obvious? I voted early on and never would've expected Diaglo to have such a strong showing (no offense David).




Diaglo is one of the best-known folks on these boards.  If Hong had run, he might beat Diaglo, but none of the rest of us really stand a chance.  For JoeG - he won handily last year, though he had to recuse himself, there's no reason to think he'd preform less well than previously.  The rest of you are both popular, and incumbent.  The lack of contest was pretty obvious.



> Unfortunately, it's the heart of my argument, so if you could spare more than a sentence dismissing it, I'd be really interested.
> 
> Maybe you can boil down somehting quick on why you think that "in the absence of misconduct or incompetence" incumbent candidates should be excluded.




I don't dismiss it.  I simply think it'd take a really long time to cover properly, and these posts are long enough as it is.  However, to address part of it - I don't think incumbents should be completely excluded.  I think that some limit on the number of terms in a row that one could serve might be healthy for the awards.

Why?  Well, drama does improve voter interest and turnout.  There is no drama in this election, and I don't think there was much drama in the previous one, and not much, as I recall, the year before that, either.  A turnover of judges would mean voters couldn't sit back and assume they'd get judges they like. 

Of course, if you prefer, we can go the "All Star" route.  Say that only the big guns are allowed to run.  Us small fry don't stand much chance as it stands anyway, os it isn't like we are losing much.  And competition among a group of ten folks who are popular and held the post before would certainly be dramatic.  And you yourself have said that incumbants should be favored...

I'm not sure why, though.  You suggest that they are more sure to get the job done right.  But nobody has shown me an example of a new judge who has fallen down on the job and not done the work, and done it well.  Until someone backs up the fear with a bit of evidence, I don't see why there should be any preference to incumbancy.




> Can we agree that you were implying a "greater level of voter participation growth" than the steady growth we are currently seeing?




I've said multiple times - I think it might increase voter turnout.  So far, it is still uncertain if we'll match last year's turnout, so I don't know if we have to quibble if I am looking for increased absolute numbers, or increased growth rate.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 5, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> In my view, having strong incumbents in the system does not simply maintain my right to vote for the candidate of my choice, it also increases voter turnout in two ways: first of all, incumbents tend to be higher-profile individuals who will alert people to the election and mobilize them to vote more effectively than lower-profile, less popular individuals; secondly, those wishing to challenge incumbents will know that they have to mobilize a significant number of voters in order to win.




If active campaigning were allowed, you'd be correct.  But, as I recall the rules, all candidates are prohibited from any campaigning, other than what goes into the nomination thread.  Nobody is allowed to mobilize anyone actively, and for good reason.  So I think this argument doesn't hold up well.  

As for assumptions - I am trying to make as few as possible, and I am quite w8illing to have the ones I do make challenged.  

As for limiting the choices open to voters - yes, this suggestion would limit choice somewhat.  But, considering how little use is being made of the breadth of choice currently available, I'm not sure that's a problem.  



> Another question I am interested in as a voting systems advocate: do people feel that the current multi-member plurality system is adequate?




I don't think changing the system would increase turnout, and using a complicated system might reduce turnout.  Only a very small number of folks here give a hoot how the votes are tallied.  The problem isn't what they do in the booth, but getting them into the booth at all.

Whether the current system is appropriate from a straight-out polling-sciences standpoint is a separate question.  I don't think the system we use is horrible in that regard, so I don't worry too much about it.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 5, 2005)

MavrickWeirdo said:
			
		

> Meanwhile no one at this point expects Umbran to win (no offence, I voted for you) and so they don't bother voting.




No offence taken, I assure you.  I have never come even come close to winning, so Ididn't expect to this time either 



> *Drama increases voter turnout*




Quite.  Now, can anyone guess why I continue with arguments that are pretty much destined to be left aside and forgotten a week from now?


----------



## broghammerj (Oct 5, 2005)

*I'll throw in my two cents*

Since this is the only chance to talk about "politics" on Enworld I thought I should throw in my two cents.

I'll give you my voting perspective.  I am in a gaming group with Quickbeam (Kevin) so he naturally recieved my vote.  He has met several Enworlders in the past and speaks highly of many of them.  He knows Croathian and TB and has said good things about both of them.  Along with their online popularity, generally well thought out posts, etc that would generally secure my vote.  A word of confidence from a friend can definitely sway me towards a candidate.

Now here's why I didn't vote for either of them (nothing personel)

In the current format with multiple votes and being able to see the poles I would conclude the following:

1.  Withholding a vote is almost as good as voting for your favorite candidate.  I want Kevin to win.  I don't know very many other people other than by online activity, post count, board visibility, etc.  My next few votes would have likely gone to current leaders (Crothian, TB, Cthulu's Librarian, JoeG)  All of them are likely to win a coveted spot and could potentially knock out my prefered candidate, so why vote for those other four at all?

2. If Kevin called me up and said, "Hey I need your vote."  My natural reaction by looking at the polls is to say that he has no chance so why bother.

3. What about rigging the results?  You can see who's winning for crying out loud.  I'm not suggesting that any wrongdoing has occured but how easily could Ankh-Morpork Guard out do Diaglo (leading by 43 at time of posting) by simply having a few friends open varying accounts to sway voting.

Imagine the turmoil you would have if you had one vote and couldn't see the polls.  Voter turnout in my opinion is low for the number of people on this board.  The average person I think is somewhat like me.  They have a few posts, read the boards regularly, but aren't on here all the time accumulating massive post counts.  This vote is really sort of a popularity contest.  One could argue those with higher post counts are more involved in the community, have time to put the work in, etc.  I would for the most part would agree with that.  As I said before Crothian, TB, Cthulu's Librarian, and JoeG are all people I would have voted for and who are more than qualified IMHO.  But what happens to me the average Enworlder when I have a single vote to dispearse amongst those four Enworld celebrities?  I think things may get more interesting.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Oct 5, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Diaglo is one of the best-known folks on these boards.  If Hong had run, he might beat Diaglo, but none of the rest of us really stand a chance.  For JoeG - he won handily last year, though he had to recuse himself, there's no reason to think he'd preform less well than previously.  The rest of you are both popular, and incumbent.  The lack of contest was pretty obvious.




The point about Diaglo is one I brought up earlier. While it isn't necessarily a bad thing(again, I voted for him), he didn't really put anything at all in the nomination thread. He, more than anyone else, is running almost completely based on past reputation more so than anything else. Now, whether this applies to the others we can't say, but Diaglo's doing a very good job without posting more than a couple sentences that didn't really say anything new.

*But*, especially on a messageboard, popularity like what you're pointing out is going to be very common. Also, the people with the most exposure on the boards(i.e. higher post counts) are much more likely to be voted for because people are more likely to know them. The one thing I really think that needs to be done is finding a way to get more people to vote, no matter the result at the end. The more people, the better...and I do think that would require being able to hide the results so that it wasn't so easy to predict the winners after just 3 days.



			
				broghammerj said:
			
		

> 3. What about rigging the results? You can see who's winning for crying out loud. I'm not suggesting that any wrongdoing has occured but how easily could Ankh-Morpork Guard out do Diaglo (leading by 43 at time of posting) by simply having a few friends open varying accounts to sway voting.




Well, if it means anything to ya, I don't have 43 friends.


----------



## broghammerj (Oct 5, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Well, if it means anything to ya, I don't have 43 friends.




My sarcasm meter seems to be beeping at bit.  I signed up in 2002 so I don't really remember how easy it is to open an account.  I guess what I'm trying to say is that you probably have 5 friends (I'm hoping   ) that could open ten bogus hotmail accounts to sign up at Enworld in order to fix the vote.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Oct 5, 2005)

broghammerj said:
			
		

> My sarcasm meter seems to be beeping at bit.  I signed up in 2002 so I don't really remember how easy it is to open an account.  I guess what I'm trying to say is that you probably have 5 friends (I'm hoping   ) that could open ten bogus hotmail accounts to sign up at Enworld in order to fix the vote.



 If I have 5 friends(that could be an arguable point ), they've already voted...and not exactly the types to cheat. But yeah, I see your point. On the other hand, a sudden influx of new members very quickly would (probably) be noticed and the IPs could (again, probably, I'm no tech guy) be tracked to the same person (or close enough).


----------



## MavrickWeirdo (Oct 5, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> If I have 5 friends(that could be an arguable point ), they've already voted...and not exactly the types to cheat. But yeah, I see your point. On the other hand, a sudden influx of new members very quickly would (probably) be noticed and the IPs could (again, probably, I'm no tech guy) be tracked to the same person (or close enough).




That is why I have been commenting that %'s have been staying consistant throughout. There hasn't been a "blip".

Also, just as a piece of information. The average # of candidates chosen per voter has been about 4.2. Which means that for every voter who chose only 1 candidate, there are at least 4 voters who chose 5 candidates.


----------



## Xath (Oct 5, 2005)

broghammerj said:
			
		

> Imagine the turmoil you would have if you had one vote and couldn't see the polls.  Voter turnout in my opinion is low for the number of people on this board.  The average person I think is somewhat like me.  They have a few posts, read the boards regularly, but aren't on here all the time accumulating massive post counts.  This vote is really sort of a popularity contest.  One could argue those with higher post counts are more involved in the community, have time to put the work in, etc.  I would for the most part would agree with that.  As I said before Crothian, TB, Cthulu's Librarian, and JoeG are all people I would have voted for and who are more than qualified IMHO.  But what happens to me the average Enworlder when I have a single vote to dispearse amongst those four Enworld celebrities?  I think things may get more interesting.




That would certainly be interesting.


----------



## Cthulhu's Librarian (Oct 5, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> It is a lot of extra work. But it does have one single advantage that does help, the SC gets the books earlier then the judges so he does have more time to read the books.




Which is the main reason I put myself out there as the SC. I'm not really looking forward to doing the extra work, but someone has to do it. If I can get the books a week or so ahead of everyone else, that will help spread the work out a bit, lesening the strain all the reading puts on me, my wife, and my job. 




			
				MavrickWeirdo said:
			
		

> However no one seems concerned that Cthulu's Librarian (as an example) might loose so they don't bother voting.
> 
> If Cthulu's Librarian was not in the race at all (and the votes for him spread evenly) then the competition between diaglo, Ankh-Morpork Guard, Xath, Umbran, & Keeper of Secrets would be much more dramatic.
> 
> Drama increases voter turnout





Why are you picking on me? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Yes, Drama does increase voter turnout. I've been at the center of that drama the past two years, running neck & neck for the 5th position each year, and I do feel that the tension of not knowing who was going to grab the last spot did help pull in extra votes up until the final day. As has been said over and over, I too would prefer to have a closed poll, but technical complications got in the way, and Dextra decided to go with what we had instead of delaying the voting.


----------



## fusangite (Oct 5, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Well, let's argue meaning then - is any real harm done to someone who has already served as a judge (perhaps already served multiple times) if you occasionally say "not this year"?



That's an argument in favour of judges voluntarily relinquishing their positions. This happens all the time in real elections and happens here on ENWorld -- thus, the gradual turnover in the judging panel. In a sense you are going after a problem we do not have; the judging panel does turn over and different people are elected every year, in part because some judges take time off.







> Right.  As if there's enough information in the nominations thread to claim real familiarity?



Different judges' popularity is based on different things. Just as in real-world elections where a candidate's record in public life as a business person, community leader, etc. before entering electoral politics has a preponderant effect on her popularity, so too with ENNies judging positions. Candidates who enter general elections with no pre-existing public profile don't do as well as those who have one, in part because people like to elect candidates who have a track record of service, especially volunteer service to the community. 

I assume, for instance, that Crothian does well in these elections in part because people read his reviews and trust them. I would hope that our voters look at people's reviews and posting records on the boards as well as what little info is posted on the nominations thread. I would also suggest that this carries off this site. If Gary Gygax retired from publishing or took a sabbatical, I don't think there is any doubt that he would top the polls by a mile in the ENNies judge election. And so it should be. 







> How many new faces have ever failed to meet the requirements?



None, as far as I know. Which seems to me to indicate the system is working.







> Diaglo is one of the best-known folks on these boards.  If Hong had run, he might beat Diaglo, but none of the rest of us really stand a chance.



Doesn't that suggest that the solution is to build your profile? If you really want to get elected, you know what you have to do: campaign. You seem to be arguing that it is unfair for people who don't campaign to not have much of a chance. That's a problem with elections. If you don't campaign in the pre-writ period, you won't win. It's true everywhere they have elections.







> However, to address part of it - I don't think incumbents should be completely excluded.  I think that some limit on the number of terms in a row that one could serve might be healthy for the awards.



Well, clearly the voters don't agree with you there. Otherwise, they would, as is their right every election, limit the number of consecutive terms served by one or more of the candidates.







> Why?  Well, drama does improve voter interest and turnout.  There is no drama in this election, and I don't think there was much drama in the previous one, and not much, as I recall, the year before that, either.



Perhaps Dextra could help us out here. How many votes were cast in these elections? Does this statistically correlate to this "drama" factor. Besides, if you want drama in the election, make as many witty posts as TB, write as many reviews as Crothian; create drama, in other words, by presenting yourself as a candidate of equal attractiveness to the incumbents. I don't think we are going to have an election that is somehow more dramatic or attractive if we remove candidates that each year's results clearly indicate, people _want_ to vote for.







> A turnover of judges would mean voters couldn't sit back and assume they'd get judges they like.



Convincing people that their franchise will be compromised does not strike me as a good tactic for improving turnout. "Hey guys! You should really vote in this election! The field is populated by unknowns you'll have to do extra work to learn about. You won't be allowed to vote for the people you think will do the best job. And you are less likely to be able to trust that casting your vote will result in the election of competent judges." I've heard this argument before; it doesn't make sense to argue that increasing the opportunity cost of voting will increase the number of people who vote.







> Of course, if you prefer, we can go the "All Star" route.  Say that only the big guns are allowed to run.  Us small fry don't stand much chance as it stands anyway, os it isn't like we are losing much.



Umbran, I always vote for you, knowing you will lose. How do I know you will lose? Not because you are not an incumbent. Virtually? every year, somebody gets onto the panel who is not an incumbent, after all. I know you are going to lose because you act like me on this forum. Your posts often come off like mine: overly intellectual, argumentative and dismissive of people's points of view. Having met a number of the incumbents, I can attest that they could post the way you and I do. But they don't, except on really bad days. They put up a public front on these forums where they hold back on lording their superior knowledge and intelligence over others; they find funny, entertaining things to post that brighten everybody's day reading them or they cultivate an image of themselves as fair arbiters in conflicts. 

Your chances of winning are directly related to your ability to come off as diligent, credible, fair and charismatic on these forums. You and I don't do that. That's why we aren't going to get to be judges unless we care enough about getting the job to act more like PirateCat, Crothian, Teflon Billy, etc. People win due to positive associations with their screen handle. They correlates to incumbency but incumbency does not build these associations; pithy entertaining posts and trustworthy reviews build those associations.







> And you yourself have said that incumbants should be favored...
> 
> I'm not sure why, though.



We don't need an institutional mechanism to favour incumbents because the voters do that. What you are really saying is that you don't trust the voters to choose the best candidates. We don't need to demonstrate that incumbents do a better job; you need to demonstrate why the voters are untrustworthy, given the track record even you credit to them that







> nobody has shown me an example of a new judge who has fallen down on the job and not done the work, and done it well.



This suggests to me that the voters have a proven track record of selecting good judges, incumbent and non-incumbent. It also reminds us that non-incumbents get elected every cycle.







> Until someone backs up the fear with a bit of evidence, I don't see why there should be any preference to incumbancy.



But the system does not privilege incumbents. The voters re-elect incumbents but voter choice is absolutely unfettered. By your reasoning, the system gives preference to men over women, white people over people of colour, etc. I grew up in a city that also uses the multi-member plurality system for municipal elections. In the 1970s and 1980s, incumbency appeared to be a powerful force and some argued that the system privileged incumbents. Since 1993, this supposed systemic advantage for incumbents has been refuted by election result after election result (sadly I think this November's elections will continue the trend). How much advantage incumbency confers is 100% in the hands of the individual voters. If you can make the case to them, as happened in my home town, that the incumbents need to be turfed or that there are superior candidates to replace them, the incumbents will lose.







> I've said multiple times - I think it might increase voter turnout.  So far, it is still uncertain if we'll match last year's turnout, so I don't know if we have to quibble if I am looking for increased absolute numbers, or increased growth rate.



Let's get some solid turnout stats from previous years before we continue there; otherwise I'm going to continue to suspect that the current system is producing steadily increasing turnout.


----------



## fusangite (Oct 5, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> If active campaigning were allowed, you'd be correct.



As far as I know, the only restriction on campaigning is that it not interrupt threads on other topics during the voting period to talk about the vote. But as a candidate, you may still post to any threads and be witty, charming and knowledgeable. Furthermore, you can camapign in any way you want outside of ENWorld; for instance, you might go through your past correspondence with members of ENWorld and send them notes reminding them to vote for you and recommending a voting strategy (ie. how many votes to cast, etc.). More importantly still, you can encourage people to join ENWorld before the nomination period so that they can vote in the election. I think the community is well-served by this as it addresses the problem of such a large portion of ENWorlders being lurkers. Potential candidates are given a strong incentive not only to get their friends and associates to join but to post as well.







> Nobody is allowed to mobilize anyone actively, and for good reason.  So I think this argument doesn't hold up well.



Unless I'm very much mistaken, I haven't broken any rules by encouraging all the members of my Monday night gaming group to join ENWorld because I might run for a judge spot this year.







> As for limiting the choices open to voters - yes, this suggestion would limit choice somewhat.  But, considering how little use is being made of the breadth of choice currently available, I'm not sure that's a problem.



But you are not proposing to limit the ability to vote for candidates getting 8% of the vote (I think disenfranchising 1 in 12 people is pretty serious anyway!); you are prposing to limit the ability to vote for candidates getting 40% or more of the vote. In other words, you are proposing to deny almost half or more of the people bothering to vote the opportunity to vote for one or more of the people they would like to. 

Also I find it really twisted that you are suggesting people aren't making use of their democratic opportunities because most won't allocate votes to less attractive candidates. By your reasoning, people who voted for Nader somehow made better "use" of the opportunities afforded them by the voting system than those who voted for Bush. Everybody who participates in an election makes equal use of their vote.


----------



## MavrickWeirdo (Oct 5, 2005)

Cthulhu's Librarian said:
			
		

> Why are you picking on me?




Sorry,    You just happen to be perfectly positioned for "Drama". I have no complaint about your ability to be a Judge.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 5, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> As far as I know, the only restriction on campaigning is that it not interrupt threads on other topics during the voting period to talk about the vote. But as a candidate, you may still post to any threads and be witty, charming and knowledgeable. Furthermore, you can camapign in any way you want outside of ENWorld; for instance, you might go through your past correspondence with members of ENWorld and send them notes reminding them to vote for you and recommending a voting strategy (ie. how many votes to cast, etc.). More importantly still, you can encourage people to join ENWorld before the nomination period so that they can vote in the election.





I know I did that for my regular groups.


----------



## MavrickWeirdo (Oct 5, 2005)

Here are the numbers from 8:30 (EDT) this morning. We are now at 78% of last years turnout. If it continues at this pace voter turnout will be lower than last year.


```
Voters: 426

297	Teflon Billy (Jeff Ranger)    			69.72% 
273 	Crothian (Chris Gath)    			64.08% 
250 	JoeGKushner (Joe G Kushner)    			58.69% 
229 	Cthulhu's Librarian (Richard J. Miller), SC    	53.76% 
142 	diaglo (David Temporado)    			33.33% 
 
 99 	Ankh-Morpork Guard (Graham Johnson)    		23.24%
 90 	Xath (Gertie Barden), SC    			21.13%
 65 	Umbran (Arnis Kletnieks)    			15.26% 

 64 	Keeper of Secrets (Matthew Muth)    		15.02% 

 46 	trancejeremy (Jeremy Reaban)    		10.80% 
 43 	Quickbeam (Kevin Bopp), SC    			10.09% 
 42 	nakia (Nakia S. Pope)    			 9.86% 

 36 	RavenHyde (Selma McCrory)    			 8.45% 
 30 	Tarondor (Scott Nolan), SC    			 7.04% 
 28 	Mixmaster (Leslie Foster), SC    		 6.57% 
 22 	JediSoth (Hans Cummings)    			 5.16% 
 20 	Eridanis (Matt Bogen), SC    			 4.69%
```


----------



## Cthulhu's Librarian (Oct 5, 2005)

MavrickWeirdo said:
			
		

> Sorry,    You just happen to be perfectly positioned for "Drama". I have no complaint about your ability to be a Judge.




No problem. I was just having a bit of fun with the smileys. I know you were just using me as an example 



			
				JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> fusangite said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




As did I.


----------



## fusangite (Oct 5, 2005)

MavrickWeirdo said:
			
		

> This is an oversiplification. When there are more strong canidates than elected positions available, then voter turnout increases. (People are as often voting "against" the other canidate as for their own.)



I have no problem with this modification of my position. By your argument, then, the relative lack of turnover is a function of the losing candidates being, while good, less endowed with the qualities that matter to voters.







> Meanwhile no one at this point expects Umbran to win (no offence, I voted for you) and so they don't bother voting.



Right -- so the solution is for Umbran, et al to present themselves as viable candidates, namely by campaigning effectively.







> If Cthulu's Librarian was not in the race at all (and the votes for him spread evenly) then the competition between diaglo, Ankh-Morpork Guard, Xath, Umbran, & Keeper of Secrets would be much more dramatic.



Would it attract more attention, though?







> Drama increases voter turnout



In my view, this thesis needs modification. Drama in which one is not invested does nothing. Bitter, dramatic fights amongst unknown candidates don't increase turnout at all; they make people tune out. Just watch a fringe party primary, leadership or nomination contest and you'll know what I mean. 

Rocky winning was dramatic because he knocked off Apollo Creed. Rocky becoming the heavyweight champion would have been less dramatic if Apollo Creed has been mandatorily retired and Rocky had to fight some other unknown.


----------



## fusangite (Oct 5, 2005)

broghammerj said:
			
		

> He knows Croathian and TB and has said good things about both of them.  Along with their online popularity, generally well thought out posts, etc that would generally secure my vote.  A word of confidence from a friend can definitely sway me towards a candidate.
> 
> Now here's why I didn't vote for either of them (nothing personel)
> 
> ...



This is a flaw in the multi-member plurality system definitely. In the essay I wrote on why it should not be used for voting on the ENNies winners, I expressed this very problem. There are a few ways around it, one of which, called SNTV (Single Non-Transferrable Vote) you suggest below. SNTV has other wasted vote/strategic voting problems that, while different from the current MMP (mutli-member plurality) system also result in some paradoxes. However, these paradoxes/problems are only evident if there is a significant amount of slate voting in the system.







> Imagine the turmoil you would have if you had one vote and couldn't see the polls.



If you are interested in looking at other systems for elections like this, I recommend you consider Limited Vote (like the option you suggest but with the voter casting 2-4 votes), Cumulative Vote (the voter still has 5 votes but can give candidates anywhere between 1 and 5) and Single Transferrable Vote (like the system you suggest but with a ranked ballot to prevent wasting of votes). 

Each of these systems interacts with local political culture in different ways to produce variable outcomes. 

I personally think that the tendency of multi-member plurality systems to produce essentially democratic results that do skew to under-represent fringe candidates probably makes it the right system for ENWorld.

EDIT: I do strongly support your position that the results should only be visible after the polls close.


----------



## diaglo (Oct 5, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Diaglo is one of the best-known folks on these boards.  If Hong had run, he might beat Diaglo, but none of the rest of us really stand a chance.  For JoeG - he won handily last year, though he had to recuse himself, there's no reason to think he'd preform less well than previously.  The rest of you are both popular, and incumbent.  The lack of contest was pretty obvious.





I don't think hong can run. he doesn't live in North America.

I threw my hat in just like everyone else.


----------



## Cthulhu's Librarian (Oct 5, 2005)

diaglo said:
			
		

> I don't think hong can run. he doesn't live in North America.




I don't believe that was a requirement to be a judge. The only one is that the submissions coordinator live in the US for ease of shipping.


----------



## Dextra (Oct 5, 2005)

BTW, MW, thank you for the colour commentary!



			
				MavrickWeirdo said:
			
		

> After three days the voting has slowed down, at 408 votes this is 75% of last years turnout.
> 
> We have seven people running this election who also ran in the last election. All but one have a higher percentage of the vote, in spite of there being more canidates (Mixmaster is running 1/2 of one percent behind last year.) The most dramatic change is Xath who doing twice as well (percentage wise) than last year.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dextra (Oct 5, 2005)

*Submission Coordinator position*



			
				nakia said:
			
		

> Makes sense, at least from a cost point of view.   I'm sure those who have been judges before have kicked this around a bit already and know more about the cost/benefits than I do.  Still, it seems like A LOT of extra work, on top of the significant work associated with judging.




I suspect that we will continue to have a Submissions Coordinator so long as the publishers want to have a central shipping location (rather than shipping out to the judges individually).

Personally, I don't like the SC being a judge, because it means communication between a judge and the publishers.  I'm not saying that there has ever been any kind of problem created by that relationship, and I don't anticipate one, but I'd like to avoid any possibility of impropriety.  

But for this year at least, we will have a judge SC, so I'm trying to alleviate some of the stress from that job by taking away some of the work.  For example, I (or a staff member) will help maintain a database of the products shipped, entered, received, etc.  I will keep track of the entry forms and cheques and payments.  Hopefully, that will mean that the SC's job will be limited to receiving product, splitting it into piles, and shipping it out again.  No mean task, but at least without the administrivia part of it, it should make the SC's life a little easier.


----------



## Dextra (Oct 5, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> If people want term limits, they have to show that these limits will increase turnout/legitimacy; if they can't, I'm not sure what these limits are for.




I think that there are other reasons other than a potential increase in voter turnout for making sure that we have at least once new judge every year.  My main concern is publisher participation.  

If year after year a publisher submitted products never to be nominated by the same set of judges, they would probably (or may already have) decide to not bother sending in product in the future, since the current set of judges is not impressed by their stuff, etc.   

In the grand scale of things, the number of ENWorlders who choose to vote for a judge (well, within reason- so long as we maintain around 500 voters I think we can claim quorum) is less important to me than the number of publishers who choose to enter product.  

It is definitely important to encourage increased voter turnout, especially from those who in the past may have questioned some of the judges' choices.  I suspect that opening up the voting to everyone and not just EN World members via a voting booth on the ENnies site might help- that way all gamers, not those who haunt ENW could feel more a part of the process.  The increased tension of the secret ballot could also be an enticement.   I also want to figure out a mechanic by which at least one new judge would be selected every year.  Perhaps this could be accomplished by having three categories:
1. Incumbents: 3 positions.
2. n00b: 1 position
3. Wild Car: 1 position: can be a n00b, can be someone with judge experience
BUT, this assumes that in the future that current voter trends will hold true.  

BTW, I'm also interested to hear what you have to say about voting systems.  If we've got a field of candidates of 15-25 peeps and we only want to choose five, how do we pull it off?  Would the same system we have in place for the product selection work?  If so, should we limit each person to how many judges they can choose (say, 7?), or does that mess with the system?


----------



## MavrickWeirdo (Oct 5, 2005)

Dextra said:
			
		

> BTW, MW, thank you for the colour commentary!




You are welcome (actually I'm just improving my postcount/visibility for a future run for ENnies Judge)    

Here is my suggestion for increasing participation in judge elections.


Put the 2007 Judge Canidates on the 2006 ENnies ballot. 

It would increase voter participation.

That would also give you the "hidden results" that everyone agrees is needed. (Technically it is not a secret ballot, because those who count the votes can tell who voted for whom.) 

Third it would give you early results on judges.


I do have a comment on a "hidden results" election. Suspence (waiting for results) can be "dramatic", but if stretched over a long period of time it will loose it's strength. Part of the reason that you got good voter participation was:



			
				Spoony Bard said:
			
		

> I just checked the polls and I can tell you this is shaping up to be very, very exciting.  As of now 3,933 ballots have been cast.  The outcomes of 8 races are in doubt (less than 50 votes between candidates) and one of them is currently tied!!!
> 
> So get out the vote folks - it will still count.
> 
> ...




Those "teasers" kept people interested in the absence of any other information.


----------



## Belen (Oct 5, 2005)

You know, I would really like to see a female judge this time around.


----------



## Arnwyn (Oct 5, 2005)

Dextra said:
			
		

> So people, I'd be interested to know what has influenced your choice in judge selection.



For me, it was:

Familiarity/agreement with their views
Quality and/or Number of Reviews posted
Campaign speech [most were weak and uninformative, but there were a couple of gems]
Past experience and/or performance as ENnies judge

Except that the last one caused me to vote in the "opposite direction". I steered very clear of the incumbents, as I have been less than impressed with past Ennie product nominations. I was hoping for new blood (who might be more likely to prefer what I prefer). The last few Ennies had me scratching my head when looking at what was nominated.




> Also, what do you think makes for a good judge?
> Shared bias with your preferences?



That's the one for me.

For me, as a consumer, "good" = "what I like" (and what I find useful for my particular game).


----------



## Teflon Billy (Oct 5, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> You know, I would really like to see a female judge this time around.




I'll quote "The_Universe" from back in post #57



			
				The Universe said:
			
		

> And the presence of a Y chromosome effects RPG product judging how?
> 
> Voting for women for the sake of having women on the panel is silly, just as it would be to vote for the dudes for the simple sake of making sure that "testosterone" is properly represented. Vote for individuals based on their merits, not based on what they may or may not carry between their legs....


----------



## Tolen Mar (Oct 5, 2005)

Can I pick them or what?  

My five choices seem at the moment to be the ones that are winning.


----------



## diaglo (Oct 5, 2005)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> I'll quote "The_Universe" from back in post #57




I'm Hispanic, Asian Pacific Islander (Filipino), Danish, and British.

ex US Air Force Brat born in Turkey. with 3 sisters, one of them my twin, no brother. but plenty of brothers in arms.

i consider myself a citizen of the World.


and just agreeing with TB and the Universe. although, most of the time I don't.
edit: but at the same time i agree with Xath and BU. i too would like to see a woman on the board. but i'd like to see one voted there for her qualifying reasons. not b/c she is a woman.


----------



## Dextra (Oct 5, 2005)

*Judge Candidates Campaigning*

I have no issue with would-be judges campaigning, with a few provisos:

1.  No campaigning in this thread.
2.  No campaigning in the nominations thread.
3.  No campaigning that disrupts an already-existing thread.
4.  No campagining that disrupts other boards.
5.  No coersion.
6.  No dishonesty.

In other words, by all means start a "Vote for ME" thread, just don't piss anyone off for hijacking their thread.  Stay in appropriate categories (General RPG is most appropriate).  Include links in your sig.  Heck, generate a graphic for your sig.  Put signs on your lawn.  Skywrite.  Just don't offer bribes or threaten, and don't lie.  Oh yeah, and let's avoid mud-slinging, mmmkay?

Get the vote out!


----------



## nakia (Oct 5, 2005)

Dextra said:
			
		

> I think that there are other reasons other than a potential increase in voter turnout for making sure that we have at least once new judge every year.  My main concern is publisher participation.




This is what I meant by the concerns of the "powers that be" in my earlier post.  There may be things that have to change in order to keep the awards viable; Dextra and others (as organizers of the awards and caretakers of the site) are in a good position to know what those things are and (IMHO) empowered to change things to maintain and grow the Ennies and the site.



			
				Dextra said:
			
		

> 1. Incumbents: 3 positions.
> 2. n00b: 1 position
> 3. Wild Car: 1 position: can be a n00b, can be someone with judge experience
> BUT, this assumes that in the future that current voter trends will hold true.




If you think "new blood" is necessary every year, then a better way to do it (IMHO) is to reserve a slot for a newbie, then just open the other four up.  That both limits incumbents less (they have four possible slots instead of three) and keeps open the possibility of a complete overhaul of the judges table if the voters wish.


----------



## MavrickWeirdo (Oct 5, 2005)

Crothian's "Why aren't you voting?" thread just got us 50 more votes.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Oct 5, 2005)

Dextra said:
			
		

> Skywrite.




This sounds tempting...but how many other G'ville ENWorlders are there out there? Hmmm...may have to put a long message to explain things to the unbelievers.


----------



## Belen (Oct 5, 2005)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> I'll quote "The_Universe" from back in post #57




I'd agree with that statement except that women's perspectives are different from the male point of view.  Also, the Ennies judges seem to be selected more based on popularity here at ENWorld and a high post count presence than objective qualifications.

Therefore, it is just as valid to vote for a female because she is female as to vote for Crothian because he is a good among posters.

I do not think we should set aside a slot for women or anything that PC, although I do think that we should have at least ONE slot open for new blood among the judging staff.

I would enjoy seeing a different perspective this time around.  I was hoping to see more than one new judge, although that does not seem to be in the cards at the moment.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Oct 5, 2005)

MavrickWeirdo said:
			
		

> Crothian's "Why aren't you voting?" thread just got us 50 more votes.



 Yeah, I noticed that. Xath really caught back up, and both she and I are at least a little closer to that #5 spot that diaglo's guarding.

Hmm...would another way to help get more votes be putting a Vote Here message up in the announcements thing that's currently saying "Ok, the server is now running the latest Apache & PHP packages. If you encounter problems & bugs, post them in Meta." ? If people haven't noticed that voting is going on(and Crothian thread proves that some at least are missing it that want to vote), then putting something like that up would make it more easily visible.


----------



## DaveMage (Oct 5, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> This sounds tempting...but how many other G'ville ENWorlders are there out there? Hmmm...may have to put a long message to explain things to the unbelievers.




I'm right here, Ankh.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 5, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Therefore, it is just as valid to vote for a female because she is female as to vote for Crothian because he is a good among posters.




Even Crothian though doesn't want people to vote for him becasue he's a good among posters...you meant god right?  Votes should be based on if the person can do a good job, which I'm hoping people think of me.


----------



## Belen (Oct 5, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Even Crothian though doesn't want people to vote for him becasue he's a good among posters...you meant god right?  Votes should be based on if the person can do a good job, which I'm hoping people think of me.




Well, I doubt many people read the qualification bios.  I'll bet that most people vote for names that they recognize, which equates to high post count.

I do believe you're qualified and I voted accordingly, but there are others who I also think qualified and who would be new additions that are not getting the votes.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 5, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Well, I doubt many people read the qualification bios.  I'll bet that most people vote for names that they recognize, which equates to high post count.
> 
> I do believe you're qualified and I voted accordingly, but there are others who I also think qualified and who would be new additions that are not getting the votes.




I think you are right, but I'm hoping people are reading the qualifications and voting for who they feel is the best based on that.


----------



## diaglo (Oct 5, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> I think you are right, but I'm hoping people are reading the qualifications and voting for who they feel is the best based on that.



i think people know you (and others) by your (their) posts. 

i know not all people who lurk post. but i don't think you can get a feel for how they would vote even by looking at them on paper without reading some of their posts in action.

thus why most companies have trial periods when they hire n00bs.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 5, 2005)

Well, people do tend to like the familiar and fear the unknown. Heck, H.P. Lovecraft made a career out of it no?

On the other hand, people with higher post counts tend to be a little more familiar in terms of their likes and dislikes. Their personalities can bleed through some posts too, and give readers a good idea of their 'presence' so to say.


----------



## Conaill (Oct 5, 2005)

In order to get more participation, and less influence of popularity and sheer postcount on the votes, it would be REALLY useful if we could link each name on the poll to their "campaign speech". Right now, you have to follow the link to the Nomination thread, and then browse around in there for the vaarious statements by the candidates. That alone may keep people from voting, or just voting for the 1-2 people whose name they recognize...

PS: The non-blinded Approval Voting we're using now is kinda interesting. It's not entirely clear what the optimal strategy would be, because the psychology of the voters comes into play as well. For example, you may be able to boost an underdog early (especialy if you can collude with a couple of friends) so they get more visibility than they would have if they were stuck in the single digit pile. Excluding such psychological effects, the optimal strategy would be to vote as late as possible, so you can adjust your votes to maximize your impact on the outcome. In any case, this voting method will likely depress the top votes somewhat (because people will figure those results are already set in stone anyway), in favor of the second tier of candidates - i.e. those for which the election is still somewhat undecided. The latter might not be a bad idea - it encourages some fresh blood - but I do think there are better and more fair ways to achieve that. Term limits are probably something that should be considered...


----------



## Umbran (Oct 5, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> In a sense you are going after a problem we do not have; the judging panel does turn over and different people are elected every year,




I have not stated that the current turnover rate is a problem, in and of itself.  I have speculated that increasing it might have beneficial results for the overall health of the Ennies.  The same ends might be reached by other means.  This is merely the particular means being discussed at the moment.

If we decide that a great many things could be improved if the turnover rate increased, then the rate could be called the root problem, I suppose.  But I'm not looking at it that way right now.



> If you really want to get elected, you know what you have to do: campaign.




As noted before - it is my understanding that active campaigning is not allowed on the site.  We can make ourselves visible, but we aren't supposed to say, "Please go vote for me!" on the boards.  



> Besides, if you want drama in the election, make as many witty posts as TB, write as many reviews as Crothian; create drama, in other words, by presenting yourself as a candidate of equal attractiveness to the incumbents.




This sort of "passive/unintentional campaigning" is, of course, the source of the dependance upon postcount.  It is an unfortunate linkage, I think - there may be candidates who would be fine judges who are excluded because they don't think a year in advence that they have to post incessantly to get noticed enough to win an election.

I was, separately, intending to suggest a sort of contest for judges in the future - folks nominate themselves, the BoD finds a small product none of them have reviewed (I expect there's any number of small presses who'd volunteer a pdf for the purpose), and each nominee writes a review.  The reviews are collected, and all posted at the same time for public review before voting.  This would unfortunately greatly expand the time required between nomination and voting, but it would give voters comparable perspectives on the nominees.

To keep the time down, this could be entirely vountary - judges have three days from nominations to get it done...



> "Hey guys! You should really vote in this election! The field is populated by unknowns you'll have to do extra work to learn about. You won't be allowed to vote for the people you think will do the best job. And you are less likely to be able to trust that casting your vote will result in the election of competent judges."




The right to vote implies a certain duty on the part of the voter to educate themselves, and the system we have implicitly assumes the acceptance of a certain level of risk.  If we are really interested in a system that maximizes ease for the voter, and tries to assure a certain level of performance, we should only elect new faces to replace old ones that no longer wish to serve.  That way, some years, no vote would be required at all, since all judges were previously proven to be acceptable.  

And again - you guys keep harping on the greater assurance of election of competent judges.  But you've not yet shown a _single_ case where a new judge has been shown to be incompetent!  You keep saying we need insurance, but you've not shown there's a high enough level of risk to require it.



> Umbran, I always vote for you, knowing you will lose.




I always nominate myself, quite aware of the same thing  



> What you are really saying is that you don't trust the voters to choose the best candidates.




I fully trust the voters to elect a panel of competent judges.  They have never failed to do so.  If anything, I'm trusting them more than you and TB - I trust them to find good judges with fewer incumbents as a crutch 

What I have said, and what keeps getting ignored, is that we might consider that there's more invovled than getting five people who can judge products for this year.  If the trend MW shows continues, we have a health problem that ought to be addressed.  



> We don't need to demonstrate that incumbents do a better job;




I'm apparently not making myself clear - _this isn't about who does the better job of judging_.  I agree that the incumbent judges do a good job.  I am also of the (apparently unpopular) opinion that there's a mess of people who vounteer every year who could do the job as well as the incumbents.  No offense, guys, but if we thought you were indespensible, we'd not have elections at all.   

I am instead trying to get people to consider that we might get better results _in other areas_, with little loss, if we made more full use of the resources at hand.  This is not something that an uncoordinated voter base could be expected to handle on their own, especially when their non-presence is perhaps the most troubling issue.


----------



## Dextra (Oct 5, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Hmm...would another way to help get more votes be putting a Vote Here message up in the announcements thing that's currently saying "Ok, the server is now running the latest Apache & PHP packages. If you encounter problems & bugs, post them in Meta." ?




Working on it!


----------



## Belen (Oct 5, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> I'm apparently not making myself clear - _this isn't about who does the better job of judging_.  I agree that the incumbent judges do a good job.  I am also of the (apparently unpopular) opinion that there's a mess of people who vounteer every year who could do the job as well as the incumbents.  No offense, guys, but if we thought you were indespensible, we'd not have elections at all.
> 
> I am instead trying to get people to consider that we might get better results _in other areas_, with little loss, if we made more full use of the resources at hand.  This is not something that an uncoordinated voter base could be expected to handle on their own, especially when their non-presence is perhaps the most troubling issue.




Actually, I agree.  I would like to see turnover.  There does not seem to be a lot of it right now.


----------



## Dextra (Oct 5, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> As noted before - it is my understanding that active campaigning is not allowed on the site.  We can make ourselves visible, but we aren't supposed to say, "Please go vote for me!" on the boards.




Please see my above post about Campaigning.  Active campaigning is allowed and encouraged so long as it is not disruptive.


----------



## Psion (Oct 5, 2005)

Dextra said:
			
		

> But for this year at least, we will have a judge SC, so I'm trying to alleviate some of the stress from that job by taking away some of the work.




Well, having a separate SC was something discussed last year. The biggest problem is that the moment you make a non-judge a SC, our biggest expense -- shipping -- goes up 20%.


----------



## Conaill (Oct 5, 2005)

Speaking of incumbents... is there a way to find out which judge voted for which product? And if not, why not?

Seems like that might be a good tool to refine people's choices, beyond just "I _think_ they probably did a good job last year". Voting records in congress are a useful tool to guide future elections. Might as well make them available to the voting public here too...


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 5, 2005)

Conaill said:
			
		

> Speaking of incumbents... is there a way to find out which judge voted for which product?





I think some of them start their own threads to discuss their choices, after the fact.  Do a little search by their screenname and some keywords and I'll bet you turn some things up.  I suppose, in a strange way, it's like giving out an extra nomination or recognition to those that didn't make it if one judge steps up and says that one of their choices didn't make the committee cut.  Others, however, might feel it takes some of the focus away from the ones that earned the committee support.  Is there enough love to go around?


----------



## RangerWickett (Oct 5, 2005)

Dextra said:
			
		

> But for this year at least, we will have a judge SC, so I'm trying to alleviate some of the stress from that job by taking away some of the work.  For example, I (or a staff member) will help maintain a database of the products shipped, entered, received, etc.  I will keep track of the entry forms and cheques and payments.  Hopefully, that will mean that the SC's job will be limited to receiving product, splitting it into piles, and shipping it out again.  No mean task, but at least without the administrivia part of it, it should make the SC's life a little easier.




You and Hound could always move down to ATL and take advantage of cheaper postage. One of my friends works in real estate; he could hook you up nice. *grin*


----------



## Quickbeam (Oct 5, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> I fully trust the voters to elect a panel of competent judges.  They have never failed to do so.  If anything, I'm trusting them more than you and TB - I trust them to find good judges with fewer incumbents as a crutch
> 
> What I have said, and what keeps getting ignored, is that we might consider that there's more invovled than getting five people who can judge products for this year.  If the trend MW shows continues, we have a health problem that ought to be addressed.






> I'm apparently not making myself clear - _this isn't about who does the better job of judging_.  I agree that the incumbent judges do a good job.  I am also of the (apparently unpopular) opinion that there's a mess of people who vounteer every year who could do the job as well as the incumbents.  No offense, guys, but if we thought you were indespensible, we'd not have elections at all.
> 
> I am instead trying to get people to consider that we might get better results _in other areas_, with little loss, if we made more full use of the resources at hand.  This is not something that an uncoordinated voter base could be expected to handle on their own, especially when their non-presence is perhaps the most troubling issue.




Pretty much the same thing I've said before...albeit with a bit more frustration evident.   I implicitly trust TB, Crothian, and other fixtures on the ENnies Judge panel, and strongly approve of the work they've done in the past.  But I also want to see more than one seat change hands from year to year -- both for selfish reasons, and to gauge how this affects the entire process.

Without a change in the status quo, there is simply no way for us to understand how increased Judge turnover affects publisher opinions of the ENnies, the type and number of product submissions, or the array of products actually being recognized.  There's no question that such a change would forcibly "punish" people like TB by removing them from Judge consideration for a year, and that is not my goal.  My desire is to see other qualified individuals have the opportunity to represent our community through the ENnies.  I like Jeff and respect what his presence adds to EN World (same for the other incumbents), and I know he understands that my comments aren't intended to harm him in any way.  Ultimately, when you weigh all of the factors, I just think that limiting terms or the number of returning incumbents is the lesser evil.

There is every reason to expect that rookie judges wil perform admirably given their track record to date, and no reason to suspect that they will embarass or poorly represent EN World.  Furthermore, this is the only circumstance that *increases* the likelihood that new/formerly involved publishers will submit their products IMO.  If the same few people continue to act as Judges in perpetuity, then the awards are subject to the same set of biases and predispositions every year.  After all, no matter how objective the judges may be, they're still human.  I just cannot see how that is the best possible circumstance for the ENnies over time.



			
				nakia said:
			
		

> If you think "new blood" is necessary every year, then a better way to do it (IMHO) is to reserve a slot for a newbie, then just open the other four up.  That both limits incumbents less (they have four possible slots instead of three) and keeps open the possibility of a complete overhaul of the judges table if the voters wish.




An excellent point.


----------



## fusangite (Oct 5, 2005)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> Actually, I agree.  I would like to see turnover.  There does not seem to be a lot of it right now.



Then the remedy is clear. Vote for different people; and campaign for them. If a majority agree with you, every single incumbent judge will be defeated.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 5, 2005)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> I think some of them start their own threads to discuss their choices, after the fact.  Do a little search by their screenname and some keywords and I'll bet you turn some things up.  I suppose, in a strange way, it's like giving out an extra nomination or recognition to those that didn't make it if one judge steps up and says that one of their choices didn't make the committee cut.  Others, however, might feel it takes some of the focus away from the ones that earned the committee support.  Is there enough love to go around?





And you'd have to check out things like Malhavoc and Necromancer's message boards as well. Probably some Kenzer too since I recall some of their products fondly from the time I was doing the Ennies thing two years ago.


----------



## Conaill (Oct 6, 2005)

Let me copy over some follow-ups from the other thread where I posted this question:

I don't mean that individual judges would have to spend any additional time to personally explain their choices. Not unless they really want to, of course.

But it seems to me that the judges' votes could easily be recorded and made public in some way. Shouldn't take much if any extra effort on behalf of the judges, but would provide a useful source of information for the voting public to decide whether they want to have individual judges coming back next year...

I'm not saying previous Ennies voting should be the *only* criterion to decide to keep a judge or not- far from it! But it may be a *useful* tool, and I can't really see any good reason not to make it public...


----------



## Umbran (Oct 6, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> If a majority agree with you, every single incumbent judge will be defeated.




If he campaigns for a specific set of five candidates, and the majority agrees with him on that entire specific slate, yes, you'll see a complete turnover. But otherwise, the incumbents can still win.  

Campaigning for turnover in general ("Don't vote for incumbents!") is likely to fail, because there are usually more non-incumbent nominees.  Given our current system, a minority focused on a small number of candidates can out-vote the majority spread over a larger group of candidates.  

Now, I have to take an odd position - though we've been told campaigning is allowed, I for one think that's only because we haven't seen it in action.  Even if it remains entirely civil - imagine 15 candidates each with their own camapaign thread, which they have a vested interest in keeping on the front page.  Even a small number of supporters can keep the thread there without being mere "bumping".  

We start seeing complaints when there's even four threads on a given topic on the front page of General at one time.  Imagine 7, or 15 of them!  This is going to make exactly zero of the apathetic folks more interested in voting, and probably turn off some of the people who are still interested enough to vote.

I thought I remembered a rule against campaigning, and I didn't question that becuase it makes sense.  Active campaigning can turn General into a circus!


----------



## Teflon Billy (Oct 6, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> If he campaigns for a specific set of five candidates, and the majority agrees with him on that entire specific slate, yes, you'll see a complete turnover. But otherwise, the incumbents can still win...





Well, I don't think anyone was saying that Campaigning was going to guarantee a defeat for the incumbents. :\

People could still disagree with your choices and vote accordingly.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Oct 6, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Now, I have to take an odd position - though we've been told campaigning is allowed, I for one think that's only because we haven't seen it in action.  Even if it remains entirely civil - imagine 15 candidates each with their own camapaign thread, which they have a vested interest in keeping on the front page.  Even a small number of supporters can keep the thread there without being mere "bumping".
> 
> We start seeing complaints when there's even four threads on a given topic on the front page of General at one time.  Imagine 7, or 15 of them!  This is going to make exactly zero of the apathetic folks more interested in voting, and probably turn off some of the people who are still interested enough to vote.
> 
> I thought I remembered a rule against campaigning, and I didn't question that becuase it makes sense.  Active campaigning can turn General into a circus!




Yeah, it would be crazy to have a bunch of threads like that. Honestly, the only thing I've done is throw a post in both of my SHs to get people to vote(and a link in my sig). Of course I'd like people to vote for me, but I'm amazed I've gotten so many votes as it is, and just think its a good idea to get more people to vote no matter who they pick.

I don't really like the idea of a single thread for each candidate that's simply a "Vote for me!" thread. That seems a bit...well...just seems a bit wrong. Can't explain why, just doesn't seem right. Not even counting the chaos it could cause if all the candidates did it and kept bumping them to make sure people see them.


----------



## broghammerj (Oct 6, 2005)

I for one would have to agree with Umbran.  (Wow.  One doesn't say that very often  , Just teasing man!  Keep fighting the good fight.)  The idea of campaigning could turn into a nightmare, clogging up board traffic, and is apparently is not what the majority of people here want since they aren't concerned enough to even vote.

My suggestion is for next year that you have a Super Ennies Weekend.  Advertise the heck out of voting the whole week before and then make polls/campaigning available for the weekend.  Really send people out with a bang, but keep things short and sweet.

My other alternative is to see who can wrestle a greased pig to the ground.  Top five time winners are the judges.

Campaigning talk aside....You can never defeat Teflon Billy.  After all he's Teflon.  His name isn't, "Sweep Him Under The Carpet Billy"!


----------



## Keeper of Secrets (Oct 6, 2005)

I'm sure that the winners will be great judges.  A bunch of people don't win such a prestigious honor (and it IS prestigious) without the rest of us maintaining trust in them.


----------



## Eva of Sirrion (Oct 6, 2005)

This is my first time voting for ENnies judges.  I think it's important for us as gamers to express our opinions for voting in this for who we think is the most qualified and knowledgable on the game design and rules.  Looks like it's gonna be a good dogfight down the stretch for the 3rd and 6th spots.  Good luck to everyone!


----------



## Umbran (Oct 6, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> I don't really like the idea of a single thread for each candidate that's simply a "Vote for me!" thread. That seems a bit...well...just seems a bit wrong.




Okay, let's come up with some constructive alternatives:

1) The Nominees Discussion Thread - a single thread in which some Power That Is Posts some topic for discussion, and the nominees get to strut their stuff discussing the topic for a bit.  The thread could run through a topic each day or two during the nomination and voting period, covering everything from artwork and book design to game balance and mechanics to playstyle...

2)Above I mention the Standard Review - it isn't a campaign thread, but it is a way for nominees to get some even comparisons out there.  Upon reflection, perhaps relaxing it to "the PTB announce a product before the nomination period, turn in reviews by the end of the nomination period, post 'em all during voting" would be better.

Anyone else have an idea?


----------



## Crothian (Oct 6, 2005)

What about a public questioaire for the would be judges?  I say public so everyone will know the questions and see each persons answers.


----------



## MavrickWeirdo (Oct 6, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> No offence taken, I assure you.  I have never come even come close to winning, so I didn't expect to this time either




Well at least you are more popular this year.


----------



## MavrickWeirdo (Oct 6, 2005)

Eridanis said:
			
		

> Well, you know, you have to have someone trustworthy at the back of the party, so you don't get jumped by a group of sneaky ninjas.
> 
> Looks like it's shaping up to be another excellent judges' pool this year. I'm honored that I've gotten more than two votes (mine and the missus') with this kind of company!




Can you handle the excitement of being in 16th place?


----------



## fusangite (Oct 6, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Now, I have to take an odd position - though we've been told campaigning is allowed, I for one think that's only because we haven't seen it in action.



My argument is not that campaigning is a thing we have not been doing up to now but should start. My argument is that campaigning already happens and helps to explain why elections go the way they do. I think one of the problems in this debate is that people are used to national and state elections in cities. ENWorld's elections, with their smaller number of voters and narrower range of issues look a great deal more like elections for school board and municipal council in villages and small towns. 

Negative advertizing and the like are extremely rare in such elections. Often spending lots of money on advertizing or promotion tends to turn voters off because a small community often resents depersonalized and manipulative mass advertising strategies. Candidates, therefore, focus their activities as follows:
- highlighting their past and ongoing contributions to the community 
- mobilizing individual voters with whom they are acquainted to (a) vote and (b) encourage their friends to do so
- working in the community as volunteers to demonstrate that their service to the community is not contingent on being elected
- avoiding public controversy and the appearance of undermining or insulting other members of the community

It is my view that this form of campaigning has been highly successful and widespread on ENWorld since the inception of the ENNies. The reason we have not seen negative advertising or naked self-promotion is the same reason these things are rare in harmonious rural communities. Not because they are proscribed but because they are ineffective.







			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> Even if it remains entirely civil - imagine 15 candidates each with their own camapaign thread, which they have a vested interest in keeping on the front page. Even a small number of supporters can keep the thread there without being mere "bumping".
> 
> We start seeing complaints when there's even four threads on a given topic on the front page of General at one time. Imagine 7, or 15 of them! This is going to make exactly zero of the apathetic folks more interested in voting, and probably turn off some of the people who are still interested enough to vote.



Again, you are skirting the reality: people campaign effectively without doing this. I gave an inventory of all the ways to campaign that have already been effective. You are deliberately conflating "campaigning" with a bunch of annoying online behaviour that we have yet to see here.

If the phenomenon you have described became a problem, I think two things would happen: (1) candidates who engaged in it would become less popular and (2) a sub-forum would be created to handle the traffic. Frankly, I think this behaviour would be self-limiting; most candidates would quickly realize that this behaviour was not helping them. 

I don't see the current style of campaigning changing much. Popular people will use their personal networks; voters will take notice of candidates' service to the community; new members will be signed up; infrequent posters will be reminded to vote; successful candidates' posting frequency will increase in the lead-up to election time. That's the particular kind of campaign that's evolved on ENWorld and I think it meets our needs just fine.







			
				Quickbeam said:
			
		

> But I also want to see more than one seat change hands from year to year -- both for selfish reasons, and to gauge how this affects the entire process.



Clearly most voters agree with you because that keeps happening every year.







> There is every reason to expect that rookie judges wil perform admirably given their track record to date, and no reason to suspect that they will embarass or poorly represent EN World. Furthermore, this is the only circumstance that increases the likelihood that new/formerly involved publishers will submit their products IMO.



While it might encourage some publishers. Others might be put off the awards or find their legitimacy reduced if judges with a proven track record were systematically disqualified from serving. In my view, there is actually a pretty small pool of people with the credibility in our peculiar little community that the successful candidates have. While others might do a good job, I don't automatically assume that candidates getting 40 votes will be as good at their job as those getting 400. Sorry but I don't think that we voters are stupid; I actually think we elect people, in large part, on merit. I don't accept that we're just flailing around randomly selecting people; I think that, broadly, we have criteria for what we think will make someone a good judge and we apply them rationally. 







			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> This sort of "passive/unintentional campaigning" is, of course, the source of the dependance upon postcount.



What evidence do you have of this? What about voters who vote mainly based on product reviews? What about voters because they are associated with the candidate in real life? Also, I don't see a direct correlation between posts per month and votes. I see that Crothian has a lot of reviews, a lot of posts and a lot of votes. I also see candidates every year who have a higher posting rate than the winners but score significantly fewer votes. I think a lot depends on other contributions and a lot depends on post quality.

But I'm certainly not saying posting practices should not matter. The more actively engaged you are in a community, the more likely said community is to elect you as its representative. How have we come to seeing this as a defect of the system. 

People who become judges work hard to keep their jobs. Sometimes, they moderate forums, answer rules questions or give advice on days they're not in the mood to do so because they have situated themselves as community leaders. Basically, you guys are complaining that it's unfair that people who contribute less to the community get fewer votes than those who contribute more. Make posts. Write reviews. This will cause you to _earn_ the support of your community. 

I believe strongly in candidates earning their votes through service and respectful engagement with their community. What I hear in this thread is a lament from people who don't want to invest the time, consideration and impulse control necessary to earn their community's trust and respect. 







> It is an unfortunate linkage, I think - there may be candidates who would be fine judges who are excluded because they don't think a year in advence that they have to post incessantly to get noticed enough to win an election.



Well, then, they'll know better next year, won't they? Why should people be able to walk in their first year they join and win an election with an unproven track record and limited relationship to their community. Why should elections in the gaming world not care about having a clear track record in one's community. How are voters supposed to learn from such a limited pool of data how closely a candidate's opinions on a wide range of gaming issues accord with their own? I don't buy that your suggestion of an essay-writing contest being an adequate substitute for a real track record.







> And again - you guys keep harping on the greater assurance of election of competent judges. But you've not yet shown a single case where a new judge has been shown to be incompetent!



That's because it proves our point. It shows that when there is a non-incumbent who is perceived to be of the same quality as the incumbent judges, he wins. It disproves (a) your idea that the system doesn't let new blood in (b) your idea that the voters are not educating themselves and just voting based on name recognition (c) your continuing false assertion that we're pro-incumbent. We're pro-democracy. If this year's election swept out every incumbent, I'd still support ENWorlders having the unfettered right to select the candidate of their choice. What matters to me is the chance to vote for whom I choose.







> You keep saying we need insurance, but you've not shown there's a high enough level of risk to require it.



I'm not talking about assurance. I'm talking about quality. 

Let me offer an example: I am a teacher of a grade 9 class of gifted kids. The class is asked to elect from its number five students to represent it in a debating contest. They elect a team of five candidates whom they believe to be the best debaters in the class. But after the election, I disqualify four of them because they got to go on the debate field trip last year and it's not fair that they should enjoy that privilege. So, the kids elect four replacements.

Is the new debate team gifted? Yes. Can the new debate team debate? Yes. Is the new debate team as good as the first team the kids elected? Probably not. In a contest between the two teams, the one the kids voted for initially would probably win. 

That's essentially what I'm saying about our judges. If you eliminated the incumbents, you would probably get good judges. Would they be _as_ good? Probably not. Why should we compromise both democracy and quality so that a handful of people who can't earn the support they need to get elected fairly "get a turn?"







> I fully trust the voters to elect a panel of competent judges. They have never failed to do so. If anything, I'm trusting them more than you and TB - I trust them to find good judges with fewer incumbents as a crutch



Umbran, that's just you moving the word "trust" around meaninglessly. You either trust their judgement enough to think they can pick the best panel unfettered by rules limiting their choices or you don't.







> I'm apparently not making myself clear - this isn't about who does the better job of judging.



That must be the confusion. It is for me. I just want the best possible judges. I really don't care about the feelings of a handful of perennially defeated candidates.







> I am instead trying to get people to consider that we might get better results in other areas,



Why don't you clearly enumerate these areas again?







> This is not something that an uncoordinated voter base could be expected to handle on their own, especially when their non-presence is perhaps the most troubling issue.



You see, this sentence seems indicative of the level of respect for the voters your posts seem to indicate.







			
				Dextra said:
			
		

> I think that there are other reasons other than a potential increase in voter turnout for making sure that we have at least once new judge every year. My main concern is publisher participation.



Okay. Let's suppose we need one new judge per year and this is a business requirement of the awards. First of all, we need to ask: has there been a year we haven't met this objective. If not, why are we proposing to change the system when it is already consistently delivering this outcome? 

If not, then, in my view, we should interfere with voter choice to the minimum possible degree to deliver this objective. 

One solution might be to move to a more proportional voting system; such systems allow small movements (let's say 10-20% in a 5-candidate pool) to band together and concentrate their votes around one candidate. That way, anti-incumbent activists could all but guarantee electing at least one of their number. CV and STV would be good for this; LV and SNTV might be improvements but much less effective. 

Another solution, a small modification of our current system, would be to grant the top four judging positions to the four candidates winning the most votes and, if all of these are incumbents, awarding the fifth spot to the non-incumbent with the highest vote total, regardless of whether he placed 5th or 6th. This would constitute minimal interference with voter choice and would guarantee the presence of one non-incumbent every year. In my estimation, if we instituted such a rule, it probably wouldn't even be noticeable.







> I suspect that opening up the voting to everyone and not just EN World members via a voting booth on the ENnies site might help- that way all gamers, not those who haunt ENW could feel more a part of the process.



I think this is worth considering and should perhaps be proposed in a separate thread. Alternately, you could go halfway and partner with the other gaming boards out there.







> The increased tension of the secret ballot could also be an enticement.



I think you mean hidden results. Regardless of what else you do this year, this measure, at a minimum needs to be implemented to professionalize the ENNies' image.







> I also want to figure out a mechanic by which at least one new judge would be selected every year. Perhaps this could be accomplished by having three categories:
> 1. Incumbents: 3 positions.
> 2. n00b: 1 position
> 3. Wild Car: 1 position: can be a n00b, can be someone with judge experience
> BUT, this assumes that in the future that current voter trends will hold true.



I vehemently disagree with such a system. The idea of guaranteeing the incumbents' positions, even if they get fewer votes than new candidates strikes me as cliquey and anti-democratic. I would hope that incumbents who are re-elected earn re-election and don't just coast. Plus, I would hate to give the handful of people who have served such a permanent position of privilege. ENWorld doesn't need a Canadian Senate. 

However, I suspect that part of what you are getting at there is the idea of guaranteeing stability in the event that you dramatically enlarge the pool of voters as you just proposed above. I think a better way to deal with this is to elect hald the panel each year to two-year terms. That way, the panel can retain a memory in the event of dramatic changes in voting.







> BTW, I'm also interested to hear what you have to say about voting systems. If we've got a field of candidates of 15-25 peeps and we only want to choose five, how do we pull it off? Would the same system we have in place for the product selection work? If so, should we limit each person to how many judges they can choose (say, 7?), or does that mess with the system?



This is a big question and it's late. If you could think more carefully about your needs from a judging panel and write a follow-up post, I would appreciate it. I think the issue I most need you to wrap your head around is this: "Is it more important for the panel to reflect the consensus of the ENWorld community or to reflect the diversity of the community?" Alternatively, you can send me an e-mail privately and we can hash this over in more detail off the thread.


----------



## Painfully (Oct 6, 2005)

I haven't voted for the ENnies judges last year or this year for pretty much one reason:  I'm not interested in the same judges calling the shots every year.  When the judges can post, "been there, done that" and get a pile of votes, that tells me things need to change.  It is essentially what some of the judges did in years past.  Meanwhile, many new candidates put together much better campaign speeches out there, and barely got votes.  

For myself, I know that not having a cap on how many times a person can serve is reducing my interest in voting.  When it all feels like a fix anyway, who cares?  Two or three years of that can make a voter just shrug it off as meaningless.

I think what we need here are some polls asking if people would like to see more new judges.  I'm willing to bet that most people are interested in seeing new judges.

How about all the candidates just qualify for judge status (i.e., 18 yrs of age, not a publisher, etc), and if they nominate themselves, they can get their name pulled out of a hat like a raffle.  Fair?  I think it's the only way to be fair to everyone from the repeat judges, to the newest candidates at the same time.  

But, the final selection is very random, and that's something I'd feel a lot better about, rather than the popularity contest that keeps the same judges returning for what might be the rest of their lifetimes if the process doesn't change, or the judges don't lose interest.


----------



## Conaill (Oct 6, 2005)

Painfully said:
			
		

> I haven't voted for the ENnies judges last year or this year for pretty much one reason:  I'm not interested in the same judges calling the shots every year.  When the judges can post, "been there, done that" and get a pile of votes, that tells me things need to change.  It is essentially what some of the judges did in years past.  Meanwhile, many new candidates put together much better campaign speeches out there, and barely got votes.
> 
> For myself, I know that not having a cap on how many times a person can serve is reducing my interest in voting.  When it all feels like a fix anyway, who cares?  Two or three years of that can make a voter just shrug it off as meaningless.



I think you are not the only one thinking like this. Personally, I *don't* - I think the Ennies judges overall have done a great job in the past, and have put a lot of effort and integrity into the process.

But REGARDLESS of whether or not this feeling is actually justified, the fact that some significant fraction of the public _do_ feel that way is in my opinion sufficient reason to impose some sort of term limits. A similar problem comes up on the publishers side: if one of the frequent Ennies judges has ever spoken out against some small publisher, said publisher may feel tha the entire process is biased and not even bother submitting their latest product.

As Umbran already stated, the goal is *not* just to find the most qualified judges. The final goal is _to have the best Ennies award process_! Getting good judges is essential for that, but other factors must play a role as well. Things like the transparency of the process, assurances against unjustified fears that the whole thing may be run by some secret cabal, diversity of viewpoints represented, etc.


----------



## Psion (Oct 6, 2005)

Painfully said:
			
		

> I haven't voted for the ENnies judges last year or this year for pretty much one reason:  I'm not interested in the same judges calling the shots every year.




That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. It seems if you don't want the same judges, you vote for other judges, not not vote at all.


----------



## MonsterMash (Oct 6, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Okay, let's come up with some constructive alternatives:
> 
> 1) The Nominees Discussion Thread - a single thread in which some Power That Is Posts some topic for discussion, and the nominees get to strut their stuff discussing the topic for a bit.  The thread could run through a topic each day or two during the nomination and voting period, covering everything from artwork and book design to game balance and mechanics to playstyle...
> 
> ...




Those and Crothian's idea of a standard questionnaire are good ones. I've voted already and I know who I've voted for, with my criteria being based on a mixture of factors, e.g. reviews posted, comments in threads that I've been following, experience of gaming, need for diversity of opinions. 

It was a hard choice as there are no *bad* candidates there, everyone could do a good job on it as their is no lack of academic qualifications, gaming or writing experience available.


----------



## JediSoth (Oct 6, 2005)

There's been a lot of good discussion on this topic here and a lot of good ideas bandied about. I'm not sure term limits are necessary. While I am a fan of term limits for holders of public office, ENnies Judges don't wield a lot of "real world" power and certainly, I've not known of any becoming convinced of their own superiority and becoming corrupt because of the influence and power they wield. Would I like to see new blood in the ENnies Judge panel? Sure. I voted for two newbies....and three incumbants. I voted for people whose opinions I respected. I don't think forcing people to vote for one newbie is the answer. That will probably turn off a lot of voters. For example, what if all the newbies who are running in a particular year are fairly new to the community and no one knows them? For some, this wouldn't make a difference, but I wouldn't want to vote for a complete stranger. It would be like if my name suddenly showed up on the Presidential Ballot right next to the Republican and the Democrat candidates.

Of course, I'm not comparing this selection to the Presidential Race. We're not voting for someone to be the leader of a Superpower. We're voting for gamers to select the year's best products. I would not mind at all participating in a Nominee Discussion Thread, or a Questionnaire of some sort so that the voters can get to know us better. It's so hard to get a feel for someone just from the nomination thread. Reading their posts can help, but not everyone who spends a lot of time at this website posts a lot. I probably spend more time lurking than posting, and if I feel my opinion can contribute to a thread, I offer it. And a lot of the time, what I would have posted has already been said. 

Hopefully, some of these things will be implemented in future years. I really hope they can get the poll results hidden. I think we've all seen election results skewed when results are announced early. But still, we have a good, civil system here, and I'm happy to be a part of it. And I really appreciate the vote of confidence I've received from the people who voted for me. Thank you!

JediSoth


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 6, 2005)

Conaill said:
			
		

> But REGARDLESS of whether or not this feeling is actually justified, the fact that *some significant fraction of the public do feel * that way is in my opinion sufficient reason to impose some sort of term limits. A similar problem comes up on the publishers side: if one of the frequent Ennies judges has ever spoken out against some small publisher, said publisher may feel tha the entire process is biased and not even bother submitting their latest product..





Much like the various bashes against WoTC and certain companies, I think we've seen a vocal, but still minor fraction of the public. It's pretty much been the same handful of peopel no? (Maybe we need a seperate poll for that.


----------



## fusangite (Oct 6, 2005)

Painfully said:
			
		

> I haven't voted for the ENnies judges last year or this year for pretty much one reason:  I'm not interested in the same judges calling the shots every year.



So let me get this straight: you don't bother voting or encouraging anyone else to vote because candidates you don't support win the election. Sorry but once again this bespeaks laziness and a lack of respect for democracy and the choices of your fellow ENWorlders. Take a look at this thread right now: Teflon Billy has been sitting at around 70% support since we started this informal poll. What you are saying is: "It's not fair that 70% of the voters get to have their way! The election system must be broken if 7 in 10 people are getting the result they vote for." 

I want you to compare this to a real world election. In real life, people win with 50% of the vote or less and the other 40+% of the voting public respects the result. Why should we make a rule that disenfranchises more than two thirds of the voters by barring them from voting for the judges they want? What kind of fairness is that? Why, exactly, should a minority of voters be allowed to impose their will on the majority?

If you don't like the results, change them by campaigning effectively. "But that's not fair," you guys will say, "I want to get the result I want without doing the work that the current judges and their supporters do. I want the same reward for a fraction of the work. It's not fair that you should have to work for what you want in a democracy." For me, part of the very essence of democracy is that hard work and contributions to the community are things that should and do matter and be valued by those in the community. If you want to be part of a community that values whining over work and the minority over the majority, go and set up your own awards. O wait -- that would take work -- and _that_ would be unfair.







> Meanwhile, many new candidates put together much better campaign speeches out there, and barely got votes.



Personally, I'm proud to be part of a community that cares more about ongoing contribution and track record than a single witty speech.







> For myself, I know that not having a cap on how many times a person can serve is reducing my interest in voting. When it all feels like a fix anyway, who cares?



You have no clue what election fixing is. Election fixing is when people change the result so that the candidates with the most public support lose. _You_ are the ones proposing to fix the results; we are the ones saying that voters deserve the right to choose whoever they want. The fact that you disagree with the choices of the majority is not a sign that the system is broken; it's a sign that we have a healthy democracy.







> Two or three years of that can make a voter just shrug it off as meaningless.



Are you like this in general elections? I guess if you're a US Democrat or Canadian or British Tory, you don't vote in those anymore either. After all, the system must be broken and voting pointless if people you don't agree with win twice or more in a row.







> I think what we need here are some polls asking if people would like to see more new judges.



We're having a poll about that right now on this thread. I think the results speak for themselves.







> I'm willing to bet that most people are interested in seeing new judges.



That's what the poll says, doesn't it. It suggests that many incumbents _and_ a new candidate all enjoy a high level of public support. Hundreds of people have participated in this poll.







> How about all the candidates just qualify for judge status (i.e., 18 yrs of age, not a publisher, etc), and if they nominate themselves, they can get their name pulled out of a hat like a raffle.  Fair?



It's sure not fair to the publishers who spend hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars making these products only to discover that Crothian has been beaten by Nisarq because his name came up first. But I see how it's fair in your mind. It means people we have never heard of, who have no track record in our community and put in no work can receive the highest confidence ENWorld can bestow without doing a second of work beyond filling out a form.







> I think it's the only way to be fair to everyone from the repeat judges, to the newest candidates at the same time.



To me, fairness is about recognizing merit and hard work. To me, fairness is about recognizing the public's democratic will. Obviously, your idea of fairness is about everybody "getting their turn." Most people don't have the time, expertise or energy to judge hundreds of products fairly so most people on ENWorld will never run for the job. They don't give a damn about whether they get their turn because they don't want their turn. I'm interested in producing a system that is fair to _them_ and that means a system that reviews products competently.







			
				Conaill said:
			
		

> The final goal is to have the best Ennies award process! Getting good judges is essential for that, but other factors must play a role as well. Things like the transparency of the process,



Right. I think transparency is important too. That's why I support the current voting system.







> assurances against unjustified fears that the whole thing may be run by some secret cabal,



Isn't having open, free and fair elections the best way to provide that assurance?







> diversity of viewpoints represented, etc.



Well, it is true that multi-member plurality voting is sometimes deficient on this front. Vocal minorities are sometimes left unrepresented in such a system. However, a term limit rule doesn't really address this. The voting system would still choose candidates who hold a plurality mainstream view for the most part. If you're interested in diversification, I think you'll agree that a switch to STV is most likely to achieve that goal.


----------



## Berandor (Oct 6, 2005)

The only candidate in the current top 5 I voted for was diaglo - because really, how could I not? Otherwise, I voted because I wanted a few new faces even though I was pretty sure the previous judges had advantages (such as already having done a great job).


----------



## MavrickWeirdo (Oct 6, 2005)

As of 8:30 this morning we have over 97% of last elections voters (Voters: 530)

The gap between Xath and Ankh-Morpork Guard is now a very slim margin. 


```
373 	Teflon Billy (Jeff Ranger)    		        70.38% 
337 	Crothian (Chris Gath)    			63.58% 
297 	JoeGKushner (Joe G Kushner)    		        56.04% 
288 	Cthulhu's Librarian (Richard J. Miller), SC     54.34% 
184 	diaglo (David Temporado)    			34.72% 

131	Ankh-Morpork Guard (Graham Johnson)             24.72% 
128 	Xath (Gertie Barden), SC    			24.15% 
 86 	Umbran (Arnis Kletnieks)    			16.23% 

 74 	Keeper of Secrets (Matthew Muth)    		13.96% 

 61 	Quickbeam (Kevin Bopp), SC    		        11.51% 
 58 	trancejeremy (Jeremy Reaban)    		10.94% 
 51 	RavenHyde (Selma McCrory)    		         9.62%

 49 	nakia (Nakia S. Pope)    			 9.25% 
 39 	Tarondor (Scott Nolan), SC    		         7.36% 
 36 	Mixmaster (Leslie Foster), SC    		 6.79% 
 29 	JediSoth (Hans Cummings)    		         5.47% 
 28 	Eridanis (Matt Bogen), SC    			 5.28%
```


----------



## Umbran (Oct 6, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. It seems if you don't want the same judges, you vote for other judges, not not vote at all.




Human beings are not always creatures of _sense_.    Or, we have to recognize that one person's sense is another's foolishness.  When considering voting behavior, we need to include psychology.

If elections were won and lost on tighter margins, Painfully might vote.  But if Painfully looked at the list of candidates and, like I did, came up with who the winners would be, and knew from past experience that they would win by very wide margins, why bother?  Sure, he could hope and pray that there were like-minded individuals out there, and that the voting patterns would suddenly chance en masse.  But really, how likely is that?  

For humans, there's usually a threshold for activity - you weigh the effort vs the probability and value of success.  If they don't compare favorably, you just don't bother.  In order to get non-repeaters to win a majority of seats, Painfully would have to do a lot of work, and there's little expectation of success even with that effort.  If the likely payoff doesn't meet the effort required, then there's no real reason to participate at all.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 6, 2005)

540 people voted so far according to the polls. Hopefully we'll continue to see that rise as the time to end voting draws near.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 6, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> My argument is not that campaigning is a thing we have not been doing up to now but should start. My argument is that campaigning already happens and helps to explain why elections go the way they do.




Perhaps somewhere I slipped in my terminology - I had been trying to denote a difference between 'active" campaigning and "passive" campaigning.  Active campaigning is comprised of activities clearly stated to be about getting votes - Like starting a 'Vote for me!" thread.  Passive campaigning is what you're talking about.  

But really, it _isn't_ campaigning unless it is specifically designed to try to earn votes.  I don't think TB campaigns.  He is who he is, and he, of all people, isn't going to change who he is and how he behaves over the course of the year just to get votes.  That'd be dishonest.




> But I'm certainly not saying posting practices should not matter. The more actively engaged you are in a community, the more likely said community is to elect you as its representative. How have we come to seeing this as a defect of the system.




There's a difference between seeing it as a defect, and seeing the system weigh a particular aspect too heavily.  Sure, a judge ought to be engaged in the community, and basically personable.  But the act of judging _doesn't_ require you be one of the most engaged of all people, or the most charismatic on the boards.  But, the nomination system seems to weigh those highly.

You may say, "Well, _the people_ seem to think it matters!"  And if you think that what they believe should be the end-all and be-all of the election, and you aren't willing to be convinced that things _the people_ might not think of first can be important, well, such is life.  



> That's essentially what I'm saying about our judges. If you eliminated the incumbents, you would probably get good judges.




Please don't overspeak the proposal.  I don't think anyone has suggested _completely_ eliminating incumbents.  



> Umbran, that's just you moving the word "trust" around meaninglessly. You either trust their judgement enough to think they can pick the best panel unfettered by rules limiting their choices or you don't.




Heaven forfend I should not give out my trust all-or-nothing!  

No, it isn't meaningless.  It means I trust the public to consider some things, but not others.    I trust them to make decisions based upon what is most immediately important to their minds - comparison of products.  I don't expect them to give a whit about the long-term health of the awards.  It isn't their primary concern, and they don't sit in a place where they have the data to make the decisions.  



> I just want the best possible judges.




Okay, call me greedy - I want more than just great judges.  



> I really don't care about the feelings of a handful of perennially defeated candidates.




Neither do I, really.  This is not about the defeated candidates, myself included.  This is about what's might best for the Ennies in the long run - beyond this year's choosing of products.


----------



## MavrickWeirdo (Oct 6, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> But I'm certainly not saying posting practices should not matter. The more actively engaged you are in a community, the more likely said community is to elect you as its representative. How have we come to seeing this as a defect of the system.





			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> There's a difference between seeing it as a defect, and seeing the system weigh a particular aspect too heavily.  Sure, a judge ought to be engaged in the community, and basically personable.  But the act of judging _doesn't_ require you be one of the most engaged of all people, or the most charismatic on the boards.  But, the nomination system seems to weigh those highly.




I don't have the postcount numbers I used in the rankings at the end of page 1 with me at the moment, but there were a couple of things I noticed at the time.

Most judges received votes relative to their post count (as I mentioned before).

Judges running as "infamous" canidates (such as diaglo and Umbran) tend to get votes that place them at about half their post count.

Ankh-Morpork Guard mentioned that while he has a "high" postcount, that most of it was not in the past year, so that could explain his low ranking.


There are other judges who are doing much better than their postcount, Notably Teflon Billy, Xath, and RavenHyde. With the first two may be a case of "Popularity" counting beyond "Visibility". (Ironically back in the begining I believe Teflon Billy was the "infamous" canidate.)

In the third case, there may be a couple of people who know RavenHyde outside the boards and so voted accordingly, however I think most of the votes for RavenHyde can be considered "protest votes". With 51 votes (as I type) that is slightly under 10% of the voters. This of course does not include those who protest by not voting at all.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Oct 6, 2005)

MavrickWeirdo said:
			
		

> Ankh-Morpork Guard mentioned that while he has a "high" postcount, that most of it was not in the past year, so that could explain his low ranking.




Uh...when did I say that? I might have, but I wasn't right if I did.

This last year has been the MOST posting for me ever. From daily updates to a SH, to starting a second two day a week update on another SH, to a huge amount of PbP games, to a crazy amount of posts in the Sci-Fi forum thanks to it being a Star Wars year, and adding in my usual random jumping around from Off-Topic to General, to everywhere...and sticking my head in about any Star Wars d20 thread that exists, I've definitely posted like crazy over the past year.

So...that doesn't really explain why I have a 'low' ranking. But despite having a high post count, I don't think I'm really a 'high profile' member of the boards like most others are.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 6, 2005)

Interesting that you noted PbP and the Storyhour. More gaming than say saming related. Might speak of the volumes of people who go into the different message boards.


----------



## MavrickWeirdo (Oct 6, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Uh...when did I say that? I might have, but I wasn't right if I did.
> 
> This last year has been the MOST posting for me ever. From daily updates to a SH, to starting a second two day a week update on another SH, to a huge amount of PbP games, to a crazy amount of posts in the Sci-Fi forum thanks to it being a Star Wars year, and adding in my usual random jumping around from Off-Topic to General, to everywhere...and sticking my head in about any Star Wars d20 thread that exists, I've definitely posted like crazy over the past year.
> 
> So...that doesn't really explain why I have a 'low' ranking. But despite having a high post count, I don't think I'm really a 'high profile' member of the boards like most others are.




My mistake, Quickbeam said that, not you.


----------



## fusangite (Oct 6, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> But really, it _isn't_ campaigning unless it is specifically designed to try to earn votes.  I don't think TB campaigns.  He is who he is, and he, of all people, isn't going to change who he is and how he behaves over the course of the year just to get votes.  That'd be dishonest.



Let me tell you why I joined ENWorld. I joined because Teflon Billy campaigns. I was his roommate and he encouraged me to join ENWorld, partly because it was an exciting community but partly motivated by the fact that an election was coming up. Because he had supported me in my real life political career, I was scarcely going to turn him down. 

While he'd been telling me annecdotes about the forums for months, the thing that caused me to join and start posting was the fact that an election was coming. Cthulu's Librarian and JoeGKushner also both stated that they too actively campaign by signing up new ENWorld members. There is absolutely nothing "passive" about doing this anymore than registering voters and driving them to the polls is in a real life election. 

Furthermore, I don't think it's "dishonest" for people planning an election bid to restrain themselves from getting into a flamewar that might otherwise tempt them or spend that extra five minutes to offer an opinion or some advice that they might not otherwise provide.







> There's a difference between seeing it as a defect, and seeing the system weigh a particular aspect too heavily.  Sure, a judge ought to be engaged in the community, and basically personable.  But the act of judging _doesn't_ require you be one of the most engaged of all people, or the most charismatic on the boards.  But, the nomination system seems to weigh those highly.



That's because ENWorlders seem to think that's important.







> You may say, "Well, _the people_ seem to think it matters!"  And if you think that what they believe should be the end-all and be-all of the election, and you aren't willing to be convinced that things _the people_ might not think of first can be important, well, such is life.



What I'm suggesting, Umbran, is that lacking any objective standard for what makes a product good, I think the standard we should apply to the products we judge is the degree to which they are likely to be viewed by the community as good products. The more the judges' standards deviate from the standards of the community, the less satisfactory the result. There is no objective measure of whether a D20 product is good or bad. All we can measure is: how well will this product meet the needs of our community? The more representative the judges are of the community, the more effectively we can make that measurement.







> No, it isn't meaningless.  It means I trust the public to consider some things, but not others.    I trust them to make decisions based upon what is most immediately important to their minds - comparison of products.  I don't expect them to give a whit about the long-term health of the awards.  It isn't their primary concern, and they don't sit in a place where they have the data to make the decisions.



Well, despite the fact that I spend more time insulting them on these threads than most people, I will declare that I trust them a good deal more than you do.


----------



## Quickbeam (Oct 6, 2005)

MavrickWeirdo said:
			
		

> My mistake, Quickbeam said that, not you.




I really didn't comment on the overall total of my post count, but rather that it had tailed off in the past year compared to previous years.  I haven't looked to see how my post count compares to others running for ENnies, and I trust that the correlation you've drawn is fairly accurate.  I am, however, offended (not really) at your insinuation that my current ranking is low!  

It's not low, it's middle of the road thank you very much.  

I have a few questions for you (and others arguing along the same lines as yourself):
Am I any more or less qualified to be an ENnies Judge this year than I was two years ago when I finished 9th among 40+ candidates?  Undoubtedly I'm less visible at EN World now than I was 18 months ago, but are my strengths and weaknesses as a potential judge drastically altered by making fewer posts?  And if it really comes down to visibility, how am I ahead of several candidates with a larger volume of total and/or more recent posts?


----------



## fusangite (Oct 6, 2005)

MavrickWeirdo said:
			
		

> I don't have the postcount numbers I used in the rankings at the end of page 1 with me at the moment, but there were a couple of things I noticed at the time.
> 
> Most judges received votes relative to their post count (as I mentioned before).



On the off chance you enjoy doing this kind of stuff, would you mind doing two other correlation tests:
1. Posts per month (using the total posts and join date to calculate)
2. Reviews

I'm interested in seeing which of these three variables correlates most strongly to vote total.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 6, 2005)

So, we need people to write reviews.  And there just happens to be a great PDF review project (run by me) that gets people free...did he say free??...yes, free PDFs to you and all you have to do is review them.  And that's not all, this isn't just good for one free PDF, but as long as you write reviews you get free ...did he say free??...yes, free PDFs to review!!!


----------



## Quickbeam (Oct 6, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> So, we need people to write reviews.  And there just happens to be a great PDF review project (run by me) that gets people free...did he say free??...yes, free PDFs to you and all you have to do is review them.  And that's not all, this isn't just good for one free PDF, but as long as you write reviews you get free ...did he say free??...yes, free PDFs to review!!!




How convenient.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 6, 2005)

Quickbeam said:
			
		

> How convenient.




an odd Conincidence actually, the Review Project has been going on for almost 2 months......


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Oct 6, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Interesting that you noted PbP and the Storyhour. More gaming than say saming related. Might speak of the volumes of people who go into the different message boards.



 It is also interesting that very few of the other candidates are(from what I've seen) very active at all in the PbP forum. That's almost a whole separate subset of the boards that seems to get largely glossed over by most people, and the people within it stay mostly to themselves.

Kind of an odd situation, really.


----------



## Xath (Oct 6, 2005)

MavrickWeirdo said:
			
		

> There are other judges who are doing much better than their postcount, Notably Teflon Billy, Xath, and RavenHyde. With the first two may be a case of "Popularity" counting beyond "Visibility". (Ironically back in the begining I believe Teflon Billy was the "infamous" canidate.)




I'm popular?


----------



## Conaill (Oct 6, 2005)

Just felt I needed to point out that being able to write a good review is *not* necessarily a reflection of how good someone would be at being an Ennies judge. Sure, it may increase visibility, and give voters more insight in your likes and dislikes. Plus the shher volume of reviews a person has written could be seen as a measure of that candidate's comittment to the community, breadth of knowledge of the field, and experience reviewing rpg material. 

Not that I would want to discourage anyone from helping out writing reviews, but at this late moment in the game, I think the voting public might be better served with answers to a standardized questionaire.

For example:

- Fantasy or Modern/SciFi?

- High or low Fantasy?

- Crunch of Fluff?

- Anime or Photorealism?

- Name _at least two_ Ennies winners or losers from the past two years that you feel were undeserved.


----------



## Conaill (Oct 6, 2005)

Xath said:
			
		

> I'm popular?



Amazing what some gencon pictures will do, innit?


----------



## MavrickWeirdo (Oct 6, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> On the off chance you enjoy doing this kind of stuff, would you mind doing two other correlation tests:
> 1. Posts per month (using the total posts and join date to calculate)
> 2. Reviews
> 
> I'm interested in seeing which of these three variables correlates most strongly to vote total.




Well I must enjoy it some, or else i wouldn't be doing it. I'll see if I can _Maybe_ include some of what you are asking for with tomorows results. 

Unfortunately I do have some other demands on my time (Like the gameday at my house in 2 weeks, and about 50 boxes I need to clear out my back room to fit the 4th game    )


----------



## Alzrius (Oct 7, 2005)

Conaill said:
			
		

> Not that I would want to discourage anyone from helping out writing reviews, but at this late moment in the game, I think the voting public might be better served with answers to a standardized questionaire.




Heck with that, let's ask them the hard-hitting questions:

- How do you feel about the reorganization of RPGnow into two interlinked sites (RPGnow and RPGnow Edge) and why?

- What is your opinion on how the prizes from last November's donation drive have yet to reach their donors?

- Do you think Wizards of the Coast adding guidelines for "good taste" in d20 products was helpful or harmful to the industry as a whole? Why?

- Is cover artwork with images that some might consider "risque" a smart business practice, or does it make the book awkward to purchase/be seen with?

- What do you feel is the best RPG game system and why? If d20, then what subset of d20 (Fantasy d20, Modern d20, M&M, BESM d20, etc.)?


----------



## Ed Cha (Oct 7, 2005)

*Just a personal comment:* 

The judges do a fine job every year of picking a diverse number of great products. The ENnies nominations make a great shopping list! I'm sure they'll do another fantastic job this year, too. 

I just get so bummed because the fans seem to choose products from the same publishers year after year. I know a lot of the products that have been nominated, but didn't win were better than the ones which won because I own a lot of them. 

This is NOT a knock on those publishers. They publish a lot of high-quality stuff. But is there any way to get more attention from the folks who visit EN World for the publishers outside of the two or three which seem to be their favorites? Ads, posts, press releases just can't seem to break the cycle. There are certainly some products that make it through, but I could swear that EN World is almost (emphasis on almost, I didn't say totally or anything like that) like a fan site for these few publishers, with only passing interest in others.


----------



## Conaill (Oct 7, 2005)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> - How do you feel about the reorganization of RPGnow into two interlinked sites (RPGnow and RPGnow Edge) and why?
> 
> - What is your opinion on how the prizes from last November's donation drive have yet to reach their donors?
> 
> ...



Apart from that last one, I don't really see how these would be relevant to choosing Ennies Judges. Sure, one might have some curiosity about how the judges feel about these matters, but that won't tell you anything about how they are likely to vote on products.


----------



## MavrickWeirdo (Oct 7, 2005)

Who, Me? I didn't say anything. And if I did I was kidding. Not to mention that....

Look over there a three headed monkey


----------



## Conaill (Oct 7, 2005)

Where, where?


----------



## Alzrius (Oct 7, 2005)

Conaill said:
			
		

> Apart from that last one, I don't really see how these would be relevant to choosing Ennies Judges. Sure, one might have some curiosity about how the judges feel about these matters, but that won't tell you anything about how they are likely to vote on products.




I said they were hard-hitting, I never said they were relevant. It's standard practice for elections.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Oct 7, 2005)

MavrickWeirdo said:
			
		

> ...(Ironically back in the begining I believe Teflon Billy was the "infamous" canidate)...




I was infamous?

Sweet!


----------



## Teflon Billy (Oct 7, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> So let me get this straight: you don't bother voting or encouraging anyone else to vote because candidates you don't support win the election. Sorry but once again this bespeaks laziness and a lack of respect for democracy and the choices of your fellow ENWorlders. Take a look at this thread right now: Teflon Billy has been sitting at around 70% support since we started this informal poll. What you are saying is: "It's not fair that 70% of the voters get to have their way! The election system must be broken if 7 in 10 people are getting the result they vote for."






			
				Fusangite said:
			
		

> You have no clue what election fixing is. Election fixing is when people change the result so that the candidates with the most public support lose. _You_ are the ones proposing to fix the results; we are the ones saying that voters deserve the right to choose whoever they want. The fact that you disagree with the choices of the majority is not a sign that the system is broken; it's a sign that we have a healthy democracy.







			
				Fusangite said:
			
		

> We're having a poll about that right now on this thread. I think the results speak for themselves.That's what the poll says, doesn't it. It suggests that many incumbents _and_ a new candidate all enjoy a high level of public support. Hundreds of people have participated in this poll.






			
				Fusangite said:
			
		

> To me, fairness is about recognizing merit and hard work. To me, fairness is about recognizing the public's democratic will. Obviously, your idea of fairness is about everybody "getting their turn."





I wish I was this together in my arguments.


----------



## RavenHyde (Oct 7, 2005)

MavrickWeirdo said:
			
		

> In the third case, there may be a couple of people who know RavenHyde outside the boards and so voted accordingly, however I think most of the votes for RavenHyde can be considered "protest votes". With 51 votes (as I type) that is slightly under 10% of the voters. This of course does not include those who protest by not voting at all.




Either that, or I wrote a better nomination statement than I thought I did.... (To be honest, while I have quite a few gamer friends, none of them are ENWorld members afaik, so I'm very surprised and flattered that I have 54 votes.)

Ravenhyde, who now has 3 posts to her name....


----------



## Dextra (Oct 7, 2005)

Ed Cha said:
			
		

> *Just a personal comment:*
> But is there any way to get more attention from the folks who visit EN World for the publishers outside of the two or three which seem to be their favorites? Ads, posts, press releases just can't seem to break the cycle. There are certainly some products that make it through, but I could swear that EN World is almost (emphasis on almost, I didn't say totally or anything like that) like a fan site for these few publishers, with only passing interest in others.




That's why I work so hard on publicizing the awards off this site- IRL, and on other gaming sites.

Which reminds me, please shoot me an email denise@ambient.ca- I'd love to chat with you about IPR and the ENnies.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 7, 2005)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> Heck with that, let's ask them the hard-hitting questions:




What does most of those have to do with the ENnies?


----------



## MavrickWeirdo (Oct 7, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> What does most of those have to do with the ENnies?




He already answered that 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> I said they were hard-hitting, I never said they were relevant. It's standard practice for elections.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 7, 2005)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> I said they were hard-hitting, I never said they were relevant. It's standard practice for elections.




Then as is also standard practice, I wouldn't expect any of them to be answered


----------



## MavrickWeirdo (Oct 7, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Then as is also standard practice, I wouldn't expect any of them to be answered




Are you kidding, spending time on irrelevant questions is what _politicians_ do best.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Oct 7, 2005)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> Heck with that, let's ask them the hard-hitting questions:






			
				Maverick said:
			
		

> Are you kidding, spending time on irrelevant questions is what politicians do best.




Fine, I'll bite 



> - How do you feel about the reorganization of RPGnow into two interlinked sites (RPGnow and RPGnow Edge) and why?




I'm not sure that I'm qualified to speak on this issue (being neither a small nor large publisher, nor a .pdf retailer and only peripherally aware of the whole thing from having perused the publisher's forum) but if you are really interested in my unqualified opinion I'd have to say that my gut tells me that it's probably not a bad deal for anyone concerned.

It gives the small publihsers more "Room" to make their own (without being overshadowed by the Big Fish) and gives the Big Publishers an ability to not be lost in a cloud  of startup products.

Again, that's my gut.



> - What is your opinion on how the prizes from last November's donation drive have yet to reach their donors?




I think that it's bizarre. ]

Kevin "Piratecat: Kulp is one of the most honest, respected and reliable  personalities we have here at EN World. I know he's been hit by crisis after crisis in his personal life and feel for him. I can easily imagine myself "Back Burner-ing" such a project if the  had hit the fan in my life the way it has his this past year.

I also know that progress is being made (I delivered my donated prizes to him at Gen Con) and I think Dinkeldog has taken the reins if I'm not mistaken. 

Other than that, all I can really say is it seems an incredbile amount of time for folks to have waited and from what I've seen their patience has been exemplary (even those who've been complaining regularly have been a lot nicer about it than I would've been if I din't know Kevn's situation).

I'm not sure if that's the kind of decisive comment you were looking for, but again, I'm kind of "on the outside looking in" at this one. 



> - Do you think Wizards of the Coast adding guidelines for "good taste" in d20 products was helpful or harmful to the industry as a whole? Why?




Probably harmful, but not catastrophically so. 

I like my products to have a kind of lurid, pulpy, howard-esque feel to them. I was pretty upset when they tidied up all the "Demonic" stuff for 2E as well...I'm just not a big fan of pandering to soccer moms.

I certainly don't begrudge WotC the right to decide how their brand is used by third parties though. "Their house their rules" to paraphrase _my_ mom



> - Is cover artwork with images that some might consider "risque" a smart business practice, or does it make the book awkward to purchase/be seen with?




I don't think it has to be "either/or". I'll call it a smart business practice _that_ makes the book awkward to be seen with (this includes any products with the words "Erotic" in the title) 



> - What do you feel is the best RPG game system and why? If d20, then what subset of d20 (Fantasy d20, Modern d20, M&M, BESM d20, etc.)?




"Best" RPG Game system? I couldn't begin to slap any label on a category that broad. I like different systems for different things.


----------



## Alzrius (Oct 7, 2005)

RavenHyde said:
			
		

> I'm very surprised and flattered that I have 54 votes.)




55 now. Anyone who has a kitten for their avatar must be a wonderful person!


----------



## diaglo (Oct 7, 2005)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> Heck with that, let's ask them the hard-hitting questions:
> 
> - How do you feel about the reorganization of RPGnow into two interlinked sites (RPGnow and RPGnow Edge) and why?




don't care either way. as a consumer if it helps me i'm for it. if it is gonna cost me in the long run then i'm against it.



> - What is your opinion on how the prizes from last November's donation drive have yet to reach their donors?




they are prizes. which means "free". as my grandmother would say often. patience is a virtue seldom practiced. i'm not saying people who won shouldn't gripe. i'm just saying they will get their prize.



> - Do you think Wizards of the Coast adding guidelines for "good taste" in d20 products was helpful or harmful to the industry as a whole? Why?




neither. it was helpful for WotC to establish a set guideline. it was harmful for some of the guys on the fringe/edge. overall the industry will continue.



> - Is cover artwork with images that some might consider "risque" a smart business practice, or does it make the book awkward to purchase/be seen with?




age and who is buying i think are key here. if your mom is picking it out for you it might not be cool to have a brown wrapper on it. if you are a 12 year old hormone monkey then of course it is gonna get you to buy.



> - What do you feel is the best RPG game system and why? If d20, then what subset of d20 (Fantasy d20, Modern d20, M&M, BESM d20, etc.)?





OD&D(1974) is the only true game. All the others are just poor imitations of the real thing.


----------



## Xath (Oct 7, 2005)

> - How do you feel about the reorganization of RPGnow into two interlinked sites (RPGnow and RPGnow Edge) and why?




Since I'm not a publisher, it doesn't really effect me.  If it helps them with their organization, good for them.  



> - What is your opinion on how the prizes from last November's donation drive have yet to reach their donors?




I'm going to go with TB and Diaglo on this one.  It _is_ being taken care of, albiet slowly, and real life has gotten in the way.  I'm sure RL has gotten in the way for all of us at least once, and it's sure to do so again.  I'm inclined to give the good people a break.



> - Do you think Wizards of the Coast adding guidelines for "good taste" in d20 products was helpful or harmful to the industry as a whole? Why?




Neither.  It protects WotC's image for them to have set the standard, and the people who don't fall under the guidelines don't make up a large percentage of the industry.  It's their ball, they can do what they want with it.  



> - Is cover artwork with images that some might consider "risque" a smart business practice, or does it make the book awkward to purchase/be seen with?




It depends on the target audience.  For me, it would be rather difficult to walk around with, but some industries might find that it targets the (unfortunate) gamer stereotype.  And marketing is based alot of off the stereotype of a target audience.  



> - What do you feel is the best RPG game system and why? If d20, then what subset of d20 (Fantasy d20, Modern d20, M&M, BESM d20, etc.)




Uh...wow.  I wouldn't say there's a "best."  I like different systems for different game types.  Sometimes I even combine systems to get the feel I want.


----------



## MavrickWeirdo (Oct 7, 2005)

As of 8:30 this morning we have 577 votes, we are now 106 % of last election's turnout. *Cheers*   

Everyone in the previous election has now received more votes in this election. 

There seems to be little significance to a "lifetime average posts per month"


```
402 	Teflon Billy (Jeff Ranger)    		        69.67%	104.71 posts per month
372 	Crothian (Chris Gath)    			64.47% 	[color=red]  ---=Tilt=---[/color]
321 	JoeGKushner (Joe G Kushner)    		        55.63% 	167.36 posts per month
310 	Cthulhu's Librarian (Richard J. Miller), SC     53.73% 	167.39 posts per month
201 	diaglo (David Temporado)    			34.84% 	272.27 posts per month

149	Ankh-Morpork Guard (Graham Johnson)             25.82% 	284.06 posts per month
134 	Xath (Gertie Barden), SC    			23.22% 	 82.45 posts per month
 95 	Umbran (Arnis Kletnieks)    			16.46% 	129.60 posts per month

 80 	Keeper of Secrets (Matthew Muth)    		13.86% 	 45.23 posts per month

 67 	trancejeremy (Jeremy Reaban)    		11.61% 	 60.16 posts per month 
 65 	Quickbeam (Kevin Bopp), SC    		        11.27% 	 38.89 posts per month
 58 	RavenHyde (Selma McCrory)    		        10.05%	   .13 posts per month

 57 	nakia (Nakia S. Pope)    			 9.98% 	 37.45 posts per month
 44 	Tarondor (Scott Nolan), SC    		         7.63% 	  4.55 posts per month
 40 	Mixmaster (Leslie Foster), SC    		 6.93% 	  7.22 posts per month
 33 	Eridanis (Matt Bogen), SC    			 5.72%	 31.87 posts per month
 30 	JediSoth (Hans Cummings)    		         5.20% 	  7.08 posts per month
```

* Note; The current server only records back to January 2002. Eight candidates have "Jan 2002" as their "join date".


----------



## diaglo (Oct 7, 2005)

MavrickWeirdo said:
			
		

> * Note; The current server only records back to January 2002. Eight candidates have "Jan 2002" as their "join date".



actually i go back further than jan 02 too. like most of the others.


----------



## fusangite (Oct 7, 2005)

I'm doing a little number crunching regarding what factors seem to matter to voters. So, I'd appreciate knowing the gender of Mixmaster and nakia. Thanks.


----------



## freebfrost (Oct 7, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> I'm doing a little number crunching regarding what factors seem to matter to voters. So, I'd appreciate knowing the gender of Mixmaster and nakia. Thanks.



Well, in the Judge nomination thread I remember Mixmaster making some comment about his wife, so I would bet he is male.


----------



## fusangite (Oct 7, 2005)

Some observations about how the results are correlating to different things:

Postcount
The five candidates winning more than 200 votes all have post counts over 4000, whereas only two candidates behind the pack has a post count of over 4000. It should be noted, however, that these two candidates both have higher post counts than two of the five leading candidates. 

It does not appear that post counts higher than 4000 strongly correlate to placement within the top five candidates. The fifth place candidate, who currently holds about 35% of the vote has a post count of more than double that of the first place candidate who holds about 70%. Similarly, the second place candidate, who holds about 65% of the vote accounts for about 40% of all posts made by all candidates. 

I would argue, based on this data, that there is probably a floor post count that a candidate would likely have to achieve in order to be viable. I would set that number around 4000. However, once this floor is achieved, it is unclear that post count is a useful predictor of candidate placement. 

Reviews
Of the seventeen candidates, eight have published reviews. Of these eight, four occupy the top four positions, three occupy places 9-11 and one is currently dead last. Of the candidates winning more than 300 votes, every single one has published at least one review. There does, then, seem to be a strong correlation between having published at least one review and placing in the top five candidates. 

However, the number of reviews published does not seem to be a good predictor of placement once this number exceeds zero. For instance, the tenth place candidate has published the third largest number of reviews of all candidates. 

I would argue, based on the data, that reviews function much as post count does: exceeding a certain floor number is all but essential for winning a judging post. But whereas this number seems to be around 4000 for posts, it is 1 or 2 when it comes to reviews. And, as with posts, some highly prolific writers do not appear to benefit from producing these reviews.

Posts Per Month
Of the leading five candidates, all but one exceed a posting rate of 150 per month and all exceed the posting rate of 100 per month. The fifth and sixth place candidates have the third and second highest posting rates, respectively exceeding 250 per month. Of the candidates not in the leading five, only two exceed a posting rate of 150 (or 100 for that matter) per month. 

I would suggest, then, that 150 posts per month is functioning as another "floor" for determining candidate viability. It is interesting to note, at this point, that two of the candidates who have the highest ratio of votes to posts per month are the two that are publicly identified as female. It is also noteworthy that posts per month, much more than reviews or total posts, appears to have a fairly direct correlation to number of votes in addition to constituting a floor.

Seniority
Excepting the fourth place candidate, all of the leading five candidates were active on ENWorld prior to January 2002 while only a third of those outside of this group have this much seniority. There do not seem to be any strong correlations between join date and placement within the group who are currently losing.

Nevertheless, I am tempted to see seniority as operating much like total postcount and reviews as establishing a mimimum criterion that either 80% or 100% of the leading candidates fulfill.

Moderation
Although last year's first place finisher was a moderator, the one moderator running this year is just a few votes above dead last place. I would suggest, therefore, that moderation, contrary to what we might have suspected based on last year's results, does not seem to be much of a factor.

*What does this tell us?*
In my view, I think we can learn a few things from this list from two perspectives. For those wishing to win a position as an ENNies judge next year, some things that are certain to help you: 
1. Make 3-5 posts per day.
2. Publish at least one or two reviews.
3. Push your post count past 4000.
4. Stick around.

More importantly, from these results I think we can learn a bit about what subset of ENWorlders are voting. I would suggest that our average voter, not mobilized by the candidates has the following characteristics:
1. Is interested in the forums and forms an impression of people who post consistently. 
1a. Reads posts critically, voting both based on name recognition and post content.
2. Is interested in the capacity of candidates to review products but can make this decision based on fairly few reviews.
2a. Reads reviews critically, voting both based on name recognition and review content BUT may not be a consistent reader of the reviews section of the site.
3. Has been active on ENWorld for some time.
4. Likes female candidates better than males, all other things being equal.

EDIT: I'm attaching the data I used in an Excel spreadsheet for those who want to play with it themselves, especially those (that means you Umbran) who can actually calculate correlation coefficients and the like.


----------



## nakia (Oct 7, 2005)

> I'm doing a little number crunching regarding what factors seem to matter to voters. So, I'd appreciate knowing the gender of Mixmaster and nakia. Thanks.




I'm male.

I'll take a stab at a few of those questions as well, since I have some time this morning (to hell with grading papers!)  



> - How do you feel about the reorganization of RPGnow into two interlinked sites (RPGnow and RPGnow Edge) and why?




I'm fairly neutral on this one; as a consumer, I just need an organized site that allows me to find what I need quickly, while allowing me to explore some new stuff.  The separation seems to facilitate that; I'd like to see a little better up front indication of whats on "the edge" and what's on the main site, though.



> - What is your opinion on how the prizes from last November's donation drive have yet to reach their donors?




I understand that some people are frustrated.  Prizes were promised and it's taken a long time to get them.  But I never dontated to get any prizes whatsoever, I just donated to help the site.  Anything else (I'm sure I'm not the only one that recieved some PDF's via email) that I receive is just gravy.



> - Do you think Wizards of the Coast adding guidelines for "good taste" in d20 products was helpful or harmful to the industry as a whole? Why?




Both.  In the long term, kids have to be brought into the hobby.  That's easier to do if parents have less qualms about buying books for their kids -- qualms that arise due to perceived sexual, violent, or otherwise problematic content.  It was a business and PR move for WotC to add those guidelines and I understand why they did so.  In general, though, I want as many books to be published with as many different points of view as the market will allow.  That helps the market and the hobby as well.  I still think there is room for those books to be published.



> - Is cover artwork with images that some might consider "risque" a smart business practice, or does it make the book awkward to purchase/be seen with?




Not to sound wishy-washy, but I think the answer is both, again.  Whether or not someone feels awkward buying or purchaising a book with a "risque" cover or theme is something that's really determined by the purchaser, not the publisher.  Personally, I don't care what the clerk of bookstore X thinks about me when I buy whatever it is I'm buying.  The publisher wants to sell his or her product.  To do so the product must get noticed.  Striking cover art gets the book noticed.  

In general, role-playing is now a hobby engaged in mostly by adults (at least folks over 17 or so), so products that cater to adult tastes/ are marketed towards the dominant demographic are fine.  I hope, though, that effort is taken to bring children into the hobby and that future development of the hobby is not sacrificed to present sales.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Oct 7, 2005)

Interesting post, fusangite. Apparently...postcount DOES matter!   

Oh, and I don't see much point in answering those questions...since my answers are going to be pretty much exactly the same as everyone elses. In fact, I don't think many people WILL answer differently anyway. Maybe that was the point of them.



			
				nakia said:
			
		

> In general, role-playing is now a hobby engaged in mostly by adults (at least folks over 17 or so), so products that cater to adult tastes/ are marketed towards the dominant demographic are fine.  I hope, though, that effort is taken to bring children into the hobby and that future development of the hobby is not sacrificed to present sales.




I've got to poke at this, sorry.

What's your evidence of this? Maybe ENWorld scews older, but the hobby sure doesn't. The WotC boards are crawling with younger players, so much so that it drives many older gamers crazy and so they find new places to go(such as ENWorld). This hobby is just as engaged by young teenagers as it is by adults, you just don't see them as much on the internet for various reasons. It also doesn't help that, at that age, many people are still very afraid of the stigma attached to D&D and, so, hide that they play.

Again, I'm only 19. I started playing near the end of 2e, which was Middle School for me. There were tons of gamers, it just took actually looking for them. High School was the same way. And now, at both High Schools I attented, its the same way. I know it because I still talk with some people(and some teachers) there that are involved in the games and help out. Young gamers are there, they just aren't _here_.


----------



## nakia (Oct 7, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> What's your evidence of this? Maybe ENWorld scews older, but the hobby sure doesn't. The WotC boards are crawling with younger players, so much so that it drives many older gamers crazy and so they find new places to go(such as ENWorld). This hobby is just as engaged by young teenagers as it is by adults, you just don't see them as much on the internet for various reasons. It also doesn't help that, at that age, many people are still very afraid of the stigma attached to D&D and, so, hide that they play.
> 
> Again, I'm only 19. I started playing near the end of 2e, which was Middle School for me. There were tons of gamers, it just took actually looking for them. High School was the same way. And now, at both High Schools I attented, its the same way. I know it because I still talk with some people(and some teachers) there that are involved in the games and help out. Young gamers are there, they just aren't _here_.




Good point.  I'm sure my perspective is itself skewed because I hang out an ENWorld and game with older people, so I guess I was generalizing off of my own experience.  But I'd also consider you (at 19) and even folks slightly younger as adult gamers, as distinguished from children (say 13 -- younger).

To clarify -- it seems as if most material out there is being written for/marketed toward a "15 and up" crowd.  I'm fine with that, especailly since those are the people that actually play the game.


----------



## fusangite (Oct 7, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Interesting post, fusangite. Apparently...postcount DOES matter!



But, in your case, it appears the most important thing for you to do if you want to win next year is get a couple of product reviews under your belt. Your per month and total posting counts are already more than sufficient.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 7, 2005)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> How do you feel about the reorganization of RPGnow into two interlinked sites (RPGnow and RPGnow Edge) and why?




It is an interesting idea and one may help both sites in the future.  They do have so many companies and so many PDFs it does make browsing very difficult.  But I just don't know enough about the situation to make an infomred opinion.



> What is your opinion on how the prizes from last November's donation drive have yet to reach their donors?




Piratecate is a great guy and things happen, no doubt about it.  But it taking this long is really unexcusiable since there was plenty of time and plenty of people to hand the prodject too.  But now that it is handed off to someone else Dinkledog seems like he's doing a good job.



> Do you think Wizards of the Coast adding guidelines for "good taste" in d20 products was helpful or harmful to the industry as a whole? Why?




No idea.  I don't know what specifically thier guidelines are and I'd really want to see something that got changed because of the policy.  If I could see the before and after maybe then I could say about if it is needed or too restrictive.  



> Is cover artwork with images that some might consider "risque" a smart business practice, or does it make the book awkward to purchase/be seen with?




I have a complete collection I think of Avalanche Press' d20 books and those covers are usually the ones people point to and have a fit about.  Doesn't both er me.  Heck, I've even taken them to other gamers I know feamle and male and ask people's opnions of them to see if they get offended.  



> What do you feel is the best RPG game system and why? If d20, then what subset of d20 (Fantasy d20, Modern d20, M&M, BESM d20, etc.)?




Each game system does somethings great andf some things not so great.,  So game systems like setting I try to match to the people playing the game.  One group of friends that means the 3.5 d&D game, another group GURPS would probably be the best, and another is really a Nobilis player though she doesn't know it.  But even though it might be the best system for the way they play, we could still play a different system depending on the type of game and who's playing and what systems they know.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Oct 7, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> But, in your case, it appears the most important thing for you to do if you want to win next year is get a couple of product reviews under your belt. Your per month and total posting counts are already more than sufficient.



 I've thought about doing that(and Crothian bugged me about for a while earlier in the year), and I might just do that sometime. I'll probably try again next year to be a judge, so we'll be able to see how that affects things.


----------



## nakia (Oct 7, 2005)

fusangite could have kept his data to himself, then hired himself out as an "Ennies judge campaign strategist"  

Seriously, thanks for your and MavrickWeirdo's data and analysis.


----------



## MavrickWeirdo (Oct 7, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Some observations about how the results are correlating to different things:
> 
> PostcountIt does not appear that post counts higher than 4000 strongly correlate to placement within the top five candidates. The fifth place candidate, who currently holds about 35% of the vote has a post count of more than double that of the first place candidate who holds about 70%. Similarly, the second place candidate, who holds about 65% of the vote accounts for about 40% of all posts made by all candidates.




I question if "4000" is a true threshold. There is only 1 candidate with a postcount between 1850 and 4700. While that particular candidate is not doing well, I'm not sure you can prove that it is the poscount threshold that is holding them back. I feel that a candidate with as few as 2000 posts (spread across several areas of the boards) could actually win.


----------



## MavrickWeirdo (Oct 7, 2005)

nakia said:
			
		

> fusangite could have kept his data to himself, then hired himself out as an "Ennies judge campaign strategist"
> 
> Seriously, thanks for your and MavrickWeirdo's data and analysis.




No problem, this is how I am campaigning for next year.


----------



## Ed Cha (Oct 7, 2005)

Dextra said:
			
		

> That's why I work so hard on publicizing the awards off this site- IRL, and on other gaming sites.
> 
> Which reminds me, please shoot me an email denise@ambient.ca- I'd love to chat with you about IPR and the ENnies.




Sure, let's chat! E-mail sent.


----------



## Quickbeam (Oct 7, 2005)

fusangite:

Just curious here, but what factors do you feel are most likely to keep a candidate who meets most of your "floor" standards from ranking in the top five?  Given the analytical lengths you've already gone to, I figure this question has already crossed your mind?


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 7, 2005)

Quickbeam said:
			
		

> fusangite:
> 
> Just curious here, but what factors do you feel are most likely to keep a candidate who meets most of your "floor" standards from ranking in the top five?  Given the analytical lengths you've already gone to, I figure this question has already crossed your mind?





Not being an incumbant?


----------



## Cthulhu's Librarian (Oct 7, 2005)

Well, since others have answered, I'll give it a go as well. 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> - How do you feel about the reorganization of RPGnow into two interlinked sites (RPGnow and RPGnow Edge) and why?




I don't see that dividing RPGNow into two interlocked sites will have much of an impact on the  usefulness of it to me, as a consumer. As long as the search function and shopping cart continue to function between both of the connected sites, I will be able to use it as I have done in the past. I can see how smaller companies may see the division as a negative impact on them, but it should force some of the better and innovative sites to work at making their products the top sellers of the new site. In the long run, I think that the division may in fact prove to be helpful to the smaller companies by removing the big companies that have been blocking them from being top sellers on the single site. 

But this is just my opinion based on what I have read, and I don't follow the PDF discussions as closely as some others do, so I may be wrong. We'll have to wait and see what happens. The RPG industry has a habit of crying wolf over the smallest things-some ligitmate concerns and others minor annoyances. I don't know where this falls yet. 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> - What is your opinion on how the prizes from last November's donation drive have yet to reach their donors?




While this really has nothing to do with the judges, I do have an opinion on this matter, as it does have a direct impact on me in a small way. I pledged a selection of books from my collection as prizes to be sent out, and have had them sitting in a stack on my gameroom floor since the fund drive. I'd like to see them sent out ASAP so I can get the 2 square feet of floorspace back.     Aside from that, I know that Kevin has been through a hellish year, and I cannot fully blame him for the delay. Things are moving at a slow pace again, and I have full confidence that it will be wrapped up soon. 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> - Do you think Wizards of the Coast adding guidelines for "good taste" in d20 products was helpful or harmful to the industry as a whole? Why?




In the long run, I think it was helpful. We have seen more companies moving away from the d20 logo to OGL products, where innovation has been occuring at a faster pace (IMO) than under d20. Innovative use of the OGL is only going to help the industry in the long run. 

This is not to say that I am in favor of making people conform to anothers standards of "good taste". However, if you choose to work under anothers license agreement, it is necessary to abide by their rules. 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> - Is cover artwork with images that some might consider "risque" a smart business practice, or does it make the book awkward to purchase/be seen with?




It all depends on what the art actually is. I have seen some that I feel are in poor taste, and others that I felt were exceptional works of art regardless of the risque subject matter. Art is at it's very core a subjective matter. There are works of art hanging in museums that are considered classic by many people that I find to be boring, trite, and useless. There are other pieces that I find to be absolutly stunning that others may find uninspiring. It's all in the eye of the viewer. As far as making a book awkward to buy or be seen with, that is really not for me to decide. I have never had a problem buying anything (be it RPGs, books, magazines, videos, condoms, etc) that others may refuse to buy because of the embarrasment factor, so on a personal level it doesn't effect me at all. In some cases, the use of risque covers may actually draw the expected market to the book, in which case it is a good business practice. There is a reason comic books often feature large breasted female heroes in tight costumes-they sell. So it must work on some level. 



			
				Alzrius said:
			
		

> - What do you feel is the best RPG game system and why? If d20, then what subset of d20 (Fantasy d20, Modern d20, M&M, BESM d20, etc.)?




This is unanswerable. Different genres have different systems that work best for them. No one system fits all things.


----------



## Quickbeam (Oct 7, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Not being an incumbant?




*LOL!!*  

That perfectly sums up much of the ongoing discussion, Joe.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Oct 7, 2005)

Quickbeam said:
			
		

> *LOL!!*
> 
> That perfectly sums up much of the ongoing discussion, Joe.



 But I think he's right.

Even meeting all those floor values that fusangite set out, it really seems like the only big deciding factor is whether or not the person has been a judge before.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 7, 2005)

Quickbeam said:
			
		

> *LOL!!*
> 
> That perfectly sums up much of the ongoing discussion, Joe.




Well, you've gotta start somewhere. I ran for a few years before I had my first shot at it. It's not like it's impossible to get in but it can be difficult. I can understand how some see it as a snowballing effect.

It'll be interesting to see if anything like 'term limits' if you will, come out of these discussions. It's something we'd have to see a LOT of people stand up and ask for and seeing as how we're not getting probably a 5th of the registered people voting, I doubt that'll happen.

Then again, it could be that the low voting is a result of apahty. However, we've passed last years' voting numbers already so...

Lots of things to take into account.


----------



## Cthulhu's Librarian (Oct 7, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Well, you've gotta start somewhere. I ran for a few years before I had my first shot at it. It's not like it's impossible to get in but it can be difficult. I can understand how some see it as a snowballing effect.




And 2 years ago, I got in on my first try, had less than 900 posts, and no reviews. Why? I have no idea. The field was very large that year, I guess I just had what enough people were looking for.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 7, 2005)

I tried the first two years and didn't make it.  The second time I did have a lot of posts compaired to everyone else but no reviews (fewer people where doing reviews then and number of reviews was not shown).  So, third time was a charm for me, and even then I was fifth among voting and it was close.


----------



## Quickbeam (Oct 7, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Well, you've gotta start somewhere. I ran for a few years before I had my first shot at it. It's not like it's impossible to get in but it can be difficult. I can understand how some see it as a snowballing effect.
> 
> It'll be interesting to see if anything like 'term limits' if you will, come out of these discussions. It's something we'd have to see a LOT of people stand up and ask for and seeing as how we're not getting probably a 5th of the registered people voting, I doubt that'll happen.
> 
> ...




I agree, there are a lot of factors to consider.  And as I've said before, I fully support those that have judged before while seeking change in the system.  None of the returning candidates have done anything which merits their removal from consideration as ENnies Judges.  I'd just like to see a system in place that insures other people have the same opportunity to participate in this experience.

I understand the arguments which suggest that such a change would be defrauding the voters by eliminating their ability to vote for overwhelmingly popular (and capable) candidates.  But I just don't accept that as being the case.  There's a reason term limits exist in many political arenas, and dismissing term limits simply because the ENnies are different than politics is inappropriate.  It doesn't matter that ENnies Judges aren't running a nation or a city.  What matters is that the process itself is likely to stagnate without change, and voter apathy becomes increasingly evident  -- just read the comments across some of the ongoing threads.


----------



## Quickbeam (Oct 7, 2005)

Cthulhu's Librarian said:
			
		

> And 2 years ago, I got in on my first try, had less than 900 posts, and no reviews. Why? I have no idea. The field was very large that year, I guess I just had what enough people were looking for.




Simple Rich.  You posted a very compelling nomination "speech" and people connected to your message and credentials.  Heck, I voted for you despite trying to chase you down for that coveted 5th seat!!  Same with Crothian.

I've also voted for T-Bill and Joe in previous years.  I may be an advocate for change, but that doesn't mean I ignore deserving candidates out of spite. 
I'd genuinely like to see a shift in the panel dymanic and/or election process, but until then I will give my full support to those who've been given the right to represent EN World through the awards.


----------



## Conaill (Oct 7, 2005)

While you're all at it, answering Alzrius' set of admittedly irrelevant questions, would some of you mind answering the actual Ennies-_relevant_ ones as well? 



			
				Conaill said:
			
		

> - Fantasy or Modern/SciFi?
> 
> - High or low Fantasy?
> 
> ...


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Oct 7, 2005)

These, I'll answer. 



> Fantasy or Modern/SciFi?




I love all of them, but given the choice I usually will head straight for Scifi. I'm a huge Star Wars fan, and so most of my gaming since I began(with WEG d6 Star Wars) has been Star Wars gaming. At the same time, since the release of d20 Future, I've gotten involved in some more generic Scifi games and have found those to be just as entertaining and enjoyable.



> High or low Fantasy?




Somewhere in between. I like the adventure to be dramatic and big, but not so much that it throws plot and story to the side for the action. Keep the magic magical, but not so mysterious that the PCs have little access to it.



> Crunch or Fluff?




Crunch. I mostly homebrew, and its much, much easier to put rules material into my world than a lot of fluff. Sure, some fluff can be fun, but I also find that I enjoy coming up with my own fluff rather than having it fed to me and feeling like I'm forced into a certain way that its 'supposed' to be.



> Anime or Photorealism?




Depends on the product. I'm a developing artist, myself, and like to believe I have at least a good eye for art from a more critical point of view beyond the simple "I like this/don't like this!" Though my art did start with a more anime look, over the years I've come to see that the style looks much, much better in motion(animated) than it does on in stills. The style can be awkward, exaggerated, and just plain strange when you catch it in a single moment, and so I don't feel its always the most appropriate style for art in books.

Photorealism isn't always the best either. Fantasy sometimes needs a more stylistic look, and sometimes even off the wall art like some 1e images. The style of art used really needs to fit with the material in the book more than anything else. 



> Name at least two Ennies winners or losers from the past two years that you feel were undeserved.




-Best Cover Art 2005

Though I love the cover for Beyond Countless Doorways, and it evokes a unique images that fits well with the book, I feel that Blue Rose's cover is simply better looking. The pose is more alive, with a great use of colour like I've never seen before on a cover for an RPG book.  The cover for BCD feels much more stock and normal to me, whlie Blue Rose's is bright, active, and just grabs my eye like nothing else.

-Best Electronic Product 2005

Simply put, I don't care for PCGen. I used it for a long time, but always felt it was cumbersome and it simply drove me crazy. I've found many other programs that do the same things as PCGen, but are easier to maneuver and easier to add new things to. Added to that, the Counter Collection Digital is simply one of the most useful things I've gotten my hands(well, metaphorically) on. All the Counter Collections have been great, with great art and a nice, cheap alternative to miniatures that don't even require painting.


----------



## Cthulhu's Librarian (Oct 8, 2005)

Conaill said:
			
		

> While you're all at it, answering Alzrius' set of admittedly irrelevant questions, would some of you mind answering the actual Ennies-_relevant_ ones as well?




Actually, in some ways, they really aren't all that much more relevant to the judging process. BUt I'll answer anyway. 



> - Fantasy or Modern/SciFi?




In general, for games that I am running, I prefer fantasy, as it's the genre I know the most about and can do the most with. But as a player, it doesn't matter to me. I'll just as happily play in a modern, SF, historical, fantasy, superhero, or just about anything else. For reading, I'll read whatever's done well. 



> - High or low Fantasy?




In general, High fantasy. But I also really enjoy low fantasy, horror, modern fantasy, and historical fantasy. 



> - Crunch or Fluff?




Depends what I am looking for. Most of the time, I'll have to say crunch, as I am always looking for things that I can use in my game. But I'll read well written fluff just for the inspiration and writing. 



> - Anime or Photorealism?




This one I have a definite answer for-photorealism. Anime style does nothing for me on a personal level, but I can appreciate the artistry and talent that goes into it. It's just not my cup o' tea. But that didn't stop me from nominating BESM d20 for several awards 2 years ago, as it was an excellent book. 



> - Name at least two Ennies winners or losers from the past two years that you feel were undeserved.




Sorry, I can't do that. I was too involved in the process to be able to give an answer here that would be fair to the winners/losers I would name. As far as I am concerned, the 5 books that are nominated for each category (and the honorable mention) are all winners. There are always some that I like better than others, and some that make the final list that were not on my personal top 5 list, but none of them deserved or didn't deserve to win the public vote. In some ways, it's easier to leave the final vote up to everyone else-there has rarely been a case when I could say that one title stood out so far ahead of the other 5 that it was the clear winner in my eyes (only 1 off the top of my head, and another where a book was not entered into the awards that I felt would have blown away the competiton)


----------



## fusangite (Oct 8, 2005)

MavrickWeirdo said:
			
		

> I question if "4000" is a true threshold. There is only 1 candidate with a postcount between 1850 and 4700. While that particular candidate is not doing well, I'm not sure you can prove that it is the poscount threshold that is holding them back. I feel that a candidate with as few as 2000 posts (spread across several areas of the boards) could actually win.



You're probably right here. I suspect that due to the paucity of data, a number of my other thresholds aren't that real either. Just offered as a starting point.







			
				Quickbeam said:
			
		

> Just curious here, but what factors do you feel are most likely to keep a candidate who meets most of your "floor" standards from ranking in the top five?  Given the analytical lengths you've already gone to, I figure this question has already crossed your mind?



Yep -- here's my unstated belief: _What_ you say in your reviews and posts matters a whole lot. If you write reviews and posts that either people don't agree with or don't remember, they won't earn you many votes.


----------



## MavrickWeirdo (Oct 8, 2005)

As of 8:30 this morning we have 614 votes, over 112% of last elections voters 



```
429 	Teflon Billy (Jeff Ranger)    		        69.87% 
398 	Crothian (Chris Gath)    			64.82% 
345 	JoeGKushner (Joe G Kushner)    		        56.19% 
329 	Cthulhu's Librarian (Richard J. Miller), SC     53.58% 
215 	diaglo (David Temporado)    			35.02% 

157	Ankh-Morpork Guard (Graham Johnson)             25.57% 
140 	Xath (Gertie Barden), SC    			22.80% 
100 	Umbran (Arnis Kletnieks)    			16.29% 

 82 	Keeper of Secrets (Matthew Muth)    		13.36% 

 74 	trancejeremy (Jeremy Reaban)    		12.05% 
 70 	Quickbeam (Kevin Bopp), SC    		        11.40% 
 60 	RavenHyde (Selma McCrory)    		         9.77%

 60 	nakia (Nakia S. Pope)    			 9.77% 
 45	Tarondor (Scott Nolan), SC    		         7.33% 
 42 	Mixmaster (Leslie Foster), SC    		 6.84% 
 36 	Eridanis (Matt Bogen), SC    			 5.86% 
 31 	JediSoth (Hans Cummings)    		         5.05%
```


----------



## fusangite (Oct 8, 2005)

There is much less strategic voting than I suspected there would be. The 615 voters so far have cast 2618 votes or 4.25 votes of the five potential votes. This suggests an actual majority are using 100% of the votes available to them. This suggests to me that most voters are motivated primarily by the desire to pick the best overall panel possible more than the desire for their favourite candidate to be assured victory. 

It may also suggest, however, that because a minority of voters are used to multi-member plurality voting (most are engaging in single member plurality only if they live in the US or Canada and mixed SMP-list systems in Europe) that many have not got the hang of how to vote strategically in this particular system. Although the point was made early in the thread, it may be that some voters are not thinking through the fact that their votes can often cancel each other out. This might also help to explain why the votes against the incumbents are so inefficiently distributed given that many seem to be motivated by a general desire for change rather than strong loyalty to individual challengers.


----------



## Alzrius (Oct 8, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> It may also suggest, however, that because a minority of voters are used to multi-member plurality voting (most are engaging in single member plurality only if they live in the US or Canada and mixed SMP-list systems in Europe) that many have not got the hang of how to vote strategically in this particular system. Although the point was made early in the thread, it may be that some voters are not thinking through the fact that their votes can often cancel each other out. This might also help to explain why the votes against the incumbents are so inefficiently distributed given that many seem to be motivated by a general desire for change rather than strong loyalty to individual challengers.





...riiight.   

I say, the politics of failure have failed. We need to make them work again. We must move forward, not backward. Upward, not forward. And always whirling, whirling, whirling toward freedom!


----------



## freebfrost (Oct 8, 2005)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> I say, the politics of failure have failed. We need to make them work again. We must move forward, not backward. Upward, not forward. And always whirling, whirling, whirling toward freedom!



That sounds suspiciously more like the Politics of Dancing to me...


----------



## MavrickWeirdo (Oct 8, 2005)

Just for the fun of it I decided to look at where some of our candidates _*MIGHT*_ be a year from now (re: postcount) if their posts per month rate remains the same.

(Keep in mind this is the type of speculation which is considered meaningless by serious statisticians, due to the number of variables involved.)


```
Ankh-Morpork Guard	12967
Umbran 			 7461
trancejeremy		 3425
Xath			 2757
Quickbeam 		 2281
Eridanis 		 1842
Keeper of Secrets	 1732
nakia 			  943
Mixmaster 		  408
JediSoth 		  313
Tarondor 		  155
RavenHyde 		    5
```


----------



## fusangite (Oct 8, 2005)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> ...riiight.



I didn't know that I was being unclear. What was problematic about the post?


----------



## CRGreathouse (Oct 8, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> I didn't know that I was being unclear. What was problematic about the post?




I thought it was a great post, and I agree with you that it seems likely that most people just don't know how to vote strategically in this sort of election, especially with this many candidates.


----------



## Conaill (Oct 8, 2005)

I think the roughly 5 votes per voter probably has more to do with Dextra's original voting instructions. 

Perhaps a more telling measure in this case is to look at changes in voting behavior over time. Since the results of the poll are not blinded, one would expect the pattern of votes to shift as people take the previous votes into account.

In particular, one might expect to see a gradual decrease in the average number of votes per voter over time, as people see that fewer of their votes will actually "matter" (becaus ethe top places are already more or less locked in). One would also expect to see a shift from voting for the top candidates to voting for the second-tier ones (i.e. those around rank 5, where new votes may still create a change in the outcome) and lower (protest votes, and people using up their 5 "alloted" votes to indicate preferences below the 4-5 candidates who "will win anayway").

So what do we actually see in the data? Looking at the voting patterns at 190 votes, 408 and 614 votes (i.e. roughly 1st, 3nd and 3rd block of 200 votes) we see that...

1) the number of votes per voter has stayed approximately constant: 4.27 vs 4.11 vs 4.39

2) out of the top 5 candidates, only *one* has shown a significant decrease in votes over time, and that's JoeGKushner. 

3) in the "second-tier" candidates, i.e A-M G, Xath and diaglo, there has only been a slight uptick in votes over time, 

4) the lower tier of candidates hasn't really seen a very significant increase in votes over time either.

Overall, the voting patterns haven't really changed much over time, despite what one might expect for such an open poll. So in that sense, I don't really see any evidence of strategic voting either.

(PS: before anyone hammers me for this, I used "significant" in the colloquial sense here. If I had more detailed voting data, I could randomize vote order and put some actual p-values on there, but I'm not *that* much of a geek that I'm going to do real statistics on a beautiful Saturday morning. )


----------



## Alzrius (Oct 8, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> I didn't know that I was being unclear. What was problematic about the post?




It wasn't so much that it was problematic, as it just seemed over-analytical. People just vote for who they like and that's the end of it, or so I thought (maybe I was naive). Breaking it down into statistics seems to cross that threshold of looking for meanings that aren't there. Again though, that's just my (rather simplistic) take on it.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Oct 8, 2005)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> It wasn't so much that it was problematic, as it just seemed over-analytical. People just vote for who they like and that's the end of it, or so I thought (maybe I was naive). Breaking it down into statistics seems to cross that threshold of looking for meanings that aren't there. Again though, that's just my (rather simplistic) take on it.



 Well, sometimes it isn't so black and white.  I know that I, for instance, do understand the implications of this voting system, but in the end, despite this, I wound up voting mostly for the frontrunners anyway (so I would seem to feed the trend that fusangite predicted about people who don't understand how to maximise the system).  I've been getting useful and well-written reviews from some of these guys for years, even before I registered for the messageboards, and I feel that they would be the best choices for Ennies Judges, and not just because they are incumbents who did a great job in the past.


----------



## MavrickWeirdo (Oct 9, 2005)

As of 9:00 this morning we have 636 votes, over 116% of last elections voters 



```
445 	Teflon Billy (Jeff Ranger)    		        69.97% 
412 	Crothian (Chris Gath)    			64.78% 
345 	JoeGKushner (Joe G Kushner)    		        56.19% 
337 	Cthulhu's Librarian (Richard J. Miller), SC     56.13% 
225 	diaglo (David Temporado)    			35.38% 

164	Ankh-Morpork Guard (Graham Johnson)             25.79% 
146 	Xath (Gertie Barden), SC    			22.96% 
103 	Umbran (Arnis Kletnieks)    			16.19% 

 86 	Keeper of Secrets (Matthew Muth)    		13.52% 

 78 	trancejeremy (Jeremy Reaban)    		12.26% 
 74 	Quickbeam (Kevin Bopp), SC    		        11.64% 
 62 	RavenHyde (Selma McCrory)    		         9.75%

 60 	nakia (Nakia S. Pope)    			 9.43% 
 45	Tarondor (Scott Nolan), SC    		         7.08% 
 43 	Mixmaster (Leslie Foster), SC    		 6.76% 
 38 	Eridanis (Matt Bogen), SC    			 5.79% 
 33 	JediSoth (Hans Cummings)    		         5.19%
```


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 9, 2005)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> ...riiight.
> 
> I say, the politics of failure have failed. We need to make them work again. We must move forward, not backward. Upward, not forward. And always whirling, whirling, whirling toward freedom!





Ah, a Simpsons Halloween quote. Awesome and timley too!


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 9, 2005)

*- Fantasy or Modern/SciFi?*

The lame answer of course, is that it depends. For most of my games, I prefer fantasy. In general, I feel that it's been done better and has some stronger ground to stand on in avoiding real world issues like religion, politics, and modern world views. Games like D&D with it's various setting, Harp, Rolemaster, Warhammer, and others have provided me with many a year of enjoyable games.

However, I grew up reading comic books and was introduced to roleplaying games through the original yellow boxed Marvel Super Heroes game by then TSR. The FASERIP system was easy (even though it seems that you couldn't kill anything) and I still enjoy games like Mutants & Masterminds, Champions 4th/5th ed, Silver Age Sentinels Tri-Stat version and a few others.

On the other hand though, if the modern game is good, then I have no problems embracing it. Delta Green is one of my favorite resources for many things of the modern-weird world. Dark Matter was another winner in that vein. Star Wars d6 killed many a player with a lucky shot. GURPS Traveller was another one.

*- High or low Fantasy?*

Traditionally high fantasy. Many works of fiction these days go this route and the swords & sorcery genre isn't quite as healthy or viable for many new players as it was. Who doesn't want a fighter-mage running around with a glass steel sword that acts as a ring of wizardry or an albino summoner whose sword sucks souls eh?

That hasn't stopped me from playing or GMing games like Slavelords of Cydonia using the Black Company or messing around with the Thieves World game or playing in a Midnight Campaign or enjoying playing Conan OGL.


*- Crunch of Fluff?*

I find crunch easier to manipulate into my own campaign. However, good fluff, like Spherewalker, a book with zero crunch, can lead to some great ideas and some great campaigns in and of itself. 

*- Anime or Photorealism?*

? I'd need some specifics here. For example, the manga Berserk is grim and dark and bloody. Perfect for using illustrations in a Warhammer or other low magic campaign. Stuff like Escaflowne is great for using Mechs in a fantasy d20 campaign. Photorealism like the stuff that Elmore or others do? Is that what that means? If so, it's what I grew up on and has a very strong precense in the market but the b&w illustrations, like say from the Soverign Stone 3.5 book by Larry Elmore, don't strike me as being better than say, Chronicles of the Cursed Sword.


*- Name at least two Ennies winners or losers from the past two years that you feel were undeserved.*

Not touching that one.


----------



## Alzrius (Oct 10, 2005)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> Ah, a Simpsons Halloween quote. Awesome and timley too!




Gold star to JoeGKushner!    That's why I voted for you!


----------



## MavrickWeirdo (Oct 10, 2005)

As of 9:00 this morning we have 649 votes, over 119% of last elections voters.

I am predicting a voter total of 666



```
453 	Teflon Billy (Jeff Ranger)    		        69.80% 
422 	Crothian (Chris Gath)    			65.02% 
363 	JoeGKushner (Joe G Kushner)    		        55.93% 
342 	Cthulhu's Librarian (Richard J. Miller), SC     52.70% 
234 	diaglo (David Temporado)    			36.06% 

168	Ankh-Morpork Guard (Graham Johnson)             25.89% 
149 	Xath (Gertie Barden), SC    			22.96% 
106 	Umbran (Arnis Kletnieks)    			16.33% 

 87 	Keeper of Secrets (Matthew Muth)    		13.41% 

 83 	trancejeremy (Jeremy Reaban)    		12.79% 
 75 	Quickbeam (Kevin Bopp), SC    		        11.56% 
 62 	RavenHyde (Selma McCrory)    		         9.55%

 61 	nakia (Nakia S. Pope)    			 9.40% 
 46	Tarondor (Scott Nolan), SC    		         7.09% 
 43 	Mixmaster (Leslie Foster), SC    		 6.63% 
 38 	Eridanis (Matt Bogen), SC    			 5.86% 
 34 	JediSoth (Hans Cummings)    		         5.24%
```


----------



## Truth Seeker (Oct 11, 2005)

*pulling the ballot stick*


----------



## MavrickWeirdo (Oct 11, 2005)

10 more minutes


----------



## Xath (Oct 11, 2005)

Congrats to the judges!  

Dextra, I'd still like to help out if you need it.  Let me know.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 11, 2005)

And another year of voting is done.


----------



## Dextra (Oct 11, 2005)

Xath said:
			
		

> Congrats to the judges!
> 
> Dextra, I'd still like to help out if you need it.  Let me know.




Brilliant!

I can always use lots of help, especially in the volunteer coordination department!
Buttercup did a fabulous job, but is stepping down, and I need someone to replace her.  I can also use peeps who don't mind doing some odd jobs and publicity work, too.


----------



## jgbrowning (Oct 11, 2005)

If the number of voters continues to climb every year like it did this year, I'd consider that successful. 'Course a what, 119% increase will be unsustainable after a few years, but it would be nice to see anyway. 

joe b.


----------



## nakia (Oct 11, 2005)

Dextra said:
			
		

> Brilliant!
> 
> I can always use lots of help, especially in the volunteer coordination department!
> Buttercup did a fabulous job, but is stepping down, and I need someone to replace her.  I can also use peeps who don't mind doing some odd jobs and publicity work, too.




I can be a peep. 

And congratulations to the new judges!


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Oct 11, 2005)

Congratulations to the judges and a big thank you to everyone who voted for me! I honestly didn't expect anywhere near the amount of votes I got. So I shall take the advice of doing a couple reviews in the next year and try out again. 

Oh, and Dextra, I may be able to be a peep for you, too.


----------



## Tarondor (Oct 11, 2005)

Congratulations to the Judges.  Here's hoping that the year's candidate products are all great!

Also, my sincere thanks to all who voted for me.  And, frankly, to all who voted, period.  It's good for the hobby.

Tarondor


----------



## MavrickWeirdo (Oct 11, 2005)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> If the number of voters continues to climb every year like it did this year, I'd consider that successful. 'Course a what, 119% increase will be unsustainable after a few years, but it would be nice to see anyway.
> 
> joe b.




actually 660 is 121% of last year

(I didn't bother posting this morning because the data won't change anymore)


----------



## Cthulhu's Librarian (Oct 11, 2005)

Yes, thanks are due to everyone who voted. The tunrout this year was very good, let's hope that we can increase it next year even more!

And big thanks to everyone who ran for a judges seat!


----------



## fusangite (Oct 11, 2005)

Congratulations to the judges. For those interested in questions of how to improve the voting system, turnout, etc. I am planning to produce a detailed set of options for improving next year's elections by mid-winter. Anyone interested, please contact me. Whether I agree with you or not, I would like to receive any concrete proposals you have so that I can present the most exhaustive possible set of options to board members and staff over the winter. Conaill and Umbran, especially, I would like to hear from on this issue.


----------



## fusangite (Oct 11, 2005)

Dextra said:
			
		

> I can always use lots of help, especially in the volunteer coordination department! Buttercup did a fabulous job, but is stepping down, and I need someone to replace her.  I can also use peeps who don't mind doing some odd jobs and publicity work, too.



Having worked for two public relations firms in the past and having a total of ten years of doing PR work professionally under my belt, I am happy to assist in the promotions area, along with my work on the voting system.


----------



## Dextra (Oct 11, 2005)

*Official Pronouncement*

Thank you very much to everyone who was brave enough to put forth their hat in the ring.  I hope you'll do so again in future years, and will consider helping out in other ways.  Thank you also to those who voted and those who joined in on the discussions on how to improve the system for future years.

On behalf of the ENnies Board of Directors, please allow me to be the first to officially congratulate our new judges for 2006:

Crothian (Chris Gath)
Cthulhu's Librarian (Richard J. Miller)
diaglo (David Temporado)
JoeGKushner (Joe G Kushner)
Teflon Billy (Jeff Ranger)


----------



## Umbran (Oct 11, 2005)

MavrickWeirdo said:
			
		

> actually 660 is 121% of last year




I'm not sure that raw growth is all that meaningful a metric, though.  If, for example, the userbase has grown by 50% in the past year, then while the number of votes may have gone up, the percentage of users who vote would have been decreasing.

While we might come up with a number for growth of the board membership, what we don't have is a measure of how many "active" users are out there.

Now, here's the big (and completely speculative) question - how many voters would we have had if there was no major discussion of the election going on?  If we just left it with a poll and the nominations thread, what would the voting look like?  Knowing that would give us a handle on how much "pushing" needs to be done to get people to go out and vote?


----------



## Dextra (Oct 11, 2005)

*Pssst Diaglo!*

Please join us in http://www.enworld.org/forumdisplay.php?f=112 and http://www.enworld.org/forumdisplay.php?f=248 !


----------



## fusangite (Oct 11, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> I'm not sure that raw growth is all that meaningful a metric, though.  If, for example, the userbase has grown by 50% in the past year, then while the number of votes may have gone up, the percentage of users who vote would have been decreasing.



In my view, both measurements are useful. Voter turnout is a very tricky thing to calculate; it is conditioned by community standards of eligibility and one's own perceptions of membership in a community. For instance, some critics of declining Canadian voter participation suggest that our decision to report voter turnout as a function of _registered_ rather than _eligible_ voters obscures our truly low participation rates. Similarly, some suggest that some residents' decision to maintain landed immigrant rather than citizen status over a long period is another concealed indication of voter apathy. Others, however, suggest that our current method of calculating turnout measures a more relevant variable.

The problem is that here on ENWorld, there are no real equivalents to any of the categories that are normally empoyed in discussions of voter turnout in real world elections. We are left to wonder how people perceive their status as participants or lurkers here and whether the obstacle to them voting is unawareness of the vote, disinterest in the vote, unwillingness to educate themselves about the candidates running or lacking a sense of entitlement to participate. All of these are likely factors but it is unclear which are more important.

I think that what we cannot lose, however, is that the increased number of votes is good. All you are raising here, Umbran, is whether it is _good enough_.







> Now, here's the big (and completely speculative) question - how many voters would we have had if there was no major discussion of the election going on?  If we just left it with a poll and the nominations thread, what would the voting look like?  Knowing that would give us a handle on how much "pushing" needs to be done to get people to go out and vote?



That would certainly be helpful. But I think there are other ways of pushing this that might also be effective and not so closely linked to the forums. I think, for instance, that turnout is lower amongst those who use the site primarily to read reviews than those who use it mainly as a discussion forum. Similarly, if we have negligible voter eligibility criteria, we might think about how we could do more to promote voting for the judges on non-ENWorld sites or to encourage judge candidates to mobilize more voters in their area through gaming groups, gamers' associations, Gamedays and stores.


----------



## MavrickWeirdo (Oct 11, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> While we might come up with a number for growth of the board membership, what we don't have is a measure of how many "active" users are out there.




Or a definition of what an "active" user is.

For comparison, the "The final "How old are you?" thread",  Where people "vote" for the year they were born, currently has 751 votes.

I don't know if there are any polls with higher turnout


----------



## JediSoth (Oct 12, 2005)

Congratulations to the winners and thanks to everyone who voted for me. I appreciate your support and unless something changes, you can expect to see my name up there again next year.

Dextra, put me down as someone willing to help out, too.

JediSoth


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 12, 2005)

Congrats to all of the participants, especially the winners!


----------



## diaglo (Oct 12, 2005)

‘Here come da judge, here come da judge! The court’s in session, the court’s in session!’


thanks for all the support.

i'll be the guy sporting the old skool look.

my Here Come Da Judge hat, t-shirt, and banner.


----------



## der_kluge (Oct 13, 2005)

diaglo said:
			
		

> thanks for all the support.
> 
> i'll be the guy sporting the old skool look.




diaglo, I expect great things from you!  Do me proud!


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Oct 13, 2005)

Huh.

I never even knew we were voting.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 13, 2005)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Huh.
> 
> I never even knew we were voting.




Ah well. There was a bit more effort to get the word out this year.

What would've let you know that it was voting time?


----------



## Quickbeam (Oct 13, 2005)

Congrats to our ENnies Judges.  I wish you a happy year of product reviews...do us proud once again!  Also, thanks to everyone who took the time to vote for me, your support is greatly appreciated.

Dextra, I'd also like to offer a helping hand should you need more assistance in the coming months.


----------



## Queen_Dopplepopolis (Oct 13, 2005)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Huh.
> 
> I never even knew we were voting.



 I figured out we were voting much too late to throw my hat in ring.  But - there's always next year!


----------



## KRT (Oct 14, 2005)

I think that part of the voter apathy was that they had to actually dig around to find out what the vote was all about and why certain people were more worthy of supporting than others. When I first signed up I had to get my info from fusangite about it. Otherwise I'd be left wondering whether it was just a popularity contest or something.

It wasn't was it?

guys?


----------



## wedgeski (Oct 14, 2005)

Good luck to all the selectees!


----------



## Crothian (Oct 14, 2005)

KRT said:
			
		

> When I first signed up I had to get my info from fusangite about it. Otherwise I'd be left wondering whether it was just a popularity contest or something.
> 
> It wasn't was it?
> 
> guys?




Depends who you talk to


----------



## diaglo (Oct 14, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Depends who you talk to





to borrow a quote from Groucho Marx:  "I don't want to be a member of any club that will accept me as a member." 


actually, i hope it wasn't popularity that got us elected. i hope it was honest to goodness thought.

i entered so that my views were being represented.

i know of those i voted for 60% were elected.


----------



## fusangite (Oct 15, 2005)

diaglo said:
			
		

> actually, i hope it wasn't popularity that got us elected. i hope it was honest to goodness thought.



I'm sorry but what do you think is the distinction here? Popularity is, by definition, what elects everybody in a voting system. What makes a person "popular" on ENWorld? People agreeing with their posts. What gets a person elected to the judging panel? People agreeing with their posts. You guys talk about popularity as though it is a bad thing. I don't really get that.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Oct 17, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> What makes a person "popular" on ENWorld? People agreeing with their posts. What gets a person elected to the judging panel? People agreeing with their posts.




I suppose that would mean that a goodly portion of ENworlders actually agree with the sentiment-- and I paraphrase only mildly-- "3e sucks."

EDIT: For the record, I would say recognizability and respectability, both functions of board seniority and prolificacy, probably explain the majority of votes. And that's a good thing.


----------



## diaglo (Oct 17, 2005)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I suppose that would mean that a goodly portion of ENworlders actually agree with the sentiment-- and I paraphrase only mildly-- "3e sucks."




the people have spoken. and at least 1 judge represents that faction now.   

my hat of d02 knows no limits.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 17, 2005)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I suppose that would mean that a goodly portion of ENworlders actually agree with the sentiment-- and I paraphrase only mildly-- "3e sucks."
> 
> EDIT: For the record, I would say recognizability and respectability, both functions of board seniority and prolificacy, probably explain the majority of votes. And that's a good thing.




I agree with no one!


----------



## Arnwyn (Oct 17, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> What gets a person elected to the judging panel? People agreeing with their posts. You guys talk about popularity as though it is a bad thing. I don't really get that.



People might be using the word "popularity" to be synonymous with "name recognition among unrecognized names" - this does occur in most elections, most notably in school board elections in Canada, and is a major contributor to the favoring of incumbents. (No idea whether that actually happened in the ENWorld voting though.)


----------



## fusangite (Oct 18, 2005)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> People might be using the word "popularity" to be synonymous with "name recognition among unrecognized names" - this does occur in most elections, most notably in school board elections in Canada, and is a major contributor to the favoring of incumbents. (No idea whether that actually happened in the ENWorld voting though.)



But even if that is the case, I'm not sure what is wrong with it. Preferring to select a candidate with a known track record over one without is a rational political choice. Unless one is very dissatisfied with the status quo, it is, I would argue, the sensible thing to do. Even if this is what is going on, a person's voting intentions still come from a perceived accord with their candidate of choice.


----------



## fusangite (Oct 18, 2005)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I suppose that would mean that a goodly portion of ENworlders actually agree with the sentiment-- and I paraphrase only mildly-- "3e sucks."



A common feature in multi-member plurality systems is, when there is a strong group with a healthy majority, associated with the status quo, their voters will often throw one vote to a high-profile opposition candidate because they come to believe that it is their job to, in addition to selecting the governing body, choose its "opposition" in the interests of balance. 

In my home town, about 35 years into back-to-back right wing sweeps of city council, the voters backing the incumbent party began consistently electing the party with the addition of one high-profile Marxist. Interestingly, for the first 16 years he held office, the Marxist topped the polls in both right-wing and left-wing neighbourhoods because the right-wingers, realizing they had such a large majority they completely controlled the outcome, deliberately began installing the most strident opposition voice they could find.

So, diaglo, think of yourself as the token commie!


----------



## diaglo (Oct 18, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> So, diaglo, think of yourself as the token commie!




that's me. IYKWIMAITYD.


----------



## Arnwyn (Oct 18, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Preferring to select a candidate with a known track record over one without is a rational political choice.



I think the implication people may be talking about is that the above statement really is saying "_a_ track record", not a known one. If that's the case, I posit that there is little rationality other than familiarity with a name, since it is otherwise meaningless and completely divorced from any results. (Though, I do concede the possible rationale being: "no catastrophe has occurred yet, so I might as well vote for the incumbent" [the ol' if it ain't totally destroyed, don't fix it line of reasoning].)


> Even if this is what is going on, a person's voting intentions still come from a perceived accord with their candidate of choice.



"Perceived" accord indeed - often with no basis in reality. People may be questioning how "good" it is when that agreement is based on, at best "recent experience" and at worst (and more likely, at least according to recent pundits about small-scale elections) "a name [read: a series of letters forming a proper noun] that I've heard before".


----------



## fusangite (Oct 21, 2005)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> I think the implication people may be talking about is that the above statement really is saying "_a_ track record", not a known one. If that's the case, I posit that there is little rationality other than familiarity with a name, since it is otherwise meaningless and completely divorced from any results. (Though, I do concede the possible rationale being: "no catastrophe has occurred yet, so I might as well vote for the incumbent" [the ol' if it ain't totally destroyed, don't fix it line of reasoning].)



Yep. That was the rationale I was going for. Although I think you are casting it in overly negative terms given the lack of objections I hear to the judges' choices.







> "Perceived" accord indeed - often with no basis in reality. People may be questioning how "good" it is when that agreement is based on, at best "recent experience" and at worst (and more likely, at least according to recent pundits about small-scale elections) "a name [read: a series of letters forming a proper noun] that I've heard before".



But this is a problem with all elections; indeed, it is inherent in the democratic process. Unless we moved to an appointment-based model of judge selection, there is not going to be a way around this. A voter will avail him or herself of all the information they deem they need to make their choice, no more, no less. As long as we accept democracy as a principle, it is not our business to challenge a voter on what information and how much information he or she thinks they need.

As someone who worked in elections, especially Vancouver municipal elections which use the same voting system as the ENNies, I have observed the phenomena to which you are making reference. As frustrating as it was, however, the very fact that most voters had radically different criteria for what information mattered about a candidate than I did reinforced my sense of the importance of democracy.


----------



## Arnwyn (Oct 21, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Yep. That was the rationale I was going for. Although I think you are casting it in overly negative terms given the lack of objections I hear to the judges' choices.



Probably - I was just making a note about why (very few) people might say that they hoped that they weren't being voted in 'because of popularity'. [But, as I'm sure you're aware, the "lack of objections" could be due to a multitude of reasons. I think the comparison between my negative terms and that "given" is meaningless. Though in any case, my negative terms were not aimed at the ENWorld process and/or results - just a general note at the historical voting patterns in small-scale elections, due mainly to documented evidence of severe voter apathy.]



> But this is a problem with all elections; indeed, it is inherent in the democratic process...



Absolutely. I totally agree with everything you said.


----------



## DaveMage (Oct 26, 2005)

fusangite said:
			
		

> What gets a person elected to the judging panel? People agreeing with their posts.




Actually, I voted for Diaglo because he had the coolest avatar.


----------



## trancejeremy (Oct 26, 2005)

Hmmm. Maybe there needs to be an avatar bathing suit competition....


----------



## Teflon Billy (Oct 26, 2005)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> Hmmm. Maybe there needs to be an avatar bathing suit competition....


----------



## DaveMage (Oct 26, 2005)

*backs away slowly*


----------



## DaveStebbins (Oct 27, 2005)

*moves up to the stage to take DaveMage's place and waves a dollar bill at TB*

 

-Dave


----------



## Xath (Oct 27, 2005)

DaveStebbins said:
			
		

> *moves up to the stage to take DaveMage's place and waves a dollar bill at TB*
> 
> 
> 
> -Dave





....now there's a reverse of situation....


----------



## diaglo (Oct 27, 2005)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

>




hubba, hubba.

love the gams.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Oct 29, 2005)

diaglo said:
			
		

> hubba, hubba.
> 
> love the gams.


----------

